DRRC 04-24-14 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/ 665-5651
Fax: 540/ 665-6395
107 North Kent Street, Suite 202 • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
MEMORANDUM
To: Development Review and Regulations Committee
From: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner
Subject: April Meeting and Agenda
Date: April 14, 2014
The Frederick County Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) will be
meeting on Thursday, April 24, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the first floor conference room (purple
room) of the County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia.
The DRRC will discuss the following agenda items:
AGENDA
1) Landscaping Requirements. Continued discussion on potential revisions to the
landscaping requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance pursuant to the
Business Friendly Committee recommendations.
Please contact this office if you will not be able to attend the meeting. Thank you.
Access to this building is limited during the evening hours. Therefore, it will be necessary
to enter the building through the rear door of the four-story wing. I would encourage
committee members and interested citizens to park in the County parking lot located
behind the new addition or in the joint Judicial Center parking lot and follow the sidewalk
to the back door of the four-story wing.
CEP/pd
Attachments
Item #1: Landscaping Requirements – Business Friendly
Recommendations
In October of 2012 the Board of Supervisors formed the Frederick County Business
Climate Assessment Committee (also called the Business Friendly Committee) to
evaluate the current processes and procedures being utilized by the County. The purpose
of the effort was to search for ways that the County could better meet the needs of new
and existing businesses in the community. The Committee’s final report was adopted by
the Board of Supervisors in July of 2013. One recommendation contained in the report
was to review the landscaping requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance and the
Development Review and Regulations Committee was tasked with reviewing the current
requirements and looking at the suggested changes.
The Land Use and Development Subcommittee of the Business Friendly Committee
“recommended a complete review and re-evaluation of the Frederick County Buffers and
Landscaping Ordinance to provide a well defined purpose to allow for flexibility in
project site landscaping, tree preservation, and effective development buffers”.
The DRRC reviewed the suggested changes at the September 2013, January 2014 and
February 2014 meetings. The DRRC recognized that the buffer and landscaping sections
were recently reviewed and the committee felt that the existing ordinance was
appropriate. The DRRC did recommend that the parking lot landscaping requirements be
moved into the main landscaping section.
The Planning Commission discussed the changes on April 2, 2014. One person spoke
under citizen comments and expressed concern that the DRRC and the Commission did
not receive all the Business Friendly recommendations. The Planning Commission
wanted to make sure that that the DRRC understood what the Business Friendly
Committee was trying to achieve. A motion was made to send the landscaping
requirements back to the DRRC and to allow the Business Friendly committee an
opportunity to make a presentation to the DRRC.
Staff is requesting comments and a recommendation from the DRRC on this proposed
ordinance amendment. This recommendation will be forwarded to the Planning
Commission and Board of Supervisors.
Attachments: 1. Proposed Revisions (deletions shown in strikethrough and additions show in
bold underlined italics).
2. Business Friendly Initiatives.
3. Letter from John Goode
4. Memo from Scot Marsh
5. Minutes from the April 2, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting (Draft)
Draft Landscaping Revisions
1
Part 202 – Off‐Street Parking, Loading and Access
§ 165‐202.01 Off‐street parking; parking lots.
D. Parking lots. Parking spaces shared by more than one dwelling or use, required for any use in
the business or industrial zoning district or required for any institutional, commercial or
industrial use in any zoning district shall meet the following requirements:
(13) Landscaping. Parking lots in the RP Residential Performance District, the R4 Residential
Planned Community District, the R5 Residential Recreational Community District, the
MH1 Mobile Home Community District, the B1 Neighborhood Business District, the B2
Business General District, the B3 Industrial Transition District, the OM Office‐
Manufacturing Park District, the M1 Light Industrial District, the M2 Industrial General
District, the MS Medical Support District, and the HE (Higher Education) District shall be
landscaped to reduce the visual impact of glare and headlights on adjoining properties
and rights‐of‐way. Parking lots shall be adequately shaded to reduce reflected heat. In
the RA (Rural Areas) District, parking lot landscaping shall not be required for parking
lots with 10 or fewer spaces. Landscaping shall also be provided to reduce the visual
expansiveness of parking lots. Landscaping shall be provided in such parking lots as
follows:
a) Perimeter landscaping. The perimeter of all impervious areas shall be landscaped
with shade trees and other landscaping. One tree shall be provided for every 2,000
square feet of impervious area for the first 100,000 square feet of the entire site.
One tree shall be provided for every 5,000 square feet in excess of the first 100,000
square feet of the entire site. Self‐service storage facilities shall provide one tree
per 10,000 square feet of impervious area of the entire site, in addition to the trees
required in § 165‐204.18, Storage facilities. The perimeter landscaping trees shall
be reasonably dispersed throughout the parking lot. A three‐foot‐high evergreen
hedge, fence, berm or wall shall be provided to prevent headlights from shining on
public rights‐of‐ways and adjoining properties. All perimeter landscaping shall
comply with the requirements of §165‐203.01B, Plant selection, planting procedure
and maintenance.
b) Interior landscaping. A minimum of 5% of the interior portions of parking lots shall
be landscaped for the purpose of providing shade trees. Such interior landscaping
shall be provided on raised islands and in continuous raised strips extending the
length of a parking bay. Within the parking lot, raised islands and landscaped areas
should be uses to delineate traffic and pedestrian circulation patterns. No less than
one shade tree shall be provided in the interior of the parking lot for each 10
parking spaces. The Zoning Administrator may waive the requirement for interior
landscaping for parcels located outside of the Sewer and Water Service Area when
curb and gutter is not proposed. The Zoning Administrator may approve alternative
locations for interior landscaping for parking lots used for truck parking, as well as
other parking lots, when it would improve the overall quality of the landscape plan.
Draft Landscaping Revisions
2
All interior landscaping shall comply with the requirements of § 165‐203.01B, Plant
selection, planting procedure and maintenance.
Part 203 – Buffers and Landscaping
§ 165‐203.01 Landscaping requirements.
The requirements of this section are intended to enhance the appearance, environment, and general
welfare of Frederick County by providing minimum landscaping standards and encouraging tree
preservation for developments. The provisions of this section shall apply to all site plan and subdivision
design plan applications, including the revision or expansion of any site or development.
A. Residential Developments and Parking Lots in all Zoning Districts.
(1) Residential developments. Residential developments which require a master development plan,
subdivision design plan or site plan shall provide at least one of the three types of landscaping
identified below.
(a) Street tree landscaping. Street tree landscaping shall require one street tree for every 40 feet of
street frontage in a residential development, with the exception of frontage on roads which
require a road efficiency buffer. Street trees shall be planted no more than 20 feet from rights‐
of‐way. Planting street trees on the property lines of building lots should be avoided. Two or
more street trees shall be planted on each building lot. The Zoning Administrator may allow
fewer than two street trees for an individual building lot if topographical features, utilities,
easements, or the width of the lot makes it impractical to do so. All street trees shall comply
with the requirements of § 165‐203.01B C, with the exception that street trees must be at least
two‐and‐one‐half‐inch caliper at the time of planting.
(b) Ornamental landscaping.
(i) Ornamental landscaping shall be provided for residential developments based on the
following index and matrix:
Index of Lot Types
Lot Type Description
A Single‐Family Detached Rural Traditional
B Single‐Family Detached Traditional
C Single‐Family Detached Urban
D Single‐Family Detached Cluster
E Single‐Family Detached Zero Lot Line
Draft Landscaping Revisions
3
(ii) Ornamental trees and shrubs shall comply with the requirements of § 165‐203.01B. The
Zoning Administrator may allow some of the required ornamental trees and ornamental
shrubs to be planted in areas of common open space so long as the intent of this section is
met.
(c) Tree preservation landscaping. An area with a tree canopy coverage, of at least 25% of the entire
site area, shall be preserved within dedicated open space. In no case shall individual building lots
be located within the open space. Canopy coverage shall be calculated from the cumulative total
of existing tree canopies. Preserved trees shall be clustered together to maintain a contiguous
canopy; and shall be protected from construction activity. These areas of open space may be
counted towards the total required open space, as specified in § 165‐402.07. Residential
developments which are not required to have open space by § 165‐402.07 are not exempt from
creating open space for the required canopy coverage. The calculation of tree canopy shall be
based on either the individual tree standards of the "Manual of Woody Landscape Plants,"
F Single‐Family Small Lot
G Multiplex
H Townhouse, Back‐to‐Back Townhouse
I Garden Apartment, Multifamily Residential Buildings
Age Restricted Multifamily Housing
Required Landscaping Per Dwelling Unit
Lot Type Ornamental Shrubs Ornamental Trees
A None 10 per 1 unit
B 10 per 1 unit 5 per 1 unit
C 10 per 1 unit 5 per 1 unit
D 10 per 1 unit 5 per 1 unit
E 10 per 1 unit 5 per 1 unit
F 15 per 1 unit 5 per 1 unit
G 3 per 3 units* 1 per 3 units*
H 6 per 5 units* 2 per 5 units*
I 3 per 2 units* 1 per 2 units*
Note: *Required ornamental trees and shrubs are in addition to all trees and
shrubs elsewhere required in the Zoning Ordinance.
Draft Landscaping Revisions
4
written by Michael A. Dirr, or through a comprehensive analysis of existing tree drip lines,
conducted by a Virginia certified engineer, land surveyor, or landscape architect.
(2) Parking lots. Parking spaces shared by more than one dwelling or use, required for any use in the
business or industrial zoning district or required for any institutional, commercial or industrial use
in any zoning district shall meet the following requirements:
(a) Landscaping. Parking lots in the RP Residential Performance District, the R4
Residential Planned Community District, the R5 Residential Recreational Community
District, the MH1 Mobile Home Community District, the B1 Neighborhood Business
District, the B2 Business General District, the B3 Industrial Transition District, the OM
Office‐Manufacturing Park District, the M1 Light Industrial District, the M2 Industrial
General District, the MS Medical Support District, and the HE (Higher Education)
District shall be landscaped to reduce the visual impact of glare and headlights on
adjoining properties and rights‐of‐way. Parking lots shall be adequately shaded to
reduce reflected heat. In the RA (Rural Areas) District, parking lot landscaping shall
not be required for parking lots with 10 or fewer spaces. Landscaping shall also be
provided to reduce the visual expansiveness of parking lots. Landscaping shall be
provided in such parking lots as follows:
(i) Perimeter landscaping. The perimeter of all impervious areas shall be
landscaped with shade trees and other landscaping. One tree shall be provided
for every 2,000 square feet of impervious area for the first 100,000 square feet of
the entire site. One tree shall be provided for every 5,000 square feet in excess
of the first 100,000 square feet of the entire site. Self‐service storage facilities
shall provide one tree per 10,000 square feet of impervious area of the entire
site, in addition to the trees required in § 165‐204.18, Storage facilities. The
perimeter landscaping trees shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the
parking lot. A three‐foot‐high evergreen hedge, fence, berm or wall shall be
provided to prevent headlights from shining on public rights‐of‐ways and
adjoining properties. All perimeter landscaping shall comply with the
requirements of §165‐203.01B, Plant selection, planting procedure and
maintenance.
(ii) Interior landscaping. A minimum of 5% of the interior portions of parking lots
shall be landscaped for the purpose of providing shade trees. Such interior
landscaping shall be provided on raised islands and in continuous raised strips
extending the length of a parking bay. Within the parking lot, raised islands and
landscaped areas should be uses to delineate traffic and pedestrian circulation
patterns. No less than one shade tree shall be provided in the interior of the
parking lot for each 10 parking spaces. The Zoning Administrator may waive the
requirement for interior landscaping for parcels located outside of the Sewer and
Water Service Area when curb and gutter is not proposed. The Zoning
Administrator may approve alternative locations for interior landscaping for
Draft Landscaping Revisions
5
parking lots used for truck parking, as well as other parking lots, when it would
improve the overall quality of the landscape plan.
B. Plant selection, planting procedure, and maintenance.
(1) Plant selection. Based on the type of landscaping, required trees and shrubs shall be selected
from the table of acceptable trees and shrubs shown below.
Types of Landscaping
Street tree landscaping (street) Ornamental landscaping (ornamental) Tree preservation landscaping
(canopy) Interior and perimeter landscaping (shade), Buffer screening and parking lot screening (screen),
Deciduous buffer element (street, canopy, shade), buffer shrub element (shrub or screen)
Acceptable Trees and Shrubs
Common Name Scientific Name
Types of Landscaping
Permitted
Amur Maple Acer ginnala Street, shade, canopy,
ornamental
European Hornbeam Carpinus betulus Street, shade, canopy,
ornamental
Hop Hornbeam Ostrya virginiana Street, shade, canopy,
ornamental
Katsura Tree Cercidiphyllum japonicum Street, shade, canopy,
ornamental
Ginkgo (male) Ginkgo biloba Street, shade, canopy,
ornamental
Thornless Honey Locust Gleditsia triacanthos inermis Street, shade, canopy,
ornamental
Golden‐Rain Tree Koelreuteria paniculata Street, shade, canopy,
ornamental
Flowering Crabapple Malus (disease resistant varieties)Street, shade, canopy,
ornamental
Chinese Pistache Pistacia chinensis Street, shade, canopy,
ornamental
Linden Tilia (all varities)Street, shade, canopy,
ornamental
Draft Landscaping Revisions
6
Lacebark Elm Ulmus parvifolia Street, shade, canopy,
ornamental
Japanese Zelkova Zelkova serrata Street, shade, canopy,
ornamental
Red Oak Quercus rubra Street, shade, canopy,
ornamental
White Oak Quercus alba Street, shade, canopy,
ornamental
Scarlet Oak Quercus coccinea Street, shade, canopy,
ornamental
Sawtooth Oak Quercus acutissima Street, shade, canopy,
ornamental
Kentucky Coffeetree Gymnocladus diocus Street, shade, canopy,
ornamental
Dawn Redwood Metasequoia glyptostroboides Street, shade, canopy
Swamp Chestnut Oak Quercus michauxii Street, shade, canopy
Willow Oak Quercus phellos Shade, canopy, ornamental
Bald Cypress Taxodium distichum Street, shade, canopy
Red Maple Acer rubrum Shade, canopy, ornamental
Freeman Maple Acer freemanii Shade, canopy, ornamental
Sugar Maple Acer saccharum Shade, canopy, ornamental
Paperbark Maple Acer griseum Shade, canopy, ornamental
American Sycamore Platanus occidentallis Shade, canopy, ornamental
London Plane Tree Platanus acerifolia Shade, canopy, ornamental
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua Shade, canopy, ornamental
Copper Beech Fagus sylvatica 'Riversii' Shade, canopy, ornamental
Weeping Beech Fagus pendula Shade, canopy, ornamental
European Beech Fagus sylvatica Shade, canopy, ornamental
Draft Landscaping Revisions
7
River Birch Betula nigra Shade, canopy, ornamental
Star Magnolia Magnolia stellata Shade, canopy, ornamental
Saucer Magnolia Magnolia x soulangiana Shade, canopy, ornamental
Black Gum Nyssa sylvatica Shade, canopy, ornamental
Yellowwood Cladrastis kentukea Shade, canopy, ornamental
Downy Serviceberry Amelanchier arborea Shade, canopy, ornamental
Hawthorn Crataegus plaenopyrum, Crataegus
viridis
Shade, canopy, ornamental
Sourwood Oxydendrum arboreum Shade, canopy, ornamental
Tuliptree Liriodendron tulipifera Shade, canopy, ornamental
Paw Paw Asimina triloba Shade, canopy, ornamental
Dogwood Cornus florida, Cornus kousa, Cornus
hybrid
Shade, ornamental
Flowering Cherry Prunus (all varieties of Flowering
Cherry)
Shade, ornamental
Cornelian Cherry Cornus mas Shade, ornamental
Eastern Redbud Cercis canadensis Shade, ornamental
American Plum Prunus americana Shade, ornamental
Japanese Maple Acer palmatum Shade, ornamental
Douglas Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii Screen, ornamental
White Fir Abies concolor Screen, ornamental
Spruce Picea (all varieties) Screen, ornamental
Japanese Umbrella Pine Sciadopitys verticillata Screen, ornamental
Hinoki False Cypress Chamaecyparis obtusa Screen, ornamental
White Pine Pinus strobus Screen, canopy
Western Arborvitae Thuja plicata Screen, ornamental
Draft Landscaping Revisions
8
Eastern Arborvitae Thuja occidentalis (all varieties)Screen, ornamental
Leyland Cypress Cupressocyparis x leylandi Screen, ornamental
Japanese Cedar Cryptomeria japonica Screen, ornamental
Viburnum (Evergreen) (all evergreen/semi‐evergreen
varieties)
Screen, ornamental, shrub
Yew Taxus (all varieties) Screen, ornamental, shrub
Holly Ilex (all varieties)Screen, ornamental, shrub
Common Boxwood Buxus sempervirens Screen, ornamental, shrub
Juniper Juniperus (all varieties) Screen, ornamental, shrub
Abelia (All varieties) Screen, ornamental, shrub
Witchhazel Hamamelis vernalis Ornamental, shrub
White Fringetree Chionanthus virginicus Ornamental, shrub
Slender Deutzia Deutzia gracilis Ornamental, shrub
Althea Hibiscus syriacus Ornamental, shrub
Vicary privet Ligustrum x vicaryi Ornamental, shrub
Sweet Mockorange Philadelphus coronarius Ornamental, shrub
Japanese pieris Pieris japonica Ornamental, shrub
Cotoneaster (All varieties) Ornamental, shrub
Spirea (All varieties) Ornamental, shrub
Weigela (All varieties) Ornamental, shrub
Forsythia (All varieties) Ornamental, shrub
Dwarf Fothergilla Fothergilla gardenii Ornamental, shrub
Buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis Ornamental, shrub
Japanese pagodatree Sophora japonica Ornamental, shrub
Chastetree Vitex agnus‐castus Ornamental, shrub
Draft Landscaping Revisions
9
(2) Planting procedure. All required trees and shrubs shall meet the specifications and procedures
established by the American Nursery and Landscape Association.
a) All trees shall be planted no closer than three feet to the edge of sidewalks, curb or other
pavement.
b) Deciduous trees shall be a minimum of two‐inch caliper at the time of planning.
c) Only single stem trees shall be planted as street trees.
d) Evergreen trees shall be a minimum of four feet in height at the time of planting. Shrubs
shall be a minimum three‐gallon container at the time of planting. In addition to the three‐
gallon container requirement, parking lot screening shrubs shall be a minimum of 36” in
height at time of planting and buffer shrubs shall be a minimum of 18” in height at time of
planting. Spacing of parking lot screening shrubs shall be no greater than four (4) feet on
center.
e) Only trees having a mature height of less than 20 feet shall be located under overhead
utility lines.
f) Measurement of Size. Caliper is measured six (6) inches above the ground up to and
including four (4) inch caliper size, and twelve (12) inches above the ground for larger sizes.
Diameter at breast height (dbh) will be measured at the height of 54 inches from the base
of the trunk or as otherwise allowed in the Guide for Plant Appraisal.
(3) Maintenance. The owner, developer, and/or builder who is responsible for planting required
landscaping shall be responsible for maintaining it in a state of good health for one year after
Standard Nandina Nandina domestica Ornamental, shrub
Purple Plum Prunus cerasifera Ornamental
Crape Myrtle Lagerstroemia indica Ornamental
Persian parrotia Parrotia persica ornamental
Hydrangea (all varieties)Ornamental
Mugo pine Pinus mugo Ornamental
Itea (All varieties) Ornamental
Aronia (All varieties) Ornamental
Clethra (All varieties) Ornamental
Azalea Rhododendron (All varieties) Ornamental
Rhododendron (All varieties) Ornamental
Northern Bayberry Myrica pensylvanica Ornamental
Meyer Lilac Syringa meyeri ‘Palibin’Ornamental
Draft Landscaping Revisions
10
planting. After one year, from the date occupancy is approved, the individual property owner
and/or homeowner's association shall become responsible for maintenance. As long as the intent
of this section is met, the Zoning Administrator may waive the requirement for landscaping on
individual building lots when a hazard or nuisance exists.
C. Existing tree credits. If the intent of § 165‐203.01 is satisfied, including species type and location,
existing trees that are preserved may be counted towards the total number of required trees for
residential developments. Commercial and industrial developments may utilize existing tree credits
when calculating the required number of parking lot trees, as required in § 165‐202.01D(13), if the
preserved trees are shown on an approved site plan and serve the intent of interior and perimeter
landscaping. The following table shows the credit given for each preserved tree, based on the tree's
caliper:
D. Enforcement procedures. The Zoning Administrator may require a bond with surety or other
acceptable guaranties to insure the completion of required improvements. Such guaranties shall be
in the estimated amount of the required improvements. Such guaranties shall be for a period of
completion set by the Zoning Administrator with consultation with the applicant. Such guaranties
shall be released when the required improvements have been completed.
Caliper (inches) Tree Credit
4 to 6 1
7 to 12 2
13 to 18 3
19 to 29 4
Greater than 30 5
FREDERICK COUNTY BUSINESS CLIMATE ASSESSMENT CITIZEN COMMITTEE
LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE
Executive Summary of Recommendations
Juste 19, 2019
Hon. Richard C. Shickle, Chairman By E -mail
Frederick County Board of Supervisors
John R. Riley, Jr., County Administrator
Frederick County, Virginia
Gentlemen:
I am proud to call Frederick County my home for most of my 59 years. It is a great place to live and work
in no small part due to your leadership. Your initiation of the Business Climate Assessment Committee is
more evidence of your effort to provide superior service to all citizens of Frederick County. The Land
Use and Development Subcommittee that I have chaired is very appreciative of your solicitation of our
thoughts. Most localities would be too timid to entertain a process like this.
Our subcommittee met seven times in full with excellent attendance. Smaller sub - subcommittees met
an additional four times. Numerous e- mails, phone calls and research on the part of committee
members demonstrated their commitment to taking advantage of the opportunity you have afforded
us. Staff support was excellent.
This letter will serve as an Executive Summary of our recommendations. We strongly encourage you to
read the supplemental data provided in four attachments (referenced below).
We recommend ...
Elimination of the Master Development Plan process as it no longer provides benefits that
cannot be achieved in a more cost effective, timely manner another way
Consideration of reducing proffer requirements in future rezoning applications as well as
amendments to existing proffers to create viable projects that will deliver needed
transportation improvements and other benefits
Adding an ordinance to specifically handle proffer amendments in a more surgical, direct way
without reopening the entire zoning, case
The first three recommendations above are discussed in more detail in Ty Lawson's
memo dated April 16, 2013,
Simplify and trim the landscape ordinance and related sections of the code and allow staff to
exempt modest projects from triggering the ordinance provisions. Even the tiniest change to an
existing site plan will now trigger the full impact of the landscape ordinance as it is currently
written due to a modification made in early 2013.
have never seen anyone experience a medical emergency while viewing a site with no
landscaping in 58 years. I have personally experienced and know of many others who
have experienced allergies due to plant materials used in landscaping, people falling off
of ladders during their attempts to clear organic matter from landscaping out of their
gutters, automobiles damaged including a personal car totaled by a falling tree, perilous
driveways where poorly located and maintained landscaping blocks the view of
oncoming traffic, ruined ceilings where organic matter from landscaping prevented
water from promptly leaving a roof surface and it leaked to the inside, etc., etc.
Business people in Frederick County have suffered ridiculous delays due to landscape
matters getting an unjustified amount of attention. One business could riot clear brush
near a facility populated 24/7 by hundreds of employees who feared the homeless living
in the brushy area for many months. Another business had their move to a new facility
delayed for an extended period due to landscaping requirements. The required
plantings look out of place for the neighborhood and were a waste of money.
Professional people involved in the preparation of site plans have reported the need to
just "cram in the required trees" to meet the requirements. Many projects look grossly
overdone —there is just so much plant material used. f=inally, it has been reported that
as the required landscaping matures it must be thinned out because it has been
overplanted at the outset. All of this should be no surprise since the ordinance is largely
based on recommendations of the American Nursery and landscape Association, an
industry association whose members sell and install plant material. Congratulations to
the association for a job well done for its members.
Frederick County is still by land area a largely rural county and beautiful. There is no
justification for the complexity and excess in the current policy. Most businesses will
landscape their properties anyway to make themselves attractive to two very important
groups of people — prospective customers and employees. It is insulting to think that
the County legislates beauty by dictating these requirements forcing the use of
excessive materials. The problem will be magnified and be even more difficult to
manage with the onset of the Chesapeake Bay requirements July 1, 2014.
Please see Scot Marsh's memo dated May 2, 2013 for additional
information on this recommendation.
Customer service training for employees meeting the public with a feedback system to allow for
continuous improvement
Staff reviews once per year supported by a citizen committee. Staff may need to be cut.
Please see the Staff Considerations section of the Addltionol lMformation.
Enhance the existing "fast track" process for site plan approval. Goal is to be the talked about
place where you can save time /money building your business project.
Be cautious about government competing with the private sector, Commercial and Industrial
rezonings should be much easier to accomplish for all applicants and extraordinary support for
specific applicants should be avoided. This is in conflict with certain recommendations of the
BDAS committee, We fully support deferral of roll back taxes on industrial land until it is
developed to encourage property owners to go ahead and rezone.
We support the Business Attraction and Retention Subcommittee's recommendation to
establish an Economic Development Authority.
Consider having the Economic Development Authority provide an ombudsman to assist
businesses in navigating the various permit and approval channels on a prompt, cost effective
basis.
Please see the Land Use Matters section of the Additional Information.
Encourage the use of more private roads particularly in commercial /industrial projects
Consider establishing a committee to focus solely on the completion of Route 37 East, The
window of opportunity now vs. future inflated right -of -way acquisition and construction costs as
well as higher interest rates is compelling. The county has already become more savvy in the
use of matching funds, etc. to get things done.
Please see the Roads section of the Additional information.
Encourage local authorities including the Winchester Regional Airport, the Frederick County
Sanitation Authority and the Frederick Winchester Service Authority to be business friendly
as well. Specific issues are discussed in the Additional Information.
Our subcommittee would be willing to meet with you at your convenience to answer any questions you
might have about our recommendations. We all have a continuing interest in supporting, your efforts to
keep Frederick County a business friendly, vibrant place. Feel free to call upon any of us for support as
needed.
Thanks again for being bold enough to open the door for our input.
Sincerely,
John P. Good, Jr.
Chairrn
Land Use and Development Subcommittee
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Land Use and Development Subcommittee
FROM: Scot W. Marsh
DATE: May 2, 2013
RE: Recommendations to Board of Supervisors
Buffers and Landscaping
======================================================================
The following is a summary of the discussions regarding recommendations for
amendments to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance with regard to the buffers and
landscaping requirements. This summary with recommendations is in draft form for review by
our committee for the addition to our committee’s final recommendations to the Frederick
County Board of Supervisors.
Buffers and Landscaping Requirements:
It is the recommendation of the Land Use and Development Subcommittee to have the
existing Frederick County Buffers and Landscaping Ordinance completely reviewed and re-
written to provide, first and foremost, a well defined purpose to allow for flexibility in the project
site landscaping, tree preservation, and effective development buffers. This specific ordinance
should reflect the community’s priorities and should prominently state the benefits that are to be
realized with the implementation of these requirements. The ordinance should be written in a
manner that can be understood by not only a professional designer, but also a developer or
contractor so that he or she will comprehend what must be done to meet the standards. The
ordinance should be tailored so that the landscaping features are most suitable for the particular
terrain, proposed design features, adjacent lands, drainage and other site-specific elements.
Recommendations for the New Landscape Ordinance:
o There should be no landscaping requirements on single-family residential lots.
o Existing Facility expansion projects the landscaping requirements should be
limited.
o Create a Landscape Advisory Committee
o Reduce or scale back the amount of specific landscaping required on a project
o Minimize construction costs that relate to matters of taste
o Reduce government control, regulation, and intervention for small business.
o Provide for flexibility during the design and construction phases by allowing for
business owners to manage their properties to meet the needs of the specific
facility.
The new landscape ordinance would be created by a that would be made up of
approximately ten (10) members. The landscape advisory committee would be diverse and
representative of the following suggested disciplines:
From the Private Sector: A certified landscape architect, a civil engineer site planner, a
representative of the local builders’ association, a landscaping contractor, a local plant nursery
grower, and a project developer.
From Local Government: A Planning Department representative and a member of the
Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors.
The landscape advisory committee would be authorized to retain the services of a
consultant with expertise in landscape and development planning to assist and facilitate the
creation of the new landscape ordinance. This same committee would continue service for
design and review of landscape plans.
The Land Use and Development Subcommittee has come to this recommendation
through extensive discussions regarding our existing ordinance and through inquiry with
planners, engineers, landscape contractors, developers, and site contractors that are familiar
with the current Frederick County Ordinance. It is through these discussions that we have
found that our current ordinance is difficult to understand, restrictive for the implementation of
new creative ideas, and lacks flexibility for actual site construction and landscape
implementation.
The following are some comments from professionals that have experience
with the current Frederick County Landscaping Ordinance.
SUMMARY REVIEW
A. Clearly distinguish between commercial, industrial and residential landscape requirements.
B. Clearly identify the submittal, review and appeal process for landscape plans and buffer
requirements.
C. Clearly identify buffer requirements within the context of each zoning district (like setbacks).
D. Consider buffers as distance between uses to help urban infill.
E. Look carefully at the landscape requirements with plants and trees at mature levels.
F. Keep tree save and tree preservation requirements out of the landscape section.
G. Look carefully at the intent of the landscape requirements to help guide the Zoning
Administrator. Critical is the view from the street or road for a commercial, mixed use or
industrial use.
H. Consider the unintended consequences of the landscape, tree save and buffer requirements.
● Are trees being removed prior to the development process?
● Are plants and trees being removed after the final CO?
● Are infill sites being left undeveloped due to buffers?
There are a number of items that jump out after reviewing the Landscape Requirements of the Frederick
County Zoning Ordinance.
1. Chapter II – Supplementary Use Regulation: Parking; Buffers; and Regulations for Specific Uses – 203
Buffers and Landscaping – Section 165-203.01 do not contain all of the landscaping requirements.
Additional landscaping requirements are located in the parking requirements.
Suggestion:
Place all landscaping requirements in one section for ease of reverence.
2. It is unclear to the reader if the Landscape Regulations pertain to just residential or residential,
commercial and industrial uses. The Landscape Regulations and Buffer requirements are a mix of
standards for commercial, industrial and residential adding confusion to the provisions as to where the
regulations apply. Although for residential these standards impact both commercial and industrial uses
and should be clearly referenced.
Suggestion:
Clearly identify the landscape requirements for each major land use category by use (industrial,
commercial or residential)
3. The Chapter heading suggests that there are parking regulations included in the Landscaping
Regulations.
Suggestion:
Place all parking regulations and parking lot standards for landscaping in one location.
4. The Landscaping Regulations include landscape, buffer requirements and tree saving (tree
preservation) standards. There is no provision for appeal or review of a plan by a committee that has
expertise in one or another particular field.
Suggestion – Tree Preservation:
Tree saving (preservation) are generally under a tree commission or parks commission in more
urban areas. Consider a qualified group or committee to oversee the tree preservation portion of
the code.
Consider removal of the tree preservation standards to its own section.
Clearly identify if this section only applies to residential.
It is not clear if this applies to non-residential uses at a first glance.
Does the tree save standard encourage removal of trees prior to the development process to avoid
preservation?
The tree preservation section is labeled as landscaping. This is confusing. The standards do not
allow for a trained forester to conduct the tree drip line analysis.
Clearly outline the process for review, modification of the standards and appeals.
Suggestion – Buffers and Screens:
Distance buffers and screens were originally designed to be measured between actual uses and not within
internal property lines. Waivers could be obtained if adjoining property owners agreed. As Frederick
County changes to a more urban nature in-fill becomes more and more important. Consider modifying
this section to allow reconsider distance between uses and waivers by adjoiners to promote infill.
Distance buffers have become a form of setbacks impacting the way many properties can be used and
developed. Consider adding a reference to the required buffers that they be placed in the setback
standards.
Distance buffers include landscaping. The landscaping requirements for the number of plants and spacing
need to consider the distance between plants when mature. The current standard appears to crowd
plantings – modify the spacing requirements to recognize the mature levels of the required plants
and trees.
Suggestions – Road Efficiency Buffers:
Road efficiency buffers need to be clearly identified if they are intended for commercial, industrial
or residential uses.
5. Parking Lot Landscape Requirements:
Landscaping. Parking lots in the RP Residential Performance District, the R4 Residential Planned
Community District, the R5 Residential Recreational Community District, the MH1 Mobile Home
Community District, the B1 Neighborhood Business District, the B2 Business General District, the B3
Industrial Transition District, the OM Office-Manufacturing Park District, the M1 Light Industrial
District, the M2 Industrial General District, the MS Medical Support District, and the HE (Higher
Education) District shall be landscaped to reduce the visual impact of glare and headlights on adjoining
properties and rights-of-way. Parking lots shall be adequately shaded to reduce reflected heat.
In the RA (Rural Areas) District, parking lot landscaping shall not be required for parking lots with 10
or fewer spaces. Landscaping shall also be provided to reduce the visual expansiveness of parking lots.
Landscaping shall be provided in such parking lots as follows:
(a) Perimeter landscaping. The perimeter of all impervious areas shall be landscaped with shade trees
and other landscaping. One tree shall be provided for every 2,000 square feet of impervious area for the
first 100,000 square feet of the entire site. One tree shall be provided for every 5,000 square feet in
excess of the first 100,000 square feet of the entire site. Self-service storage facilities shall provide one
tree per 10,000 square feet of impervious area of the entire site, in addition to the trees required in §
165-204.18, Storage facilities, self-service. The perimeter landscaping trees shall be reasonably
dispersed throughout the parking lot. A three-foot-high evergreen hedge, fence, berm, or wall shall be
provided to prevent headlights from shining on public rights-of-way and adjoining properties. All
perimeter landscaping shall comply with the requirements of § 165-203.01B, Plant selection, planting
procedure, and maintenance.
(b) Interior landscaping. A minimum of 5% of the interior portions of parking lots shall be landscaped
for the purpose of providing shade trees. Such interior landscaping shall be provided on raised islands
and in continuous raised strips extending the length of a parking bay. Within the parking lot, raised
islands and landscaped areas should be uses to delineate traffic and pedestrian circulation patterns. No
less than one shade tree shall be provided in the interior of the parking lot for each 10 parking spaces.
The Zoning Administrator may waive the requirement for interior landscaping for parcels located outside
of the Sewer and Water Service Area when curb and gutter is not proposed. The Zoning Administrator
may approve alternative locations for interior landscaping for parking lots used for truck parking, as well
as other parking lots, when it would improve the overall quality of the landscape plan. All interior
landscaping shall comply with the requirements of § 165-203.01B, Plant selection, planting procedure,
and maintenance.
Pedestrian access. Sidewalks shall be provided as necessary within parking lots to protect pedestrians and
promote the safe and efficient movement of pedestrians and vehicles. In large parking lots, pedestrian
walkways and crosswalks shall be provided, marked by durable painted stripes and appropriate signs.
The parking lot landscape requirements generally are for commercial and industrial uses but can apply to
residential uses.
Suggestion:
Clearly identify the landscape requirements for commercial and industrial uses.
Clearly identify the process and procedure for review and modification of landscape plans. If a
plan is modified from the standard due to site conditions, the Zoning Administration has the final
approval. If the designer and Zoning Administrator do not agree; what is the procedure for
resolution?
Look at the mature stage of plants and trees during the planning phase to eliminate crowding.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3074
DRAFT Minutes of April 2, 2014
DRAFT 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 April 2, 2014.
PRESENT:June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large;Roger L. Thomas, Vice
Chairman/Opequon District; Robert S. Molden, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District;
Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District;Charles E. Triplett,
Gainesboro District;Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; J. Rhodes
Marston, Back Creek District;and Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud District; Charles F. Dunlap, Red Bud
District; Roderick B.Williams, County Attorney; Robert Hess, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and
Stephen Slaughter,Jr., Winchester Planning Commission Liaison.
ABSENT:J. Stanley Crockett, Stonewall District
STAFF PRESENT:Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning
Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Candice E. Perkins, Senior Planner; and
Renee S. Arlotta, Clerk.
-----------
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Wilmot called the April 2, 2014 meeting of the Frederick County Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. Chairman Wilmot commenced the meeting by inviting everyone to
join in a moment of silence.
Citizen Comments
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the
Planning Commission’s agenda or any item that is solely a discussion item for the Commission.
Mr. John Goode, Stonewall District, came forward to speak regarding a discussion item
on the Commission’s agenda, the discussion of potential revisions to the landscaping requirements
pursuant to the Business-Friendly Committee. Mr. Goode said he was the subcommittee chairman of the
Land Use Committee, or what is now commonly referred to as the Business-Friendly Committee. He
commented this committee had comments to the Board of Supervisors on a number of different subjects
and the landscape ordinance was only one item among those comments.
Mr. Goode said when the meetings initially started, several committee members
expressed reservations about the work that was to be conducted, noting that recommendations would
more than likely not be done. Mr. Goode told those individuals he thought they were wrong because he
believed the Board members were seriously interested in what the businesses community had to say. Mr.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3075
DRAFT Minutes of April 2, 2014
Goode said he happened to notice the Planning Commission agenda last week and he saw the landscape
ordinance was on the agenda. Mr. Goode said after reading through the agenda,he believed the only
recommendation for change on the docket was probably the least important item the committee had
recommended.
Mr. Goode said he was provided a copy of the minutes from the DRRC (Development
Review & Regulations Committee)meeting and he could tell from the minutes that the DRRC had not
received all of the committee recommendations. Mr. Goode said he would like to attend a meeting of the
DRRC, bring all of the recommendations, and make a presentation to put things into context. He thought
this would be beneficial and reflect what the Business-Friendly Committee actually thought. Mr. Goode
said he appreciated the proposed modification presented at this evening’s meeting, which would make an
exception for the master development plan (MDP), if a full-blown site plan is presented.
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the Citizen Comments portion
of the meeting.
INFORMATION/ DISCUSSION ITEMS
Discussion on proposed revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Buffers and
Landscaping Requirements, Part 203, per the Business Friendly Recommendations Committee.
Action –Referred Back to DRRC
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that another recommendation that came out
of the Business-Friendly Committee was for a “…complete review and re-evaluation of the buffer and
landscaping requirements to provide a well-defined purpose to allow for flexibility in project site
landscaping, tree preservation, and effective development buffers.”
Ms. Perkins said the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC)
reviewed the landscaping ordinance at their September 2013, January 2014, and February 2014 meetings
and considered all of the recommendations provided by the Business-Friendly Committee. She said the
DRRC recognized, however, that the buffer and landscaping sections had recently been reviewed and the
committee believed the existing ordinance was appropriate. Those reviews occurred back in 2013, when
the Board of Supervisors adopted a substantial overhaul to the landscaping requirements as part of the RP
(Residential Performance) District update;a few years ago, the Board modified the buffer requirements
which substantially reduced the requirements for buffers; and, in addition, the RA (Rural Areas)
landscaping lot requirements were removed a number of years ago as well. Considering all of the
recommendations and the revisions that were recently approved, the DRRC believed the existing
ordinance to be adequate and appropriate. Ms. Perkins said the DRRC did recommend the parking lot
landscaping requirements be moved out of the parking lot section and into the main landscaping section to
insure all the requirements were within one section.
Commissioner Oates stated that of all the localities he works in, as far as doing
landscaping, Frederick County is by far the simplest and easiest one to work in. He said one additional
step that could be taken to save money on site development would be to specify places on site where
pavement, curbing, and concrete could be reduced and significantly drop the cost of site development.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3076
DRAFT Minutes of April 2, 2014
Commissioner Oates said he didn’t have a problem, however,if the Commission wanted to send this back
to DRRC and let Mr. Goode make a presentation to possibly swerve the recommendations of the DRRC.
Commissioner Thomas believed it would be appropriate to make certain the DRRC
understood what the Business-Friendly Committee was trying to get across and allow Mr.Goode to give a
presentation on their recommendations.
Commissioner Oates said he was emphatically opposed to the recommendation that a tree
committee be formed to review site plans because he believed it would stall the process. He said he was
not in favor of forming another committee.
Chairman Wilmot asked the Planning Director, Eric Lawrence, if this discussion would
come back to the Planning Commission again, after a presentation is made to the DRRC. Mr. Lawrence
said it was up to the Commission to decide if they wanted to send the landscaping requirements back to
committee and it certainly would come back to the Commission to update members as to the reaction of
the DRRC. He said, ultimately, a recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors,
whether it is now or in another month or so.
Commissioner Thomas made a motion to send the landscaping requirements discussion
back to the DRRC and allow the Business-Friendly Committee to make a presentation and then afterward,
have it come back to the Planning Commission. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ambrogi
and was passed by a majority vote, as follows:
YES (send back to DRRC):Mohn, Dunlap, Triplett, Molden, Thomas, Oates, Manuel, Ambrogi,
Wilmot
NO:Kenney, Marston, Unger
ABSENT:Crockett