PC 06-17-98 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
JUNE 17, 1998
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) May 20, 1998 Minutes ............................................... A
2) Bi -Monthly Report .................................................. B
3) Committee Reports.................................................(no tab)
4) Citizen Comments.................................................(no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
5) Proposed Amendments to Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Supplemental Use
Regulations, Section 165-48.6 "Commercial Telecommunication Facilities" of the
Frederick County Code. The proposed amendment modifies the existing Commercial
Telecommunication Facilities requirements to require an affidavit confirming the
landowner's responsibility to remove such commercial telecommunication facilities once
deemed abandoned. The amendment also requires that an attempt be made to co -locate
commercial telecommunication facilities prior to requesting a Conditional Use Permit to
enable the new construction of such facilities.
(Mr. Lawrence) .................................................... C
6) Proposed Amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV, Supplemental Use
Regulations, Section 48.1 "Restaurants" of the Frederick County Code. The proposed
amendment would allow for Eating Places (SIC 5812), with gross floor areas of less than 200
square feet, to be located outside of shopping centers. This application would pertain to
properties located within the B 1 Neighborhood Business District. The amendment would
also replace the word "Restaurants" with the words "Eating Places."
(A&. Lawrence) .................................................... D
2
PUBLIC MEETING
7) Master Development Plan #004-98 for Tasker Road Land Bays 1-9, submitted by G. W.
Clifford and Associates, Inc. and Greenway Engineering, for the development of single-
family detached traditional units; single-family detached urban units; single-family detached
cluster units; duplex and multiplex units; and commercial use. The properties are located
on the south side of Tasker Road (Route 642), the west side of White Oak Road (Route
636), and the north side of Macedonia Church Road (Old Route 642), and identified by
Property Identification Numbers 75-A-104, 75-A-105, 75-A-117 and 76-A-31 in the
Shawnee and Opequon Magisterial Districts
(Mr. Wyatt) ....................................................... E
DISCUSSION ITEMS
8) Discussion of Proposed Amendment Regarding Woodlands and Steep Slopes
(Mr. Lawrence) ....................................... ......... F
9) Discussion on the Status of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic
District Commission
(Mr. Tierney) ...................................................... G
10) Other
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 May 20, 1998.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R Marker, Vice-Chairman/Back
Creek District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Marjorie H.
Copenhaver, Back Creek District; W. Wayne Miller, Gainesboro District; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District;
Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Robert M. Sager, Board
Liaison; and Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison.
STAFF PRESENT: Kris C. Tierney, Director; Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director; Eric R. Lawrence, Zoning
Administrator; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk-
CALL
lerk
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
BIMONTHLY REPORT
Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - 05/11/98 Mtg.
Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the CPPS talked about issues pertaining to the Southern
Frederick Land Use Study.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of May 20, 1998 Page 204
-2 -
Historic Resource Advisory Board (HRAB) - 05/19/98 Mtg.
Mr. Robert Morris reported that the HRAB met with the Goodmans regarding their Conditional
Use Permit to determine how the Goodmans might satisfy parking requirements. He said that the HRAB viewed
the Hackwood property from a historical perspective, apart from the fact that the Goodmans would be operating
a business. Mr. Morris said that the HRAB agreed with Mr. Goodman that an asphalt or paved parking lot would
not be compatible with the historic property; and as such, suggested that it be left in its natural state.
Mr. Morris also reported that as the HRAB is beginning to deal more with historical properties
in relationship to universally -applied ordinances, the board felt there should be sections or recognitions that
historical properties may not or should not be treated as any common property; and that the board may need to
re-examine our overlay areas and how they relate to ordinance requirements.
Economic Development Commission (EDC)
Mr. Romine reported that the EDC is in the process of developing a "business development
incubator" to create and aid new businesses.
Sanitation Authority (SA) - 05/12/98 Mtg.
Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the Victory Lane water loop has been completed. She also
reported that they will be holding a hearing on new connection fees.
PUBLIC MEETINGS
Master Development Plan #003-98 of Briarwood Estates submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
for the development of 230 single-family detached urban residential lots in nine phases. This property
is located on the east side of Greenwood Road (Rt. 656), midway between Senseny Road and Valley Mill
Road, and is identified with P.I.N.s 55 -A -184A, 55 -A -184B, 55 -A -184C, and 55 -A -184D in the Stonewall
Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, Deputy Director, read the background information and review agency
comments. Mr. Wyatt raised several issues that would need to be addressed by the applicant. The first issue was
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of May 20, 1998 Page 205
-3 -
development phasing. Mr. Wyatt said that Rezoning Application #003-98 was approved with a proffered lot
platting schedule which was tied into the completion of the Greenwood Road Improvement Project; he said that
the phasing for this project is inconsistent with the proffer, in that the first five phases account for 126 lots,
instead of the proffered 122. Mr. Wyatt said that the phasing plan will need to be modified slightly to meet this
proffered condition.
The second issue raised by Mr. Wyatt concerned transportation. He said that the original master
development plan proposed a dedicated strip of land along Greenwood Road to accommodate the future road
improvement project. Mr. Wyatt said that the final engineering documents for the Greenwood Road Improvement
Project reflect a need for 12' along the frontage of this development and the revised master development plan will
need to reflect this dedication. In addition, Mr. Wyatt said that the future road connection with Carlisle Heights
should be coordinated with the adjoining developer to ensure that access is available during the development of
the final phase of Briarwood Estates.
The third issue raised by staff concerned the road efficiency buffer and Mr. Wyatt said that the
final master development plan will need to provide this buffer area and depict if it is a full or reduced road
efficiency buffer. Mr. Wyatt further stated that the active portion of the required road efficiency buffer does not
permit the placement of structures; therefore, this buffer area should not be part of the residential lots due to
conflicts with accessory structures.
The final issue of concern raised by staff was the stormwater management issue. Mr. Wyatt said
that the County Engineer has stated that a regional stormwater management facility will need to be provided
during the development of Phase II and he is requiring the applicant to obtain dedicated drainage easements
through Carlisle Heights as.a condition of master plan approval.
Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the design engineers for this
project, confirmed that they will dedicate all necessary right-of-way required by VDOT for the improvements to
Greenwood Road; that Carlisle Heights subdivision plats have incorporated drainage easements in order to
provide adequate drainageway to accommodate their planned stormwater management pond in Briarwood
Estates; and, that a road efficiency buffer exclusive of residential lots (due to conflicts with accessory structures)
is indicated along Greenwood Road on the revised Briarwood Estates Master Plan.
Members of the Commission inquired if construction of the future road connection to Charlton
Road in the Carlisle Heights subdivision would be the responsibility of this developer. Staff replied that the
future road connection would be the developer's responsibility to the limits of the Briarwood Estates property,
but will not be required until that phase of the project is done, which is the final phase (Phase 9). Mr. Gyurisin
concurred with this.
There were no public comments.
Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Master Development Plan #003-98 of Briarwood Estates, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates,
Inc., for the development of 230 single-family detached urban residential lots provided that all staff, review
agency, and Planning Commission and Board comments are all adequately addressed on the final plan.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of May 20, 1998 Page 206
-4 -
Subdivision Request #009-98 for Scully, Ltd., submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., for the
development of a new .573 -acre building lot from the original 6.4094 -acre parcel. This property is
located on the south side of Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277), approximately 150' west of Stickley Drive, and is
identified with P.I.N. 85 -A -148D in the Opequon Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Eric Lawrence, Zoning Administrator, stated that there were no significant review agency
comments for this subdivision application; however, during the rezoning, the applicant proffered that he would
not create any new entrances onto Route 277. Mr. Lawrence said that an easement will be provided to use the
existing entrance.
Members of the Commission had questions on the ingress/egress easement. They also had
questions concerning possible impacts from the eventual widening of Route 277. Mr. Lawrence explained that
the entrance will be on the original six -acre tract and the half -acre tract that is being created will have the right
to use that entrance. Mr. Wyatt interjected that VDOT is anticipating the need for a 92' right-of-way along Route
277; however, he didn't believe the structure would be impacted as a result of that widening because the plat
indicates a 50' building restriction line. Mr. Wyatt added that the potential for the parking area could certainly
be impacted.
Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the design engineers for this
project, stated that VDOT has reviewed the plat a number of times and has given their signature of approval on
this particular configuration. Regarding the acquisition of additional right-of-way, Mr. Gyurisin said this was
not an issue with VDOT at this point in time. Mr. Gyurisin pointed out that the plat does show the proffered
condition that there will be no access onto Route 277. He concluded by saying that this parcel is being
subdivided for a Waffle House -type of restaurant.
Members of the Commission voiced their opinions that the traffic in this area was terrible; that
the intersection here was poorly planned, located and configured, and that the widening of I-81 and Route 277
was going to cause additional problems. In light of all of this, most members of the Commission felt there was
no justifiable reason to deny the subdivision. They believed that approving the subdivision would not make the
traffic situation any worse than it already was.
Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Wilson,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of
Subdivision Application #009-98 for Scully, Ltd., submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., for the
development of a .573 -acre building lot from the original 6.4094 -acre parcel contingent upon the applicant
satisfying all review agency comments.
The vote on this subdivision was as follows:
YES (TO APPROVE): Miller, Stone, Thomas, Romine, Wilson, DeHaven, Marker, Copenhaver,
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of May 20, 1998 Page 207
-5 -
NO: Morris
(Mr. Ours and Mr. Light were absent from the meeting.)
INTRODUCTION OF NEW PLANNER I, BRADLEY R. CURRIE
Mr. Kris Tierney, Planning Director, introduced Bradley R Currie who just recently joined the
Planning Department staff as a Planner I. Chairman DeHaven welcomed Mr. Currie to Frederick County.
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. by
unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Kris C. Tierney, Secretary
Charles S. DeHaven, Chairman
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of May 20, 1998 Page 208
BIMONTHLY REPORT OF PENDING APPLICATIONS
(printed .Tune 4, 1998)
A
..dol .. ...e...i
A��lE1�i44Vi111G�YY17 �Zi ml
YY
REZONING:
Allied Wood Products
(REZ #009-98)
Stonewall 13.96 ac from RA to B2
Location:
Old Charles Town Rd. (Rt. 761), approx. 600' east of Rt. 11.
Submitted:
05/08/98
PC Review:
06/03/98 - recommended approval w/ proffers
BOS Review:
07/08/98
Oakcrest Builders, Inc.
(REZ #008-98)
Shawnee 2.5 acres from B2 to RA for the
creation of a 5 -ac. single-family lot
Location:
Southwest comer of Rt. 50 East & Parkins Mill Rd. (Rt. 644)
Submitted:
04/10/98
PC Review:
05/06/98 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
05/27/98 -approved
K.D.G., L.C. (REZ #007-98)
Shawnee
1.0 ac. from B1 to B2 &
2.58 ac. from RA to B2
Location:
East side of Route 522, 0.72 miles south of Route 50
Submitted:
03/31/98
PC Review:
05/06/98 - recommended approval w/ proffers
BOS Review:
05/27/98 - approved w/ proffers
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS:
Briarwood Estates (MDP 003-98)
Stonewall
230 sf dwellings on 90.64 ac. (RP)
Location:
East side of Greenwood Rd. (Rt. 656), midway betwn Senseny &
Valley Mill Rds.
Submitted:
04/21/98
PC Review:
05/20/98 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
05/27/98 - approved
Subd. Admin. Approved;
Pending
Central Coca-Cola Bottling
Back Creek
Light Industrial use on 63.5052 ac.
Facility (MDP #002-98)
parcel (pending rezoning approval)
Location:
West of Shady Elm Rd. (Rt. 65 1) & Apple Valley Rd. (Rt. 652)
intersection
Submitted:
04/10/98
PC Review:
05/06/98 - recommended approval w/ steep slopes disturbance waiver
& stormwater mgt. issues addressed at site plan stage
BOS Review:
05/13/98 - approved w/ steep slopes disturbance waiver & storm -
water mgt. issues addressed at site plan stage
Admin. :A;pproved:
05/20/98
Bimonthly Report
Printed June 4, 1998
Zeigler Mechanical
(MDP #001-98)
Stonewall
Mfg./Office on 25.185 ac. (Ml)
Location:
Northwest comer of the Rt. 11N/ Rt. 668 intersection
Submitted:
03/23/98
PC Review:
04/15/98 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
05/13/98 - approved
Admin. A roved:
Pending
SUBDIVISIONS:
Bimonthly Report
Printed June 4, 1998
Scully, Ltd. (SUB #009-98)
NO MDP
Opequon Subd. of 6.4094 ac. into 2 lots
(Bl & B2)
Location:
South side of Rt. 277 approx. 150'+ west of Sticidey Drive
Submitted:
04/23/98
PC Review:
05/20/98 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
06/09/98
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pending
Mark & Rachelle Repine
(SUB #004-98) NO MDP
Shawnee
Subdivision of 1.3719 ac. into 3 s.f. lots
I (RP)
Location:
Heritage Hills Subd.; along the eastern portion of Idlewood Drive
Submitted:
01/26/98
PC Review:
02/18/98 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
03/11/98 - approved
Admin. Approved:
Pending
Woodbrook Village (SiJB#016-97)
Back Creek
1 81 multi- lex lots on 19.56 ac. (RP)
Location:
So. side of Opeguon Church Lane (Rt. 706)
Submitted:
12/02/97
MDP #004-97:
MDP approved by BOS 09/24/97; Admin. approved 12/10/97
Subd. Admin. Approved:
05/20/98
Chapel Hill Subdivision
(SUB #014-97) 1
Shawnee 34 S.F. Det. Urban Lots on 14.4214
1 acres (RP)
Location: 71
East side of Rt. 522, 0.15 mi. south of Longcroft Rd. (Rt. 785)
Submitted:
10/30/97
MDP #006-96:
Approved by BOS 08/14/96; Admin. Approved on 09/17/96
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pending
Bimonthly Report
Printed June 4, 1998
Briarwood Estates, Sect. I
(SUB #011-97)
Stonewall
Subdivision of 9.79 acres for 20 S.F.
Det. Traditional Lots (RP)
Location:
East side of Greenwood Rd. (Rt. 656)
Submitted:
09/26/97 (Replaces Subdiv. #001-94)
MDP #005-93
A roved by BOS on 12/8/93
Subd. Admin. Approved: Ij05/28/98
Pending
Star Fort, Sect. II (SUB #010-97)
Stonewall
Subdivision of 11.6182 ac. for 26 s.f.
det----_Lached traditional lots
Location:
U.S. Rt. 522 and VA Rt. 832
Submitted:
09/16/97
MDP #004-94
Approved by BOS 09/14/94; Admin. Approved 04/10/95
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pending
Lenoir City Co. Lot 2; Stonewall
Indust. Pk. (SUB #007-97)
Gainesboro
Subdivision of a 2.6584 ac. lot (MI)
Location:
McGhee Rd. (Rt. 861); approx. 1,000' from Tyson Dr. intersection
Submitted:
07/28/97
MDP #006-93
Approved by BOS 07/14/93; Admin. Approved 07/28/93
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Pending
Dominion Knolls (SUB #005-97)
Stonewall
75 s.f, zero lot line lots on 20.278 ac.
Location:
So. west corner of Baker Ln. (Rt. 1200) & Ft. Collier Rd. (Rt. 1322)
Submitted:
05/16/97
MDP #001-97
Approved by BOS 04/09/97; Admin. Approved 06/30/97
Subd. Admin. Approved:
Section 1 (25 lots) approved 06/02/98
Bimonthly Report
Printed June 4, 1998
Lenoir City Co. of Virginia
(SUB #003-97)
Gainesboro
1 MI Lot (2.000 acres)
Location:
Stonewall Industrial Pk.; McGhee Rd. (Rt. 861), approx. 700' west
of the McGhee Rd. and Tyson Dr. intersection.
Submitted:
05/15/97
MDP #006-93:
Approved by BOS 07/14/93; Admin. Approved 07/28/93
Admin. Approved:
05/23/98
Winc-Fred Co. IDC (SUB)
Back Creek
2 Ml Lots (0.552 acres & 20.285 acres)
Location:
Southeast side of Development Lane
Submitted:
09/08/95
MDP #003-87:
A roved by BOS 07/08/87; Admin. Approved 06/08/88
Pending Admin. Approval
Awaiting signed plats. 771
RT&T Partnership (SUB)
Back Creek
1 Lot - 29.6 Acres (B2)
Location:
Valley Pike (Rt. 11 So.)
Submitted:
05/17/95
MDP #003-91
Approved by BOS 07/10/91; Admin. Approved 09/03/91
Pending Admin. Approval:
Awaiting submission of signed plat & deed of dedication
Abrams Point, Phase I (SUB)
Shawnee
230 SF Cluster & Urban Lots (RP)
Location:
South side of Rt. 659
Submitted:
05/02/90
PC Review:
06/06/90 - recommended approval
BOS Review:
06/13/90 - approved
Pending Admin. Approval:
Awaiting deed of dedication, letter of credit, and signed plat
Bimonthly Report
Printed June 4, 1998
Harry Stimpson (SUB)
.-Opeguon
Two B2 Lots
Location:
Town Run Lane
Submitted:
09/23/94
P^. Review:
lvi ,9/ 74 - recoirmiiendcd approval
BOS Review:
10/26/94 - approved
Pending Admin. Approval:
Awaiting signed plat.
SITE PLANS:
Pack's Ice Cream (SP #033-98)
Opeguon
Seasonal Ice Cream Trailer (Bl)
Location:
Aylor Road
Submitted:
05/07/98
Approved:
Pending
Bimonthly Report
Printed June 4, 1998
Kentucky Fried Chicken
(SP #032-98)
Gainesboro
3,100 s.f. restaurant; 41,468.5 s.f. lot
1 area disturbed (B2)
Location:
885 Fox Drive
Submitted:
04/30/98
Approved:
pending
McElroy Metal Inc. (SP #031-98)
Stonewall
21,080 s.f. addition to existing bldg.;
4.99 ac. parcel (Ml)
Location:
325 McGhee Road
Submitted:
04/28/98
Approved:
Pending
Frederick Plaza (SP #030-98)
Gainesboro
One-story bldg. w/ 7,000 sf retail &
2,000 sf drive-thr bank; 1.3 ac. (?B2)
Location:
263 Sunnyside Plaza Circle
Submitted:
04/21/98
Approved:
Pending
7/11 Conven. Store w/ Gas Sales -
Southland Corp. (SP #029-98)
Back Creek
2,808 sf conven. store w/ gas sales; 1.22
ac. to be developed (RA)
Location:
Intersection of Rt. 50 and Ward Avenue
Submitted:
04/24/98
Approved:
Pending
Shenandoah Valley Baptist
Church (SP #028-98)
Opequon
3,463 s.f. school addition; 0.65 ac.
1 disturbed of a 33.0541 ac. tract (RA)
Location:
4699 Valley Pike
I
Submitted:
04/20/98
Approved:
Pending
Bimonthly Report
Printed June 4, 1998
Schrock Bus Terminal
(SP #027-98)
Stonewall
16,200 s.f. bus terminal; 4 ac.
disturbed on a 9.8 ac. arcel; Ml
Location:
Imboden Drive; Lot 7A, Baker Lane Industrial Park
Submitted:
04/09/98
Approved:
Pending
Blue Ridge Grace Brethren
Church (SP #026-98)
Back Creek
Sanctuary Addition; 1.2 ac. developed
on a 10 ac. site (RA)
Location:
1025 Cedar Creek Grade
Submitted:
04/01/98
Approved:
Pending
Timber Ridge Residential Treat-
went Center (SP #024-98) 1
Gainesboro
13,440 s.f. 2 -story bldg.; 0.75 ac.
1 disturbed of a 126.244 ac. site (RA)
Location:
1463 New Hope Road
Submitted:
03/31/98
Approved:
LPending
M.M.&O. Partnership
(SP #023-98)
Stonewall
0.3648 ac. site to be developed for a
storage facility addition (M2)
Location:
812 North Kent Street
Submitted:
03/30/98
Approved:
Pending
D -K Erectors & Maintenance, Inc
(SP #022-98)
Gainesboro
10,524 metal fabric./equip, main. bldg;
75,000 sf disturb. on 10.00 ac. site(M2)
Location:
4530 Northwestern Pike
Submitted:
03/25/98
Approved:
Pending
Bimonthly Report
Printed June 4, 1998
Barrett Machine, Inc.
(SP #020-98)
Gainesboro
10,253s.f. mfg.; 1,875 s.f. office; 2.5ac.
1 of a 2.675 ac. site disturbed (MI)
Location:
Lakeview Circle, Lot 4, Stonewall Industrial Park
Submitted:
03/26/98
–Approved:
Pending
Woodbrook Village (SP #018-98)
Back Creek (RP)
81 multi-plex lots on 19.5938 ac. of a
34.40072 ac. site for retirement comm.
Location:
Opeuon Lane (at Kernstown)
Submitted:
03/09/98
A roved:
05/18/98
Costco Warehouse (Revised)
(SP #017-98 —11
Shawnee
Gas pump & canopy addition; 0.8 ac.
disturbed on 13.0 ac. site (B2)
Location:
251 Front Royal Pike
Submitted:
03/11/98
Approved:
05/22/98
Northwestern Workshop
(SP #012-98)
Stonewall
6,000 s.f. addit. to existing bldg. for
1 mfg. use on 6.072 ac. site (MI)
Location:
828 Smithfield Avenue
Submitted:
02/24/98
Approved:
pending
All Points Warehousing East
(SP #011-98)
Stonewall
Mini -storage on 3.035 ac. (MI)
Location:
209 Cole Lane
Submitted:
02/18/98
Approved:
Pending
Bimonthly Report
Printed June 4, 1998 10
Autumn Wind Apts. (SP #010-98)
Gainesboro
Garden apartments on 7.3 ac. of a
19.06 ac. tract (RP/P2)
Location:
Rt. 522N., 0.8+ mi. southeast of Rt. 37, behind Adelphia Cable Co.
Submitted:
02/02/98
Approved:
Pending
White Properties at Eastgate
Commerce Cntr. (SP #007-98)
Shawnee
Warehousing (self -storage) on 5 acres
(B3)
Location:
Corner of proposed Rainville Rd. & Tasker Dr. (Rt. 642)
Submitted:
02/02/98
Approved:
Pending
Westminster -Canterbury
(SP 006-98)
Gainesboro
48 -unit assisted living facility; 1.6 ac.
disturbed on a 49.35 ac. parcel (RP)
Location:
300 Westminster Drive
Submitted:
01/29/98
Approved:
05/27/98
Southeast Container (SP #001-98)
Stonewall District
Parking Lot; 0.2 ac. Disturbed on a
89.6 ac. Site (Ml)
Location:
Ft. Collier Industrial Park
Submitted:
01/06/98
Approved:
Pending
Bimonthly Report
Printed June 4, 1998 11
Dr. Fairman Veterinary Office
(SP #029-97)
Stonewall
4,272 sq ft Veterinary Office on 1.4962
1 ac. parcel (B2)
Location:
1092 Ho well Road
Submitted:
07/25/97
Approved:
Pending
Mobil-Wendys Rt. 5®W Conven.
Center (SP #026-97)
Back Creek
Gas-Conven. Cntr.; 3,783 sq ft floor
1 area; 1.072 ac. site disturbed (RA)
Location:
Rt. 50 West
Submitted:
07/23/97
Approved:
Pending
Agape Christian Fellowship
Church Sanctuary (SP #005-97)
Shawnee
Church Expansion; 2.5 ac. to be
1 developed of a 29.5115 ac. site (RA)
Location:
East side of Rt. 642; approx. 2,500' so. of the Rt. 37/I-81 Interch .
Submitted:
02/12/97
Approved:
Pending
Shenandoah Bldg. Supply
(SP #056-96)
Gainesboro
Warehouse on 5 acres (Ml)
Location:
195 Lenoir Drive (Stonewall Industrial Park)
Submitted:
12/ 16/96
Approved:
Pending
Stimpson/Rt. 277 Oil & Lube
Service (SP #030-96)
Opequon
Oil & Lube Serv., Car Wash, Drive -
1 Thru on 2.97 ac. (B2)
Location:
152 Fairfax Pk. (behind Red Apple Country Store)
Submitted:
07/03/96
Approved:
Pending
Bimonthly Report
Printed June 4, 1998 12
AMOCO/House of Gifts (SP
Gainesboro
-
as Pump Canopy 880 sq. ft. area of a#022-96) L0(
.916 acre arcel (RA)
Location:
3548 North Frederick Pike
I
Submitted:
05/08/96
Approved:
Pending
American Legion Post #021
(SP #018-96)
Stonewall
Addition to lodge building on 3.4255
acre site (B2)
Location:
1730 Berryville Pike
Submitted:
04/10/96
Approved:
Pending
Wheatlands Wastewater Facility
(SP #047-89)
Opequon
Treatment Facility on 5 Acres q
Location:
So. West of Double Tollgate; adj. & west of Rt. 522
Submitted:
09/12/89
Note:
Being held at applicant's request.
Flex Tech (SP #057-90)
Stonewall
Ml Use on 11 Ac. (Ml)
Location:
East side of Ft. Collier Rd.
Submitted:
10/25/90
Note:
Being held at applicant's request.
Bimonthly Report
Printed June 4, 1998 13
CONDMONAL USE PERMITS:
Roy R. Beatty (CUP 002-98)
Back Creek
Autobod work w/o repair (RA)
Location:
621 Mines Mill Road, Middletown
Submitted:
05/08/08
PC Review:
06/03/98 - recommended approval w/ conditions
BOS Review:
07/08/98
VARIANCES:
Location: Light Road (Rt. 685), 1/4 mile from Rt. 600
Submitted: 05/22/98
BZA Review: Withdrawn on 06/03/98
Bimonthly Report
Printed June 4, 1998 14
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission Members
FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, Zoning Administrator6�
SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Proposed Amendments to the Commercial Telecommunication
Facility portion of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance
DATE: June 5, 1998
The Board of Supervisors, at their April 8, 1998 meeting, directed staff to research and consider amendments
to the Commercial Telecommunication Facility portion of the Zoning Ordinance. In particular, the Board
was interested in more clearly defining methods guaranteeing a tower's removal, and confirmation that a
CUP applicant has made attempts to co -locate on existing towers.
Staff presented a number- of proposed amendments to the Development Review and Regulations
Subcommittee (DRRS) at their April 23, 1998 meeting. The four elements that the DRRS was supportive
of include:
1. Permitting commercial telecommunication facilities to locate on existing facilities (towers,
buildings, etc) without requiring a CUP.
2. Requiring an applicant to provide confirmation that an attempt has been made to co -locate
on existing facilities.
3. Requiring a landowner to sign an affidavit acknowledging that removal of a commercial
telecommunication facility may be the responsibility of the landowner.
4. Requiring the removal of a commercial telecommunication facility once the tower has been
abandoned for more than 12 months.
After discussions, the DRRS endorsed these proposed amendments to the current Commercial
Telecommunication Facility requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Attached is the existing Zoning Ordinance, the proposed additions, and an extraction. The proposed
amendments have been modeled after a sample ordinance distributed by VACO and utilized in Loudoun
County.
A recommendation to forward to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. Staff will be available to
address your concerns.
ERLIcc
Attachment
U:IER[C\COMMONIDRRSITO WERS%TOW ERAMD.PC
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Editorial key: Text presently in the Zoning Ordinance
Proposed Text Additions
Proposed Text Eliminations
§165-48.6 Commercial Telecommunication Facilities. [Added 4-9-1997]
The intent of this section is to ensure that the siting of commercial telecommunication facilities
occurs through the conditional use permit public hearing process defined in Article Ell of this chapter.
Commercial telecommunication facilities that locate on existing structures and towers shall be
exempt from the Conditional Use Permit requirement The siting of commercial telecommunication
facilities is permitted within the zoning districts specified in this chapter, provided that residential
properties, land use patterns, scenic areas and properties of significant historic value are not
negatively impacted.
A. Information required as part of the conditional use permit application shall include,
but not be limited to, the following:
(1) A map depicting the search area used in siting each proposed commercial
communications facility.
(2) Identification of all service providers and commercial telecommunication
facility infrastructure within a proposed search area. The applicant shall
provide confirmation that an attempt to co -locate on an existing
telecommunication facility has been mad&
(3) Information demonstrating that the commercial telecommunication facility is
in compliance with the Federal Communication Commissions established
ANSI/IEEE standards for electromagnetic field levels and radio frequency
radiation.
(4) Infox mation delineating V, Wed aires for guairan teeing the removal -of -the
commercial telecommunication facility within one jual
abandonment of opex .
(4) An affidavit signed by the landowner stating that helshe is aware that
he/she may be held responsible for the removal of the commercial
telecommunications facility as stated in §165-486(B.7).
B. " The following standards shall apply to any property in which a commercial
telecommunication facility is sited, in order to promote orderly economic development
and mitigate the negative impacts to adjoining properties:
(1) The Planning Commission may reduce the required setback distance for
commercial telecommunication facilities as required by § 165-24B(6) of this
chapter if it can be demonstrated that the location is of equal or lesser impact.
Commercial telecommunication facilities affixed to existing structures shall be
exempt from setback requirements, provided that they are located no closer
to the adjoining property line than the existing structure.
(2) Monopole -type construction shall be required for new commercial
telecommunication towers. The Planning Commission may allow lattice -type
construction for new telecommunication towers that are located outside the
Urban Development Area and are not adjacent to properties that are identified
historic sites.
(3) Advertising shall be prohibited on commercial telecommunication facilities
except for signage providing ownership identification and emergency
information. No more than two signs shall be permitted. Such signs shall be
limited to 1.5 square feet in area and shall be posted no higher than 10 feet
above grade.
(4) When lighting is required on commercial telecommunication facility towers,
dual lighting shall be utilized which provides daytime white strobe lighting and
nighttime red pulsating lighting unless otherwise mandated by the Federal
Aviation Administration or the Federal Communications Commission. Strobe
lighting shall be shielded from ground view to mitigate illumination to
neighboring properties. Equipment buildings and other accessory structures
operated in conjunction with commercial telecommunication facility towers
shall utilize infrared lighting and motion -detector lighting to prevent
continuous illumination.
(5) Commercial telecommunication facilities shall be constructed with materials
of a galvanized finish or painted a noncontrasting blue or gray unless
otherwise mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration or the Federal
Communication Commission.
(6) Commercial telecommunication facilities shall be adequately enclosed to
prevent access by persons other than employees of the service provider.
Appropriate landscaping and opaque screening shall be provided to ensure
that equipment buildings and other accessory structures are not visible from
adjoining properties, roads or other rights-of-way.
(;9 Any antenna or tower that is not operated for a continuous period of twelve
(12) months shall be considered abandoned, and the owner of such tower
shall remove same within ninety (90) days of receipt of notice from the
Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Removal
includes the removal of the tower, all tower and fence footers,
underground cables and support buildings. If there are two (Z) or more
users of a single tower, then this provision shall not become effective until
ail users cease using the tower. If the tower is not removed within the 90 -
day period, the County will remove the facility and a lien may be placed to
recover expenses
Proposal
§165-48.6 Commercial Telecommunication Facilities. [Added 4-9-1997]
The intent of this section is to ensure that the siting of commercial telecommunication facilities
occurs through the conditional use permit public hearing process defined in Article III of this chapter.
Commercial telecommunication facilities that locate on existing structures and towers shall be exempt
from the Conditional Use Permit requirement. The siting of commercial telecommunication facilities
is permitted within the zoning districts specified in this chapter, provided that residential properties,
land use patterns, scenic areas and properties of significant historic value are not negatively impacted.
A. Information required as part of the conditional use permit application shall include,
but not be limited to, the following:
(1) A map depicting the search area used in siting each proposed commercial
communications facility.
(2) Identification of all service providers and commercial telecommunication
facility infrastructure within a proposed search area. The applicant shall
provide confirmation that an attempt to co -locate on an existing
telecommunication facility has been made.
(3) Information demonstrating that the commercial telecommunication facility is
in -,compliance with the Federal Communication Commissions established
ANSI/IEEE standards for electromagnetic field levels and radio frequency
radiation.
(4) An affidavit signed by the landowner stating that he/she is aware that he/she
may be held responsible for the removal of the commercial
telecommunications facility as stated in §165-48.6(B.7).
B. The following standards shall apply to any property in which a commercial
telecommunication facility is sited, in order to promote orderly economic development
and mitigate the negative impacts to adjoining properties:
(1) The Planning Commission may reduce the required setback distance for
commercial telecommunication facilities as required by §165-24B(6) of this
chapter if it can be demonstrated that the location is of equal or lesser impact.
Commercial telecommunication facilities abed to existing structures shall be
exempt from setback requirements, provided that they are located no closer
to the adjoining property line than the existing structure.
(2) Monopole -type construction shall be required for new commercial
telecommunication towers. The Planning Commission may allow lattice -type
construction for new telecommunication towers that are located outside the
Urban Development Area and are not adjacent to properties that are identified
historic sites.
(3) Advertising shall be prohibited on commercial telecommunication facilities
except for signage providing ownership identification and emergency
information. No more than two signs shall be permitted. Such signs shall be
limited to 1.5 square feet in area and shall be posted no higher than 10 feet
above grade.
(4) When lighting is required on commercial telecommunication facility towers,
dual lighting shall be utilized which provides daytime white strobe lighting and
nighttime red pulsating lighting unless otherwise mandated by the Federal
Aviation Administration or the Federal Communications Commission. Strobe
lighting shall be shielded from ground view to mitigate illumination to
neighboring properties. Equipment buildings and other accessory structures
operated in conjunction with commercial telecommunication facility towers
shall utilize infrared lighting and motion -detector lighting to prevent
continuous illumination.
(5) Commercial telecommunication facilities shall be constructed with materials
of a galvanized finish or painted a noncontrasting blue or gray unless
otherwise mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration or the Federal
Communication Commission.
(6) Commercial telecommunication facilities shall be adequately enclosed to
prevent access by persons other than employees of the service provider.
Appropriate landscaping and opaque screening shall be provided to ensure
that equipment buildings and other accessory structures are not visible from
adjoining properties, roads or other rights-of-way.
(7) Any antenna or tower that is not operated for a continuous period of twelve
(12) months shall be considered abandoned, and the owner of such tower shall
remove same within ninety (90) days of receipt of notice from the Frederick
County Department of Planning and Development. Removal includes the
removal of the tower, all tower and fence footers, underground cables and
support buildings. If there are two (2) or more users of a single tower, then
this provision shall not become effective until all users cease using the tower.
If the tower is not removed within the 90- day period and alien may be placed
to recover expenses.
uAE1 MCOMMCN%DRRSITOWEMTOWERS.WPD
_ COUNTY of FREDERICK
Deoartment of Planning and Development
/�
540/665-5651
MEMORANDUM FAX: 540/678-0682
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
Planning Commission
Eric R Lawrence, Zoning Administrator 1�
Public Hearing: Amendment to Restaurant Performance Standards
June 4, 1998
Staff has identified a Zoning Ordinance performance standard that appears to be too restrictive. This
standard applies to restaurants located in the B 1 (Neighborhood Business District) Zoning District.
The current requirement allows Restaurants, aka "Eating Places", (SIC 5812) in the B 1 Zoning
District, but only within shopping centers with four or more uses [Chapter 165, Section 48.1 (B)].
The B 1 Zoning District is intended to provide small business areas to serve the surrounding
neighborhoods. The permitted uses should be small in size and should not produce substantial vehicle
traffic in excess of what is usual in residential neighborhoods. The ideal B 1 Zoning District would
be located in close proximity to residential neighborhoods, encouraging pedestrian and bicycle traffic.
Staff feels that some restaurants may be appropriate for the B 1 Zoning District, but not necessarily
within shopping centers as currently required. These types of uses are classified as SIC 5812, but
tend to be much smaller in size than the typical restaurant. These uses could include: box lunch
stands, frozen custard stands, hamburger stands, ice cream stands, refreshment stands, sandwich
stands, etc. Such uses typically occupy less than 200 square feet of a building's gross floor area.
The proposed amendment would exempt restaurants occupying structures of less than 200 square feet
from locating within shopping centers. This would enable the small stand -type restaurants to locate
on smaller B 1 zoned properties, and not necessarily within shopping centers.
The Development Regulations and Review Subcommittee (DRRS) reviewed this proposal during
their May 28, 1998 meeting. The DRRS felt that the proposal was appropriate and endorsed the
same.
The proposed amendment is attached. Staff will be available to address your concerns.
Attachment
ERL/cc
U.\ERIC\COMMON\DRRS\5812\MEM0 PH.PC
107 North Kent Street a Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
--Existing--
§ 165-48.1 Restaurants. [Added 12-9-19921
Restaurants located in the B 1 Neighborhood Business Zoning District shall meet the
following requirements:
A. Restaurants are not permitted to have drive-through window service.
B. Restaurants are only permitted to be located within a shopping center containing at
least three other business units.
C. Restaurants are not permitted to exceed 35% of the total floor area within a
shopping center.
--Proposal with changes--
§ 165-48.1 Restaurants Ming Plc [Added 12-9-19921
Eating Places located in the B 1 Neighborhood Business Zoning District
shall meet the following requirements:
A. Restaurants*ff. ` not be permitted to have drive-through window service.
B. Restaurm $,ho ' only be permitted to be located within a shopping center
containing at least three other business units, with the exception of such eating
place uses occilpy g structures of less than 204 square feet,.
C. Restaurants Shall are not be permitted to exceed 35% of the total floor area within
a shopping center.
--Proposal--
§ 165-48.1 Eating Places [Added 12-9-19921
Eating Places located in the B 1 Neighborhood Business Zoning District shall meet the
following requirements:
A. Shall not be permitted to have drive-through window service.
B. Shall only be permitted to be located within a shopping center containing at least
three other business units, with the exception of such eating place uses occupying
structures of less than 200 square feet.
C. Shall not be permitted to exceed 35% of the total floor area within a shopping
center.
U:\ERIC\COMMON\DRRS\5812\DRAFT.WPD
323
Major Group 58.—EATING AND DRINKING PLACES
The Major Group as a Whole
This major group includes retril establishments selling prepared foods and drinks for
consumption on the premises; and also lunch counters and refreshment stands selling pre-
pared foods and drinks for immediate consumption. Restaurants, lunch counters, and drink-
ing places operated as a subordinate service facility by other establishments are not included
in this industry, unless they are operated as leased departments by outside operators. Thus,
restaurants and lunch counters operated by hotels are classified in Services, Major Group 70;
those operated by department stores in Major Group 53. Bars and restaurants owned by and
operated for members of civic, social, and fraternal associations only are classified in Indus-
try 8641. Mobile food and dairy wagons are classified in Industry 5963.
IndustrT
Group Industry
No. No.
581
EATING AND DRINKING PLACES
0812
Eating Places
Establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale of prepared food and
drinks for on -premise or immediate consumption.
Caterers and industrial and
institutional food service establishments are also
included in this industry.
Autnmsa (eating plain)
Hamburger stands
Benzenes
Hot dog (frankfurter) stands
Bos lunch stands
Ice seam stands
,.
Butreta (eating places)
Industrial feeding
Cafes
Lunch ban
Cafeteria
Lunch counters
Carryout restaurants
Lunch.onaae
Cateran -
Lunchrooms
Coffee shops
Oyster ban
Commissary restaurants
Pias parlor
Concession stands, prepared food (e.g.,
P=eru
in airports and sports arena)
Refreshment stands
Contract feeding
Restaurants
Dairy bars
Rrsuurants, carryout
Diners luting places)
Restaurants, fast food
Dining roams
Sandwich ban or shops
Dinner theater@
Snack shops
Drivcin mzsmauranta
Soda fountains
Fast food restaurants
Soft drink stands
Food ban
Submarine sandwich shops
Food service, institutions]
Tea rooms
Frouen ar
custd sands
Th—terra, dinner
Grills (eating places)
5813
Drinking Places (Alcoholic Beverages)
Establishments primarily engaged in the retail
sale of alcoholic drinks, such
as beer, ale, wine, and liquor, for consumption on the premises. The sale of
food frequently accounts for a substantial portion of the receipts of these es-
tablishments.
Bars (alcoholic beverage drinking
Cocktail lounges
pies) j
Discotheques. alcoholic beverage
Beer gardens tdrinking place)
Drinking places, alcoholic beverages
Beer parlors tap roots)
Night dubs
Beer taverna
Swoons )drinking place)
Beer, wine, and liquors: sale for are
Tap rooms tdnaking plats)
premise consumption
Taverns (drinking places)
Battle clubs )drinking places)
Wine bars
C.bamts
P/C REVIEW: 6-17-98
BOS REVIEW: 7-8-98
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN #004-98
TASKER ROAD LAND BAYS 1-9
LOCATION: The properties are located on the south side of Tasker Road (Route 642), the
west side of White Oak Road (Route 636), and the north side of Macedonia
Church Road (Old Route 642).
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee and Opequon Magisterial Districts
PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 75 -A -104,75 -A -105,75-A-117 and 76-A-31.
PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
Zoned: RP, Residential Performance District (455.24 acres) Use: Vacant
B2, Business General District (35.67 acres) Use: Vacant
ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE:
North: RP District; RA, Rural Areas District Residential; Vacant
South: RP District; RA, District Sherando Park; Vacant
East: RA, District Residential; Vacant
West: RP District Residential
PROPOSED USE: Single-family detached traditional; Single-family detached urban; single-
family detached cluster; Duplex; Multiplex; and Commercial
REVIEW EVALUATIONS:
Ykz1nb1&PL of : See attached letters from Barry Sweitzer dated April
20, 1998 and May 26, 1998.
Sanitation : First review: Correct and resubmit; three items.
Tasker Road Land Bays 1-9, MDP #004-98
Page 2
June 4, 1998
insnwfions Dent.: No comment required at this time; shall comment at the time of
subdivision submittal.
County Engjneer: See attached letter from Joe Wilder dated April 9, 1998.
Fire Marshal: No comments.
Parks & Recreation: Plan does not appear to include property line adjustment along
.Frederick County park land. This adjustment was in consideration for the land needed to
construct Warrior Road. Bike trail needs to be a hard surface facility meeting appropriate
VDOT standards and include necessary signage. Recreational units should be included in
duplex and multiplex housing areas.
Planning and Zonin :
Parcel 75-A-104 is depicted on the original zoning maps as R-3, Residential General
District. This zoning of this parcel was changed to RP, Residential Performance District
on September 28, 1983 when the RP District replaced the R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-6
Districts.
The Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning Application #001-88 for ADD Partnership
on May 10, 1989. This action rezoned parcel 75-A-105 from A-2, Agricultural General
District to RP, Residential Performance District. A portion of this parcel was subdivided
as a result of the relocation of Route 642 (Tasker Road). The land that was severed as a
result of this road improvement project is currently being developed as sections of Mosby
Station.
The Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning Application #006-89 for Jasbo, Inc., on May
10, 1989. This action rezoned parcel 75-A-117 from A-2, Agricultural General District
to RP, Residential Performance District. No land division or development activity has
occurred on this parcel to date.
The Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning Application #005-89 for Bowman Trucking
Company, Inc., on May 10, 1989. This action rezoned parcel 76-A-31 from A-2,
Agricultural General District to RP, Residential Performance District. No land division
or development activity has occurred on this parcel to date.
Tasker Road Land Bays 1-9, MDP #004-98
Page 3
June 4, 1998
The Board of Supervisors approved Rezoning Application #002-98 for Frederick
Development Company, Inc., and Jasbo, Inc., on April 8, 1998. This action rezoned
35.67 acres of the total 329.83 acres comprising parcels 75-A-104, 105, and 117 from RP,
Residential Performance District to B2, Business General District. No land division or
development activity has occurred within the commercial acreage to date; however, it
should be noted that the Board of Supervisors has recommended that the 4.68 acre portion
of the commercial property located at the northwestern quadrant of Tasker Road and
Warrior Road be the site of the new library facility.
The master development plan calls for the development of 921 single-family detached
residential lots, 70 duplex units, and 141 multiplex units within eight land bay areas. This
creates an overall, gross density of 2.48 units per acre for the 455.24 acres of residential
area on this plan, which is below the permitted density of 4 units per acre. A small area
within Land Bay 1 is proposed to be developed for an assisted care facility. It should be
noted that this future use will create a slight increase in the overall gross density. Staff
will ensure that the 4 unit per acre requirement is met, as the assisted care facility will
require conditional use permit approval.
Residential lot size will vary throughout the eight residential land bay areas which will
include lots that are 12,000 square feet or less. This lot size will require the developer to
provide curb and gutter and sidewalks along both sides of all streets, as well as streetlights
at all intersections. The applicant has set aside 17.8 % or 81 acres for common open space
which exceeds the minimum requirement of 15% or 68.28 acres. Land bays containing
lot sizes of 5,000 square feet or less will require active open space areas with recreational
amenities. A bicycle and pedestrian facility is indicated throughout this project which
provides linkages from the residential land bays to the commercial land bay.
Commercial development is proposed to occur within 35.67 acres in Land Bay 3. The
commercial development is located at the intersection of Tasker Road and Warrior Road
which are defined as major collector roads. No commercial uses are proposed as a part
of the master development plan, and staff has not received site development plans or
subdivision plats for any acreage within Land Bay 3 at this time.
Tasker Road Land Bays 1-9, MDP #004-98
Page 4
June 4, 1998
1) Phasing
A detailed phasing plan needs to be provided for the eight residential land bay areas.
Phase lines need to be provided, as well as a table which provides information regarding
the number of dwelling units by phase, as well as the acreage in common open space,
housing type, and road right-of-way by phase.
2) New Major Collector Roads
The master development plan includes areas that will be developed along Warrior Road
and along the extension of White Oak Road (Route 636). These roads are defined as
major collector roads which require a minimum right-of-way width of 80 feet. The project
engineer and staff met with representatives of VDOT on June 4, 1998 to discuss right-of-
way requirements associated with the Warrior Drive project. It was determined that a
minimum right-of-way width of 92 feet would be required within the residential area along
Warrior Road, while a minimum right-of-way width of 125 feet would be required along
the commercial area. These right -of --way widths, including the 80 foot right-of-way width
required for the extension of White Oak Road will need to be incorporated on the final
master development plan for future dedication.
3) Existing Major Collector Roads
The master development plan includes areas that will be developed along Tasker Road
(Route 642) and White Oak Road (Route 636). These roads are also defined as major
collector roads which require a minimum right-of-way width of 80 feet. Sufficient right-
of-way is in place for the future widening of Tasker Road; however, additional right-of-
way is needed to widen White Oak Road. White Oak Road is depicted on the Frederick
County Eastern Road Plan and in the Winchester Area Transportation Study (WATS) as
requiring improvements on existing alignment to correct geometric deficiencies. An
appropriate amount of right-of-way required to complete this future improvement will need
to be provided on the final master development plan for future dedication.
4) Road Efficiency Buffers
Road efficiency buffers are required along all arterial roads and major collector roads.
The applicant will need to provide road efficiency buffers along all residential areas which
abut Tasker Road, Warrior Road, White Oak Road, White Oak Road extended, and Front
Royal Pike (Route 522). All road efficiency buffer areas will need to be delineated as full
or reduced buffers. The final master development plan will need to depict distances for
the buffer areas and provide typical diagrams which demonstrate how these buffer areas
Tasker Road Land Bays 1-9, MDP #004-98
Page 5
June 41, 1998
will be developed. Sufficient residential lot area should be provided for the development
of primary and accessory structures if the road efficiency buffer is proposed to be
incorporated into building lots.
5) Zoning District Buffers and Residential Separation Buffers
Zoning district buffers are required to separate the residential land uses from the
commercial land uses on this plan. The applicant has provided an "A Category Buffer" for
the residential land uses, but has failed to provide a "B Category Buffer" for the
commercial land uses. Staff would recommend that the applicant utilize the coz tumor•
shared buffer and screening easement provisionas defined in section 165-37(8) of the
Zoning Ordinance. This type of buffer would adequately separate and protect the two land
uses while allowing for greater use of the land as a result of reduced buffer distances.
W' d i s-fane bui{er to/,a Ql scfee n �
The master development plan calls for the provision of a. jesidential separation buffer
between the duplex and multiplex developments and the Frederick Woods and Albin tl� om
Village subdivisions. The final master development plan will need to depict the distance
for this buffer, as well as provide typical diagrams which demonstrate how the buffer area
will be developed.
6) Land Bay 3
-'� Land Bay 3 includes the commercial areas of this property. The master development plan
depicts a 2.52 acre area as commercial, although this area was withdrawn from Rezoning
Application #002-98. The zoning of this 2.52 acre area needs to be changed to RP District
and a proposed use needs to be provided if this area is to remain as a part of the master
development plan.
�Q( 7) Recreational Amenities
The Director of Parks and Recreation comments reflect the need to include recreational
9 units within Land Bay 1 and Land Bay 2 for the duplex and multiplex housing. The final
master development plan needs to provide locations for these areas and descriptions of the
recreational amenities that are proposed to be provided.
8) Stormwater Management
The County Engineer comments reflect the need to delineate th location of all �stormwater
management fac>liff(ds. The final master development plan needs to provide these locations,
we as in ormahon regarding the development of individual or regional facilities.
Tasker Road Land Bays 1-9, MDP #004-98
Page 6
June 4, 1998
Staff recommends approval of the proposed master development plan provided that approvals are
received for all review agency comments, and all comments of staff, the Planning Commission,
and the Board of Supervisors are adequately addressed on the final plan.
0=WGENDAS1cOMMENTS\TA.SKFRRD.MDP
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DAVID R. GEHR EDINBURG RESIDENCY
COMMISSIONER 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE
P_O. BOX 278
EDINBURG, VA 22824-0278
Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin
CJ/0 G. W. Clifford & Associates,. Inc.
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Dear Steve:
April 20,1998
JERRY A. COPP
RESIDENT ENGINEER
TELE(640)9&,v
FAX (540) 984.5607
Ref: Master Development Plan
Lard Bays 1-9 (Land Along Tasker Road)
Routes 642 (Tasker Road) & 522
Frederick County
We have reviewed the master development plan dated 02/16/98 (received 04/06/98)
for the referenced Land Bays.
J
We have no objection yto the preliminary master plan. However, before making any
final comments, this office will require a complete set of site plans, drainage calculations
and traffic flow data from the I.T.E.__in Generation Manual, Sixth Edition for review.
Prior to construction on the State rights-of-way, the developer will need to apply to this
office for issuance of the appropriate permits to cover said work. Furthermore, our
comments are as follows and as shown in red on the enclosed plan sheets:
Cover Sheet
1. The data contained on the standard typical sections pertaining to category and
attendant ADT volumes should be reviewed by our Location & Design Section to
determine design parameters.
2. The subbase aggregate should be extended V beyond the back of the curb rather
than the 6" as shown.
(;1 -haat 7 of 7
3. Land Bay 1 is Autumn Glen and Land Bays 8 & 9 are Canter Estate. These>prapasals
have been reviewed by VDOT under separate cover. A copy of our caii menf" fetters,
dated 03/ 03/ 98 and 0"-,/ 04/ 98 are enclosed.
: �'�z
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Mr. Steve Gyurisin
Ref: Land Bays 1-9 (Land Along Tasker Road)
April 20,1998
Page #2
4. The Warrior Drive/Tasker Road (new Route 642) intersection has been reviewed
and a copy of our recommendation letter dated 01/30/98 is enclosed.
5. (Cross Keys Circle) Circle traffic control should not be considered. An alternate
control method should be studied and presented.
6. Based on preliminary information concerning vehicle mix and volumes of traffic
anticipated on Warrior Drive, serious consideration should be given to not pursing a
bike trail along/within tlds proposed facility.
Sheet 7 of 7
7. The existing Eastgate Commerce Center Traffic Impact Analysis dated July, 1997
should be interfaced with any analysis prepared under this master development
plan to assess total impact on VDOT facilities. See attached copy of letter dated
02/02/98-
Numerous
2/02/98.
Numerous discrepancies appear throughout the plan sheets regarding road names.. An
effort should be made to correctly name the respective facilities to eliminate possible
confusion.
The entire master development plan is being forwarded to our District Office for further
review. Any additional comments they may have will be sent to your office as soon as
they become available.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely, (,
Barry J. Sweitzer
Trans. Roadway Engineer
For: Steven A. Melnikoff
Transportation Engineer
BJS/ rf
Enclosures
xc: Mr. T. L. Jackson
Mr. J. B. Diamond
F _ C._F &S -Sp ecialis t—__T__
1Vfr Kris: Tserney .-
COMMONWEALTH of VIRG
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DAVID R. GEHR EDINBU G RESIDENCY
COMMISSIONER 14031 OLD VALLEY PIKE
P.O. BOX 278
EDINBURG, VA 22824-0278
Mr. Ronald A. Mislowsky, P.E., V.P.
G. W. Clifford & Associates
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Dear Ron:
May 26, 1998
,A,1
CID
JERRY
/ICOPP
(540)9845607
Ref. Tasker Road Master Development Plan
Land Bays 1-9 (Traffic Study)
Route 642 (Tasker Road), Route 522/277
Frederick County
We have reviewed the traffic study dated April 29, 1998 for the referenced project. VDOT
comments are as follows and are referenced to the comment location in the study:
Page 3
1. Under "Generated . Trip Assignment" the volume split of 60% to Route 277; 40% to
Route 642: We question this assumption and request an interpretation of the basis for the
assumption and the split ratio.
Table #1
2. The street on the north side of the intersection of VA Route 647 and Tasker Road is labeled
incorrectly. It should be VA Route 1031 and the south side of the intersection should be VA
Route 647.
Tables 6.7 & 8
3. The drawing for VA Route 647 and Tasker Road in each of Tables 6, 7 & 8 should show
Route 1031 with anticipated volumes.
Page 8
4. The following statement should be modified: "The Tasker Road and Route 522 intersection
required changes only to the signal timing". VDOT believes "Assuming planned
improvements for Eastgate are in place" should be added to this statement.
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Mr. Ron Mislowsky
Ref Tasker Road Master Development Plan (Traffic Study)
May 26, 1998
Page #2
5. The fourth paragraph on Page 8 states "The WATS predicts that VA Route 647 can handle
11,000 trips per day with minor improvements." It appears fairs to speculate this volume of
traffic would reauire maior improvements to the existing roadway_ to avoid unacceptable
delays at the many points of ingress/egress along this facility.
6. The word "parked" should be removed from the second sentence of Paragraph 5 on Page 8.
It is suggested the entire paragraph be rewritten to specify exactly what is required to handle
traffic at minor intersections at Tasker and through commercial centers. Proper identification
of the roadway needs to accommodate the volumes generated should be addressed.
7. Figure 1 shows the proposed typical section for Warrior Drive and indicates two lanes are to
be built on an 80' right-of-way in Phase I. Consideration should be given to building three
lanes on one side of the center line graded down on a single plane from center line with curb
& gutter and appropriate drainage structures on the low side so future construction could be
limited to one side of the roadway. This would lessen traffic disruption during ultimate
construction. Also, the proposed right-of-way should be shown as 80' and variable due to the
additional laneage requirements for the commercial development in some land bay areas.
8. Please identify the proposed 4' wide areas on each side of the roadway. VDOT- has
expressed the undesirable conditions along the Warrior Drive corridor for implementation of
any bike trails. We suggest any consideration of a bike trail along this facility be dropped
from further development.
9. The various traffic impact studies for planned development in this geographical area have not
addressed the need to upgrade Route 642 to handle the anticipated traffic generated by all the
proposed development. By copy of this correspondence to Frederick County, VDOT wants
to express this concern that the County may plan accordingly. In all probability a five lane
facility (with right turn lanes) where necessary will eventually be needed.
10. On the cover sheet (I of 6) of the Master Development Plan Tasker Road on Table S-3 and in
this Traffic Study, an analysis should be displayed concerning which roadway will carry what
volume of traffic and which category will cover the roadway.
Should you have any questions or if additional information is needed, please call.
Sincerely,
Barry J. Sweitzer, /Trans. Roadway Engineer
For: Steven A. Melnikoff, Transportation Engineer
BJS/rf
xc: F.C. P&S Specialist
-Mr., Kris Tierney:
Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin
Gilbert W. Clifford & Associates, Inc.
200 North Cameron Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Master Development Plan - Land Bays 1-9
Properties Along Tasker Road
Frederick, Virginia
Dear Steve:
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Public Works
540/665-5643
FAX: 540/678-0682
April 9, 1998
{ am`'
spa y;� 71,
`3 Z ?t
Based on our review of the subject master development plan dated February 16, 1998, we
offer the following comments:
1. Designate all areas that will be used for stormwater management facilities on the
plan. We recommend that regional stormwater management facilities be
incorporated within the master planned area -if possible. All stormwater facilities,
structures, conveyance pipes and channels shall be placed in dedicated drainage
easements.
2. All outlet structures shall drain off-site into dedicated drainage easements and
"adequate channel" calculations shall be submitted at the time of subdivision plan
submittal.
3. There are several existing ponds throughout the master planned area. These areas
could be designated as wetlands areas. We recommend that a wetlands study be
performed where applicable to ensure that no wetlands areas will be disturbed by
the future development.
4. All disturbance of woodlands shall be carefully monitored to ensure that excessive
woodlands disturbance does not occur at the time of the initial clearing and
grading operations.
5. We will perform a detailed review of the subdivision at the time of plan submittal.
6. It is noted that a portion of land bay 3 was not rezoned to B-2.
107 North Kent Street - Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Land Bays 1-9
Page 2
April 9, 1998
Once these comments have been addressed, submit two (2) copies of the master plan for
further review. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
le
JC.oe Wilder
Engineering Technician
JCW/kch
cc. Eric Lawrence, Frederick County Zoning Administrator
file
Frederick Countv, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package
fm
2.
APPLICATION
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Department of Planning and Development Use Only.
Date application received
Complete. Date of acceptance.
Incomplete. Date of return.
5'9'9 Application #
Project Title fi a)PD
Owner's Name: 1tt . tI-JG
3. Applicant
Address:
Phone Number:
4. Design Company:
Address:
Phone Number:
Contact Name:
(Please list the names of all owners or parties in interest)
. L t►�
Sid --6,00e7-2-0-1
C;
Page I 1
Frederick County, Virginia Master Development Plan Application Package
APPLICATION cont'd
MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
5. Location of Property:
6. Total Acreage: Lf(-?(.) 7
7. Property Information: J;7
a) Property Identification Number (PIN): C�>> 0 1C)
b) Current Zoning: P 4 (3Z
c) Present Use:
d) Proposed Uses: 00M -A
e) Adjoining Property Information=(,f�:
��
Property Identification Numbers Property Uses
North
South
East
West
f) Magisterial District: Ivo'"
8. Is this an original or amended Master Development Plan?
Original Amended
I have read the material included in this package and understand what is required by the
Frederick County Department of Planning and Development. I also understand that the master
development plan shall include all contiguous land under single or common ownership. All
required material will be complete prior to the submission of my master development plan
application.
(A�� Jr yn�
Signature: V'n
Date: Z�
Page 12 '`-',
75 ` ,��� /02 Dgv;J E. qr,J karen S. Wl,;' acrd
1314 4. Mac a Jvn;a Cbv rc% Road
spd,=iens C; iy, Va. Zz&.Ss
1040 Aso yhs rnvcsl�.*scrs7'S
Z 33 Z M; J d is il?eaJ
�11Itf1�h�STGr, `a. 2z4ol
/08 circver .E. 6ur4ckcr
34G vA; �c Ooh: /4'awj
W�; c dos % Va. oz&&3
1-09 Graver 45. OMJ JWJy k. Burae-ker
3,7& W11.4e Oak Roc
WA; ie P,sf, i%. 2ZCo& 3
CM* e- 3. SPQ rICs
6040 Oak RoAd
vlk.4-e Pos�, VQ, ZzG&3
117A Cov4y --�: rrecJer-; C -k
107 JV.
RP Re�;d«�,•41
iOA Rca:den�;a%
RA
Rf9 If d c n :i" -
RA e, -.s dem a )
RA Local Gpvcrn,
UAI� I /8 A% -ar" Z. and Iden Wega
440 4c;--'YgnT / ,came
5/-CPACMs C,iylva. 22665
FCi3)) /!ta vgllsr !'Io aSQ 4n0 Ynresimc," ' Corp.
(�09 Cedao- Creek Grade,
Sv; �c A
L1l;nv1,Cs tr! V-9. 22."O
//% geinz A anJ Vcron;cq avn�cr
/!d 5w�Olk C;rcle
524cPbens C;4y, Va., 2Z4,55
Z7arreli Ci. ar%J J;11 1;�. 10044cr
//Z 5w��O lk C, rcle-
sfcjoAcnS C,'1y, V.Q. 221,55
/99 61'e" W. 4„J Pa,riGlq .G. Rvssc!!
139 Ponavarma Dr;ve
wih<-�es�'r� vQ. ZZlo�3
m
RP
/3o MaynarJ j. nsrr�a.+,� and M;cradle, •1. nsrnan
//o Ror"ney P/au
sfe01ens C;jr, Ua. zzGss
RP
SPP
RP
JQeS� d e nT%4
v4CanT
ResJolenJi 4 l
�e3��cnt;4 t
ReS.c%n �rq �
J�'loeTsa G and Yn✓esTrnc� �' �'or�.
&oq Cedar. C:reck Grade
5�%fe A
W-'nc� esker-, Va . 226,01
SJ ((M1¢-Z&S -raP e� V:�g:.,;o Deyelopr�e.•� G•'o,�'P,
P. o. Sc;L 3 2710
1ft%incAcz�cv-i VR. 221oo4
`C• CC!)) / - ! Lor; R. kn kn; s
/ 2-7 .51;-ry .EI.n Dr; v e
,PPJs¢C?Acrjs C4111.Vq. 2ze'ss
2 RuA P. Anas us
/25 ,BuT'rOn 8u -s; �vGnVG
SheRens C; h, VQ. 2zG5$
3 Donald G. and SgnJro R. f{Qri
/2:3 A6v74Ton $ash Avenue.
51�ePber"s C;4yi Va. zzeoss
71moy .i . Sqr� enT
8&,sl, Avenwet
S�eP�,cnS e;4y , Va. 22(,s5
RP
RP
RP
RP
V4cczr,�
VQCQr� /-
Res1?(!S;cj e r%
.cjer% ; Q
Ocnic/ A and Sheila M. ,Lander,
//q 6v on $vsA Avenve
5-kepkens C,4y, Va. 22455
Co k. rk j. anal DamnQ M. J'ygo
1/7 6vi4an Svs.4 Avenve-
SfcP +ens C4 y" VC1. zze*55
7 Oer7cz/d At. and Ajar;e Y #,:3/ey
1/5 Swoon $vsA Avenve.
s �p�,�•�sr c;�y, V4. zze s-5
S kaAlerm T QQ%(a
1/3 ,Bu -140n 6054 Avenue-
SfcP�6ens C;ly, Va. 22G55
1/t 8v�>tan Bvs�i Avenue
Sfe�l,e�,s �%�y�Va. zz�55
/o,? Sv�4an rBvsA Avenue
S -�-cpA-mn s C,'> y, Vq . ZZ& s 5
RP Res �JenAra I
R P Rrs, d e►+,��'a 1
R P fi�cS,'c/an �; Q %
RIP �cS, OC4,'a l
RP I
RP I
75.1 1))! - /1 Char/es .ec and Cali 7; Sca7'cs
107 Bul-l-on BvsA Avenvel
Sfe117eh4T C"4yf V4. CZ495$
/2 Darr W. and W. P. WA, mer
/o5 $von SvA Avenve
S-icp,4cn5 coy! Vg. 22655
"5 M CC A)I-7jA JASBo, Inc., Fred ,L. alaiza,�mr,
Fredar%ck Dcve/7.,ew-t
o.,d James j. Bow'"On
% Fred .G. 4 lai zc, =
P.O.Sox888"
Winchesi-cr; ✓a. zz"4
"Co ((A)) .¢2 Join 4. SarScnT EsAm lc
Z55 klomd
W� Ie Pvsl"� iia. 2Zloco"3
41 R. QJ Audrey M. Sec
//o + l4e oak Re.J
U464e POST) Va. zzG&3
4f owr4y oT �r�C�i GJc
/07 N. Ike rs l Si-.
I /rnc,%es4crj V4, zge o l
RP
RP
RP
.PA
RA
m
IPas,�den�i4!
Res: d er,4; a 1
Olo er Space
A3r.c,1A,ra I
Rcs ;d ent.G 1
Local Sovernmer
((A)) 75 C Ea r } R. *^, A n i �a O. Di JCOn
Soo 4 t b:n Dr: vt
5fcP�ens C-4y,V4. 2Z&55
,,/ ( ) i -4o A16er4 Cv. Ctnd Donna M. Barri5a
IZ& 51:ppery Zim Dr:ve
Sfcp,;ens C�: �j►, tea. 22Co55
5 (CA)) 75.6
&(.674-!� Va 11 e y Mc rAgog d Q.)d Colo.
bog C,daf Creek craolc-
SuiTc A
visci Isle 1�4. 221oO 1
RP /Pcs:derlA-Q f
11
R%' VV cqn T
Cr�S
Yds C.r�, vr¢ xwss
Mq- ei)) z - lP,d ;A'�r
?s - �(R�� - X03 � r T 7�,�o ry lee
- ���J� - /�/v /��%i�►/oe
5i;1 4 ; u7; d# 22r4l-f
Po egg
A biome
.• �; 39
4 1
-7 A-
IA
I -
i,
7L - A - Zz.
i (. A
Ism
�V
3,
31 715
21
1�
if , v
j la.. s
Y9 A A a 7 aG
�{
{, is
-7(,o— A _ !
�� ,. ,1 78
17
d 1{
it
Z$
A --31 A
A — 3,
-71-,,,—
},
{/ 33
-7 (—A -31
;,
{1 357
7(—A-
4o_ % -38
-1ST
76- A - ?1
t{ 3-7
{{
i, 38
.• �; 39
4 1
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commissioners
FROM: Eric lt- Lawrence, Zoning Administrator
SUBJECT: Discussion - Proposed Amendments to the Woodlands and Steep
Slope Portions of the Zoning Ordinance
DATE: June 8,1998
Recent development proposals have shed light on a possible need to revisit the woodlands and steep
slope preservation portion of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 165, Section 31- Protection of
Environmental Features). One project in particular, Autumn Wind Apartments, was prohibited from
utilizing a majority of its site because of the existence of woodlands. The Autumn Winds project did
successfully overcome this barrier, but staff felt that it was important to revisit the ordinance and
evaluate whether or not an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance would be deemed necessary.
Another project, in the Baker Lane Industrial Park, required a waiver of the woodlands and steep
slopes to make any development of the site viable.
The Development Review and Regulations" Subcommittee (DRRS), with the assistance from members
of the design and development community, has been discussing these issues for the past few months.
Discussions have been fruitful and reassuring. After numerous scenarios were considered and pros
and cons weighed, the DRRS feels that a possible solution has been unearthed. The proposed
solution is two -fold. First, the proposal would allow greater flexibility to the property owner.
Second, the proposal establishes an incentive program that rewards a property owner for
preserving/protecting woodlands.
Attached is the summary of the proposed amendments, draft text of the proposed woodlands and
steep slope ordinance amendments, and example scenarios.
The DRRS has endorsed these proposals. This information is presented to the Planning Commission
as a discussion item. If the Commission is comfortable with the proposal, staff will schedule a public
hearing to formally act on the proposal.
Staff is available to address your concerns.
ERL/cc
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Summary of the Woodland Preservation Proposal
Business and Commercial zoned sites:
► Eliminate the requirements to preserve woodlands
► Establish bonus factor as incentive to protect woodlands
1. If woodlands exist (six-inch caliper trees) and are preserved, an acre for an
acre credit may be utilized toward a reduction in the required open space. In
no case should the open space be reduced by more than 30 percent.
2. If woodlands are created (wooded areas consisting of five -inch caliper trees
and less, supplemented by reforestation methods), credit may be utilized
towards a reduction in the required open space. In no case should the open
space be reduced by more than 20 percent. --- Work in Progress --Staff is not
comfortable with how this would be measured. ---
► The preservation of woodlands could be utilized in association with the required
buffer and screening.
Residentially zoned sites:
Increase the allowable woodlands disturbance to 75 percent.
Establish a bonus factor as incentive to protect woodlands.
1. Acre for acre; preserved woodlands, reduce open space
2. Reduced open space shall not exceed 50 percent of the current standards.
Summary of the Steep Slope Disturbance Proposal
► Revise the definition of steep slopes to contain those areas with slopes of 25% or
steeper. The current standards include areas with slopes of 15% or steeper.
► Allow for a greater disturbance of steep slopes, in terms of area, so long as engineered
site plans are approved by the County Engineer. The current ordinance permits
disturbances of up to 25% of a site's steep slopes. The proposal will allow for greater
disturbance of steep slopes, but only with the County Engineer's approval. This will
enable site -by -site analysis and determination of the appropriateness of development
proposals.
2
Chapter 165, Section 31.B(7)
ihe, dtstu: banee � be per ttted"idZorIngdIstr s. However, to
e re �c en- ra g ci stra s e c a sc ur iknce ��` be meted tv °/a The
COrntvr � eo4rages tie pteservabof of t emo,dan s resp roes, and according
icorporatesthe �dlands,Bonus`factor the F enables a site to reduce
t ie re * ripen space in e?m4aa e for the preservation of woodtands-
oodlans BornsacfQri
The oad r s Boxru I7act r E} is allmeffio,, tapmier to
revere eretrJprergaoodlnds Crept ,vQrlt° be granted toward a
recctrorn the ecirzred Poen s�raee toRercoura the presann aroadlaids:
the S ys app ioa pn m re den zo g d strrcts, onty apply t0, woodlands
aver a eve the required 5°fa p ese ed Wooc�a�ds: �h� V�B� sba11 be applied
in a ratio of t :1(woodIands preserved to open space reduced), in erements of I oo
---Draft Amendment ---
Chapter 165, Section 31.B Protection of Environmental Features.
B. Portions of the following environmental features shall remain undisturbed as
described:
Type of Feature Amount of Disturbance Permitted
Steep slopes
Disturbances of steep slopes are allowed at the
(slope of 25% or
discretion of the Zoning Administrator, with a
steeper)
recommendation from the County Engineer
Woodlands
In residential zoning districts, area disturbances up to
75% allowed.
Chapter 165, Section 31.B(6)
(6) Steep Slopes. The Administrator may allow the disturbance of small areas where that
disturbance will alleviate potential health or safety problems and will not significantly
denigrate the overall environmental quality of the site. Disturbances of steep slopes
are permitted at the discretion of the Zoning Administrator; such cases shall require
the submission to and approval by the County Engineer of a engineered site plan. In
such cases, the functions of stream valleys shall be preserved through the use of open
space, landscaping and stormwater management facilities.
Chapter 165, Section 31.B(7)
(7) Woodlands. The disturbance of woodlands will be permitted in all zoning districts.
However, in the residential zoning districts, woodland disturbance will be limited to
75%. The County encourages the preservation of the woodlands resources, and
accordingly incorporates the Woodlands Bonus Factor (WBF). The WBF enables a
site to reduce the required open space in exchange for the preservation of woodlands.
Woodlands Bonus Factor (WBF). The Woodlands Bonus Factor (WBF) is a method
to enable a property owner to receive credit for preserving woodlands. Credit would
be granted towards a reduction in the required open space to encourage the
preservation of woodlands. The WBF's application in residential zoning districts will
only apply to woodlands over and above the required 25% preserved woodlands.
The WBF shall be applied in a ratio of 1:1 (woodlands preserved to open space
reduced), in increments of 1,000 square feet, within open space minimums as stated
in the following chart:
' PC.Di3
0
Prince Frederick Office Park. A 91.903 -acre parcel of land, zoned 132. The site is 33% woodlands
(30.5 acres).
Current: Required Open Space = 15%, 13.78 acres
Required Woodlands to be preserved = 75%, 22.87 acres
Approximate land to be in road right-of-ways = 7.2%, 6.70 acre
Developable area = 71.41 acres
Proposed: Required Open Space = 15%, 13.78 acres
Required Woodlands = 0% of existing woodlands, or 0 acres
Approximate land to be in road right-of-ways = 7.2%, 6.70 acre
Developable area = 71.41 acres
Benefit: The developer/property owner is provided more flexibility in selecting
areas/woodlands to preserve.
Utilizing WBF— May receive open space reduction of 4.95 acres for the
preservation of woodlands
Minimum Required Open Space = 10%, 9.19 acres
Approximate land to be in road right-of-ways = 7.2%, 6.70 acre
Woodlands to be preserved = 75%, 22.87 acres
Developable area = 62.333 acres
Benefit: The usable acreage will decrease by 9.08 acres. Therefore, the
preservation of woodlands also increases the usable square footage on this site.
Hill Valley. A 26.123 -acre parcel of land, zoned RP. The site is 45.3% woodlands (11.82 acres).
Single Family Detached Cluster houses.
Current: Required Open Space = 25%, 6.53 acres
Required Woodlands to be preserved = 75%7 8.865 acres
Approximate land to be in road right-of-ways = 9.5%, 2.5 acre
Developable area = 17.093 acres
Proposed: Required Open Space = 25%, 6.53 acres
Required Woodlands = 25% of existing woodlands, or 6.53 acres
Approximate land to be in road right-of-ways = 9.5%, 2.5 acre
Developable area = 17.093 acres
Benefit: The developer/property owner is provided more flexibility in selecting
areas/woodlands to preserve.
Utilizing WBF-- May receive open space reduction of 1.83 acres for the
preservation of woodlands
Minimum Required Open Space = 18%, 4.7 acres
Approximate land to be in road right-of-ways = 9.5%, 2.5 acre
Woodlands to be preserved = 50%, 5.91 acres
Developable area = 18.923 acres
Benefit: The developer is provided the flexibility to determine which woodlands
to preserve. A reduction in open space required is permitted ,up to a 1.83 acre
reduction. In return for the preservation of woodlands, the developer is
provided an opportunity to create 5 additional lots.
U:\ERIC\COMMON\DRRS\WOODLAND\WDSIP PC.DIS
10
COUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/678-0682
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission Members
FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Planning Director
RE: Information on the Status of the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic
District Commission
DATE: June 3, 1998
As members of the Board and Planning Commission are aware, the Shenandoah Valley Battlefields
National Historic District Commission (the Commission) was established in 1996 following years of
effort on the part of many Shenandoah Valley representatives. The Commission was created by
Section 606 (h) of Public Law 104133, the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act. The
Commission has a three year life which began at the time of its first meeting. The primary task of the
Commission is to develop a plan for the preservation and management of historic and cultural
resources throughout the Valley. This is obviously a formidable task that will require input from
local governments, citizens and interest groups in order to ensure that whatever plan is developed has
the support of the Valley's residents.
Below is a listing of activities of the Commission since our first meeting on November 15, 1997, at
the V.M.I. Hall of Valor, New Market, Virginia. Monthly meetings of the Commission have been
held there since; all are open to the public who are invited to comment after their regular agenda is
completed. The Commission intends to meet monthly for the rest of 1998, with a Battlefield tour
scheduled for the weekend of June 19-21.
As the Representative of Frederick County on the Commission, I will make an effort to keep the
Board and Planning Commission abreast of the developments taking place with the Battlefield
Commission.. I would urge members to let me know of any issues or concerns you feel are relevant
to the Commission's activities.
107 North Kent Street s Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
SVBNHDC Update Memo
Page 2
June 3, 1998
Activities of the Battlefield Commission have included:
1. Electing officers (Chairman, Vice Chairman, Secretary and Treasurer).
2. Adopted by-laws and appointed all members to at least one of six standing
committees, including an executive committee. All committees have been active and
hardworking. (A list of members and Committee assignments is attached for
information.)
3. 'Adopted a budget, submitted it to the National Park Service (NPS); received
$250,000 from NPS for operating expenses, and deposited it at Nations Bank,
Strasburg, Virginia; received commitment from the NPS of $100,000 for technical
services and promise of one NPS employee (permanent) to assist in planning.
4. Adopted job description for full-time Executive Director and advertised for
applications in six newspapers in Virginia and throughout Shenandoah Valley. We
anticipate interviews will take place this month with a selection of a preferred
candidate being made by July 1, 1998.
5. Started planning process with discussion of tentative strategic plan.
6. Developed criteria for setting priorities in battlefield acquisitions if funding
becomes available.
7. Started Outreach Program, including:
(a) Drafting information to local governments in Shenandoah Valley and
requesting their active participation, plus chambers of commerce, agricultural,
tourism, historic and preservation groups, etc.
(b) Planning for an Advisory Council of about twenty-five members, including
Valley Members of Virginia General Assembly and other representative
persons.
(c) Getting students and educators to participate in Commission work.
(d) Having members speak to political, media and civic groups.
(e) Begun development of a Web Page.
SVBNHDC Update Memo
Page 3
June 3, 1998
o. Joined Alliance of National Heritage Areas and met with them February 2-4, 1998)-
a
998;a Commission member attended the national meeting in Chicago in April.
9. Cooperated with Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites, Inc. (APCWS)
in discussion with Kernstown Battlefield Association, and with Rockingham County
respecting battlefield preservation and visitation. Rockingham County has budgeted
$15,000 to APCWS for a tourist parking lot at Cross Keys Battlefield.
10. Besides ongoing cooperation and assistance from Virginia Department of Historic
Resources and from V.M.I. (they have provided meeting facilities and assigned an
intern to Commission), we have held discussions for cooperation with Civil War Trails
of Richmond, and Director of Parks and Recreation, Office of the Governor. r,
11. Established a Post Office address and are negotiating a lease for office space at the
V.M.I. Hall of Valor.
12. Scheduled.a tour of Valley battlefields on June 19, 20, 21 for Commission members
of Congressional sponsors of legislation and their staffs, and Valley members of
Virginia General Assembly.
13. Tried to keep Congressional sponsors of legislation and National Park Service posted
on Commission activities.
KCT/cc
Attachment
U.\KRIS\KCT98\HATCOMIS\UPDATE. W PD
SHENANDOAH VALLEY BATTLEFIELDS
NATIONAL HISTORIC DISTRICT
COMMISSION
Members of Standing Committees:
1. Budget and Administration
(a)
William G. O'Brien, Chair
(b)
Larry D. Bradford
(c)
Richard D. Kern
(d)
Richard B. Kleese
(e)
'Alexander L. Rives
2. Property Management and Land Acquisition
(a)
Janet O. Kilby, Chair
(b)
Scot W. Marsh
(c)
Daniel C. Stickley, Jr.
(d)
H. Alexander Wise
(e)
Patricia L. Zontine
(f)
Larry D. Bradford
3. Inventory and Interpretation
(a)
Joseph W. A. Whitehorne, Chair
(b)
John L. Heatwole
(c)
David W. Powers
(d)
Daniel J. Beattie
4. Outreach
(a)
Nicholas J. Nerangis, Chair
(b)
Daniel J. Beattie
(c)
Eugene L. Newman
(d)
Alexander L. Rives
(e)
John L. Heatwole
5. Personnel
(a)
Kris C. Tierney, Chair
(b)
Donovan E. Hower
(c)
Patricia L. Zontine
(d)
William G. O'Brien
6. Nominations
(a) Scot W. Marsh, Chair
(b) John L. Heatwole
(c) Janet O. Kilby Revised 4/6/98
Shenandoah Valley Battlefields National Historic District Commission
Dr. Daniel J. Beattie -
Home and Office:
225 Ipswich Place
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Phone: (804)978-7564
FAX: (804)978-1421
E -Mail: pbeattie@esinet.net
Mr. Larry D. Bradford
Home: 506 W. North Street
Woodstock, VA 22664
Phone: (540) 459-3571
*Office:Town of Woodstock
135 N. Main St.
Woodstock, VA 22664
Phone: (540) 459-3621
FAX: (540) 459-3085
E -Mail: woodtown@shentel.net
Mr. John L. Heatwole
*Home: 202 West Bank Street
Bridgewater, VA 22812
Phone: (540) 828-6833
Office: 217 S. Main Street
Bridgewater, VA 22812
Phone: (540) 828-6833
Mr. Donovan E. Hower
Home and Office:
HCR 03, Box 31
McDowell, VA 24458
Phone: (540) 396-6228
FAX: (540) 396-3519
Mr. Richard D. Kern
Home: 721 Treys Drive
Winchester, VA 22601
Phone: (540) 662-3522
*Office: Kern Motor Co., Inc.
2110 Valley Avenue
Winchester, VA 22601
Phone: (�40) 667-1500
FAX: (540) 667-2045
Ms. Janet O. Kilby
Home: 2073 Saumsville Road
Maucertown, VA 22644
Phone: (540) 459-8577
*Office: Strategic Land Planning, Inc.
132 N. Main Street, Suite 100
Woodstock, VA 22664
Phone: (540) 459-9590
FAX: (540) 459-9591
E -Mail: slp@shentel.net
Mr. Richard B. Kleese
Home and Office:
600 Sandy Hook Road
Strasburg, VA 22657
Phone: (540) 465-8498
E -Mail: rbkleese@shentel.net
*Preferred address to receive mail
Mr. Scot W. Marsh
Home: 160 Canterbury Lane
Winchester, VA 22603
Phone: (540) 662-6423
*Office: Marsh & Legge Land
Surveyors, P.L.C.
139 North Cameron Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Phone: (540) 667-0468
FAX: (540) 667-0469
E -Mail: mlls@shentel.net
Mr. Eugene L. Newman
Home and Office:
8183 Valley Pike
P. O. Box 251
Middletown, VA 22645
Phone: (540) 869-2037
FAX: (540) 869-0979
Mr. Nicholas J. Nerangis
Home: 290 Deer Haven Place
Winchester, VA 22602
Phone: (540) 722-9622
FAX: (540) 667-4929
*Office: Nerangis Enterprises, Inc.
500 Pegasus Court
Winchester, VA 22602
Phone: (540) 667-1322
FAX: (540) 667-4929
Revised 3/25/98
Mr. William G. O'Brien
Home: Route 1, Box 425
Port Republic, VA 24471
Phone: (540) 249-4620
E -Mail: kkorner@shentel.net
*Office: County Administrator
County of Rockingham
P. O. Box 1252
Harrisonburg, VA 22801
Phone: (540) 564-3000
FAX: (540) 434-7163
Dr. David W. Powers
*Home: 548 W. Belleview Avenue
Winchester, VA 22601
Phone: (540) 662-0824
Office: Winchester Medical Center
Dept. Of Emergency Medicine
P. O. Box 3340
Winchester, VA 22601
Phone: (540) 722-8700
Mr. Alexander L. Rives
Home: 1152 Zion Hill Road
Keswick, VA 22947
Phone: (804) 979-0963
*Office: Superintendent
Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania
National Military Park
120 Chatham Lane
Fredericksburg, VA 22405
Phone: (540) 373-4510
FAX: (540) 371-1907
E -Mail: sandy_rives@nps.gov
Beeper: 800-745-7247 Code 0675
Mr. Dan C. Stickley, Jr.
Home and Office:
Route 11, Box 243
Harrisonburg, VA 22801
Phone: (540) 433-0163
Mr. Kris C. Tierney
Home: 330 Overlook Drive
Cross Junction, VA 22625
Phone: (540) 888-4577
*Office: Frederick County Planning Dept.
107 North Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
Phone: (540) 665-5600
FAX: (540) 678-0682
E -Mail: fcplan@shentel.net
Dr. Joseph W. A. Whitehorne
*Home: 152 Windy Ridge Road
Front Royal, VA 22630
Phone: (540) 636-7959
FAX: (540) 636-79.59
E -Mail: jwaw@rma.edu
Office: Lord Fairfax Community
College, Box 47
Middletown, VA 22645
Phone: (540) 869-1120
*Preferred address to receive mail
Mr. Carrington Williams, Esq.
Home: 3543 Half Moon Circle
Falls Church, VA 22044
Phone: (703) 941-4580
*Office: McGuire, Woods, Battle &
Boothe, L.L.P.
8280 Greensboro Drive, Suite 900
McLean, VA 22102
Phone: (703) 712-5451
FAX: (703) 712-5050
E -Mail: cwilliams@mwbb.com
Mr. H. Alexander Wise, Jr.
Office: Director, Virginia Department
of Historic Resources
2801 Kensington Avenue
Richmond, VA 23221
Phone: (804) 786-1969
FAX: (804) 225-4261
Ms. Patricia L. Zontine
Home and Office:
614 Tennyson Avenue
Winchester, VA 22601 .
Phone: (540) 722-3568
FAX: (540) 662-9782
E -Mail: pittman@mnsinc.com
Virginia Department of Historic Resources
Winchester Regional Office
P. O.Box 4
Winchester, VA 22604
*107 N. Kent Street, Suite 203
Winchester, VA 22601
Phone: 540-722-3427
FAX: 540-722-.7535