HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 10 2012 Minutes of Work Session with Planning Commission1325
A work session of Frederick County Board of Supervisors was held on Thursday, May
10, 2012, at 12:00 P,M., in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, County Administration
Building, 107 North Kent Street, 'Winchester, Virginia.
PRESENT
Christopher E. Collins; Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.; Bill M. Ewing; Gary A. Lofton; and
Ross P. Spicer.
ABSENT
Chairman Richard C. Shickle and Gene E. Fisher (Arrived at 12:14 P.M.)
OTHERS PRESENT
John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator; Kris C. Tierney, Assistant County
Administrator; Jay E. Tibbs, Deputy County Administrator; Eric R. Lawrence, Planning
Director; Candice Perkins, Senior Planner; Michael Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Planning
Commission members: June Wilmot, H. Paige Manuel, Gary Oates, Charles Triplett, Brian
Madagan, J. Stanley Crockett, Lawrence Ambrogi, and Kevin Crosen.
CALL TO ORDER
Vice - Chairman Ewing called the meeting to order.
Planning Director Eric Lawrence introduced the topics to be covered during the work
session. The first item would be a review of all Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance waivers. At
the conclusion of that discussion, staff would review proposed revisions to the RP (Residential
Performance) Zoning District, which included amendments to the introduction and district
regulations; housing types and dimensional requirements; buffers and landscaping; and
definitions and supplemental use regulations.
REVIEW OF ALL ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE WAIVERS
Senior Planner Perkins advised that staff had been asked to review all waiver
opportunities contained within the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. The proposed changes
were being made to ensure that ordinances conform to the State Code and a recent court ruling,
which stated planning commissions could no longer grant waivers. In addition, the proposed
amendments would ensure that the ordinances are in line with the State Code, as well as make
sure that the approving entity for a requested waiver is appropriate in order to avoid impacts to
adjoining properties or unnecessary application delays. She went on to say that in modifying the
waivers staff tried to ensure the following:
Minute Book Dumber 37
Board of Supervisors Work Session with Planning Commission on 05/10/12
32
- Applications that must be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors (e.g. rezonings and
master development plans) or waivers that have the potential to impact surrounding
properties have been changed to show them as Board waivers.
- Applications that only require administrative review and approval have been changed
to show Zoning/Subdivision Administrator approval.
- All Planning Commission waivers need to be modified to show them as either Board
of Supervisors' or Zoning /Subdivision Administrator waivers.
She then reviewed the table outlining the various waivers. She noted that on page 10, the
Development Review and Regulations Committee recommended removal of the waiver that
allows a reduced setback in the EM District for excavation operations. She went on to say many
of the waivers were proposed to remain Board of Supervisors' waivers. There was only one
change to the administrative wavier process to make the nonconforming use waiver as Board of
Supervisors' waiver.
Senior Planner Perkins then reviewed the proposed process for administrative waivers.
- When staff receives a request for an administrative waiver, notice of the request will
be e- mailed to the Board of Supervisors along with staff's recommendation for
approval or denial.
- Board members will be given two working days to provide comments for or against
the waiver request.
- If no comments are received disagreeing with staffs decision then the waiver will be
approved or denied by staff, as appropriate.
- If comments are received that are contrary to staff's recommendation then staff would
further discuss the issue with the Board until an appropriate resolution can be
reached.
Supervisor Spicer asked if we should consider eliminating the ability to waive some
things or would it be better to retain them as waivers.
Senior Planner Perkins responded that staff preferred having the flexibility afforded by
waivers.
Planning Commission Chairman .tune Wilmot stated that she believed the Planning
Commission would provide a recommendation on any waiver going to the Board of Supervisors.
Supervisor Lofton asked about the administrative waivers and what would happen if the
Board did not like staff's recommendation regarding.a particular administrative waiver.
Planning Director Eric Lawrence responded that staff would not grant the waiver.
Planning Commissioner Gary Oates stated he was concerned the administrative waiver
process could be a burden on staff if they have to send a -mails to the Board and the Planning
Commission.
Minute Book Number 37
Board of Supervisors Work Session with Planning Commission on 05/10/12
327
Administrator Riley stated he was concerned staff would cover up the Board and
Planning Commission with e- mails.
Director Lawrence responded staff could identify technical waivers and take care of those
while sending out the more contentious waivers for feedback.
REVISIONS TO RP RESIDENTIAL PERFORMANCEI ZONING DISTRICT
Senior Planner Perkins advised that staff is proposing a number of changes to the RP
(Residential Performance) Zoning District along with other corresponding Zoning Ordinance
sections such as: landscaping/buffering, definition, and supplemental use regulations, She went
on to say these changes constitute an effort to ensure that the RP District is up to date with the
current needs of the community and is in conformance with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan.
She then reviewed the proposed changes in each section
- Part 402 Changes — Introduction and District Regulations
o Intent — Changes to reflect the Comprehensive Plan and revisions for clarity.
o Permitted Uses — clarification and addition of public buildings.
o Conditional Uses -- addition of museums.
o Gross Density and Multifamily Housing — combination of two separate
sections; moves the density requirements from the individual housing types to
one table; increases the density for garden apartments, townhouses, and single
family developments; and increase in the multifamily percentage for parcels
between 25.1 to 50 acres.
o Open Space and Recreation Facility Requirements — Revisions to the open
space requirements for single family traditional, mixed use developments, and
an addition of non - residential uses; reduction in the number of recreational
units required to qualify for an open space reduction; and revisions to the
recreational facility requirements to update the playground equipment
requirements.
o Height for other Uses — addition of maximum height for non - residential uses.
- Part 402 — Dimensional Requirements for Housing Types
o Format — The dimensional requirements are shown in a table format instead of
a list.
o Single Family Detached Rural Traditional — Addition of setbacks for unroofed
decks, stoops, landings, and similar features.
o Single Family Detached Traditional — Addition of setbacks for unroofed
decks, stoops, landings, and similar features.
o Single Family Detached Urban — Addition of setbacks for unroofed decks,
stoops, landings, and similar features.
o Single Family Detached Cluster -- Elimination of the additional open space
requirement because this housing type already has a higher percentage of
required open space; reduced front /sideirear setbacks for the dwelling (to fall
Minute Book Dumber 37
Board of Supervisors Work Session with Planning Commission on 05/10112
828
below single family urban since it has a smaller lot size); and addition of
setbacks for unroofed decks, stoops, landings, and similar features.
o Single Family Zero Lot Line — Addition of setbacks for unroofed decks,
stoops, landings, and similar features; and revisions to specify that only fences
can be located within the required maintenance easement.
o Single Family Small Lot — Allowance for a front setback reduction when rear
alleys are used for access (i.e. no driveways /garages located at the front); and
addition of front and side setbacks for unroofed decks, stoops, landings, and
similar features.
o Duplex — Deletion of the duplex housing type — this use can already be
achieved under the single family small lot housing type..
o Multiplex — Removal* of the minimum/average lot size table and parking
requirement based on number of bedrooms; addition of a set minimum lot size
and parking requirement; and addition of setbacks for unroofed decks, stoops,
landing, and similar features.
o Atrium House — removal of this housing type, which has never been utilized.
o Weak -link Townhouse — removal of this housing type, which has never been
utilized.
o Townhouse — Addition of back -to -back townhouses; removal of the
minimum/average lot size table and parking requirement based on number of
bedrooms; addition of a set minimum lot size and parking requirement;
reduced front/side setbacks and addition of a rear setback instead of a
perimeter setback requirement; addition of setbacks for unroofed decks,
stoops, landings, and similar features; and increase in the structure height
from 3 5 feet to 40 feet.
o Garden Apartment — Revision to the description to remove "common outside
access" requirement. This ' allows more flexibility for the unit type (Le.
standard condo or a stacked unit design); removal of the minimum/average lot
size table and parking requirements based on number of bedrooms; addition of
a set parking requirement; reduced side /rear setbacks and elimination of the
perimeter setback; modified building spacing requirements; addition of a
setback for rear balconies; and increase in the structure height from 40 feet to
55 feet.
o Multifamily Residential Buildings — Proposed new housing type; only
permitted in areas designated in the Comprehensive flan as neighborhood
villages, urban centers or planned for high density residential uses; number of
units not specified, but would be based on the gross density of the land; and
building height increased from 60 feet to 80 feet.
o Age Restricted Multifamily — Removal of the minimum/average lot size table
and parking requirement based on number of bedrooms; setback for rear
balconies decreased, balconies may extend 10 feet into a perimeter boundary;
and modified building spacing requirements.
- Part 203 Changes — Buffer and Landscape Requirements
o Landscaping/Buffer Changes — Introduction of new plant types, removal of
plant types, changes regarding utilization of certain plants; planting
procedures (e.g. size, spacing, measurements); revisions to residential
separation buffers regarding separation buffers between various housing
types, including the elimination of internal buffers , reductions to some of the
buffer distances and format revisions to put requirements in table format; and
revisions to road efficiency buffers to show similar buffer layout required
Minute Book Plumber 37
Board of Supervisors Work Session with Planning Commission on 05110112
329
throughout the ordinance and additions to allow existing vegetation to be
utilized for road efficiency buffers.
- Part 101 & 102 Changes — Definitions and Supplemental Use Regulations
o New Definition of Building Height — Revised definition that is more
consistent with current method of measuring building height.
o New Definition of Multi - Family Building
o Setback Requirements -- Revisions to the extensions into setback yards to
remove balconies, porches, stoops, and decks as an extension because they
have been added to the individual RP housing types, and removal of weak -
link townhouses.
Administrator Riley asked if these proposed changes would be classified as less onerous
and more flexible.
Senior Planner Perkins responded yes.
There being no filrther questions or discussions, Director Lawrence advised that staff
would bring these items back to both the Planning Commission and the Board for further
discussion.
There being no further business, the work session was adjourned at 1:10 P.M.
Richard C. Shickle Jo . Ril ey, Jr.
Chairman, Board of Supervisors C k, Board of Supervisors
Minutes Prepared By:
Jay El TiiVbs
Deputy Clerk, Board of Supervisors
Minute Book Number 37
Board of Supervisors Work Session with Planning Commission on 05/10/12