PC 10-06-10 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
October 6, 2010
7:00 P.M. CALF TO ORDER TAB
1) Adoption of Agenda: Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission
should adopt the Agenda for the meeting................................................................ (no tab)
2) September 1, 2010 and September 15, 2010 Minutes ..................................................... (A)
3) Committee Reports.................................................................................................. (no tab)
4) Citizen Comments.................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
5) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 165 Zoning, Article IV Agricultural and
Residential Districts, Part 401 RA Rural Areas District, 165-401.03 Conditional
Uses; Article VI Business and Industrial Zoning Districts, Part 603 B2 Business
General District, 165-603.02 Allowed Uses; Article II Supplementary Use
Regulations, barking, Buffers and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204
Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, 165-204.25 Flea Markets; and Article I
General Provisions, Amendments and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101 General
Provisions, 165-101.02 Definitions and Word Usage - Revisions to the Frederick
County Ordinance to allow flea markets in the 132 and RA Districts.
Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (B)
6) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 155 Zoning, Article I General Provisions,
Amendments and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101 General Provisions, 165-101.02
Definitions and Word Usage; and 165-201.06 Signs — Revisions to the Frederick
County Ordinance in relation to clarification as it pertains to off -premise directional
signage.
Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (C)
7) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 165 Zoning, Article II Supplementary Use
Regulations; Parking; Buffers; and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204
Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, 165-204.19B Telecommunication Facilities,
Commercial — Revision to the waiver provision for lattice style telecommunication
facilities.
Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (D)
FILE COPY
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
8) Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment (CPPA) #01-10 of Tasker Woods
Mr. Ruddy........................................................................................................................ (E)
9) Ordinance Amendment — Chapter 165 Zoning, Article II Supplementary Use
Regulations, Parking; Buffers; and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 202 Off -
Street Parking, Loading and Access, 165-202.01 Off -Street Parking; Parking Lots —
Revision to the curb and gutter requirements for parking areas.
Mrs. Perkins..................................................................................................................... (P)
10) Other
C
•
•
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on September 1, 2010.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Gary
R. Oates, Stonewall District; J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee
District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Christopher M. Mohn,
Red Bud District; Philip E. Lemieux, Red Bud District; and Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney.
ABSENT: Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek
District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District;
STAFF PRESENT: Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning &
Subdivision Administrator; Dana M. Johnston, Zoning Inspector; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. A motion was made by
Commissioner Kriz to adopt the September 1, 2010, agenda for this evening's meeting. This motion was
seconded by Commissioner Oates and unanimously passed.
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Oates, the
July 21, 2010, minutes of the Frederick County Planning Commission were unanimously approved as
presented.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRC) — 8/26/10 Mtg.
Commissioner Unger reported that the DRRC discussed telecommunications facilities
and the possibility of disallowing lattice towers in areas that are visible to the public. He said the majority
of attendees agreed with the concept. Commissioner Unger said the DRRC also had a lengthy discussion
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2673
Minutes of September 1, 2010
on the Recreation and Conference Commercial (RCC) District. He said that in order to be included
within this district, there must be a 36 -hole golf course, a minimum amount of open space, and more. The
last item discussed at the DRRC meeting was Inundation Zones. He said the State of Virginia has
adopted a code which basically states that if a subdivision is developed downstream from a dam, research
needs to be done regarding the amount of damage that could occur downstream if the dam breaks and
who would be responsible for damages.
Transportation Committee — 8/23/10 Mtg.
Commissioner Kriz reported on the following items: 1) Route 522 South Draft Report:
corrections have been made for Frederick County and the effort is to keep the speeds up to move more
traffic. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan Update: a first draft was received; a second draft is underway to
reduce and combine policies wherever possible. 3) Double Church Road Truck Restrictions: a motion
was passed and forwarded to the Board of Supervisors to request that trucks over a certain weight be
restricted from traveling on Double Church Road. A request was made to VDOT for updated travel
counts. 4) Enhancement Funds for Senseny Road: the deadline for use of funds is nearing; however, no
matching funds are available. A decision was made to delay action because the expiration time is in the
Spring of 2011. 5) Economic Development Access Funds: Graystone Phase I has been approved for
funding. A motion was passed and forwarded to the Board of Supervisors to proceed with an application
for Phase 11.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments on any subject not on the Commission's
agenda for this evening. No one came forward to speak.
PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit #06-10 for Debra Broughear for a Cottage Occupation/ Hair Salon at 376
Back Mountain Road (Rt. 614) and an off -premise sign. The property, zoned RA (Rural Areas), is
identified with P.I.N.s 40-A-111 and 40-A-112 in the Back Creek Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions
Zoning Inspector, Dana M. Johnston, provided the background information. Mr.
Johnston stated that a hair salon is a permitted use as a cottage occupation in the RA (Rural Areas)
District with an approved conditional use permit (CUP). The proposed use will take place on a 64 -acre
parcel located within the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. He noted one dwelling on the property with
two entrances; he said VDOT preferred that the southern entrance be used for safe vehicle ingress and
Frederick County Planning Commission r ar,,, av , ,
Minutes of September 1, 2010
egress. Mr. Johnston said an off -premise sign, no larger than four square feet in area, is proposed for the
southern entrance. He noted that the closest dwelling is 870 feet.
Mr. Johnston explained that the salon will be located in a 7 -foot by 14 -foot room within
the dwelling, accessed by an exterior door leading to a paved driveway. He said the use will have one
hair salon chair and one salon sink and will only accommodate one customer at a time. He stated that
based upon the limited scale of the proposed use and an evaluation of the property, it appears this use
would not have any significant impacts on the adjoining properties. Mr. Johnston next read a list of
recommended conditions, should the Commission find this use to be appropriate.
Commissioner Unger questioned Condition 44, "the house may not have more than four
occupants/dwellers while the hair salon remains in business." Mr. Johnston said this was a Health
Department regulation.
Commissioner Unger asked if there was a problem with the other entrance. Mr. Johnston
replied that the north entrance is not recommended by VDOT because of the limited site distance and the
impacts to Back Mountain Road.
Chairman Wilmot referred to Condition #3, "Employees shall be limited to those residing
on the property; no other employees are permitted," and inquired as to which property this condition
referred to. Mr. Johnston replied it referred to the property in which the business use would take place,
which is P.LN 40-A-111; he said the sign will be located on P.LN. 40-A-112. Mr. Johnston remarked
there are two residents on the property and the Health Department desires to limit the number of residents
to four.
Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing and called for citizen comments. No one
came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing.
Commissioner Unger made a motion to recommend approval of the CUP with the
conditions as recommended by the staff. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ambrogi and
passed by a unanimous vote.
Commissioner Unger next made a motion to recommend approval of the off -premise sign
to be located at the southern entrance to the property. This motion was seconded by Commissioner
Ambrogi and passed by a unanimous vote.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval
of Conditional Use Permit #06-10 for Debra Broughear for a Cottage Occupation/ Hair Salon at 376 Back
Mountain Road (Rt. 614) (P.I.N. 40-A-111) and also recommends approval of an off -premise sign to be
located at the southern entrance (P.I.N. 40-A-112). The following conditions shall apply:
1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. Hours of operation shall be permitted from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
3. Employees shall be limited to those residing on the property (P.I.N. 40-A-111). No other
employees are permitted.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2675
Minutes of September 1, 2010
-4 -
House may not have more than four occupants/dwellers while hair salon remains in business
(P.I.N. 40-A-111).
Hair salon is limited to five customers per day.
6. Only one sign shall be allowed. This off -premise sign shall be located at the site's southern
entrance onto Back Mountain Road (PIN. 40-A-112). The sign shall not exceed five feet in
height; the sign shall not exceed four square -feet in area.
7. Any expansion or change of use will require a new conditional use permit.
(Note: Commissioners Manuel, Crosen, Thomas, and Triplett were absent from the meeting.)
Conditional Use Permit 907-10 of Global Tower Assets, LLC, presented by Lynn Koerner,
contractor, for a 250 -foot, self -supported telecommunications tower. This property, zoned RA
(Rural Areas), is located at the intersection of Brill Road (Route 603) and Highway 55, and is
identified with P.I.N. 69 -A -7F in the Back Creek Magisterial District
Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported that the applicant has
applied for a 250 -foot lattice telecommunications tower on RA (Rural Areas) zoned property. Mr. Cheran
stated that the closest dwellings are more than 250 feet from this facility. He said the zoning ordinance
allows for commercial telecommunication facilities in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District with an
approved conditional use permit (CUP). He said there were no properties of significant historical value or
any historical sites adjacent to this proposed use. In addition, Mr. Cheran stated that the zoning ordinance
requires that commercial telecommunication towers be of monopole -type construction. He said the
Planning Commission may allow for a lattice -type construction, provided the tower will be located
outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and not adjacent to any historical sites.
Mr. Cheran said the zoning ordinance also requires an applicant to provide confirmation
that an attempt was made to collocate on an existing telecommunication facility and possible collocation
structures. He said the applicant has provided an inventory of existing telecommunications facilities and
no other telecommunication facilities or possible collocation opportunity structures exist in this area. Mr.
Cheran added that this proposed facility will be positioned to provide the existing and future land uses in
this area of the County with telecommunication services.
Mr. Cheran announced that two actions will be needed by the Planning Commission for
this application. He said the Commission will first need to provide either an approval or denial for the
lattice -type facility; a denial will require the applicant to construct a monopole tower. The second action
needed by the Commission is a recommendation of approval or denial of the CUP. Mr. Cheran next read
a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the use to be appropriate.
Frederick County Planning Commission ragC `o'er
Minutes of September 1, 2010
-5 -
Commissioner Mohn asked the staff if there were any unique review agency requirements
associated with this request, given its location within a national forest or if it was strictly a local review.
Mr. Cheran replied this was a local review on private property. Mr. Cheran said the George Washington
National Forest is regulated by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) and the District
Ranger in the Edinburg Office was contacted_ He said they had no objections to the tower_
Commissioner Kriz asked if the USDA would have preferred a monopole tower versus a
lattice tower.
Mr. Lynn Koerner, Site Acquisition and Project Development Contractor for Global
Tower Assets, LLC, introduced himself and Tim Dennis, the Director of Site Developments for Global
Tower Assets, LLC. Regarding Commissioner Kriz's question, Mr. Dennis said that in order to provide
reliable coverage north and south in the Route 55 corridor, an RF study was conducted and it was
determined that a tower between 200 and 250 feet was needed. Mr. Dennis explained that the visual
impact of a 250 -foot tower would be much greater with a monopole tower than a lattice tower because it
would result in a very huge structure. He said the diameter of pole would resemble a power station
smokestack. Mr. Dennis preferred to use a single, well-placed structure to tie into the broadcast tower to
the east and the existing former AT&T microwave tower on top of the mountain. He said the goal was to
connect those two sites together and allow only one tower within that stretch. Mr. Dennis stated that they
selected the desired parcel and intend to place the tower within the center of the parcel; this presented
them with the best buffer to the surrounding community. He remarked that the terrain and the existing
tree canopy offers almost zero visual impact.
Chairman Wilmot next opened the public comment portion of the hearing and called for
citizen comments. The following person came forward to speak:
Mr. Dennis Tharp, an adjoining property owner in the Back Creek District, asked for
some type of assurance that the applicants will provide the maintenance and upkeep of the access road
(Brill Road) into their tower site. Mr. Tharp explained that about 12 years ago, he agreed to have Brill
Road put through there by VDOT because it was a safety feature. He said he was given a verbal
commitment by a VDOT employee that the road would be hard surfaced up to the community center;
however, the hard surfacing never occurred. Mr. Tharp also had questions about the power supply needed
to serve this facility. He wanted to know if it would be underground or overhead cable, how much power
would be transmitted, and what type. He said the area residents have recently been experiencing a
number of power outages. Mr. Tharp also wanted to know how long a CUP was valid.
Mr. Tim Dennis said they will share the access road. He said the majority of the road
runs on their property and they will maintain the road; however, they will not pave the road. Mr. Dennis
stated that overhead power lines run along Old Brill Road, splitting between the two properties. He said
he has not seen a Dominion Power design for the area, but more than likely they will transition off of the
pole and take the utilities underground to the site.
Commissioner Unger asked for clarification from Mr. Dennis on maintaining the road as
far as gravel, potholes, and snow removal. Mr. Dennis said they would not typically plow snow, but as
far as maintenance of a road surface, they will keep the road up to standards for accessing their site.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2677
Minutes of September 1, 2010
Commissioner Unger made a motion to approve the request for a waiver of the monopole
requirement so that a self-supporting lattice -type tower can be constructed. This motion was seconded by
Commissioner Mohn and unanimously passed_
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for
a waiver of the monopole requirement by Global Tower Assets, LLC so that a 250 -foot, self -supported
lattice -type telecommunications tower may be erected on property located at the intersection of Brill Road
(Route 603) and Highway 55, in the Back Creek District.
Commissioner Unger made a motion to recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit
#07-10 of Global Tower Assets, LLC, presented by Lynn Koerner, contractor, for a 250 -foot, self -
supported lattice -type telecommunications tower to be erected on property located at the intersection of
Brill Road (Route 603) and Highway 55 in the Back Creek District, with the following conditions.-
All
onditions:
All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. The tower shall be available for collocating personal wireless services providers.
A minor site plan shall be approved by Frederick County.
4. The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within 12 months of abandonment
of operation..
5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within 12 months of the approval of this
conditional use permit, the conditional use permit will be deemed invalid.
6. Any expansion or modification of this use will require a new conditional use permit.
(Note: Commissioners Manuel, Crosen, Thomas, and Triplett were absent from the meeting.)
Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) 2010 Update. This is an amendment to the 2007
Comprehensive Policy Plan, Chapter 6, Land Use, to update the Northeast Land Use Plan
(NELUP). The amendment adjusts the future land use, transportation, and community facility
elements of the Comprehensive Policy Plan and, accordingly, updates the text of the land use plan.
In general, the plan continues to promote the economic development opportunities of the study
area, recognizes the Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSAS), addresses community facility needs,
and seeks to implement significant transportation improvements in support of the plan. No
modification of the Urban Development Area or the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) is
proposed. The area is generally located north of the City of Winchester to the West Virginia State
Line, generally east and west of 1-81, and Clarke County to the East. This is mostly within the
Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2678
Minutes of September 1, 2010
Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the Community Area Plans
Subcommittee of the CPPC has been working to update the NELUP over the past couple of years. The
NELUP was originally adopted in 1996 and was amended on several occasions, most recently in 2003.
Mr. Ruddy noted that in recent years, a significant amount of development activity has occurred in this
corridor resulting in the need to revisit the plan. He said the 2010 NELUP update continues to promote
the economic development opportunities within this area of Frederick County. Mr. Ruddy noted a
particular effort of the study has been to re-evaluate the transportation element and ensure that it is
supportive of the land use. It proposes an enhanced transportation network that is functionally acceptable_
Transportation modeling was utilized and the modeling verified that with minor modifications, the
transportation network was balanced with the land use plan. Mr. Ruddy stated that the 2010 NELUP
effort incorporates a land use map and two transportation maps, one identifying the network and one
designating the typical sections of the road network, as well as a community facilities map, which
recognizes and incorporates the environmental elements of this portion of the County into the plan.
Mr. Ruddy continued, stating that a public informational meeting was held on April 20,
2010; he said the meeting was well -attended and the plan was well-received. A Board of Supervisors
work session was held on July 7, 2010, and a significant amount of improvement was made to the
NELUP mapping as a result of constructive input from the participants. The Comprehensive Policy Plans
Executive Committee endorsed the 2010 Update for the second time at their meeting of August 9, 2010.
Referring to the PowerPoint display, Mr. Ruddy next reviewed the NELUP's Future Land
Use Plan map, the Future Transportation Plan maps, and the Community Facilities Natural and
Recreational Resources Plans map.
Commissioner Unger had transportation questions regarding Route 37, Interstate 81, and
Route 11.
Commissioner Oates said he continued to be in favor of showing green shading for the
Rural Areas, similar to the Triangle Study, as opposed to leaving the area white. He said inherently,
someone will misinterpret the white to mean any land use, when it's really supposed to be Rural Areas
remaining as agriculture.
Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing and called for citizen comments. The
following person came forward to speak:
Mr. Billy Myer, a resident of the Stonewall District, said there is a dire need for
transportation in his area, particularly a connection between Route 7 and Route 11, and he was concerned
about the lack of State funding for the construction of Route 37. Mr. Myer suggested connecting First
Woods Road with Snowden Bridge as an interim solution. He believed this could be a workable solution
for many years, considering there is no transportation money available.
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of
the hearing.
Commissioner Kriz made a motion to forward the 2010 NELUP update as presented to
the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation of approval. This motion was seconded by
Commissioner Mohn and unanimously passed.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2679
Minutes of September 1, 2010
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of the Northeast Land Use Plan (NELUP) 2010 Update. This is an amendment to
the 2007 Comprehensive Policy Plan, Chapter 6, Land Use, to update the Northeast Land Use Plan
(NELUP). The amendment adjusts the future land use, transportation, and community facility elements
of the Comprehensive Policy Plan and, accordingly, updates the text of the land use plan. In general, the
plan continues to promote the economic development opportunities of the study area, recognizes the
Developmentally Sensitive Areas (DSAS), addresses community facility needs, and seeks to implement
significant transportation improvements in support of the plan. No modification of the Urban
Development Area or the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) is proposed. The area is generally
located north of the City of Winchester to the West Virginia State Line, generally east and west of I-81,
and Clarke County to the East, and is mostly within the Stonewall Magisterial District.
(Note: Commissioners Manuel, Crosen, Thomas, and Triplett were absent from the meeting.)
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m. by a
unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
June M. Wilmot, Chairman
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2680
Minutes of September 1, 2010
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on September 15, 2010_
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/
Opequon District; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; J. Stanley
Crockett, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee
District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District, Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Philip E. Lemieux,
Red Bud District; and Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney.
ABSENT: George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Kevin O. Crosen, Back Creek District; and
Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District;
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision
Administrator; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. A motion was made by
Commissioner Thomas to adopt the September 15, 2010, agenda for this evening's meeting. This motion
was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and unanimously passed.
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the
August 18, 2010, minutes of the Frederick County Planning Commission were unanimously approved as
presented.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Economic Development Commission (EDC) — 9/03/10 Mtg.
Commissioner Madagan reported that the EDC discussed target business sectors that
should be proactively pursued and to continue with methods used to date. He said EDC members were
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2681
Minutes of September 15, 2010
-2 -
informed that a work force career video is being produced and will be taken to area schools. He said the
video shows available job opportunities and technology with local employers. The final item was a
discussion about the competitive nature of water and sewer rates between Frederick County and the local
area. Commissioner Madagan said Frederick Coun y was very competitive with surrounding localities.
He said one item of note was that Warren County was significantly higher than the other localities.
Comprehensive Policy Plans Committee (CPPC) — 9113/10 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported that the CPPC discussed the Tasker Woods Comprehensive
Policy Plan Amendment. He said the CPPC decided that the northern portion, which was proposed for
commercial, should instead be residential. Commissioner Oates said the CPPC also recommended
approval of the southern portion to residential. He said the CPPC then forwarded the item on to the
Planning Commission.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments on any subject not on the Commission's
agenda for this evening. No one came forward to speak.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Discussion of a proposed ordinance amendment, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article II, Supplementary
use Regulations; Parking; Buffers; and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204, Additional
Regulations for Specific Uses, 165-204.19B, Telecommunications Facilities, Commercial. This
proposed amendment is a revision to the waiver provision for lattice -style telecommunication
facilities.
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that this is a proposed zoning ordinance text
amendment to revise the waiver provision for lattice -style towers. She said the ordinance currently allows
the Planning Commission to waive the monopole tower requirement when towers are located outside of
the UDA (Urban Development Area) and when they are not located adjacent to historic sites. Ms. Perkins
stated that the proposed text amendment before the Commission tonight would allow the Board of
Supervisors to waive the monopole requirement where existing or planned residential areas will not be
impacted and when the site is not adjacent to identified historical resources. Ms. Perkins said this text
amendment was discussed by the DRRC (Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee) at their
meeting in August. She recalled that some of their comments included a recommendation for modifying
the ordinance to require camouflaged towers and a recommendation that the UDA requirement remain in
the ordinance.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2682
Minutes of September 15, 2010
-3 -
Chairman Wilmot commented that the Planning Commission would still be in the
position to recommend to the Board of Supervisors regarding lattice requests anywhere within the
County. Ms. Perkins replied yes; she said towers still have to go through the CUP (conditional use
pe,�,�;r1 process and this would be the venue the applicant would request the lattice type tower. Ms.
Perkins said the Planning Commission would make a recommendation to the Board, along with the CUP.
Commissioner Thomas believed the ordinance text should remain as it is and to amend
the ordinance would be a mistake. He questioned one's ability to camouflage a lattice tower.
Commissioner Oates agreed; he preferred that the text remain as it is currently written.
Commissioner Oates did not believe [lattice] towers belong in the UDA.
Ms. Perkins said she would forward the Planning Commission's comments to the Board
of Supervisors.
(Note: Commissioners Mohn, Crosen, and Kriz were absent from the meeting.)
Discussion of a proposed ordinance amendment, Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article I,
Intent, Section 144-1, Intent; Article IV, Subdivision Review Procedures, 144-9 General
Procedures; Article V Design Standards, 144-23 Environmental Requirements; Floodplain
Development; Wetlands; Article VI Plan Requirements, 144-35 Preliminary Sketches, 144-36
Subdivision Design Plan Contents, 144-37 Final Plats, 144-39 Minor Rural Subdivisions; Article II
Definitions, 144-2 Definitions and Word Usage. This proposed amendment is a revision to include
dam break inundation zones.
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that this subdivision text amendment is for
compliance with the Code of Virginia regarding dam break inundation zones for State -regulated dams.
She explained these are State Code changes that were adopted back in 2008 and are now being
implemented within the County Code, as required. Ms. Perkins stated that with these new requirements,
developers will be required to modify their projects or contribute payment for upgrades to dams when
developing properties are within inundation zones. Furthermore, proposed developments within the
mapped dam break inundation zones would have to be identified on subdivision design plans, sketch
plans, and subdivision plats that the County would review. When the need for upgrades to an impounding
structure or a dam is identified during the review process, the development would not be able to be
approved by the County until the required engineering study, cost estimate, and payment for the upgrades
are received. Ms. Perkins explained that all of this is determined by the Virginia Department of
Conservation and Recreation (DCR) because the County would be required to send all of the documents
to the DCR for comment. She noted that these proposed draft revisions to the County's subdivision
ordinance are required by State Code to be in conformance with the State's revisions.
Ms. Perkins added that these proposed revisions were discussed by the Development
Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) at their August meeting. She said the DRRS sent this
item forward to the Planning Commission for discussion.
Commissioner Thomas inquired if there were any existing developments in the County
within dam break inundation zones and who would be responsible for mapping those zones. Ms. Perkins
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2683
Minutes of September 15, 2010
said she was not aware of any developments in an inundation zone, because there were currently no
mapped dam break inundation zones available_ She said as the DCR is making their inspections of dams,
they are working with dam owners to complete the inundation areas and mapping; those maps will be
forwarded to the localities to have them on file. Ms. Perkins explained that the regulation only comes into
play after the DCR has mapped the area. She commented that the owner of the impounding structures
will be required by DCR to map their inundation zone_
Chairman Wilmot asked how many dams in Frederick County might possibly fall under
this requirement and Ms. Perkins replied there were approximately 15 _ Mr. Eric Lawrence, Planning
Director, remarked that Lake Holiday is currently going through this process and has completed their
preliminary delineation zones.
Mr. Lawrence stated that as far as this proposed ordinance, the County cannot deny the
subdivision or zoning permit, but can inform the applicant they are in an inundation zone. Ms. Perkins
added that for new developments proposed to be located in an inundation zone, if they are impacting the
spillway as determined by the DCR, they would be required to work with the dam owner to either modify
the dam or change their project.
Commissioner Thomas asked if there was anything in the Code that would prevent
Frederick County from strengthening its ordinance to prohibit development within inundation zones
where the inundation is going to be so many feet deep; he believed this was a safety issue. He asked if
there was a zone with a 30 -foot dam and a quarter mile downstream from the embankment there would be
a ten -foot surge, could the County prohibit development within that surge area. He said the County could
determine a particular height of a surge that would be fatal and prohibit any development within that type
of a surge zone. Commissioner Thomas believed this would be prudent on the County's part. Mr.
Lawrence agreed it would be prudent, but he did not think the County would be able to do that under
State Law. Mr. Lawrence believed the dam owner carried a liability and the process is for any future
home builders to communicate with the dam owner so both parties understand that if the developer builds
a house, it will increase the dam owner's liability. Mr. Lawrence compared it with a communication
exercise. He thought there would be some trouble prohibiting people from doing subdivisions and
building houses, but the developer/builder needs to talk with the people upstream because it is now in
their inundation zone and the dam owner will be responsible for destruction, if the dam fails.
Chairman Wilmot asked the staff what the role of the developer was in this process. Ms.
Perkins replied the role of the developer is when they make a submission to the County and if it is
determined that the project is within the inundation zone as determined by DCR, and if a number of their
houses will impact the dam owner in the inundation zone, the developer will be required to help pay for
either dam upgrades, up to a certain percentage, or they have to change their project in order to not make
the impact. If the developer does not proceed with either of the two options, then the County will not be
allowed to approve the project, under State Code.
Commissioner Thomas believed the County should address the liability issue further. He
said if the County is going to allow developments downstream and knows there may be damage, the
County is not being prudent if it doesn't require the dam owner to have liability insurance or some type of
liability surety. Mr. Lawrence said he did not think the County would be able to enforce that. Mr.
Lawrence said the County could inform the people downstream before construction, and get the
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2684
Minutes of September 15, 2010
-5 -
communication going. Mr. Lawrence said at the same time, the state is doing inspections of the dams and
requiring dams to be upgraded as necessary to avoid failure; he said Lake Holiday was the catalyst.
Commissioner Thomas questioned if the County has any liability by approving the development; he
questioned whether the County could be considered complacent or liable for anything. Mr. Lawrence
said this is part of the proposed ordinance revision, so if someone is going to build in that area, the
County will notify the dam owner before providing any permissions; and, in addition, the inundation
zones will be placed on the plat. Commissioner Thomas did not think the proposed ordinance was strong
enough.
Ms. Perkins said she would forward the Planning Commission's comments to the Board
of Supervisors.
(Note: Commissioners Mohn, Crosen, and Kriz were absent from the meeting.)
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and upon motion by Commissioner Thomas
and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m_ by a unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
June M. Wilmot, Chairman
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2685
Minutes of September 15, 2010
C7
•
•
COUNTY w FREDEgIC
lt�,� T Department of Plar�nivrg and Development
IVI E"1•�y' ORX.q�� �J 540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner M
Subject: Public Hearing— Fle:a Markets
Date: September 21, 2010
Staff has been requested to draft an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to address the
allowance of flea markets. Currently, flea markets are only permitted in the B2 (Business
General) District under SIC 5932 — Used Merchandise Sales. Staff has prepared a draft
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to only allow indoor flea markets as a permitted use in the
B2 (Business General) District and indoor/outdoor flea markets as a conditional use in the RA
(Rural Areas) District. Supplementary use regulations have also been drafted that would
correspond with the conditional use in the RA District. The supplemental use regulations
address the following: parcel size, access, parking and surface material, allowable days of
operation, buffers and fencing, and a site plan requirement. A definition for flea markets has
also been drafted.
The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at
their meeting on July 22, 2010. The DRRC had an extensive discussion on the proposed use and
recommended the following: parcel size of 6-15 acres, revised surface material requirements
(gravel unless paving is required by the Board of Supervisors), recommended removal of
proposed seasonal operation requirement, and a requirement for site fencing to separate the use
from adjacent properties. The fencing provision was intended to keep patrons of the flea market
from trespassing on adjacent agricultural properties. With those changes, the DRRC
recommended that the ordinance amendment be forwarded to the Planning Commission for
discussion.
The Planning Commission discussed this item at their August 18, 2010 meeting. The
Commission discussed the gravel surface requirement and stated that alternative pervious
materials should be considered; the use of grass surfaces was also discussed. The Board of
Supervisors discussed this item at their September 8, 2010 meeting. The Board had concerns
regarding the wording of the access requirements, the fencing provision and the business license
provision. It was explained that the access provision (direct frontage and access to a collector or
arterial roadway) was included in the proposed ordinance to ensure that the use was placed in
appropriate locations in the County (not in the rural areas or on roads incapable of
accommodating the use) and to ensure that easements (i.e., pipestem lots) were not used to
access the use. The fencing/screening requirement was revised to require a Category B Buffer
adjacent to properties six acres or less that are used for residential purposes and when a
residential structure is located within fifty feet of a proposed flea market. The fencing
requirement was revised to require fencing (wire type — not opaque) when a flea market is
107 North Dent Street, Suite 202 9 Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Frederick County Planning Commission
Re: Flea Markets
Page 2
September 21, 2010
proposed adjacent to property primarily used for purposes other than residential. The Board of
Supervisors approved the item to be sent to public hearing with the discussed revisions to the
ordinance.
The attached document shows the proposed additions discussed by the Board of Supervisors. A
recommendation from the Pianning Commission on this proposed Zoning Ordinance text
amendment is sought. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Attachments: -1. Revised ordinance with additions.
CEP/bad
ATTACHMENT 1
Proposed Amendment — Flea Markets
DRRC Discussed 7/22/10
PC Discussed 8/19/10
BOS Discussed 9/9/2010
ARTICLE IV
AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Part 401— RA Rural Areas District
§ 165-401.03. Conditional uses.
LL. Flea Markets, Operated Indoors or Outdoors.
ARTICLE VI
BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
Part 603 — B2 Business General District.
§ 165-603.02. Allowed Uses. Standard Industrial
Classification
Miscellaneous retail, except for the following: 59
Flea markets, Operated outdoors —
Article II
SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES
Part 204 — Additional Regulations for Specific Uses
§ 165-204.25. Flea Markets.
Flea Markets where allowed in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District shall meet the following
requirements.
1. Property size shall be a minimum of six (6) acres not to exceed fifteen (15) acres.
2. The site must have direct frontage and access to a collector or arterial roadway. All entrances
shall conform to VDOT standards.
3. Flea markets may be located indoor or outdoor.
4. Flea markets shall only be permitted to operate Friday -Sunday and on holidays.
5. Required onsite parking shall be one (1) space per 400 square feet of enclosed floor area and
one (1) space per 3,000 square feet of outdoor display area.
6. All parking spaces and travel aisles shall be graveled. The Board of Supervisors may require
through the Conditional Use Permit process that all travel aisles and/or parking spaces be
paved with a minimum double prime and seal or alternative dust free surface.
7. All items displayed for sale shall be located within designated vendor spaces.
8. A Category B Zoning District Buffer shall be required along any adjacent parcel six acres in size
or less that is used for residential purposes. A Category B Zoning District Buffer shall also be
ATTACHMENT 1
Proposed Amendment —Flea Markets
DRRC Discussed 7/22/10
PC Discussed 8/19/10
BOS Discussed 9/9/2010
required along any adjacent property where a dwelling is located 50 feet or less from the
proposed flea market property.
9. When adjacent to property primarily used for purposes other than residential, fencing (wire
type — non opaque) shall be provided along the property line.
10. A site plan in accordance with the requirements of Article Vlll shall be submitted to and
approved by Frederick County. The site plan shall delineate all vendor spaces and parking
spaces.
ARTICLE I
GENERAL PROVISIONS, AMENDMENTS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
Part 101— General Provisions
§ 165-101.02. Definitions and word usage.
FLEA MARKET., An occasional or periodic sales activity held within a building, structure, or outdoor where
groups of individual sellers offer goods for sale to the public not to include private garage sales. Such
sellers may set up temporary stalls or tables for the sale of their products. Such sales may involve new
and/or used items to include but are not limited to household items antiques, rare items, decorations,
used books used magazines iewelry, clothing and/or a variety of merchandise and may also include the
sale of fruits vegetables and other eatable items. The sale of vehicles, heavy equipment, boats,
watercraft agricultural machinery or the like shaA be prohibited. The individual sellers at the flea market
need not be the same each time the market is in operation.
�OUI: TY of 1FREDERWK
Department of Planning and Development
I�EMORA v DUM 540/665-5651
lv� 1!'� FAX: 540/665-6395
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner
Subject: Public Hearing- Directional Signs
Date: September 20, 2010
Staff has recently been informed that the sign ordinance contained within the Zoning Ordinance
requires clarification as it pertains to off -premise directional signage. The sign ordinance revision
adopted in 2007 limited off -premise signs to business signs and multi -tenant complex signs, but does
not specifically address directional signage.
Off -premise directional signage has been permitted with a Conditional Use Permit in most Zoning
Districts since 1973. The Zoning Ordinance in effect from 1973-1989 allowed all types of signs to
be allowed as "off -premise signs" with a CUP. The language contained in the Zoning Ordinances in
effect from 1990 through the present call out "off -premise business signs" being allowed with a
CUP. The current wording of the Zoning Ordinance can be misleading because directional signs and
business signs are two different types of signs. However, both off -premise signs and business signs
are defined as signs "which directs attention to" and, therefore, would also be considered directional
signs.
An important facet of the off -premise sign CUP is that the Board of Supervisors may decide if a
proposed off -premise sign is appropriate based on its location, size, and purpose. The Board has the
ability to add additional conditions to the sign reflective of its surroundings. Some properties may be
excellent candidates for off -premise signs, and others may not; the CUP offers the Board the ability
to make that decision on a site specific basis. While off -premise directional signage is currently
allowed in Frederick County with an approved Conditional Use Permit, to eliminate any future
confusion, staff is proposing amendments to the sign ordinance to revise the "off -premise business
signs" provisions as well as the definition of directional signage.
The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at their
meeting on July 22, 2010. The DRRC endorsed the changes and recommended it be sent to the
Planning Commission for discussion. The Planning Commission discussed this item at their August
18, 2010 meeting; the Commission had no comments and forwarded the amendment to the Board of
Supervisors for discussion. The Board of Supervisors discussed this item at their September 8, 2010
meeting and approved the revision to be sent to public hearing. The attached document shows the
existing ordinance with bold italic for text added. A recommendation from the Planning
Commission on this proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment is sought. Please contact me if
you have any questions.
Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics.
CEP/bad
107 North Rent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
ATTACHMENT 1
Directional Signage
PC Discussed 8/19/2010
BOS Discussed 9/8/2010
ARTICLE I
GENERAL PROVISIONS, AMENDMENTS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
Part 101– General Provisions
§ 165-101.02. Definitions and word usage.
SIGN- Any object, device, display or structure or part thereof, situated outdoors or indoors, which is
used to advertise, identify, display, direct or attract attention to an object, person, institution,
organization, business, product, service, event or location by any means, including words, letters,
figures, design, symbols, fixtures, colors, illumination or projected images.
G. SIGN, DIRECTIONAL— A sign that is designed or erected for the purpose of providing direction
and/or orientation for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Directional signs shall have lines and arrows
indicating the direction to which attention is being called and shall only indicate the name of the
use or business using the sign.
§ 165-201.06 Signs.
This section is established to regulate the erection, number, area, height, location, type and
maintenance of signs to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the public and the
orderly development of the County by protecting property values, and providing adequate signage
for businesses and motorists; protecting and enhancing the image, appearance and economic
vitality of the County, and supporting the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan. Any type of
sign not currently listed in §§ 165-201.06 and 165-101.02 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance
shall be prohibited.
D. Off -premises signs. In all zoning districts only multi -tenant complex signs, business signs,
directional signs and residential subdivision signs shall be allowed off -premises. No other type
of off -premises signs shall be allowed. Off -premises signs shall be freestanding monument signs.
Such signs shall be allowed only if a conditional use permit for that sign has been granted.
Conditions which may be placed on off -premises signs may include, but not be limited to, the
following:
(1) Appropriate separation shall be provided between the off -premises business–sign and
surrounding residences and other uses. The Board of Supervisors may require that such
signs not be visible from surrounding residences.
(2) Off -premises signs shall be limited to a size, scale and height that does not detract from
surrounding properties and uses, and in no case shall exceed the size and height
regulations set forth in § 165-201.06 for freestanding signs.
(3) Off -premises signs shall be properly separated from each other to avoid clutter along road
corridors, and in no case shall be less than the regulations set forth in § 165-201.06F.
1
•
•
n
.�
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
MEMORANDUM 540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner `IfIT
Subject: Public Hearing — Telecommunication Facilities
Date: September 23, 2010
Staff has been directed to draft an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to revise the waiver
provision for lattice style telecommunication facilities. The Supplementary Use Regulations for
telecommunication facilities contained in the Zoning Ordinance (§165-204.19B) currently
requires all new commercial telecommunication towers to be monopole -type construction. The
Planning Commission is provided with an opportunity to waive that requirement when the tower
is located outside the Urban Development Area and is not adjacent to properties that are
identified historic sites. The proposed ordinance amendment would allow the Board of
Supervisors to waive the monopole requirement and would remove the Urban Development Area
provision and would allow the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation from the Planning
Commission to waive the monopole requirement "when existing or planned residential areas will
not be impacted and when the site is not adjacent to identified historical resources".
The item was presented to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) at
their meeting on August 26, 2010. The DRRC had an extensive discussion on the proposed use
and forwarded the following comments: 1) Recommended requiring camouflaged towers, 2)
Discussed the appropriateness of towers in the UDA, 3) Felt that the UDA requirement should be
left in the ordinance. Ultimately, the DRRC recommended that the ordinance amendment be
forwarded to the Planning Commission for discussion. The Planning Commission discussed this
item at their September 15, 2010 meeting. The Planning Commission recommended leaving the
ordinance as currently written, which would allow the Planning Commission to waive the
monopole requirement when towers are located outside the Urban Development Area and are not
adjacent to properties that are identified historic sites. The Board of Supervisors discussed this
item at their September 22, 2010 meeting and approved the revisions to be sent to public hearing.
The attached document shows the proposed additions discussed by the Board of Supervisors.
This item is presented for public hearing. A recommendation from the Planning Commission
on this proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment is sought. Please contact me if you have any
questions.
Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions.
CEP/bad
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
ATTACHMENT 1
Telecommunication Towers — Lattice Waiver
DRRC Discussed — 8/26/2010
PC Discussed 9/15/2010
BOS Discussed 9/22/2010
Article II
SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES
Part 204 — Additional Regulations for Specific Uses
§ 165-204.19 Telecommunication facilities, commercial.
B. The following standards shall apply to any property in which a commercial telecommunication facility
is sited, in order to promote orderly ceccenen,ic development and mitigate the negative impacts to
adjoining properties:
(2) Monopole -type construction shall be required for new commercial telecommunication towers.
The Planning ''emmi«i^^ Board of Supervisors may allow lattice -type construction for new
telecommunication towers when existing or planned residential areas will not be impacted
and when the site is not adjacent to identified historical resources. that are '^ra eutside
sites.
•
•
0
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Deveiopment
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP `�
Deputy Director
DATE: September 21, 2010
RE: Discussion: Tasker Woods Amendment to the 2007 Comprehensive Plan
On September 13, 2010, the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee Executive
Committee (CPPC) endorsed the enclosed draft amendment to the 2007 Comprehensive
Policy Plan. This amendment proposes modifications to the land covered by the Tasker
Woods Land Use Plan. Staff has included a map which highlights the areas proposed for
modification.
More specifically, the CPPC endorsed an 8.67 acre adjustment to the UDA with a
corresponding 2.41 acre adjustment to the SWSA in the northern portion of the
study area and a change in band Use Classification from Neighborhood Village and
Commercial to Residential.
Background
Through the 2010 Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment process, the Frederick County
Board of Supervisors endorsed the evaluation of an amendment to the Comprehensive
Plan in the vicinity of Tasker Woods. The Applicant's original request in CPPA #01-01,
was for a an 8.67 acre adjustment to the UDA and SWSA (6.26 acres UDA and 2.41
SWSA) and a change in Land Use Classification from Neighborhood Village and
Commercial to Residential and Business. Through in depth discussion within the CPPC
and with the Applicant, the outcome of the proposed potential changes to the
Comprehensive Policy Plan was adjusted.
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Wincbester, Virginia 22601-5000
Planning Commission
Discussion: Tasker Woods Amendment to the 2007 Comprehensive Plan
September 21, 2010
Page 2
CPPC Recommendation
1) The expansion of the UDA (2.41 acres) in the northern portion, to accommodate
additional residential units, with an accompanying residential land use designation.
Access to these residential uses shall be via the extension of the previously proffered road
system. No additional entrances onto Macedonia Church Road or Route 522 would be
permitted.
2) The expansion of the UDA (6.26 acres) in the southern portion, to accommodate
additional residential units, with an accompanying residential land use designation. The
southern area of environmental features would form the boundary between the
residential and commercial land uses. Protection of the identified environmental_features
remains an important consideration.
It is recommended that the net addition of residential units would not increase the number
of residential units previously proffered for the Tasker Woods project.
In addition, the CCPC encouraged the Applicant to consider utilizing the B2 overlay on
the balance of the commercial zoning in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of
Tasker Road and the Tasker Woods access road.
A critical part of the CPPC discussion pertaining to the northern part of the request was
access. Frederick County Transportation and VDOT both expressed concerns regarding
additional access points to these roads, Macedonia Church Road and Route 522. Any
access in the vicinity of this site would compromise the previously approved and
proffered road improvement plans.
Throughout the process, the CPPC strongly encouraged the Applicant to work closely
with the neighboring community, including the Macedonia Church and Canter Estates, to
incorporate their input into the request. A letter from the Applicant is included in this
package which addresses their communication in this regard. Staff has also included the
Applicant's CPPA request, the Tasker Woods Land Use Plan, and the Tasker Woods
rezoning request.
This item is presented as a discussion item. Any comments and input offered by the
Planning Commission will be incorporated into the package forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors. Please contact the Planning Department should you have any questions
regarding this information.
Attachments
MTRlbad
•,7
(ry�'�V ��gR C?
ya"((L_ �1� ``>> �1` _ Q �i Q 1A.�/�a^�7
OL 4 r it ! 7 I rl+• \' b Tfas er WGVldd3
Ak
AlIden 11c
=:
i '," I y \ i ce`• 1i ! tr F' `"
�
P e rr
ProPosed
(44, Inside the UDA Residential Proposed -
' w Cs / I�UDA & SWSA
' ��
AD
,"Q� f .#' Change
2.41 a
FIR 7ARM,t
_.l._ 4e, o
r 1
Inside ' SWSA
j522N
---��;
U UIDA Change � 'df
/836INN
/ Q cc
Proposa UCSQ 13
Residential n` ,i, , 4
Proposed
UDA Change
6.26 a.. c -t "
f ns,,s map
522 Q 4a . i
4\"
yF
642 j
q H
'77df- IS > h ,11p
'tea RCF�9�ir
�.,�
Vol?
Conservtio�c. AR
a {
Easement
s R r
.cels
nine
dCommunilyCenler
B2(Buslness, General Dislnst)
wnandCltyBound.W
MI (Industrial. Light District)
'Urban Development Area
RP(Residenfid Performance District)
-Sewer and Wofer Service Area
-
Lone Ranee Land Ute
Waterbody
Residential
^� Water Centerline
Business
0 125 250500 Feet
' Mined Use Commercial \ Office
ndod,id
'. Mixed Use Ind hid \ Oltice
. Neighborhood Villoge
Recreation
Natural R-.- &Recreation
CPPA#01 -10
Note:
Tasker Woods
Frederick County Dept of
Allden Ilc
Planning Development
107 N Kent St
Suite 202
Winchester, VA 22601
0 125 250500 Feet
540 - 665 - 5651
Map Created: Sept 14, 2010
Patton Harris Rust & Associates Memorandum
Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects.
117 East Piccadilly Street
ALA-IR,+A
Winchester, Virginia 22601
T 540.667.2139
F 540.665.0493
To: Mike Ruddv. AICP
Organization/Company: Frederick County Planning
From: Patrick Sowers, AICP
Date: September 7, 2010
Project Name/Subject: Tasker Woods CPPA
PHR+A Project file Number: 14076-3-0
cc:
Following the August 9`" CPPC meeting, PHR+A reviewed the potential land use and access scenarios for the
corner of Macedonia Church Road and Route 522. Per the original application materials, this area was proposed
for a SWSA expansion to allow for commercial uses on this parcel. At the August 9`" CPPC meeting, committee
members discussed the potential of extending the residential land uses for Tasker Woods into the subject parcel
which would remove the need for any new access points on Macedonia Church Road. We have discussed
potential access points with VDOT and while the new Access Management Regulations would not allow for a
right-in/right-out on Route 522 without a state issued waiver, VDOT believes a right-in/right-out is plausible on
Macedonia Church Road.
The residential concept discussed by the CPPC could add an additional 6 single family lots to the Tasker Woods
development. There is some concern that using a parcel at the corner of a collector and arterial roadway for
residential purposes is not the highest and best use of the property for both the County and Property Owner.
We are currently examining the costs/benefits associated with developing the parcel for residential uses to
establish the feasibility of the residential scenario.
With regards to the adjoining property owners, we have spoken with both the Canter Estates HOA and
Macedonia United Methodist Church since the August 9" CPPC meeting. In discussing the proposal with Mike
Feighery of the Canter Estates HOA, the only concern raised was any potential impacts from construction traffic
to the existing 5 homes that front Macedonia Church Road to the west of Tasker Woods. In speaking -\vith
Pastor Duley at Macedonia United Methodist Church, he indicated that the church had no issues with the
proposed modifications to the land use plan whether they were residential or commercial provided that the road
improvements provided by the initial Tasker Woods rezoning application were maintained.
I look forward to continuing the discussion with the CPPC at their September 13 meeting.
2010 COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
INITIATION REQUEST FORM
A. OWNER(S) INFORMATION
1. Name: Allden, LLC
2. Project Narne: Tasker Woods
3. Mailing Address: 5568 General Washington Drive, Ste A212
Alexandria, VA 22312
4. Telephone: (703) 820-2500
AUTHORIZED AGENT INFORMATION
1. Naive:
Patton Harris Rust & Associates
2. Project Name:
Tasker Woods
3. Mailing Address:
117 E Piccadilly St.
Winchester, VA 22601
4. Telephone:
(540) 667-2139
B. LEGAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY OR REASON FOR THE REQUEST:
Properties are located adjacent to and within the boundary of existing Tasker Woods
which was included within the SWSA and UDA on July 13, 2005. The Tasker Woods
project was subsequently rezoned for residential and commercial uses by action by the
Frederick County Board of Supervisors on September 27, 2006. This application
proposes a 6.26 acre expansion of the UDA and a 2.41 acre expansion of the SWSA to
allow for logical adjustments to and expansion of the existing Tasker Woods project.
C. PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
1. INFORMATION FOR MAP AMENDMENTS
a. PIN(s): 76-A-86 76 -A -48A
Magisterial District: Shawnee
b. Parcel Size: 8.67 Acres (total)
c. Plat of Area proposed for CPPA Amendment, including metes and bounds
description: See Attached
d. Existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use Classification(s):
TM 76-A-86: Neighborhood Village/Commercial
TM 76 -A -48A: Commercial
e. Proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Classifciation(s):
Business & Residential
f. Existing Zoning and Land Use of the subject parcel:
TM 75-A-86: RA (Rural Areas) — Residential
TM 75 A 48A• B2 (General Business) — Vacant
g. What use/zoning will be requested if amendment is approved?
B2 (General Business) & RP (Residential Performance
h. Describe, using text and maps as necessary, the existing zoning,
Comprehensive Policy Plan designations, and/or approved uses and
densities along with other characteristics of the properties that are within
'/4 mile of subject property:
Fi ure I depicts the existing uses found within 1/4 smile of the subject
property as well as the approved transportation plan for the currently
roved Tasker Woods project The site is bounded to the North by
Macedonia Church Road to the East by Route 522 and to the South by
existing B2 acreage that fronts Tasker Road. Figure 2 identifies the
existing zoning in the project vicinity. Properties located to the East
adjacent to Route 522 are zoned RA (Rural Areas) and are predominantly
residential use. Figure 3 depicts the project location within the context of
the Route 277 Triangle & Urban Center Land Use Plan to identify the
intended land uses within the vicinity of the site.
i. Adjoining Property Owners:
See Attached
2. INFORMATION FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS—NOTAPPL/CABLE
3. INFORMATION FOR ALL AMENDMENTS
a. Justification of proposed Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment
(provide attachments if necessary). Describe why the change to the
Comprehensive Policy Plan is being proposed.
Expansion of the UDA and SWSA (See Figure 4) to include 6.26 acres of
residential uses and 2.41 acres of commercial uses would utilize existm
natural and manmade boundaries. Commercial uses on the 2.41 acres
located at the intersection of Macedonia Church Road a planned major
collector road and Route 522 an arterial roadway, is the logical and most
Adjoining Property Owners
Tasker Woods — 2010 CPPA
I'.arr.e
Address
Property Identification Number (PIN)
Name:
MACEDONIA CEMETERY ASSOCIATION
1941 MACEDONIA CHURCH RD
Property
#:
76 A 31A
WHITE POST, VA 22663
Name:
MACEDONIA METHODIST CHURCH C/O JAMES SUMPTION
1941 MACEDONIA CHURCH RD
Property #:
76 A 32
WHITE POST, VA 22663
Name:
TRUSTEES OF MACEDONIA UMC
1941 MACEDONIA CHURCH RD
Property
#:
76 A 88
WHITE POST, VA 22663
Name:
PETRIE FAMILY LLC
8624 DECKERT PL
Property
#:
76 A 90
MANASSAS, VA 20110
Name:
SAMUEL & ALICE PINE
2461 FRONT ROYAL PIKE
Property
#:
76 A 81
WINCHESTER, VA 22603
Name:
FOREST DEAVERS
2456 FRONT ROYAL PIKE
Property
#:
76 A 85
WINCHESTER, VA 22602
Name:
ISABELLE KASTAK
2490 FRONT ROYAL PIKE
Property
#:
76 A 49D
WINCHESTER, VA 22602
Name:
ALLDEN LLC
5568 GENERAL WASHINGTON DR A212
Property#:
76 A 49
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312
Name:
BETTY & OLAND BRILL
1804 MACEDONIA CHURCH RD
Property#:
76 A 48
WHITE POST, VA 22663
Name:
WRIGHTS RUN LP
5568 GENERAL WASHINGTON DR A212
Property #:
76 A 48B
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312
Name:
HERITAGE PLACE LC
141 MARCEL DR
Property
#:
76 A 53D
WINCHESTER, VA 22602
Name:
WRIGHTS RUN LP
5568 GENERAL WASHINGTON DR A212
-Property
#:
76 A 53
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312
Name:
DONALD STROSNIDER
313 KNIGHT DR
Property
#:
76 A 51C
WHITE POST, VA 22663
Name:
ALLDEN LLC
5568 GENERAL WASHINGTON DR A212
Property
#:
76 A 51
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22312
Name:
DAVID & PAMELA LEHR
2678 FRONT ROYAL PIKE
Propert
#:
76 A 49A I
WINCHESTER, VA 22602
'F6 i
k
�pK
A',4 t ¢
MA
7,
2
•' r
'F6 i
k
�pK
A',4 t ¢
MA
FIGURE 2
N
-PD 11
110JECT
SITE
3.
..........
R"
4
T z�ik e� r
W r) o r] C' -
V,
17
V
left
'.KQJhQ!5
�-`Y . QIT
kA
Urban Center!
Current Park
Potential Future Transportation
c.
Neighborhood Village/CommercialCurrent
School
t� 47
Commercial
Mixed Use Commercial / Office
Double Church
J -
-
Mixed Use Industrial / Office
Ag & Forestral District
0 %* o New Minor Collector
Planned Unit Development Natural Resource & Recreation
Rural Community Center
I& Roundabout intersection
Mobile Home Community
Rural Area 0-" UDA %.'. . . SWSA
0 Relocated Exit 307 Interchange
Potential Future Land Use
Urban Center!
Current Park
Potential Future Transportation
Residential
Neighborhood Village/CommercialCurrent
School
New Major Arterial
Commercial
Mixed Use Commercial / Office
Double Church
IW4b,# New major collector
Industrial
Mixed Use Industrial / Office
Ag & Forestral District
0 %* o New Minor Collector
Planned Unit Development Natural Resource & Recreation
Rural Community Center
I& Roundabout intersection
Mobile Home Community
Rural Area 0-" UDA %.'. . . SWSA
0 Relocated Exit 307 Interchange
I TASKER WOODS — 2010 CPPA
II`ro Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates
ROUTE 277 LAND USE PLAN 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601
QL Cb VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493
FREDERICK COWY WGINIA
FIGURE 3
oc� /
k (S /
NN �
\ FUTURE
TASKER WOODS
IN
EXISTING BOUNDARY:
UDA and SWSA
— — URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA (UDA)
SEWER AND WATER SERVICE AREA (SWSA)
PROPOSED BOUNDARY:
UDA and SWSA
® — URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA (UDA)
n =` SEWER AND WATER SERVICE AREA (SWSA)
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL USE
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USE
\ FUTURE
TASKER WOODS
4:;4 ft -4
2.41 ACRES LOCATED
WITHIN SWSA
rrM 76-A-861
6.26 ACRES LOCATED _
�,a
WITHIN UDA & SWSA_-,"F
(TM 76-A48A) �.
'°o
N
Ox
N
Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates
II` TASKER WOODS — 2010 CPPA EXISTING AND PROPOSED 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601
o(b UDA AND SWSA VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493
FREDERICK COUNTY, WRG/N/A
FIGURE 4
viable destination for commercial uses. Additionally, existing wetlands
located on Tasker Woods as depicted on Figure 5 presents itself as a
natural divide between commercial and residential uses. Expanding the
UDA to include the area between the existing wetlands and existing
residential zoning at Tasker Woods allows for a better design that is more
accommodating to existing natural features and also improves construction
feasibility.
How would the resultant changes impact or benefit Frederick County.
Consider, for example, economic development and public facilities.
The proposed SWSA expansion to cnable commercial uses at the
intersection of Macedonia Church Road and Route 522 presents itself as
an ideal location for economic development type uses. The intent of this
application is to offset the proposed expansion of the UDA by providing.a
viable commercial node through a SWSA expansion, thereby ensuringa
balance of residential development and revenue generating business uses.
While the applicant recognizes that proffers are not associated with the
CPPA application process, it is important to note that the intent of the
UDA expansion would be to maintain the existing proffered_ maximum of
319 units for Tasker Woods albeit with a different unit mix. The resultant
traffic generation would therefore not exceed the volume potential for
Tasker Woods as exists today ensuring no additional impacts to the
transportation network Additionally, the Applicant has entered into an
agreement with a private construction comp an for the purpose of
providing aparcel owned by the Applicant fronting on Tasker Road for a
Fire and Rescue Station through the PPEA process. This parcel, as
identified on Figure 3, would be made available as part of the proffer
modification/rezoning process which would occur subsequent to this
CPPA application The potential Fire and Rescue Station site would help
to im rove ublic facilities and services provided by the County.
SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE(S)
ANN
O
I
PRO EC 1l
SlTE
T
N
TASKER WOODS — 2010 CPPA Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates
c„ EXISTING WETLAND AREAS 117 E. Picadilly St. Winchester, Virginia 22601
o Q Q VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493
FREDERICK COUNTY, WRGIN14 _
FIGURE 5
Signatures:
I (we), the undersigned, do hereby respectfully make application and petition the
Frederick County Board of Supervisors to amend the Comprehensive Plan. I (we)
authorize Frederick County officials to enter the property for site inspection
purposes.
I (we) hereby certify that this application and its accompanying materials are true
and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge.
Owner(s): , : ' �._� �:_�, Date: ,
special Limited Power of Attorney
County of Frederick, Virginia
Frederick Planning Web site: www.co.frederick.va.us
Department of Planning & Development, County of Frederick, Virginia,
107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia 22601
Phone 540-665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-6395
Know All Men By Those Present: That I (We)
(Name) Allden LLC (Phone) 703.820.2500
(Address) 5568 General Washington Dr Suite A212 Alexandria VA 22312
the owner(s) of all those tracts or parcels of land ("Property") conveyed to me (us), by deed recorded in the
Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the County of Frederick, Virginia, by
Instrument 4: 050016054 and 040004069 and is described as
Tax Map Parcel 76-A-86 76 -A -48A Subdivision:
do hereby make, constitute and appoint:
(Name) Patton Harris Rust & Associates (Phone) 540.667.2139
(Address) 117 E. Piccadilly Street Suite 200 Winchester Virginia 22601
To act as my true and lawful attorney-in-fact for and in my (our) name, place, and stead with full power and
authority I (we) would have if acting personally to file planning applications for my (our) above described
Property, including
Rezoning (including proffers)
_ Conditional Use Permits
_ Master Development Plan (Preliminary and Final)
_ Subdivision
_ Site Plan
X Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendment
My attorney-in-fact shall have the authority to offer proffered conditions and to make amendments to previously approved proffered
conditions except as follows:
This authorization shall expire one year from the day it is signed, or until it is otherwise rescinded or
modified. j�
In witness thereof, I (we) have hereto set my (our) hand and seal this i SI I^ day of i��, 20I
Signature(s
State of Virginia, City/County ofGtl�
I r\ . -,'
\.1-,' �, . A oL`( e--)) a Notary Public in and for the jurisdiction
aforesaid, certify that the person(s) who signed to the foregoing instrument personally appeared before me �y
and has acknowledged the same before me in the jurisdiction aforesaid this Z��th day of (v1OtA, 204,' My Commission Expires:
Notary Public
Mari Ann Farrell
@�PON�YgR9F(
NOTARY PUBLIC
Fairfax County
��
OF =
Commonwealth of Virginia
�f �P
Reg. #7287037
ARY
My Commission Expires
Pv�
December 31. 2013
Attachment I
(T0 13E COMPLETED BY APPLICANT)
SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNERS AM"IDAVIT
County of Frederick, Vii-ginia
Frederick Planning Web Site: ii-Ns,-*ti•.eo.fi-edei-icl:.-,,a.us
Depai-tment of Plantiilieu & Development, County of Frederick, N7il-,yinia
10'7 Forth Kent Sfreet, Suite 202 Will chcstei', ViE r1inia 22601
Phone 540--665-5651 Facsimile 540-665-"639-i
STATE OF VIRGINIA
COUNTY OF FREDERICK
-i I�
This 2-6
(Day)
clay of 14af — 2-0 i
(Month) (Year)
r�NP�.
(0x\'ner/Contract Purchase ut:
hereby make oath that the list of property otiNgners of the subject site, as submitted w th the
application; is a true and accurate list based on the irlformaiion provided by the Frederick County
Commissioner of the Revenue Office as taken from the current real estate assessment records.
(O1Nynei"/Contract Purchaser kuthorized Agent '
(circle one)
COMMONWEALTN OF VIRGINIA:
County of�� t�
Subscribed and sworn to before me this q&A clay of ��/� ; P2 ID in lily '
Count)' anti State aforesaid, by tite forenamed Principal.
NOTARY PUBLIC
rA iiCAAe1 10. 14,p tn rn 67L
klv Commission expires:
8
SYMBOL LEGEND
MAILBOX
POST
0 MANHOLE
P SIGN
e POWER POLE
GUY W RE
• WATER METER
WATER VALVE
FIRE HYDRANT
E .OAS MARKER
AREA TABULATION:
PARCEL ONE: 60.2809 AC.
PARCEL TWO: 6.3793 AC.
PARCEL THREE' 16.8539 AC.
PARCEL FOUR: 2.4113 AC.
LFGFNIk
AC ACRES
IPF IRON PIPE FOUND
VMH VDOT MONUMENT FOUND
IRS IRON ROD SET
BRL z BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE
ESMT = EASEMENT
U/0 = UNDERGROUND
SAN SANITARY
SEW = SEWER
WA WATER UNE
W/V = WATER VALVE
SWM = STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
STR STRUCTURE
D/W = DRIVEWAY
R/W a RIGHT OF WAY
N/F NOW OR FORMERLY
T.M. TAX MAP
OB DEED BOOK
PC = PAGE
0/11 = OVERHEAD
BWE -BARBED WIRE FENCE
(TYP) = TYPICAL N/F 39.
MACEDONIA METHODIST
CHURCH C'
T.M. AED; RA 2
\ Z ED: RA
FRONT ROYAL PIKE
U.S. ROUTE 522
...>'p Wt (VARIABLE WIDTH R/W)
ER
ue 481154 E s T.M. 64-86VOOT 1
IRS Ift5 2.411T JCC
W/ CAPE ZONED: RA �-'
FR
R5 CHERRY
U6 .' ) `O �'' TREE �M1
.. ... �Rg IRS
36' OAK
NT ON -UNE)
TOTAL AREA. 87.9254 AC. N/F QQ. ,w-�
REAR SETBACK: NONE
FLOOR AREA TO
MACEDONI CEMETERY
ASSOCIATION
ZONING REQUIREMENTS:
ZONE B2
T.M. ,F76 -A -31A
DB S Q PC 179
FRONT SETBACK: 50 ON
ZONED: RA
PRIMARY
ZOt!llNM111E0: RA
OR ARTERIAL HIGHWAYS
WHITE OAK ROAD
FRONT SETBACK: 35' ON
COLLECTOR OR MINOR
(80' R/W) '
STREETS
VN
WAMI E. &
SIDE SETBACK: NONE
IRF
REAR SETBACK: NONE
FLOOR AREA TO
N//F
LOT AREA RATIO: 1.0
ICHA[L D. &
JANICME L STRICKLAND—
MINIMUM LANDSCAPED
AREA 151
T.M. R/76-5-62
INST. 2'080008659
MAXIMUM HEIGHT: 35'
ZOt!llNM111E0: RA
ZONE RA
MILORED JEAN JACKSON
FRONT SETBACK: 60' FROM
THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF ANY
EXISTING STATE MAINTAINED
T.M, pp)6-5-61
INST. Yf160007432
ZOFFIIED: RA
ROAD AND 45 FEET FROM TINE
RIGHT-OF-WAY OF ANY SHIRLEY
EXISTING PRIVATE T.M.
INGRESS/EGRESS EASEMENT INST.
OR STATE MAINTAINED ROAD Z
CONSTRUCTED TO SERVE THE
SUBDIVISION.
S1DE SETBACK: NO PRINCIPAL USE
OR STRUCTURE SHALL BE LOCATED
CLOSER THAN 15 FEET FROM ANY
SIDE LOT UNE.
REAR SETBACK: NO PRINCIPAL USE
OR STRUCTURE SHALL BE LOCATED
CLOSER THAN 40 FEET FROM ANY
SIDE LOT UNE.
MINIMUM WIDTH: MINIMUM WIDTH.
THE MINIMUM WIDTH FOR RURAL
PRESERVATION LOTS FRONTING ON
ROADS PROPOSED FOR DEDICATION
SHALL BE 200 FEET AT THE
FRONT SETBACK, WITH THE
EXCEPTION OF LOTS FRONTING ON
THE TURNAROUND OF A
CUL-DE-SAC, WHICH SHALL HAVE
A MINIMUM WIDTH AT SETBACK OF
ICO FEET. THE MINIMUM WIDTH
FOR
ALL OTHER LOTS SMALL BE 250
FEET AT THE FRONT SETBACK UNE
MAXIMUM DEPTH. THE MAXIMUM
DEPTH OF ANY LOT SHALL NOT
EXCEED FOUR TIMES ITS WIDTH AT
THE FRONT SETBACK UNE.
NO STRUCTURE SHALL EXCEED 35
FEET IN HEIGHT.
ZONE RP:
FRONT SETBACK: 35'
SIDE SETBACK: 15'
REAR SETBACK: 50'
MAXIMUM HEIGHT: 35'
N �m
GLENN M. &
HATTIE P. HORROR
rypP J
T.M, 76-5-55
INST. 10016856
\
'RIP-RAP��P-
Z E0: RA
FCEOVR
N
GARY E. RTACRE
RADIUS
T.M, p76 -A-34
5 A-34
LENGTH
DB 572.: 609
ZONED: RA
---.
VN
WAMI E. &
OCH
COI45TANCE C. WILNENS
T.M. pp76-A-35
11,"'61.88'.W15795!
DB 29], PC 8
ZONED: RA
N P
RICHARO A &
CATHERINE D. PALMER
T.M. qq]6-A 36
DB 946 PC 410
ZONED: RA
44'16'56-
R5.' -1O=QO'^hrOW. 2�
Q�J 3,4 P
APPROX. LOCATION OF
0.6752 AC.
RESERVATION
DB 750, PC 394
INST, #080005745
(SEE ITEMS 21 & 26)
ENO I
0/H WIRES
SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATION:
TO ALLDEN LLC. VIRGINIA COMMERCE BANK, STONEWALL TITLE AND ESCROW, INC., AND
LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION:
POND
T.M60. 809 AC 49
ZONED: RP
inges 44'f
n 3q�4.'rH ar N S
ZO 4'9CefR!?`�l
WILLIAM f HEF IN
\ T.M. X�116-A-678
INST y060016564
ZOtN4ED: RA
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THIS MAP OR PUT AND THE SURVEY ON WHICH IT 15 BASED WERE
MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE -MINIMUM STANDARD DETAIL REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTA/ACSM
LAND TITLE SURVEYS; JOINTLY ESTABLISHED AND ADOPTED BY ALTA AND NSPS M 2005, AND ¢pLTH OA.
INCLUDES ITEMS 1. 2 3, 4, 6, B, 10, 11(a), 13, 14 & 16 OF TABLE A THEREOF, PURSUANT TO
THE ACCURACY STANDARDS AS ADOPTED BY ALTA AND NSPS AND IN EFFECT ON THE DATE
OF THIS CERTIFICATION, UNDERSIGNED FURTHER CERTIFIES THAT IN MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION,' CZ
AS A PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR REGISTERED IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, THE RELATIVE
P051MONAL ACCURACY OF THIS SURVEY DOES NOT EXCEED THAT WHICH IS SPECIFIED THEREIN. U KIRK W. NORTON >
Uc. No. 2561
KIRK W. NORTON �• CI¢
LICENSE No. ON
DATE
(I) FIRE
HYDRANT
(3) W/Ys
U/G GAS
IRF
v 49 6
TY F b
BE BRILL
T.M. jj((716-A 46
INST k0500RA
ZOtIJIED: RA
FIELD NOTES:
QA 2 SHEDS. AND 1 TRAILER OVER PROPERTY UNE
® RUINS OF OLD FOUNDATION OVER PROPERTY LINE
OLD ROAD BED
SCALES 40 WIDE)
/ ISABELLE KASTAK
T.M. 176 -A -49D
- Q 08 480, PC 850
ZONED: RA
by
O
.SSBS
SP%
HARRY E. &
L
PXYLISSSAMIE
rypP J
CURVE TABLE
\
'RIP-RAP��P-
IRF
CONCRETE \$-
FOOTER \B --
,' RUINS OF DLO`
FCEOVR
VMF
RADIUS
DELTA
LENGTH
TANGENT
BEARING
CHORD
OCH
15 9'
11,"'61.88'.W15795!
._VHF
.CO'
44'16'56-
.'
18.28'
1712'51-E400
U.S. ROUTE 522
9Om'00"
6283'
4000'
aB4zY20-W26.40
„Jj
200 100
77'20'07"
170.61'
101.15'
NBI'45'S8"EC5
278:53'
37'20'25-
181.53'
94.1 '
N79'Je'38'
C6
183: 0'
4'S O-
5.9 '
7.97'
N5610' 4"E19'
018'55-
88.23'
43.57'
N39'72'09"
by
O
.SSBS
SP%
ROGER L & JOAN F.
STROSNIOER
iP TM. ;(/6 -A -49C
' \ DB 478, PG 483
HARRY E. &
L
PXYLISSSAMIE
rypP J
�,(Oq IRF T.M. 17.6-A-84
DB 37P508
ZONED: RA
PFO: DAVID H. OABAY &
MINNIE MAE BUTLER DABAY
TM pp76-A-49E
NOT p050024.11
ZOINJED: RA
\
'RIP-RAP��P-
IRF
CONCRETE \$-
FOOTER \B --
,' RUINS OF DLO`
FCEOVR
VMF
FOUNDATION 'f'
® IP N
. .
.. .... RF
"-
ROGER L & JOAN F.
STROSNIOER
iP TM. ;(/6 -A -49C
' \ DB 478, PG 483
.K
COMMONWEALTH OF MRGINIA
DB 825, PG 729
\ ZONED: RA _'/
DB 818, PC 83 VMF 9 A
HPB 9, PC
\
'RIP-RAP��P-
FCEOVR
VMF
REE
. .
.. .... RF
"-
N/F
`P DAVID S & PAELA B. LEHR
IRF IRS
T.M. 6 A -49A
2 INST20018668
ZGEE 0RA
"VMF
NSI/ >
•" '
1
4 6% 111
STREAM :...
IP PARCEL TWO 1
S 13.31'42' W 'IRF N,N \` 6.3793 AC
STORM T.M F76 A-51
29.4J' '1P l'1'1
"STRUCTURES M1-
616 IRS
Ias VAq \ ZONED: RA
ABANDONED M10g9 \N
)�
POWER POLE -
(TVP) STREAM 1 A - NS�F
'566�6 \!: / DONALD LESIJE STROSMOER
IRS
T.M. (/6 -A -SIC
., PF<, \ INST p80011406
POND _ / S�� IPF ZONED: RA
IRS 'IRS�
r4 -9'S
5 495Y3D E 34219 L20
L21f \ 4gq PO qj �
POND J 4'fp
SIR.
W _ (BERM)
at�7 U/G OAS SjT[/ SNOT �•' //
D V%
PARCEL THREE �''4 sed
IRS \ T M j(76—A-48A CF yOfj 0 6'FN
SHEDS
TRAILER
AS
N
PRESTON J. &
BESSIE C. RILEY
T.M, 1/76-A-50
DB 795, PC 165
OB 750, PG 386
^� Wn \-STREAM 18.8539 AC (' ) PLAT SHOWING
ZONED: B2 ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY
'
0`� 1M16
/WRIGHTS
N/F
\
'RIP-RAP��P-
Se
RUN,LP
TM
7.M. 876-A-533
..
COMMONWEALTH\
C2
C2
N^M1
/{X6
EI 719.
DZONED RC 642
A\B2
OF VIRGINIA
POND } 08 839. PG 254 ,y ;_. C3 jVMF-
SWM POND
•" '
VT. G C
._VHF
TASKER ROAD
TO FRONT ROYAL PIKE
TO INTERSTATE 81
ROUTE 542
U.S. ROUTE 522
(VARIABLE WIDTH R/W)
0 r,
„Jj
200 100
0 100 200
0
Q o v
ON THE PROPERTIES OF:
ALLDEN, LLC
(PARCELS 48A, 49 & 51)
INSTRUMENT #040004069
(PARCEL 86)
INSTRUMENT #050016054
SHAWNEE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
SCALE: 1 - 200 DATE: JUNE 25, 2008
Patton Harris Rust & Associates
7T
Engineers.
fSAurvaMs, Planners. Landscape Architects.
117 Best Piccadil
200
PIJi i F a
590.667r.21391n S�EET62l OF 2
At
TASKER.WOODS
2010 COWREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN AMENDMENT
JUNE 1, 2010
AMENDMENT
Action:
PLANNING COMMISSION: September 6, 2006 - Recommended Approval
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: September 27, 2006 APPROVED ❑ DENTIED
AN ORDINANCE AIAENDING
THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
REZONII\TG 909-06 OF TASKER WOODS
WHEREAS, Rezoning 09-06 of Tasker Woods, submitted by Patton Harris Rust &:. Associates, to
rezone 60.281 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District and 18.897
acres from RA District to B2 (General Business) District, totaling 79.178 acres, with proffers for up to 319
residential units and for commercial use, was considered. The properties are located north of Tasker Road
(Route 642), east and south of Macedonia Church Road (Route 756) and west of Front Royal Pike (Route
522), in the Shawnee Magisterial District, and are identified by Property Identification Numbers (PINTS) 76-
A -49A and 76-A-49.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on this rezoning on Septennber 6,2006;
and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held a public hearing on this rezoning on September 27,2006;
and
WHEREAS, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors finds the approval of this rezoning to be in
the best interest of the public health, safety, welfare, and in conformance with the Comprehensive
Policy Plari;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Frederick County Board of Supervisors that
Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, is amended to revise the Zoning District Map to
change 60.281 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District and
18.897 acres from RA District to B2 (General Business) District. Totaling 79.178 acres, with proffers
for up to 319 residential units and for commercial use, as described by the application and plat
submitted, subject to the attached conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and the
property owner.
PDRes. 9301-06
This ordinance shall be in effect an the date of adoption
Passed this 27th day of September; 2006 b, the following recorded vote:
Richard C. Shicklc; Chairman
Gary Dove
Gene B. Fisher
Philip A. Lemieux
pDRcs. R30-06
Aye Barbara E: Van Osten
Nay
Aye
Aye Bill M. E«'ing
Aye Charles S. DeHaiten, Jr.
Aye
Aye
A COPi' ATTEST
C. .�
John R. Ri . Jr.
Frederick County Administrator
Jay E. Tibbs (tor John R. Riley, Jr.)
Deputy County Administrator
Tasker Voor& Pmffe 5 iotenrerrt
r 2006
PROPOSED PROFFER STATEMENT
REZONING: RZ. # •ab : RA (Rural Areas) to
RP (Residential Performance) 60.281 acres +/- and
B2 (General Business) 18.897 acres
PROPERTY: 79.178 Acres +/-;
Tag Map Parcels 76-A48A, 76-A-49 (the "Property")
RECORD OWNER: Allden, LLC
APPLICANT: Allden, LLC
PROJECT NAME: Tasket goods
ORIGINAL DATE
OF PROFFERS: March 15, 2006
REVISION DATE(S): June 12, 2006 July 5, 2006 July 21, 2006 August 11, 2006
August 16, 2006 August 18, 2006- September 13,2006
September 19, 2006
The undersigned hereby proffers that the use and development of the subject
property ("Property'), as described above, shall be i- strict conformance with the following
conditions, which shall supersede all other proffers that may have been made prior hereto.
In the event that the above referenced RP/132 conditional rezoning is not granted as applied
for by the applicant ("Applicant''), these proffers shall be deemed withdrawn and shall be
null and void. Further, these proffers are contingent upon final. rezoning of the Property
with "final rezoning" defined as that rezoning which is in effect on the day following the last
day upon which the Frederick County Board of County Supervisors (the `Board") decision
granting the rezoning may be contested in the appropriate court. If the Board's decision is
contested, and the Applicant elects not to submit development plans until such contest is
resolved, the term rezoning shall include the day following entry of a final court order
affirming the decision of the Board which has not been appealed, or, if appealed, the day
following which the decision has been affirmed on appeal.
The headings of the proffers set forth below have been prepared for convenience or
reference only and shall not control or affect the meaning or be taken as an interpretation of
any provision of the proffers. The improvements proffered herein shall be provided at the
time of development of that portion of the Property adjacent to or including the
improvement or, other proffered requirement, unless otherwise specified herein. The terra
"Applicant" as referenced herein shall include within its meaning all future owners and
successors in interest When used in these proffers, the "Generalized Development Plan,"
shall refer to the plan entitled "Generalized Development Plan, Tasker Woods" dated
January 15, 2006 revised August 16, 2006 (the "GDP"), and shall include the following
Page I of 8
SfafMIC11t
TRlI..al lFoods
I . LAND USE:
1.1 Residential development on the Property shall not exceed 319 units. The-
mixture
hemixture of single family detached and attached units shall be designated at
the time of Master Development Plan and shall not generate more than 2,931
average daily trips (ADT) -
1.2 The_ project. shall be developed pursuant to an annualized phasing plan.
Building permits for no more than 90 dwelling units shall be issued -within
any calendar year".
1.3 Commercial development on the B2 zoned portion of the Property shall not
exceed 179,000 square feet
. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUANCE OF PERTIITS AND PLAN
APPROVALS:
2.1 Ae Property shall be developed as one single and unified development in
accordance, with applicable ordinances, regulations, and design standards, this
in substantial conformity
Tasker Woods Proffer Statementconformity with the
GDP as approved by the Board.
FIRE & RESCUE:
3.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sumof $720.00 per single
family, detached dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the
issuance of a building permit for each detached unit
3.2 TheApplicant shall contribute to the Board the slim of $528.00 per single
family, attached dwelling unit for fire and rescue purposes, payable upon the
issuance of a building permit for each attached unit.
4. SCHOOLS:
4.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $19,189.00 per single
family, detached dwelling unit for school purposes, payable upon the
issuance of a building permit for each detached unit
4.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $14,618.00 per single
family, attached dwelling unit for school purposes, payable upon the issuance
Of a building permit for each attached unit.
5. PARKS & OPEN SPACE:
5.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $2,136.00 per single
family, detached dwelling unit for recreational purposes, payable upon the
issuance of a building permit for each detached unit
Page 2 of 9
Tacker Woods Pmffer Stalnlm t
5.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $1,634.00 per single
Ld1.itLLV3 attached `? ;*e�.-.;-ng ua,t. Fnr recreational purposes; payable upon the
issuance of a building permit for each attached unit.
5.3 Prior to issuance of the 1000' building permit the Applicant shall construct a
community center, including a 2,400 square foot pool and full basketball
court, in the location depicted on the GDP. Other recreational
improvements shall include a rninimum of two tot lots and a picnic shelter in
the locations depicted on the GDP. Said improvements shall count towards
the recreational unit requirement for the proposed development
5.4 The Applicant shall construct a ten foot asphalt public hiker -biker_ trail in the
locations depicted on the GDP. Along the Property frontage on Tasker
Road and the portion of Macedonia Church Road identified as a major
collector said trail shall be constructed in lieu of the adjacent sidewalk. Said
improvements shall count towards the recreational unit requirement for the
proposed development
LIBRARIES:
6.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $267.00 per single
family, detached dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance
of a building permit for each detached unit
6.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $204.00 per single
family, attached dwelling unit for library purposes, payable upon the issuance
of a building permit for each attached unit.
7. PUBLIC SAFETY:
7.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $658.00 per single
family, detached dwelling unit for public safety purposes upon issuance of a
building permit for each detached unit.
7.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $503.00 per single
family, attached dwelling unit for public safety purposes upon issuance of a
building permit for each attached unit
GENERAL GOVERNMENT:
8.1 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $320.00 per single
family, detached dwelling unit for general governmental purposes upon
issuance of a building permit for each detached unit.
8.2 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of x'245.00 per single
family, attached dwelling unit for general governmental purposes upon
issuance of a building permit for each attached unit.
Page 3 of 8
TRiher 1F00lds
9. CREATION OF 1- ol\JEOWNERS' AI"ID
"ssOCIATION:
j y'CIiEFi7EFF�
PROPERT'Y OWI- ERS'
e subject to a homeowners'
9.1 The residential development shall thatbshall be responsible for the ownership,
association (hereinafter HOA
common herewith
including any eonser�rat7on
maintenance and repair of all to the
areas that may be established m accordance herewith not dedicated diction, and hall be
County or others, for each area subject to their juris
provided such other responsbslities, duties, and powers as are customary for
such associations or as may be required for such HOA. herein -
ch
may be
an
9: Z In addition to suothoer nd responsibility for () all es and responsibilities scotnmon ",signed,,
espy a e
HOA shall have tide t p n con�inon buffer areas located
areas not otherwise dedicated to PuUlic use,
outside of residential lots; (iii) commsolid the-
disposal programs a
commercial collection company, (14) responsibility for e perpettual
maintenance of any street, perimeter, or road buffer areas, all of which buffer
areas shall be located within residential
to be granted to the HOA if platted
N"ithin residential or other lots, or otherwise granted to the HOA by
v onsibility for payment for maintenance of
appropriate instrument, () :res p
maintenance of BMI''s and stormtvatex cont eyance
streetlights and (m)
channels.
9.2 The Applicant shall establish a start up fund for the Tasker Woods HOA
that will include an initial lump sum payment of $2,500.00 by the Applicant
the Taskcr
and an additional payment of $100.00 for or each plattelatted lot d lot is to be
Woods community of which the assessment
collected at the time of initial transfer of title and to be directed to the Tasker
Woods HOA fund. Language will be incorporated into the Tasker Woods
HOA Declaration of Restrictive Covenant Document and Deed of
Dedication that ensures the availability of these funds prior to the transfer of
ownership and maintenance responsibility e Tasker Woods HOA shall be made
Woods HOA. The start up funds
available for the purpose of maintenance of all improvements within the
.
common open space areas, liability insurance, street light assessments, and
property management and/or legal fees.
10. CATER &SEWER:
lic
10.1 The Applicant shall be responsible all f �ti 5 required for PropertY to such
h
water and sever, and for Constructing
connection. All Fater and sewer infrastructure shall be constructed u�
accordance �Ah die requirements of the Frederick County Sanitation
Authority and the Frederick -Winchester Service Authority.
Page 4 of 8
Yorker IT%odt Prat r Siatemeut
11. ENVIRONMENT:
11.1 Storm -water management and Best Management Practices (BIVIP) for the
Property shall be prodded in accordance with the Virginia Stormwater
Management Regulations, First Ed. 1999, Chapter 2, Table 2-3 which results
in the highest order of stormwater control in existing Virginia law at the time
of construction of any such facility.
12. TRANSPORTATION:
12.1 Transportation improvements shall be designed and constructed consistent
with the study entitled "A Traffic Impact Analysis of the Tasker goods,"
prepared by Patton Harris Rust & Associated, dated Februray 2, 2006 with
addendum dated July 11, 2006 (the "TW). The Applicant shall privately
fund all transportation improvements required of this project.
12.2 The Applicant shall install or bond a traffic signal at the intersection of Route
522 and Macedonia Church Road prior to issuance of the 50`, building
permit unless otherwise directed by Frederick County and/or VDOT.
12.3 The Applicant shall contribute to the Board the sum of $1000 per single
family, detached dwelling and $500 per single family, attached dwelling for
transportation improvements to the Tasker Road corridor upon the issuance
of building permit for each unit
12.4 The Applicant shall design Macedonia Church Road as a four lane roadway
with landscaped median from the road's intersection with White Oak Road
to the intersection with Front Royal Pike. The Applicant shall construct
Macedonia Church Road from its intersection with Front Royal Pike as a
four lane roadway viith a landscaped median for a minimum -distance of 200
feet prior to transitioning to a three lane section that then transitions into a
two lane section that aligns with the existing two lane. section of improved
White Oak Road at Canter Estates. Said roadway shall also include
turn lanes as directed by VDOT. Said improvement shall be completed prior
to issuance of the 50`h building permit. Improvements to Macedonia
Church Road shall also include the construction of an iron fence along a
portion of the frontage of the Macedonia Church property and
consolidation of the current church entrances into a single access point as
depicted on the GDP, The Applicant shall dedicate right of way necessary to
achieve an 80 foot right of way to allow full implementation of a major
collector roadway between existing White Oak Road and Front Royal Pike
that will not negatively impact the existing graveyard at Macedonia
Church. (See ] on GDP)
12.5 Direct access to individual lots from the portion of Macedonia Church Road
designated as a major collector shall be prohibited.
Page 5 of 8
I'm(fcr stafe m'r
Tacker Irloods
1.2.6 Access to commercial portions of the Property shall be provided via the
future roadway connecting the commercien
al and residtial portions of the
props - as indicated on the- GDP. Said connection between residential and
commercial portions of the Property shall be made prior to occupancy of any
building constructed on the portion of the property
zoned B2. Commercial
enhances on Tasker Road shall be prohibited.
12.7 The Applicant shall enter into a signalization agreement with the Virginia
that is binding _for a period of five years from
Department of Transportation
-
the date of final rezoning approval with- an option for an .additional five years
for the: installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Marcel Drive and
the proposed entrance on Tasker Road_ In addition, the Applicant shall be
.responsible through said agreement, for flee installation of a Southbound left
turn lane on the proposed internal collector road as well as a westbound right
turn lane on Tasker Road at the subject intersection. If or when, in the
opinion of VDOT, a traffic signal and/or the turn lanes are required, the
Applicant shall provide funds including any necessary bond to construct
improvements at said intersection.
12.8 The Applicant shall dedicate 27 feet of tight of way from the center line of
the portion of Macedonia Church Road not identified as a major collector
Prior to issuance of the 50'h building permit.
13. HISTORIC MARKER
hall install a . histoTic
13.1 The Applicant srriarkei in collaborationatli MacedoniaChurch that notes the historical significance of Macedonia Church.
14. CONM4ERCIAL DESIGN STANDARDS
14.1
All bivldings «athui the commercial area of the Property shall be constructed
ral style and materials. The principal facade in
using compatible architectu
addition to any facade fronting Tasker Road of all commercial buildings shall
be limited to one, or a combination of the following materials: cast stone,
stone, brick, glass, wood, stucco or other high quality, long lasting masonry
materials.
15. COI ABIERCIAL SIGNAGE
15.1 Freestanding commercial sigmge along Tasker Road shall be limited to a
single monument style sign at the proposed inteinal collector road
entrance at Tasker Road. Maximum height for all signs located on the
Property shall be 20 feet.
15.2 Pylon style sips shall be prohibited on the Property.
page 6of8
Tasker Woods Proffer Statertrertt
16. STREET TREES
16.1 The Applicant shall locate street trees along the road frontage of both Tasker
Road and the proposed internal minor collector road within the commercial
land bay of the Property to enhance the visual characteristics of both
corridors. Said street trees shall be planted a maximum of 40' apart and shall
be planted pLior to occupancy of any building constructed on tine portion of
the Property zoned B2.
SIGNATURES APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES
Page 7 of 8
Tarker IF -Dads
Respec
Tide:
S fafefiie7it
STATE OF V RGINIA, AT LARGE
FREDERICK COUNTY, To-tvit
The foregoin; instuiment was acknowledged before me this day
of n ! , 2006, by �'}L�ll v-qr � X1.1 cn n� l �p
`��1lltfiftl
My Con7m-ission expires � -30 - 6(P� ��STINA
Notary Public
0Nt`
`OF
s a
�•� ••7'?G[14\ . ' G
f?Y pXJ6 l``%
t�tlUtlttl4t
Page 8 of 8
IRON FENCE
4'ylre
COMMUNITY
CENTER
& POCKET PARK
C3 Ac)
Oqa
�'A
CONSOLIDATE CHURCH ENTRANCES
TO SINGLE ACCESS POINT
54
"S
T'Q-RP !�
�- -
-JHCED I} S
GHED
3'1 i1TE� OkfF1ERCY��
o, TASKER WOODS Potton, Harris, Rust & Associates, pc
GENEAUZED DEVEMPMENT PLAN 117 E. PicadilSiWinchester, 22601
�• VOICE: (540) 667-2139 FAX: (540) 665-0493
FREDERICK COUNTY KRCINL4
Land Use
Tasker Woods Land Use Plan
Introduction
The Tasker Woods area presents a unique opportunity to transition a rural area
wedged between rapidly developing residential neighborhoods and established
industrial uses. The plan area includes approximately 79 acres and is located
north of Tasker Road (Route 642) east and south of Macedonia Church Road and
west of Front Royal Pike (Route 522). It includes two parcels of land - 76 -A -48A
& 76-A-49.
A new community is being created
uses. The area contains sensitive
preserved. The community will be
purpose trails and sidewalks.
Land Use
which will have residential and commercial
environmental features and these will be
linked by an efficient road system, multi -
The Eastern Frederick County Long Range Land Use Plan, adopted prior to this
plan, does not show any specific land uses for this area. The land immediately
south of the study area is planned for commercial and industrial uses, and already
contains some industrial uses. The land to the east and west of the plan area is in
residential use. Immediately north of the plan area are the Macedonia Methodist
Church and the Macedonia Cemetery.
UDA/SWSA
This plan extends the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) to those
areas shown as residential and commercial on the land use plan
(approximately 79 acres), and extends the Urban Development Area
(UDA) to those areas shown as residential on the land use plan
(approximately 57 acres).
Residential
The north portion of the Tasker Woods area is planned for residential use.
Single family detached residences are encouraged along Macedonia
Church Road to continue the residential pattern established to the west.
Frederick County 6-135 2007 Comprehensive Plan
Land Use
Single family attached units could be accommodated further east. Given
the relatively flat topography and square shape of the northern portion of
the plan area, it could ideally be laid out in a grid pattern.
Other uses that might be acceptable in the area planned for residential use
are religious uses and local government uses.
Commercial
Commercial uses are planned for the land immediately north of Tasker
Road and south of the intermittent stream_ This will serve to buffer the
residential uses from the industrial uses south of Tasker Road. The
commercial component is envisioned to consist of neighborhood scale
commercial uses and office uses. Priority will be given to neighborhood
scale commercial uses as these will serve the needs of residents and create
focal points for the new community. Strip commercial development is
strongly discouraged. Consolidated entrances and inter -parcel
Tasker Woods Land Use Plan
• Connectors will be encouraged to avoid multiple -entrances along
Tasker Road and the new collector road.
.Parks
The Tasker Woods area should contain a well defined park and open space
system for both active and passive recreation_ Neighborhood parks,
possibly in cooperation with the church to the north, should be provided in
central locations and be inter -connected. If the residential streets are
designed in a grid pattern, the parks could be laid out as squares with the
houses facing onto the square. Also part of the park network should be the
interconnected trail system as noted above.
Frederick County
6-136 2007 Comprehensive Plan.
Land Use
Environmental Features
Environmental features in the study area include ponds and intermittent streams.
These should be protected and form part of the open space network for the area.
Transportation
The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan designates Tasker Road and White Oak
Road as improved major collectors and shows a new major collector linking the
north end of White Oak Road/Macedonia Church Road with Route 522. The
provision of this major collector road will be the responsibility of developers in
this area. A signalized intersection at Route 522 and Macedonia Church Road
will also be the responsibility of developers in the area. This plan further
discourages individual entrances on these major collector roads.
This plan calls for a new minor collector road, beginning at the intersection of
Tasker Road and Marcel Drive, extending northward through the site. The
purpose of this road is to connect the residential uses of the community with the
commercial uses and to provide access to the small parcels on Route 522. Other
roads throughout the area will be minor collector roads or local roads.
Another critical transportation component of this plan is alternative modes of
transportation, such as pedestrian and bicycle facilities_ This plan, therefore, calls
for an interconnected system of multi-purpose trails and sidewalks. Given the
close proximity of residential, commercial, and industrial sites, all of them
relatively flat, a walkable environment is easily achievable.
Design Principles
The Tasker Woods area is at a prominent location on Tasker Road. Heightened
design standards are appropriate in this area.
As stated above, the area is a relatively flat area and lends itself well to a grid
pattern, for both the residential and commercial components. Other design
features that compliment a grid pattern are short streets, shallow setbacks and
alleys. These are therefore encouraged.
Frederick County 6-137 2007 Comprehensive Plan
Land Use
Tasker Woods Land Use Plan
• Landscape features that are, encouraged include saving existing mature
trees, the planting of street trees, and the landscape screening of
parking facilities_
o The commercial uses should be encouraged to coordinate and limit
signage_ Off-site signs should be discouraged and monument signs
encouraged.
• All of the plan area should be provided with sidewalks and footpaths
to encourage interaction between uses and wal ability.
Frederick County 6-13B 2007 Comprehensive Plan
#,
�;' UdA
= Parcels
SWSA
Residential
L _ Lakes
Business
_, —• Screams
Industtial
Racreatian
Tasker Woods Land Use Plan
Adopted July 13, 2005
Dept of Planning & Development
259 50
MI
N
F�/�,i.� E
t,w9 �Y
S
COUNTY of Ti REDE-R CK
Department of Plaaning and Development
,014540/665-
MEMORANDUMFAX:�X: 540/665-6395
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner
Subject: Discussion — Curb and Gutter Requirements
Date: September 21, 2010
Staff has been requested to draft an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to revise the curb and
gutter requirements for parking areas. The Zoning Ordinance currently requires parking lots in
all zoning districts (with the exception of the B3, OM, M1 and M2 which were revised in 2009)
to provide curb and gutter around the perimeter of the entire parking lot. The amendment
received by staff requests to utilize header curb within parking lots (elimination of the concrete
gutter pan) in all zoning districts when not necessary for the drainage of stormwater.
The item was emailed to the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) on
September 20, 2010. The DRRC had concerns over the request as submitted by the applicant
and requested it be revised. The DRRC discussed the durability of the use of only header curb
within parking areas and the fact that it would not hold up as well as curb and gutter. They felt
that when parking areas are adjacent to buildings (and a sidewalk with a turndown curb is used)
that the elimination of the gutter pan may be appropriate, but that the remainder of the parking
area should be constructed utilizing curb and gutter (either CG -6 or CG -6R). Based on the
comments and concerns received by the DRRC, the draft amendment was revised to only allow
for the elimination of the gutter when the stormwater drains away from the curb and only for
parking areas that abut buildings when sidewalks with turndown curbing are used. With those
changes, the DRRC recommended that the ordinance amendment be forwarded to the Planning
Commission for discussion.
The attached document shows the proposed amendment supported by the DRRC. This item is
presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with eliminated text in strikethroubh and
CEP/bad
added text in bold underlined italics.
2. Request from the applicant.
107 North gent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5`000
Off -Street Parking - Curb and Gutter Requirements12010
Article II
SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS,
AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES
Part 202 — Off -Street Parking, Loading and Access
§ 165-202.01. Off-street parking; parking lots.
D. Parking lots. Parking spaces shared by more than one dwelling or use, required for any
use in the business or industrial zoning district or required for any institutional,
commercial or industrial use in any zoning district shall meet the following
requirements:
(2) Curbs and gutters. Concrete curbing and gutters shall be installed around the
perimeter of all parking lots. in the RP Residential RerfermaRce District, the R4
Residential Planned Community Dis#iet, the R5 Residential ReGFeatieRal COMMURity
District, the [z2 B General Dist ' + the nnc (Medical Su err) DistFiet d +h
_.__.. _, _..� �� ��..... �.._ �u icy, �.... ..._. (Medical ...... �:.Yv.a.� visir z-a*�iv-rrrc
HE (High,,.- Educatie.,) District When stormwater drains away from the curb
gutter pans shall not be required for parking areas that abut buildings when
sidewalks with turndown curbing are used. All curbing shall be a minimum of six
inches in height. All parking lots shall be included within an approved stormwater
management plan.
a. In the B3 Industrial Transition District, the OM Office -Manufacturing Park
District, the M1 Light Industrial District and the M2 Industrial General District
the use of header curb shall be permitted in areas where the use of gutters is
not necessary for stormwater management purposes.
b. The Zoning Administrator may allow for the use of concrete bumpers instead
of curbing for parcels located outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area if
the site plan provides for effective stormwater management and efficient
maintenance.
c. The Zoning Administrator may allow for the elimination of curb and gutter
for parcels located inside of the Sewer and Service Area when necessary to
implement low impact development design. This shall only be permitted
where practices such as bio -retention, infiltration trenches, and rain gardens
are used and only where it can be demonstrated that soil conditions are
favorable, or if an adequate under -drain is included in the design and only
when approved by the Director of Public Works.
Patton Harris Rust & Associates
Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Landscape Architects_
September 15, 2010
LABORATORIES:
Chantilly We would propose that header curb may be used in any zoning district provided that gutters
Fredericksburg are not necessary for stormwater management purposes. As you know, curb and gutter
better accommodates drainage as it is installed as a monolithic pour, ensuring no gap or
MARYLAND OFFICES: crevice where water can infiltrate. When positive drainage is provided away from the curb,
Baltimore there is no need to provide the concrete gutter pan. The Zoning Ordinance recognizes flus
Columbia currently by not requiring the gutter when it is not needed for stormwater management
Frederick purposes in the above specified districts.
Germantown
Hollywood
A& Mark Cheran
Hunt Valley
Zoning Administrator
Williamsport
Frederick County, Virginia
PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE:
107 North Kent Street
Allentown
Vrmchester, Virginia 22601
T 540.667.2139
RE: Text Amendment; Use of Header Curb in Parldng Lots
F 540.665.0493
Dear Mark:
+A L
PRPI
H
have.provided the language found below for a text amendment to the Frederick County
Winchester, VA
Zoning Ordinance that would allow for the use of header curb within parking lots in areas
22601
where positive drainage is provided. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance requires both
CORPORATE:
concrete curb and gutter around the full perimeter of parking lots within the following
Chantilly
zoning districts:
VIRGINIA OFFICES:
Chantilly
RP (Residential Performance), R4 (Planned Community), R5 (Residential
Charlottesville
Recreational), MH1 (Mobile Home), B1 (Neighborhood Business), B2 (General
Fredericksburg
Business), MS (Medical Support), HE (Higher Education)
Harrisonburg
Leesburg
The use of header curb (with no concrete gutter pan) is only permitted in the following
Newport News
zoning districts and where a gutter is not needed for stormwater management purposes:
Norfolk
Winchester
B3 (Industrial Transition), OM (Office Manufacturing), M1 (Light Industrial),
Woodbridge
M2 (General Industrial)
LABORATORIES:
Chantilly We would propose that header curb may be used in any zoning district provided that gutters
Fredericksburg are not necessary for stormwater management purposes. As you know, curb and gutter
better accommodates drainage as it is installed as a monolithic pour, ensuring no gap or
MARYLAND OFFICES: crevice where water can infiltrate. When positive drainage is provided away from the curb,
Baltimore there is no need to provide the concrete gutter pan. The Zoning Ordinance recognizes flus
Columbia currently by not requiring the gutter when it is not needed for stormwater management
Frederick purposes in the above specified districts.
Germantown
Hollywood
Some retailers prefer the use of header curb adjacent to the building, particularly near the
Hunt Valley
building entrance(s). The different density of asphalt parking areas and concrete gutters
Williamsport
inevitably leads to different wearing capacities between the two materials. In parking lots,
PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE:
this can sometimes lead to small elevation changes between the asphalt parking area and the
Allentown
concrete gutter. While the vertical separation between the two surfaces may be minor, it can
T 540.667.2139
still become a tripping hazard for patrons of the site. With the use of header curb, asphalt is
F 540.665.0493
provided continuously to the curb thereby removing the potential tripping harzard.
117 East Piccadilly Street
Suite 200
Our proposed modifications to Section 165-202.01D(3) of the Zoning Ordinance is as
Winchester, VA
follows:
22601
Proposed Ordinance
(3) Curbs and gutters. Concrete curbing and gutters shall be installed around the perimeter
of all parking lots provided that awe D�esideftaal—P e}ferfftanee Distrie�the R4
Diitr-ic the use of header curb shall be permitted in areas where the use of gutters is not
necessary for stormwater management purposes. All curbing shall be a minimum of six
j� , /` inches in height. All parking lots shall be included within an approved stormwater
�� management plan.
We Iook forward to presenting this proposed ordinance change to you and members of the
Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee. Please feel free to contact me with
any questions or continents you may have.
Sincerely,
PATTON HARRIS RUST & ASSOCIATES
sftu���
Ronald A. Mislowsky, P.E.