PC 11-06-13 Meeting Agenda
AGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
November 6, 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) Committee Reports .................................................................................................. (no tab)
3) Citizen Comments .................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
4) Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning,
Article III Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program, Part 302 – Sending and
Receiving Properties, §165-302.01 Sending Properties, §165-302.03. Calculation of
development rights. Revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to update the
TDR density rights table, include a provision for contiguous lots and addition of a TDR
density conversion rate for receiving properties
Mrs. Perkins ................................................................................................................... (A)
5) Ordinance Amendment to the Frederick County Code – Chapter 165 Zoning,
Article VI – Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Part 601 Dimensional and
Intensity Requirements, §165-601.02 Dimensional and Intensity Requirements, Part
608 EM Extractive Manufacturing District, §165-608.06 Height Limitations. Article
II Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers, and Regulations for Specific
Uses, Part 201 Supplementary Use Regulations, §165-201.03 Height Limitations
Exceptions. Part 204 Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, §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 addition of
supplementary use regulations.
Mrs. Perkins ..................................................................................................................... (B)
6) Rezoning #03-13 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 (General Business) 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), and is
identified by Property Identification Number 64-A-18 in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Mr. Ruddy ...................................................................................................................... (C)
-2-
ACTION ITEM
7) Carmeuse Lime Waiver – Request from Lawson and Silek, P.L.C. on behalf of Carmeuse
Lime to allow the construction of a 193 foot tall kiln at the existing Clearbrook quarry
located off of Quarry Lane in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Mrs. Perkins ....................................................................................................................(D)
INFORMATION ITEM
8) Master Development Plan #03-13 for The Townes at Tasker, submitted by Pennoni
Associates Inc., to develop a 49 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 I-81Interchange 310 and is identified with the
Property Identification Number 75-A-86 in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Mrs. Perkins .................................................................................................................... (E)
9) Adjourn
Frederick County Planning Commission
TDR Ordinance Revisions
October 22, 2013
Page 2
In reviewing the TDR Ordinance and discussions with parties interested in utilizing TDR rights
for their developments, it has come to Staff’s attention that the projected value of a TDR would
only be economically feasible to utilize when developing a single-family detached development
and would not be attractive when developing single-family attached (townhouse) or multifamily
units. With a rezoning, the capital impact a dwelling unit has on the County is based on the
development impact model which is broken down by housing type. As outlined in the impact
model output, a single-family dwelling unit has a higher impact on capital facilities than a
multifamily unit.
The development impact model currently calculates the capital facility impacts as follows:
• Single-Family Dwelling Unit = $ 19,600
• Town Home Dwelling Unit = $ 13,062
• Apartment Dwelling Unit = $ 11,339
A single-family dwelling unit constructed in both the rural areas and the urban areas has an
impact of $19,600 on capital facilities (based on the 2013 Development Impact Model). This
impact doesn’t include the impact on the local transportation network. Dwellings constructed in
the urban areas typically have access to a road network that is better capable of accommodating
the traffic generated by new dwellings, while dwellings constructed in the rural areas access the
existing rural road network which typically is not constructed in a way to accommodate
additional units. Additionally, state transportation funding programs favor transportation in urban
and suburban areas. While the use of TDR’s prohibit the County from collecting proffers and
capital facility impacts, the County does not lose out by the use of TDR’s. The County absorbs
the fiscal and transportation impacts of rural development either way, and the use of TDR’s
allows those units to be transferred to the urban areas which are better equipped to handle that
development.
To help bridge this value gap, staff has prepared a revision to the TDR ordinance that allows for
the following:
• When utilizing TDR’s to develop single-family detached dwellings on a receiving
property, one TDR density right can be used to develop one single-family detached
dwelling unit.
• When utilizing TDR’s to develop single-family attached dwellings (townhouses) on a
receiving property, one TDR density right can be used to develop 1.5 single-family
attached dwelling units.
• When utilizing TDR’s to develop multifamily dwellings on a receiving property, one
TDR density right can be used to develop 1.75 multifamily dwelling units.
By including a conversion rate, it allows the TDR value to remain fair and stable while allowing
a developer to construct various housing types.
Review History
Revision #1 was discussed by the DRRC on April 25, 2013 and by the Planning Commission on
May 15, 2013. The Planning Commission recommended that the density updates be forwarded to the
Board of Supervisors for review. Following the Planning Commission review of the density table
updates, staff drafted additional changes to the TDR ordinance and the previously discussed updates
Frederick County Planning Commission
TDR Ordinance Revisions
October 22, 2013
Page 3
were put on hold so all the TDR updates could be processed concurrently. Revisions #2 and #3 were
discussed by the DRRC on July 25, 2013. The DRRC was supportive of the proposed
amendments being forwarded to the Planning Commission for discussion.
The Planning Commission discussed all three revisions at their meeting on August 21, 2013; the
Planning Commission forwarded the amendments to the Board of Supervisors for discussion.
The Board of Supervisors discussed the proposed revisions at their meeting on September 9,
2013. The Board of Supervisors requested additional information regarding the ability to apply
TDR density rights to receiving properties zoned RA (Rural Areas) and whether that was the
original intent of the TDR Program. Ultimately the Board did send the amendments forward for
public hearing. The Planning Commission held a public hearing for this item on October 16,
2013. Two citizens spoke regarding the item; the first citizen stated that the item was advertised
as a public meeting and the second citizen spoke in support of the amendments. The Planning
Commission then tabled the item to the November 6, 2013 Planning Commission meeting for
another public hearing.
These items are presented for public hearing. A recommendation from the Planning
Commission on these amendments is sought. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics and
deletions shown with strikethrough.
2. Adopted RP Density table.
3. Development Impact Model.
4. September 19th Board of Supervisors Friday Mailing Package regarding
TDR Receiving Properties
CEP/pd
CHAPTER 165 - ZONING
1
ARTICLE III
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program
Part 301 – Establishment and Purpose.
§165-301.01. Purpose.
Pursuant to the authority granted by §§ 15.2-2316.1 and 2316.2 of the Code of Virginia, there is
established a transfer of development rights (TDR) program, the purpose of which is to transfer
residential density from eligible sending areas to eligible receiving areas and/or transferee through a
voluntary process for permanently conserving agricultural and forestry uses of lands and preserving
rural open spaces, and natural and scenic resources. The TDR program is intended to supplement land
use regulations, resource protection efforts and open space acquisition programs and encourage
increased residential density where it can best be accommodated with the least impacts on the natural
environment and public services by:
A. Providing an effective and predictable incentive process for property owners of rural and
agricultural land to preserve lands with a public benefit; and
B. Implementing the Comprehensive Policy Plan by directing residential land uses to the Urban
Development Area (UDA); and
C. Providing an efficient and streamlined administrative review system to ensure that transfers of
development rights to receiving areas are processed in a timely way and balanced with other county
goals and policies, and are adjusted to the specific conditions of each receiving area.
§165-301.02. Applicability.
The procedures and regulations in Article III of Chapter 165 shall apply to the transfer of development
rights from land qualifying as sending properties to land qualifying as receiving properties and/or to a
transferee. Land utilizing transferred development rights may be subdivided at an increased density
above the base density specified by Tables 1-3 1 and Table 2 in §165-302.03 in applicable receiving
areas. All development utilizing transferred development rights shall conform to the guidelines
contained in the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
§165-301.03. Right to Transfer Development Rights; General Provisions.
A. A development right shall be transferred only by means of documents, including a covenant to
which Frederick County is party and any appropriate releases, in a recordable form approved by the
Director of Planning and Development or his designee. The covenant shall limit the future
construction of dwellings on a sending property to the total number of development rights
established by the zoning of the property minus all development rights previously transferred in
accordance with this chapter, any development rights previously extinguished or limited as a result
of a recorded covenant against the property, the number of development rights to be transferred
CHAPTER 165 - ZONING
2
by the proposed transaction, and the number of existing single-family detached dwellings on the
sending property. If a sending property contains no dwelling units, a development right equal to
that for one single-family dwelling must be maintained for the property, except that, for properties
larger than one hundred (100) acres, one development right equal to that for one single-family
dwelling must be maintained for each multiple of one hundred (100) acres, or fraction thereof,
contained within the sending property.
B. Each transferor shall have the right to sever all or a portion of the rights to develop from the parcel
in a sending district and to sell, trade, or barter all or a portion of those rights to a transferee
consistent with the purposes of §165-301.01 so long as the conditions of §165-301.03A are met.
C. Any transfer of development rights pursuant to this Chapter authorizes only an increase in
maximum density and shall not alter or waive the development standards of the receiving district,
nor shall it allow a use otherwise prohibited in a receiving district.
D. Transfer of development rights shall not be available for the following:
1) Portions of lots owned by or subject to easements (including, but not limited to, easements of
roads, railroads, electrical transmission lines, gas or petroleum pipelines) in favor of
governmental agencies, utilities and nonprofit corporations.
2) Land restricted from development by covenant, easement or deed restriction.
E. Any transfer of development rights shall be recorded among the land records of Frederick County,
Virginia.
F. Value of transferable development rights. The monetary value of transferred development rights is
completely determined between the seller and buyer.
Part 302 – Sending and Receiving Properties
§165-302.01. Sending Properties.
A. For the purposes of this chapter, a sending property must be an entire tax parcel or lot qualified
under §165-302.01B of this section. Sending areas may only be located within the rural areas
outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), and
zoned RA (Rural Areas), as described in the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the RA Zoning District of
this Chapter. A sending property shall be maintained in a condition that is consistent with the
criteria in this section under which the sending was qualified.
CHAPTER 165 - ZONING
3
B. Qualification of a sending property shall demonstrate that the site contains a public benefit such
that the preservation of that benefit by transferring residential development rights to another site is
in the public interest, according to all of the following criteria:
1) Designated in the Comprehensive Policy Plan as Rural Area;
2) Designated on the Zoning Maps of Frederick County as being zoned RA (Rural Areas) and be
located outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area
(SWSA);
3) Designated on the Sending Areas Map;
4) Comprised of at least twenty (20) acres in size; and
5) Qualified for subdivision in accordance with Chapter 144 of the Frederick County Code including,
but not limited to, meeting all state road and access requirements.
For TDR purposes, if the
sending property consists of more than one parcel of land, at least one lot must meet all the
subdivision requirements of Chapter 144; this lot shall be deemed the primary lot. Additional
parcels that do not meet the subdivision requirements but are contiguous to the primary lot
may be added to the sending property, if they are all under common ownership. For purposes
of this section, lots divided by a street are considered contiguous if the lots would share a
common lot line if the street was removed.
C. If a sending property has any outstanding code violations and/or unpaid taxes, the owner shall
resolve these violations, including any required abatement, restoration, or payment of penalties or
taxes, before the property may be qualified as a sending property in the transfer of development
rights program.
§165-302.02. Receiving Properties.
A. Except as provided in subsections B and C of this section, in order to be eligible as a receiving
property, a property must be:
1) Located in one of the following zoning districts:
a. RP (Residential Performance) District;
b. R4 (Residential Planned Community) District; or
c. RA (Rural Areas) District; and
2) Designated on the Receiving Areas Map;
3) Served by public water and public sewer;
CHAPTER 165 - ZONING
4
4) Served by state-maintained roads or have the ability to utilize private roads in the RP District as
permitted by Chapter 165 or Chapter 144.
5) Located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) or a designated and defined Rural
Community Center as identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan; and
6) Identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan for residential land uses.
B. A property is not eligible as a receiving property if the transfer of development rights to the
property would adversely impact regionally or locally significant historical resources or naturally
sensitive areas as specified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
C. A property is not eligible as a receiving property if the property is located within the airport support
area as identified by the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
D. If a receiving property has any outstanding code violations and/or unpaid taxes, the owner shall
resolve these violations, including any required abatement, restoration, or payment of penalties or
taxes, before the property may be qualified as a receiving property in the transfer of development
rights program.
E. A receiving property may accept development rights from one or more sending properties, up to a
maximum density specified in Tables 1-3 1 and Table 2 in §165-302.03.
§165-302.03. Calculation of development rights.
A. The number of residential development rights that a sending property is eligible to send to a
receiving property and/or transferee shall be determined by applying the sending property base
density established in subsection C of this section to the area of the sending property after
deducting all the following:
1. Development rights previously transferred in accordance with this chapter;
2. Development rights previously extinguished or limited as a result of a recorded
conservation easement or similar covenant against the property;
3. The number of existing single-family dwellings on the sending property;
4. The amount of any submerged land (i.e., lakes, ponds, streams), floodplains, and steep
slopes as determined by Frederick County GIS Data.
5. The amount of any land contained within easements (including, but not limited to,
easements of roads, railroads, electrical transmission lines, gas or petroleum pipelines)
in favor of governmental agencies, utilities and nonprofit corporations.
B. If a sending property contains no dwelling units, a development right equal to that for one single-
family dwelling must be maintained for the property. Properties with over 100 acres shall be
required to retain the number of development rights required in accordance with Section 165-
301.03A.
CHAPTER 165 - ZONING
5
C. For the purposes of calculating the amount of development rights a sending property can transfer,
the square footage or acreage of land contained within a sending property shall be determined by a
valid recorded plat or survey, submitted by the applicant property owner and that has been
prepared and stamped by a land surveyor licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
D. For the purposes of the transfer of development rights program only, sending sites zoned RA (Rural
Areas) shall have a base density of one dwelling unit per five acres for transfer purposes.
E. Any fractions of development rights that results from the calculations in subsection A of this section
shall not be included in the final determination of total development rights available for transfer.
F. Development rights from one sending property may be allocated to more than one receiving
property and/or transferee and one receiving property and/or transferee may accept development
rights from more than one sending property.
G. The determination of the number of residential development rights a sending property has available
for transfer to a receiving property and/or transferee shall be documented in a TDR LETTER OF
INTENT to issue a TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE issued by the Director of
Planning and Development or his designee, pursuant to the provisions of this Part 302.05 of Chapter
165, and shall be considered a final determination, not subject to revision. Such a determination
shall be valid only for purposes of the transfer of development rights program and for no other
purpose. Any changes to the proposed sending property shall void any issued letters of intent.
H. A sending property transferee may extinguish TDR density rights, sever and hold TDR density rights,
sever and sell TDR density rights, or apply TDR rights to a receiving property in a receiving district in
order to obtain approval for development at a density greater than would otherwise be allowed on
the land in the receiving district, up to the maximum density or intensity outlined in the table below:
CHAPTER 165 - ZONING
6
Table 1
Maximum Density Allowed in Zoning Districts through Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) Program
Zoning District Property
Size And Land Use
In Acres
Maximum
Density in
Dwelling
Units per
Acre
Maximum Density
Without
TDRs
Dwelling Units per Acre with TDR
Transfers
for
RA
(Rural Areas)
RA
Receiving
Property
1 Unit Per 5
Acres
Maximum Density allowed in the
RP District within the UDA per § 165-
402.05
RA
Density for qualified RA Receiving
Properties in the UDA shall be
consistent with the allowable RP
Density Utilizing TDR’s (see below)
(Rural Areas)
RA
*For Designated Rural Community Centers
Receiving
Property
1 Unit Per 5
Acres
1 Unit Per Acre in Designated Rural
Community Centers served by
Community Septic Systems
RP
(Residential Performance)
*Density by parcel size for all other housing
types and developments with mixed housing
types)
<10
*See § 165-402.05 for maximum percentage
of multifamily housing
10-100
>100
0-10
10.1-25
25.1 -50
10
50.1 +
5.5
4
10
6
6
6
15
8
6
15
10
10
10
RP
(Residential Performance)
Multifamily Residential Buildings & Age
Restricted Multifamily
Garden Apartments
Townhouse (single family attached)
N/A
20
10
10
24
15
R4
15
(Residential Planned Community)
>100
4
6
10
CHAPTER 165 - ZONING
7
I. TDR density rights may be converted to bonus density rights by an increase in the residential density
on the receiving property, based on the conversion factors in the table below:
Table 2
Maximum Density Allowed in Zoning Districts through Transfer of
Development Rights (TDR) Program
Designated
Sending Area
Each Transferred Density Right May Be
Converted to This Bonus Density in the
Receiving Area
Sending Area #1 1 Density Right =2 Dwelling Units
Sending Area #2 1 Density Right =1.5 Dwelling Units
Sending Area #3 1 Density Right =1 Dwelling Unit
1. Allowable sending area
bonus density remains subject to the maximum density provisions
outlined in Table 1 of §165-302.03H.
2. If properties located in Sending Area #1 (designated Agricultural and Forestal District) that have
transferred bonus density rights are subsequently withdrawn from the designated sending area
(the designated Agricultural and Forestal District), the total number of density rights
transferred, including bonus density rights, shall be counted against any future subdivision
ability of the property.
3.
When TDR density rights are applied to a receiving property, the density right to housing type
conversion rate shall be outlined in the table below. Such density conversions shall be
demonstrated on the Master Development Plan for the receiving property.
Table 3
TDR Denisty Right Conversation Rate
Housing Type Conversation Rate
Single Family 1 TDR Density Right =1 Dwelling Unit
Single Family Attached 1 TDR Density Right =1.5 Dwelling Units
(*all fractions must be rounded down)
Multifamily 1 TDR Density Right =1.75 Dwelling Units
(*all fractions must be rounded down)
§165-302.04. TDR Sending Property Development Limitations.
A. Following the transfer of residential development rights, a sending property that has retained part
of their development rights may subsequently accommodate remaining residential dwelling units on
the sending property consistent with the requirements of the RA (Rural Areas) District and all
requirements of the Frederick County Code. A sending property that has retained part of its
CHAPTER 165 - ZONING
8
development rights may also transfer the remainder of the eligible rights through the transfer of
development rights program.
B. On sending properties with environmental features as outlined in § 165-302.03A, the development
rights shall be severed from the areas outside of the specified environmental features. If
development rights are retained on the sending property, future subdivision of the parcel cannot
occur on the areas where development rights have already been severed.
C. The limitations in this section shall be included in a deed covenant applicable to the sending
property.
§165-302.05. Sending Property Certification.
A. The Director of Planning and Development or his designee shall be responsible for determining that
a proposed sending property meets the qualifications of §165-302.01. The Director of Planning and
Development or his designee shall render a determination or denial under this subsection within
sixty (60) days of the date of submittal of a completed sending property determination application.
If the determination is that a property meets the qualifications of §165-302.01, the Director of
Planning and Development or his designee shall issue the determination in the form of a LETTER OF
INTENT to issue a TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE. A LETTER OF INTENT issued
under this subsection shall be valid until the development rights are severed and extinguished
through the transfer process, or unless applicable zoning changes are approved that would affect
the sending property, or unless the property is developed.
B. Determinations of sending property qualifications under subsection A of this section are appealable
to the Board of Supervisors by filing a notice of appeal with the Director of Planning and
Development or his designee within thirty (30) days of the date of the determination.
C. The Director of Planning and Development shall be responsible for maintaining permanent records
of action taken pursuant to the transfer of development rights program under this Article III of
Chapter 165, including records of letters of intent issued, certificates issued, deed restrictions and
covenants known to be recorded, and development rights retired, otherwise extinguished, or
transferred to specific properties and/or transferees.
D. Responsibility for preparing a completed application for a determination that a proposed sending
property meets the qualifications of §165-302.01 rests exclusively with the applicant/property
owner. An application for a transfer of development rights to issue a transfer of development rights
LETTER OF INTENT shall contain:
1) A certificate of title for the sending property prepared by an attorney admitted to
practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia;
CHAPTER 165 - ZONING
9
2) Five copies of a valid recorded plat or survey, of the proposed sending parcel and a legal
description of the sending property prepared by a land surveyor licensed in the
Commonwealth of Virginia;
3) A plan showing the existing and proposed dwelling units and any areas already subject
to a conservation easement or other similar encumbrance;
4) A completed density calculation worksheet for estimating the number of available
development rights;
5) The application fee as set forth in the Development Review Fees adopted by the Board
of Supervisors; and
6) Such additional information required by the Director of Planning and Development or
his designee as necessary to determine the number of development rights that qualify
for transfer.
E. A transfer of development rights LETTER OF INTENT issued by the Director of Planning and
Development or his designee shall state the following information:
1) The name of the transferor;
2) The name of the transferee , if then known;
3) A legal description of the sending property on which the calculation of development rights is
based;
4) A statement of the size, in acres, of the sending property on which the calculation of
development rights is based;
5) A statement of the number of development rights, stated in terms of number of dwelling units,
eligible for transfer;
6) If only a portion of the total development rights are being transferred from the sending
property, a statement of the number of remaining development rights, stated in terms of
number of dwelling units, remaining on the sending property;
7) The date of issuance;
8) The signature of the Director of Planning and Development or his designee; and
9) A serial number assigned by the Director of Planning and Development or his designee.
F. No transfer of development rights under this ordinance shall be recognized by Frederick County as
valid unless the instrument of transfer contains the transfer of development rights certificate issued
under this section.
§165-302.06. Instruments of Transfer.
A. An instrument of transfer of development rights shall be reviewed and approved as to the form and
legal sufficiency by the County Attorney and, upon such approval, the County Attorney shall notify
the transferor or his or her agent, who shall record the instrument with the Clerk of the Circuit Court
and shall provide a copy to the Commissioner of the Revenue. An instrument of transfer of
CHAPTER 165 - ZONING
10
development rights shall conform to the requirements of this section and shall contain the
following:
1) The names of the transferor and the transferee;
2) A legal description and plat of the sending property prepared by a land surveyor licensed in the
Commonwealth of Virginia;
3) The transfer of development rights certificate described in §165-302.03F;
4) A covenant indicating the number of development rights remaining on the sending property and
stating that the sending property may not be subdivided to or developed to a greater density
than permitted by the remaining development rights;
5) A covenant that the transferor grants and assigns to the transferee and the transferee’s heirs,
assigns, and successors a specific number of development rights from the sending property to a
receiving property and/or a transferee;
6) A covenant by which the transferor acknowledges that he has no further use or right of use with
respect to the development rights being transferred; and
7) A covenant that all provisions of the instrument of transfer of development rights shall run with
and bind the sending property and may be enforced by Frederick County.
B. An instrument of transfer of development rights shall be recorded prior to release of development
permits, including building permits, for the receiving property.
Part 303 – Transfer Process and Development Procedures.
§165-303.01. Transfer Process.
Development rights shall be transferred using the following process:
A. Following approval of the sending property determination application and issuance of the LETTER
OF INTENT as described in §165-302.05, the Director of Planning and Development or his designee
shall issue the TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE, agreeing to a transfer of
development rights in exchange for the proposed sending property deed covenant to which
Frederick County is a party. If a sending property with a TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
CERTIFICATE changes ownership, the certificate may be transferred to the new owner if requested
in writing to the Department of Planning and Development by the person(s) that owned the
property when the certificate was issued, provided that the documents evidencing the transfer of
ownership are also provided to the Department of Planning and Development.
B. In applying for receiving property or receiving person approval, the applicant shall provide the
Department of Planning and Development with one of the following:
1) A TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE issued in the name of the applicant;
CHAPTER 165 - ZONING
11
2) A TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE issued in the name of another person or
persons and a signed option to purchase those TDR sending property development rights; or
3) A TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE issued in the name of the applicant or
another person(s) and a copy of a signed option to purchase those TDR sending property
development rights.
C. The receiving property applicant and/or transferee shall deliver the documentation outlined in §
165-303.01B for the number of TDR development rights being severed or transferred and the TDR
extinguishment document to the County.
D. Development rights from a sending property shall be considered transferred to a receiving property
and/or a transferee and extinguished when the extinguishment document for the sending property
has been recorded.
§165-303.02. Development Approval Procedures.
A. 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. All subdivisions for receiving properties zoned RA (Rural Areas) utilizing development rights shall be
subject to the same requirements as property zoned RP (Residential Performance) and shall not
qualify for the standards specified in §144-31 of the Frederick County Code.
C. A final recorded plat for a subdivision using transferred development rights shall contain a
statement setting forth the development proposed, the zoning classification of the property, the
number of development rights used, and a notation of the recordation of the conveyance required
by §165-302.06.
Adopted RP Density Table
ARTICLE IV
AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Part 402 – RP Residential Performance District
§ 165-402.05 Gross density.
A gross density shall be established for each proposed development, including all land contained within
a single master development plan, according to the characteristics of the land, the capacity of public
facilities and roads and the nature of surrounding uses. Because of these characteristics, some
developments may not be allowed to employ the maximum density allowed by these regulations. The
following density requirements shall apply to all parcels as they exist at the time of the adoption of this
section:
A. Subsequent divisions of land shall not increase the allowed density on parcels of land.
B. In no case shall the gross density and maximum percentage of multifamily housing of any
development within an approved master development plan exceed the densities and percentages
set forth in the following table:
Density by Land Use Density (Units/Acre) Maximum Percentage of
Multifamily Housing
Multifamily Residential Buildings and Age
Restricted Multifamily (excluding garden
apartments)
20 Units/Acre 100%
Garden Apartments 10 Units/Acre 100%
Townhouse (single family attached) 10 Units/Acre N/A
Density by Parcel Size
(for all other housing types and
development with mixed housing types)
Density (Units/Acre) Maximum Percentage of
Multifamily Housing
0-10 acres 10 Units/Acre 100%
10.1-25 acres 6 Units/Acre 100%
25.1 -50 acres 6 Units/Acre 60% 75%
50.1 + acres 6 Units/Acre 50%
C. Within developments utilizing Transferable Development Rights, the maximum gross residential
density for the development shall be determined in §165-302.03H.
Development Impact Model
On October 12, 2005, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors directed staff to use the
Development Impact Model (DIM) to project the capital fiscal impacts that would be associated
with any rezoning petitions containing residential development, replacing the existing Capital
Facilities Fiscal Impact Model. The DIM was created by an economic consultant who evaluated
and analyzed development within the County in an effort to assist the County in planning for
future capital facility requirements. Critical inputs to the DIM are to be reviewed and updated
annually to assure that the fiscal projections accurately reflect County capital expenditures.
The Board of Supervisors authorized use of the annual model update on June 12, 2013.
The DIM projects that, on average, residential development has a negative fiscal impact on the
County’s capital expenditures. As such, all rezoning petitions with a residential component
submitted after July 1, 2013 will be expected to demonstrate how the proposal will mitigate the
following projected capital facility impacts:
Single Family Dwelling Unit = $ 19,600
Town Home Dwelling Unit = $ 13,062
Apartment Dwelling Unit = $ 11,339
The following is a breakdown of the projected impacts per dwelling unit for each capital facility.
Capital facility Single Family Town home Apartment
Fire And Rescue $564 $419 $425
General Government $43 $33 $33
Public Safety $0 $0 $0
Library $496 $379 $379
Parks and Recreation $1766 $1,350 $1,350
School Construction $16,731 $10,881 $9,152
Total $19,600 $13,062 $11,339
The projected capital expenditures depicted above do not include a credit for future real estate
taxes. A “read-only” copy of the Development Impact Model is available on the public
workstation within the Planning and Development’s office. A user manual is also available.
06/12/2013
ATTACHMENT 1
RURAL AREAS REPORT
& RECOMMENDATION
A Report from the Rural Areas Subcommittee
Recommended by the Subcommittee on February 19, 2009
Recommended by the Planning Commission on April 1, 2009
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors on April 22, 2009
February 2009, Final Version
Following six months of research, presentations, discussions, and evaluations, the Rural
Areas Subcommittee offered their Preliminary Thoughts regarding the County’s rural areas.
The subcommittee’s Preliminary Thoughts were presented to the community during a public
meeting held on February 5, 2009. After taking into consideration the comments received
during this public session, the Subcommittee finalized their research, and on February 19,
2009, forwarded a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. This recommendation is
included in the Rural Areas Report & Recommendation.
Development pressures in the rural areas, which intensified over the past decade, are
significantly impacting our community’s rural character. The residential development that is
resulting from this pressure impacts the County in various ways. It increases demands for
County services. It significantly impacts the vitality of the agricultural economy as farmland
is converted from active agriculture to residential use. Additionally, the development
pressures and resulting residential development impacts the rural character of the
community, detracting from viewsheds and the rural landscape.
FREDERICK COUNTY
BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS’
RURAL AREAS
SUBCOMMITTEE
February 2009, Final Version Rural Areas Report & Recommendation
Frederick County Board of Supervisors’ Rural Areas Subcommittee Page 4 of 30
o Prohibit the use of Discharge Health Systems, and require Board of Supervisors’ approval
for Pump-and-Haul permits.
o Support Operation and Maintenance Requirements for alternative health systems.
• Enable the use of Community Health Systems within defined Rural Community Centers.
• Implement enhancements to the existing Rural Preservation Lot subdivision requirements.
o Maintain a minimum lot size of two acres.
o Increase the preservation lot (cluster set-aside lot) from 40 percent of the parent tract to a
minimum 60 percent of the parent tract.
• Establish a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program.
o Consider identifying ‘sending’ areas based on rich agricultural soils and ridgeline viewsheds
In identifying ‘sending’ areas, recognize that a property’s location, soil, and terrain
heavily influence its capacity to be developed and thus its development value.
• TDR ‘sending’ areas should be designated in an effort to discourage
development.
o Consider using ‘receiving’ areas where residential development is desired.
Within the UDA on residentially planned areas that are zoned RA.
Within Urban Centers and Neighborhood Villages.
In Rural Community Centers with adopted boundaries.
o Structure the TDR program so that it is economically advantageous for the development
community to purchase development rights from key agricultural areas of the County.
o Structure the TDR program so that it is economically advantageous for landowners to sell
their development rights as opposed to selling their land for development.
• Pursue state enabling legislation that would allow the County to implement Impact Fees for
new construction.
o Seek, support, and participate in collective lobbying efforts to secure impact fee-enabling
legislation to adequately address the impacts new construction places on the county.
• Strengthen opportunities that support and promote agriculture.
o Promote forum and network opportunities that would further produce marketing and
agriculture economy support.
On February 19, 2009, the Subcommittee forwarded these recommendations to the Board of Supervisors for
their consideration. The Board of Supervisors adopted this report as a component of the Comprehensive
Policy Plan on April 22, 2009.
ATTACHMENT 2
Frederick County, Virginia 2011 Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Factsheet
1
1.The Basics of a TDR Program.
A TDR program is a mechanism for preserving farmland, open space,
and natural resources. The development potential of a property (as
determined by the zoning and the local real estate market) can
threaten the natural resources that a community wishes to protect.
This Program allows rural land owners to sever the available
development rights from their property and sell them on the open
market. Thus, rural landowners are able to realize economic return
through the sale of their transferable development rights to private
individuals while still being able to own and utilize their land.
Developers who buy these development rights are able to use those
rights to build in other areas that are more practical for residential
growth in Frederick County.
2.Frederick County’s TDR Program is voluntary.
TDR Programs are based on free-market principles and prices that
would motivate landowner and developer participation. Frederick
County’s TDR Program is a voluntary and market-driven approach to
give rural land owners the option to preserve rural land.
3.The Price of a TDR Density Right.
Through the TDR Program, the severed development right(s) are
turned into a tradable commodity that can be bought and sold – just
as land can be bought and sold. Just as with other commodity
markets, the TDR market, is driven by supply and demand. Rural
landowners in the sending areas create the supply of development
rights and developers create the demand. The County does not play a
role in determining the value of a TDR, it is solely determined by the
price set by the sellers and buyers. It is also important to remember
that development demand drives the TDR market. Therefore, the TDR
market directly reflects the changes in the local real estate markets.
The TDR program offers the rural landowner another option in
capturing the value in the land holding, without the expense of
extensive land surveying, soil work to identify necessary health
systems, and engineering and road construction. Best of all, the land
remains in productive farm use, and retains its rural character. And by
purchasing the transferrable development rights, the developer is able
to avoid a lengthy and costly rezoning process, as well as the impact
mitigations that are associated with securing the rezoning.
4.Frederick County’s TDR Program is different than other localities in
the nation that have adopted TDR Programs.
Some TDR Programs in other localities were established in connection
with the significant downzoning of farmland. These TDR Programs
were then implemented to help compensate landowners for the
downzoning by allowing them to transfer development rights at a
higher rate than the allowance under the new zoning. Frederick
County’s TDR Program was not adopted in response to a downzoning,
it was adopted to provide rural landowners with another option to
realize the value of their property without having to sell or subdivide
their land. Frederick County’s base density in the Rural Areas (RA)
Zoning District (one dwelling per five acres) remains the same today as
it was before the adoption of the TDR Program.
5.The TDR Program is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan.
The TDR program was established as part of a larger strategy to
preserve land and redirect growth from the rural areas. Sending Areas
are designated to protect the most valuable rural land, unique natural
and historic resources, or other resources identified in the Plan’s
protection goals. TDRs will not add new residences where they will
contribute to the fragmentation of the best agricultural lands or
conflict with existing farming operations.
Click in this box to return to
Page 2 of the Memorandum
Frederick County, Virginia 2011 Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Factsheet
2
6.All about Sending Properties and where they are located.
Sending properties have been identified as parcels of land that are
located in the County’s Rural Areas (RA) Zoning District, outside of the
adopted Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water
Service Area (SWSA – areas where public water and sewer are
provided). These properties are generally used for agricultural
purposes and are comprehensively planned to stay rural and/or
agricultural in nature. The sending property has to be twenty acres in
size or greater and subdividable in accordance with the County’s
Subdivision Ordinance (this includes state road access/frontage
requirements, right-of-way widths, etc.). The requirement that
properties be “subdividable” was included to ensure that the TDR
Program would not be utilized to sever development rights from
properties that were not eligible for subdivision to begin with.
Frederick County’s TDR Ordinance specifies three different sending
areas. The properties located in Sending Area #1 are within one of
Frederick County’s six adopted Agricultural and Forestal Districts as
allowed by the Code of Virginia. Properties within Sending Area #2 are
located within the area of the County deemed to have prime
agricultural soils and karst topography and thus are desired for
preservation for agricultural purposes as well as groundwater
recharge areas. Sending Area #3 encompasses the remainder of the
Sending Area not included in Areas #1 and #2 and is outside of the
SWSA and UDA.
7.Determining development rights on a Sending Property.
Calculations for a sending property start by determining the base
density of the property (1 dwelling per 5 acres). The total
development rights the property would be entitled to is determined
and then subtractions are made for existing dwellings, lands within
environmental features (floodplains, ponds/lakes, steep slopes) and
lands within easements (conservation, utility, roads, etc.). Once the
number of transferable development rights has been determined,
ratio of development rights can be calculated. Properties located
within Sending Areas #1 or #2 are eligible to be transferred at a ratio
of 1:2 and 1:1.5 respectively.
Sending Area #3
Sending Area #2
Sending Area #1
Frederick County, Virginia 2011 Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Factsheet
3
8.Severed transferable development cannot be “reattached” to a
Sending Property.
Once a property owner severs the rights from the sending property,
the restriction remains in place indefinitely. What will occur most
frequently is that a property owner will not sever development rights
until the property owner has negotiated with someone wishing to buy
the development rights.
9.All about Receiving Properties.
Receiving properties have been identified as parcels located within
Frederick County’s adopted Urban Development Area (UDA) or within
a designated and defined Rural Community Center. The properties
must be designated for future residential land use, served by public
water and sewer, served by state roads, and must be zoned one of
three specific zoning districts that allow for residential land uses. To
be utilized as a receiving property, a site must also be outside of the
designated Airport Support Area and cannot impact historical
resources or environmental resources. Receiving properties are
permitted to receive transferable development rights from one or
more sending properties up to the maximum density established by
the TDR Ordinance.
10.Applying TDR’s in the Receiving Areas (Urban Development Area).
Once transferable development rights have been severed from a
sending property they can be banked or immediately applied to a
receiving property. TDR’s would be applied to an eligible receiving
property through the subdivision or development plan process; this is
the process the County uses to review proposed developments to
ensure that needed infrastructure and services are provided. A
rezoning would not be required.
After consulting with County staff to determine how many TDR’s may
be used on a particular parcel, the property owner will then file a
Master Development Plan (MDP), followed by a Subdivision Design
Plan for review and approval. TDR developments will be allowed only
if a MDP and Subdivision Design Plan are approved for the
development. These plans will state how many TDR’s are being used
for the development. The applicant will submit to the county,
certificates equaling the number of TDR units planned for the
development. Review of the development will be based on existing
County ordinance regulations.
Development occurs
where and how it
is planned.
Land is protected,
farming operation
stays intact.
Farmer sells TDRs
Developer buys and uses
TDR’s to develop in the UDA
on an appropriate site.
TDR STEPS:
Farmer to Developer
Farmer severs transferable
Development rights (TDRs)
outcome outcome
Frederick County, Virginia 2011 Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Factsheet
4
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Scenarios
11.Sending Property Example:
How would this example sending property be taxed before and
after TDR’s?
Sending Property Before TDR’s
Property Size 115.25 acres
Zoning RA (Rural Areas)
Environmental Features 33.71 acres
Developable Area 81.54 acres
Retained Dwelling Units 2
Possible TDR’s to Sell 14
Fair Market Value $403,000
Land Use Value $28,703
Taxes @ 54.5
cents/Hundred
$156.43/yr
If the property owner sells all or some of their TDR development
rights and the property remains enrolled in the land use taxation
program the value of the property does not change and the tax
obligation of the property owner remains the same.
However, now the severed development rights which were once
covered by the land use taxation program can now be taxed at
their fair market value – which means they are now bringing in
revenue (fair market value of the TDR x the applicable tax rate).
*Roll back taxes would not apply to the severance of TDR
development rights because the use of the sending property is not
intensifying.
4
Frederick County, Virginia 2011 Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Factsheet
5
12. Receiving Property Example:
How would this example receiving property be taxed
before and after TDR’s?
Developer has a RA zoned property inside the UDA and wants to
develop to a RP density. Developer has purchased TDR
development rights which means the rezoning process is not
necessary to obtain higher density.
Receiving Property Before TDR’s
(RA Zoned Property within the UDA)
Property Size 3.46 acres
Zoning RA (Rural Areas)
Assessed RA Land Value (RA) $ 146,600 (taxes $798.97)
10 Banked TDR Value* $150,000 (taxes $817.50)
Annual Tax Burden $1,616
*Banked TDR’s are development rights that have been severed from a sending property
and are being held by an individual. These rights have not yet been applied to a receiving
property and are therefore “banked” or “held” development rights. Banked TDR’s are
taxed at their fair market value.
*All TDR values are estimates, actual values will be determined once transfers occur.
Developer has purchased 10 TDR development rights from a land
owner and only needs to complete the master plan/subdivision
plan process to apply the rights to his property. This will give the
developer higher density and also changes the taxes on the
property because attaching these TDRs to the RA land gives it the
equivalent of being RP land.
Receiving Property After TDR’s
10 Banked TDR’s applied to Receiving Property
Assessed RA Land Value (RP) $ 500,000 (taxes $2,725)
Extinguished TDR Value 0
New Annual Tax Burden $2,725
ATTACHMENT 3
Chapter 165 – Zoning
ARTICLE III
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program
§165‐302.02. Receiving Properties.
A. Except as provided in subsections B and C of this section, in order to be eligible as a receiving
property, a property must be:
1) Located in one of the following zoning districts:
a. RP (Residential Performance) District;
b. R4 (Residential Planned Community) District; or
c. RA (Rural Areas) District; and
2) Designated on the Receiving Areas Map;
3) Served by public water and public sewer;
4) Served by state maintained roads or have the ability to utilize private roads in the RP District as
permitted by Chapter 165 or Chapter 144.
5) Located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) or a designated and defined Rural
Community Center as identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan; and
6) Identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan for residential land uses.
B. A property is not eligible as a receiving property if the transfer of development rights to the
property would adversely impact regionally or locally significant historical resources or naturally
sensitive areas as specified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
C. A property is not eligible as a receiving property if the property is located within the airport support
area as identified by the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
A. If a receiving property has any outstanding code violations and/or unpaid taxes, the owner shall
resolve these violations, including any required abatement, restoration, or payment of penalties or
taxes, before the property may be qualified as a receiving property in the transfer of development
rights program.
E. A receiving property may accept development rights from one or more sending properties, up to a
maximum density specified in Table 1 and Table 2 in §165‐302.03.
§165‐303.02. Development Approval Procedures.
A. 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. All subdivisions for receiving properties zoned RA (Rural Areas) utilizing development rights shall be
subject to the same requirements as property zoned RP (Residential Performance) and shall not
qualify for the standards specified in §144‐31 of the Frederick County Code.
C. A final recorded plat for a subdivision using transferred development rights shall contain a
statement setting forth the development proposed, the zoning classification of the property, the
number of development rights used, and a notation of the recordation of the conveyance required
by §165‐302.06.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Discussion EM/M1/M2 Heights
October 22, 2013
Page 2
The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes supported by the
DRRC (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added). These items are
presented for public hearing. A recommendation from the Planning Commission on these
amendments is sought. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Attachments: 1. Proposed Height Revisions (deletions shown in strikethrough and
additions shown in bold underlined italics).
2. EDC Support Letter
CEP/pd
DRAFT Ordinance Amendment
Attachment 1
EM/M1/M2 Districts
1
ARTICLE VI
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
Part 608 – EM Extractive Manufacturing District
§ 165-608.01 Intent.
The intent of the Extractive Manufacturing District is to provide for mining and related industries, all of
which rely on the extraction of natural resources. Provisions and performance standards are provided to
protect surrounding uses from adverse impacts. It is also the intent of this article to avoid the
encroachment of incompatible uses on the borders of the EM District.
*All other sections remain unchanged
§ 165-608.06 Height limitations.
No structure shall exceed 45 feet in height.
The maximum structure height shall be 45 feet. The Board
of Supervisors may waive the 45 foot height limitation provided that it will not negatively impact
adjacent uses. In order to consider the waiver, the applicant must submit all information and adhere
to requirements specified by § 165-204.28. In no case shall any structure exceed 200 feet in height.
DRAFT Ordinance Amendment
Attachment 1
EM/M1/M2 Districts
2
ARTICLE VI
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
Part 601 – Dimensional and Intensity Requirements
§ 165-601.02 Dimensional and intensity requirements
The following table describes the dimensional and intensity requirements for the business and industrial
districts:
District
Requirement B1 B2 B3 OM M1 M2
Front yard setback on primary or arterial
highways (feet)
50 50 50 50 75 75
Front yard setback on collector or minor
streets (feet)
35 35 35 35 75 75
Side yard setbacks (feet) - - 15 15 25 25
Rear yard setbacks (feet) - - 15 15 25 25
Floor area to lot area ratio (FAR) 0.3 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0
Minimum landscaped area (percentage of lot
area)
35 15 25 15 25 15
Maximum height (feet) 35 35 35 60 60 * 60 *
*In the M1 and M2 Districts the Board of Supervisors may waive the 60 foot height
limitation provided that it will not negatively impact adjacent uses. In order to
consider the waiver, the applicant must submit all information and adhere to
requirements specified by § 165-204.28 In no case shall any structure exceed 150
feet in height.
DRAFT Ordinance Amendment
Attachment 1
EM/M1/M2 Districts
3
Article II
SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES
§ 165-204.28. Height Waivers in the EM (Extractive Manufacturing), M1 (Light Industrial) and M2
(Industrial General) District:
Waiver requests for height increases in the EM, M1 and M2 Zoning Districts, shall adhere to the
following requirements:
1. Architectural renderings of the proposed structure shall be submitted for review by the
Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors;
2. The Board of Supervisors may require buffer and screening elements and/or additional
distance when deemed necessary to protect existing adjacent uses;
3. The Board of Supervisors may require additional conditions as deemed necessary;
4. This waiver shall not be permitted to increase the height of any signage regulated by § 165-
201.07.
Article II
SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES
Part 201 – Supplementary Use Regulations
§ 165-201.03 Height limitations; exceptions.
B. Exceptions to height requirements.
(4) Automated storage facilities in the OM, M1 and M2 Zoning Districts and automated manufacturing
facilities in the M1 and M2 Zoning Districts shall be exempt from the maximum height requirement.
This exemption shall be granted only when the facility is provided with full sprinkling for fire
protection according to the specifications of applicable codes. Such exemptions shall be approved
by the Frederick County Fire Marshal. In no case shall the height of these facilities exceed 100 feet in
height.
DATE: September 25, 2013
TO: Eric Lawrence, Planning Director
FROM: Patrick Barker, CEcD, Executive Director
RE: Height Requirements in the EM, M1 and M2 districts
For the past several months Frederick County has worked steadfastly to enhance height limits
in industrial zoning districts. The chief catalyst for this effort is rooted in an EDC supported
project, a $45 million expansion by Carmeuse last year. This expansion will bring new modern
kilns to meet growing demand.
Carmeuse officials worked with Frederick County to discover a path to operate this new
investment under County Code. One such path involved a Conditional Use Permit but proved
to be problematic. This discussion required significant time.
Now time is critical as Carmeuse aims to install this new investment by the end of this year. As
such, County and Carmeuse officials have pursued a new Board of Supervisors waiver
track. County processes require public hearings on such an amendment to the County code. In
order to comply with Carmeuse's operational timeframe, staff engaged in a fast track
process. This process bypasses receiving formal feedback on the waiver amendment from the
Planning Commission prior to the Board of Supervisors’ authorization of a public hearing,
should they grant it.
I appreciate your hopeful understanding. Please contact me with any questions.
c
REZONING APPLICATION #03-13
Madison Village
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared: October 21, 2013
Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission: 08/21/13 Public hearing; Action - tabled 90 days
11/06/13 Pending (Public hearing necessary)
Board of Supervisors: 12/11/13 Pending
PROPOSAL: To rezone 51.26 acres from RA (Rural Area) District to 46.26 acres of RP (Residential
Performance) District and to 5 acres of B2 (General Business) District with proffers.
LOCATION: The property is located on the west side of Route 522, approximately 1,000 feet south of
the intersection of Route 522 and Airport Road.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 11/06/13 PLANNNG
COMMISSION MEETING:
The Planning Commission tabled this application for 90 days at your 08/21/13 meeting. This provided
the Applicant time to address the items discussed during the Planning Commission meeting, including
the extension of the roads to the adjacent properties in a timely manner, and the establishment of a
minimum residential density consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It also provided an additional
opportunity for the Applicant to meet with the adjacent property owner to come to an agreement over
access issues. Finally, this also allowed the site to be posted again and the public hearing to be
adequately noticed.
The Applicant revised their proffer statement (dated September 5, 2013) to address the two items
identified by staff. More specifically, the Applicant has modified their proffer statement to provide for
a minimum number of four hundred twenty (420) residential units; this would ensure a minimum
residential density of approximately eight units per acre, and to include triggers for the completion of
the identified public road connections to the west and to the south by the 312th residential occupancy
and the 420th residential occupancy, respectively. At the time this report was made, the Applicant and
adjacent property owner have not come to an agreement.
The Madison Village rezoning application is generally consistent with future land use designations of
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Plan which provide
guidance on the future development of the property.
Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any further issues raised by the Planning
Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission.
Rezoning #03-13 Madison Village
October 21, 2013
Page 2
Following the required public hearing, 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 #03-13 Madison Village
October 21, 2013
Page 3
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: 08/21/13 Public hearing; Action - tabled 90 days
11/06/13 Pending (Public hearing necessary)
Board of Supervisors: 12/11/13 Pending
PROPOSAL: To rezone 51.26 acres from RA (Rural Area) District to 46.26 acres of RP (Residential
Performance) District and to 5 acres of B2 (General Business) District with proffers.
LOCATION: The property is on the west side of route 522, approximately 1,000 feet south of the
intersection of Route 522 and Airport Road.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 64-A-18
PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Area)
PRESENT USE: Vacant/Agricultural
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Vacant (Russell 150)
South: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential/Vacant
East RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential
B2 (Business General) Vacant
West: RA (Rural Area) Use: Vacant/Agricultural
Rezoning #03-13 Madison Village
October 21, 2013
Page 4
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Virginia Dept. of Transportation: Please see attached comments.
Fire and Rescue: Plan approved.
Public Works Department: Indicate the location of the existing overhead power lines on the
generalized development plan and future MDP. We anticipate that the private development will be
served by a private waste hauler.
Department of Inspections: N/A
Frederick County Sanitation Authority: Per your request, a review of the proposed rezoning has
been performed. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority offers comments limited to the anticipated
impact/effect upon the Authority’s public water and sanitary sewer system and the demands thereon.
The parcel is in the water and sanitary sewer area served by the Authority. Based on the anticipated
usage, water capacity is presently available. Sanitary sewer treatment capacity at the waste water
treatment plant is also presently available. Conveyance capacity and layout will be contingent on the
applicant performing a technical analysis the existing sanitary sewer system within the area to be served
and the ability of the existing conveyance system to accept additional load. Both water and sanitary
sewer facilities are located within a reasonable distance from this site. Please be aware that the
Authority does not review or comment upon proffers and/or conditions proposed or submitted by the
applicant in support of or in conjunction with this application for rezoning, nor does the Authority
assume or undertake any responsibility to review or comment upon any amended proffers and/or
conditions which the Applicant may hereafter provide to Frederick County.
Service Authority: No comment
Frederick-Winchester Health Department: N/A
Parks & Recreation: Rezoning application appears to contain verbage which address the County
Development Impact Model.
Winchester Regional Airport: No comments.
Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached letter dated May 14, 2013, from Roderick B.
Williams, County Attorney.
Frederick County Public School: Please see attached letter date June 28, 2013, from K. Wayne Lee,
Jr., LEED GA
Planning Department: Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears that the proposal does not
Significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule review of the rezoning
Rezoning #03-13 Madison Village
October 21, 2013
Page 5
application by the HRAB. According to the rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic
structures located on the property nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also
noted that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not
identify a core battlefield within this area.
Planning & Zoning:
1) Site History
The property is currently zoned RA (Rural Areas) and has historically been used for agricultural
and residential land uses. The original Frederick County Zoning for this property as identified
on the Winchester Quadrangle is A1 (Agricultural general). In 2012, a single five acre lot was
subdivided from this parent tract adjacent to Route 522 which contained the existing residential
land use. Directly to the north of this site is the Russell 150 property which was rezoned for
residential and commercial land uses in 2006. Two smaller B2 (Business General) properties
adjoin this site at its proposed entrance to Route 522. These properties, the Shepherd Properties
were rezoned at around the same time.
2) Comprehensive Policy Plan
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan is the guide for the future growth of Frederick County.
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Plan provide
guidance on the future development of the property. Appendix I includes the
Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Plan as an approved Area Plan.
The property is located in the UDA (Urban Development Area) and the SWSA (Sewer and
Water Service Area).
The 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies the general area surrounding this property with a
high density residential land use designation. In general, the proposed residential designation
for this property is consistent with this residential land use designation of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed residential density is consistent with the residential densities of the RP section
of the Zoning Ordinance which was recently updated in implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the introduction of a small area of commercial land use
provides for a mix of uses in conjunction with each other, also an element of the 2030
Comprehensive Plan.
The CIP (Capital Improvements Plan), a component of the Comprehensive Plan, has
identified the general area of this property, along Route 522 south, as a location for a smaller
scale park that would be designed to serve the anticipated additional residents in this area.
Rezoning #03-13 Madison Village
October 21, 2013
Page 6
3) Site Suitability/Environment
The property is well suited to future development. It is relatively open, flat land with small areas
of slopes and wetlands associated with drainage across the site. The site does contain a pond on
the northern property line, close to the entrance road to the site. This pond will be preserved
during the development of the site and used as a recreational feature.
Access to the site will be directly to Route 522 via a new public street entrance designed for the
project. This new public street will contain bicycle and pedestrian accommodations as called for
in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This public street will be extended to provide access to
adjacent properties as the development progresses. It should be satisfied that the extension of
the public street network occurs in a timely manner and key connections are made to adjacent
properties.
4) Potential Impacts
Transportation.
The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan recognizes Route 522 as an improved major arterial
road. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan recognizes a minor collector road that runs east-west
from Route 522 over to future Warrior Drive. Interparcel connections are also a potential as this
project develops, in particular, to the property to the south.
Recent traffic volumes on Route 522 in the vicinity of the site showed the average annual daily
traffic was 15,220 vehicles per day. The Applicant’s TIA projects traffic on Route 522 to be
26,585 vehicles per day in 2026.
The proposed impacts to Route 522 at the site entrance will be significant. The proposed project
will have a single entrance on to Route 522. In order to mitigate the impacts of the project, the
Applicant will implement the following improvements; Installation of a traffic signal at the
proposed entrance and right and left turn lanes on Route 522, dual eastbound left turn lanes
from the project entrance, and a roundabout internal to the project at the commercial area. The
Applicant’s TIA further addresses the traffic impacts of this project.
Schools.
This development, along with other anticipated developments, will require construction of new
schools and support facilities to accommodate increased student enrollment. The Applicant is
addressing this impact through their recognition of the County’s Development Impact Model
values which provides a value for the capital impacts of the proposed development.
The Applicant is addressing the other capital impacts identified in the development impact
model by proffering the appropriate values to mitigate any potential impacts.
Rezoning #03-13 Madison Village
October 21, 2013
Page 7
5) Proffer Statement – Dated April 22, 2013 (Final Revision dated September 5, 2013)
A)
The applicant has provided a Generalized Development Plan for the purpose of
identifying the general configuration of the street providing access to and through the
project, residential and commercial land use areas, and improvements at the Route 522
entrance. The GDP also shows the location of potential roundabouts internal to the site
and bicycle and pedestrian accommodations.
Generalized Development Plan
B) Land Use
The applicants have proffered a limit to the total number of residential units to six
hundred forty (640). It is important to recognize that there is no minimum limitation
placed on the development to ensure the more intensive development of this site.
- The Applicant has modified their proffer statement (dated September 3,
2013) to provide for a minimum number of four hundred twenty residential
units (420). This would ensure a minimum residential density of
approximately eight units per acre.
C)
The applicant has proffered the signalization of the intersection of the site driveway
and Route 522. In addition, the Applicant has proffered five initial transportation
improvements and right of way dedication to support the sites access. Bicycle and
pedestrian facilities are also proffered internal to the project along the public roads.
Access Management.
D)
The Applicant has also proffered to construct the internal road system as shown on the
GDP which includes interparcel access and connections to adjacent properties. Proffer
6 a) and b) detail the extension of the public road system to the adjacent properties. It is
important to recognize that the extension of these roads to the adjacent properties is
proffered at the time of the Master Development Plan for the project. Specific
commitments as to the timing of these extensions are not proffered.
Transportation
- The Applicant has modified their proffer statement (dated September 3,
2013) to include triggers for the completion of the identified public road
connections to the west and to the south by the 312th residential occupancy
and the 420th residential occupancy, respectively.
E) Community Facilities
The Applicant has proffered a monetary contribution to community facilities to offset
the impact of the residential development. The amount per single family detached,
attached, and multifamily dwelling unit is consistent with the County’s Development
Impact Model values for 2013. The Applicant has proposed an alternative payment
Rezoning #03-13 Madison Village
October 21, 2013
Page 8
program for the multifamily units which is generally acceptable to the County Attorney
and Staff. The Applicant has also included a provision for a reduced contribution in the
case of any age restricted components of this development, proffer 10.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 08/21/13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING:
The Madison Village rezoning application is generally consistent with future land use designations of
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Plan which provide
guidance on the future development of the property.
A couple of elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated
to ensure that they fully address the impacts associated with this rezoning request. The Planning
Commission should pay particular attention to the transportation impacts; in particular the extension of
the roads to the adjacent properties is proffered at the time of the Master Development Plan for the
project. Specific commitments as to the timing of these extensions are not proffered. Also, it is
important to recognize that there is no minimum limitation placed on the development to ensure the
more intensive development of this site.
Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning
Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY & ACTION OF THE 8/21/13 MEETING:
Commission members had questions regarding the anticipated impacts on local schools and whether the
project would be developed in phases. It was observed from the TIA that the north-bound, left-turn lane
Level of Service would drop to Level D at build out, and the applicant was asked what methods would
be used to mitigate this situation. A Commissioner asked what recreational aspect was anticipated in
working with the Frederick County Parks & Recreation Department. In addition, an issue was raised
regarding the density and the land use designation. In reviewing the GDP and the proffers, a
Commissioner observed the documents were fairly generic with residential use and didn’t provide the
Commission with any assurance the project would be a mix of single-family attached and multi-family.
There was concern about the applicant’s rational for not designating on the GDP or by proffer that this
project would be a mix of single-family attached and multi-family, so there would be consistency when
the MDP is submitted and no question concerning the housing type.
An adjoining property owner, Mr. Michael Shepherd came forward to speak during the public comment
portion of the hearing. Mr. Shepherd owned two adjoining parcels (PINs 64-A-14 and 64-A-15) which
were rezoned to B2 (Business General) by the Board of Supervisors on April 14, 2004. Mr. Shepherd
said he recently learned that Madison, LLC will need to vacate his properties’ entrances and exits and
grade the front of his property to meet sight distance requirements for VDOT. He said he contacted the
applicant for the purpose of arranging a land swap in exchange for his frontage. He also desired for the
applicant to extend their deceleration lane approximately 100-120 feet for access into his property. Mr.
Shepherd said his two parcels are legally separated and he was concerned his southernmost parcel
would be left with no exit. In addition, he said there is a spite strip issue to the south, where his
Rezoning #03-13 Madison Village
October 21, 2013
Page 9
connector road comes in from Rt. 522; he said the applicant has a small portion of land between their
road and his southernmost boundary which is not significant enough to act as a buffer. Mr. Shepherd
would like for the applicant to increase the distance there slightly. Mr. Shepherd said at this time, no
agreement on any of these issues has been reached between him and the applicant.
Discussion ensued between the staff, the Commission, and the applicant’s attorney as to whether or not
an agreement between the two landowners should be reached prior to rezoning. The Planning Staff
believed the access would be accommodated. The Planning Staff reported the applicant improved their
proffer statement to insure those road connections would be done with the first phase of development
prior to occupancy, to ensure the access would not only be there for the applicant’s project, but also for
the two commercial properties as well.
The Staff pointed out the public hearing sign had not been posted on the property for a few days and
believed it would be appropriate to postpone a decision until the property could be properly posted to
meet legal requirements.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to table the rezoning for 90 days to allow the property to
be properly posted with a public hearing sign. (Commissioner Oates abstained from voting;
Commissioners Madagan and Marston were absent from the meeting.)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 11/06/13 PLANNNG
COMMISSION MEETING:
The Planning Commission tabled this application for 90 days at your 08/21/13 meeting. This provided
the Applicant time to address the items discussed during the Planning Commission meeting, including
the extension of the roads to the adjacent properties in a timely manner, and the establishment of a
minimum residential density consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It also provided an additional
opportunity for the Applicant to meet with the adjacent property owner to come to an agreement over
access issues. Finally, this also allowed the site to be posted again and the public hearing to be
adequately noticed.
The Applicant revised their proffer statement (dated September 5, 2013) to address the two items
identified by staff. More specifically, the Applicant has modified their proffer statement to provide for
a minimum number of four hundred twenty (420) residential units; this would ensure a minimum
residential density of approximately eight units per acre, and to include triggers for the completion of
the identified public road connections to the west and to the south by the 312th residential occupancy
and the 420th residential occupancy, respectively. At the time this report was made, the Applicant and
adjacent property owner have not come to an agreement.
The Madison Village rezoning application is generally consistent with future land use designations of
the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Plan which provide
guidance on the future development of the property.
Rezoning #03-13 Madison Village
October 21, 2013
Page 10
Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any further issues raised by the Planning
Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission.
Following the required public hearing, 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.
CHAPEL HILLSubdivision
PRESTONPLACESubdivision01522
BEN
T
L
E
Y
AVE
LONGCROFT RD
F
R
O
N
T
R
O
Y
A
L
P
I
K
E
64 A 16
64 A 20
64 A 44
64 2 A3
64 2 C
64 2 A3
63 A123A
64C A 13
64C 2 7
64D A 2
64D A 4
64D A 8
64D A 10
64D A 15 64D 81 66
64 A 12
64 A 15
64 A 18
64 A 44B
64 A 45B
64 2 A
64 2 A2 64 2 B2
63 A 124
64C A 10
64C A 11
64C A13A
64C A 16
64C A16A
64C 2 3
64C 2 5
64C 2 6
64C2 10 64C 2 11
64D A 664D A 7
64D 81 86A
64 A 14
63 A 145
64C A 14
64C A 15
64C 2 2
64C 2 4
64C 2 9
64C 2 12
64C 2 13
64D A 1
64D A 3
64D A 9
64D A 12
64 A 17
64 A 18A
64 A 41
64 A 42
64 A 43
64 2 A1
63 A146A
64C 2 1
64C 2 8
64C 2 14
64C2 15
64C 2 16
64D A 5
64D A 14
64D 81 67
REZ0313
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: July 30, 2013Staff: mruddy
Winchester
P
A
P
E
R
M
I
L
L
R
D
F
R
O
N
T
R
O
Y
A
L
P
I
K
E
BENTLEY AV
E
MCCLURE WAY
T
R
A
V
I
S
C
T
WESTWOOD DR
AD
M
I
R
A
L
B
Y
R
D
D
R
F
R
O
N
T
R
O
Y
A
L
P
I
K
E
AIRPORT RD
CALDW
E
L
L
L
N
LONGCROFT RD
GRINDSTONE DR
ELMWOOD RD
MA
T
E
C
T
SHELBY
C
T TRENT CT
MELI
S
S
A
A
V
E
REZ # 03 - 13Madison VillagePINs:64 - A - 18RA to RP (46.26 Ac.) RA to B2 (5 Ac.)
REZ # 03 - 13Madison VillagePINs:64 - A - 18RA to RP (46.26 Ac.) RA to B2 (5 Ac.)
0 425 850212.5 Feet
A
D
KILN WITH SKIN
FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW
KILN WITHOUT SKIN
FRONT VIEW SIDE VIEW
Cl
i
c
k
i
n
t
h
i
s
b
o
x
t
o
r
e
t
u
r
n
to
th
e
1
0
/
2
2
/
1
3
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
ENGINEERS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Click in this box to returntothe 10/22/13 Memorandum
ENGINEERS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
E
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #03-13
The Townes at Tasker
Staff Report for the Planning Commission
Prepared:October 21, 2013
Staff Contact: Candice E. Perkins,AICP, Senior Planner
Reviewed Action
Planning Commission:11/06/13 Pending
Board of Supervisors:11/13/13 Pending
PROPOSAL:To develop 11.3458 acres of land zoned RA (Rural Areas) District with a total of 49
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 49
transferred development rights from four parcels (72-A-30, 72-A-34, 72-A-29C and 21-A-7A) that are
located in the County’s sending area. The applicant currently has the TDR rights to develop half of the
site;the remainder of the site could be developed through the transfer of additional TDR rights (revised
MDP would also be required) or through a rezoning. 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 11/06/13 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 Planning Commission 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 this box to return to the
11-06-13 PC Meeting Agenda Coversheet
MDP #03-13, The Townes at Tasker
October 21, 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 11.3458 acres of land zoned RA (Rural Areas) District with a total of 49
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 49
transferred development rights from four parcels (72-A-30, 72-A-34, 72-A-29C and 21-A-7A) that are
located in the County’s sending area. The applicant currently has the TDR rights to develop half of the
site; the remainder of the site could be developed through the transfer of additional TDR rights (revised
MDP would also be required) or through a rezoning. This is the first property to develop under the
adopted TDR ordinance.
MDP #03-13, The Townes at Tasker
October 21, 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 currently proposed arrangement of streets creates a safety
hazard for our school buses. The proposed streets will be private, a taper only is provided as a right turn
lane into the development and the development’s entrance is located on a curve in Tasker Road.
Stopping a school bus in the travel lane of Tasker Road is something we do not do unless there is no
other solution, because of incidents we have experienced over the years. The taper does not provide
enough room for a 40’ bus to completely pull off of the road. We do not enter private lanes and parking
lots with buses. For the safety of the children who will live in this development, and those who ride the
buses with them, we would like to see a designated area, outside of travel lanes, for a school bus to stop.
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
MDP #03-13, The Townes at Tasker
October 21, 2013
Page 4
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.
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 4.3 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.
MDP #03-13, The Townes at Tasker
October 21, 2013
Page 5
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
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.
STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 11/06/13 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 Planning Commission 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