CPPC 06-14-04 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
MEMORANDUM
TO: Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee ("k>.
FROM: Christopher M. Mohn, AICP, Deputy Planning Directo?' .
Susan K. Eddy, AICP, Senior Planner SPCC
DATE: June 8, 2004
RF,: June Meeting and Agenda
The Frederick County Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) will be meeting
on Monday, June 14, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the first floor conference room of the County
Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. The CPPS will discuss the
following agenda items:
AGENDA
1) Rural Areas Study. Continuation of policy formulation phase of Rural Areas Study.
2) Other.
Please contact our department if you are unable to attend this meeting. Thank you.
Please note the earlier start time for this meeting.
Access to the County Administration Building for night meetings that do not occur in the Board
Room will he limited to the hack door of the four-story wing. I would encourage committee
members to park in the county parking lot located behind the new addition or in the Joint Judicial
Center parking lot and follow the sidewalks to the hack door of the four-story wing. The door will
he locked; therefore, please wait for staff to open the door.
SKE/ CMM/bad
Attachments
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
ITEM #1
Rural Areas Sturdy
Continuation of Policy Formulation Phase
Overview:
Using the input gathered in recent months from the public, stakeholders, and both the Planning Commission
and Board of Supervisors, the committee has begun the policy formulation phase of the Rural Areas Study.
Through this phase of the study, a vision statement for the rural areas i s being articulated and policies are
being drafted to facilitate attainment of this vision.
The Green Infrastructure Concept:
Staff is exploring in greater detail the Green Infrastructure concept, a concept already endorsed in principle
by the committee and the working group. It is intended that the Green Infrastructure concept will be the
framework around which the ultimate Rural Areas Policy Plan will be based.
In general, the Green Infrastructure is defined as a contiguous network of protected open spaces and
natural resources. Staffproposes that the Green Infrastructure concept is an effective means of articulating
the essence ofthe county's rural character as described through the preliminary and public visioning phases
of the study. In particular, the Green Infrastructure of Frederick County may be described as the diverse
array of inter -connected resources that result in the scenic beauty of the rural landscape and the valued
quality of the rural environment.
At the core of the Green Infrastructure framework are "primary conservation resources" that are already
protected in the county by ordinance. such as flood plains, wetlands, steep slopes and riparian buffers. The
Green Infrastructure also incorporates other features of the landscape that are not overtly managed or
protected by local codes, but are nevertheless valued by the community. These features may include forest
lands, prominent ridge lines, wildlife habitats, as well as scenic vistas and viewsheds. These are often
referred to as "secondary conservation resources." Secondary resources can also include heritage and
cultural features, such as historic buildings and agricultural structures, which, while not part of the green
network, are important to the rural character. It will be the work of staff and the committee to articulate
which features of the landscape warrant this type of treatment and to develop policies to promote their
retention.
Update of Rural Areas Working Group Discussions:
The rural areas working group has focused much oftheir attention on options for rural land development.
Issues concerning rural land development discussed by the working group include:
• the need for a "menu" of development options with emphasis on conservation;
• relationship between the quantity of open space and lot sizes;
• acceptable minimum lot sizes;
• the Green Infrastructure concept;
• value of sliding scale zoning;
• role of pipestem lots;
• issues involving rural home owner associations (HOAs);
• buffering and screening requirements from rural roads;
• community wells;
• off-site drain fields;
• implications of large tract development; and
• management of development of small sites under 20 acres.
Staffhas prepared a number of scenarios to illustrate residential development types that could be promoted
through the Rural Areas Policy Plan. These will be presented at the meeting.
Attached is the current - "working" - draft ofthe Rural Area Study Policy Formulation Outline. It states
many of the concerns raised by the working group on all aspects of the rural area study and highlights areas
still to be resolved.
I.
Rural Areas Study
Policy Formulation Outline
May 18, 2004
(revised June 8, 2004)
Form of Development — Land Use Options
A. Clustering of New Homes
1. Minimum and maximum lot sizes for new rural lots.
Issues/Direction: Must determine viability/acceptability of off site
drain fields — again, Health Department input needed on potential
use of open space if it contains drain fields.
2. Health systems (community drain fields, alternative systems) —
"carrying capacity."
Issues/Direction: Health Department perspective — long term
safety, effectiveness, management responsibility for/of systems.
Role of publicly managed package plant to achieve clustering. If
alternative systems are encouraged, need inspection process to
ensure safety, effectiveness over long term (determine inspection
responsibility, time frame for inspections). Role of Code — how
require/compel inspections establish authority — FCSA, Health
Department — third party inspections, etc. — HOA involvement.
How would inspections occur — what components are necessary
(i.e. test wells).
Community systems are easily employed with larger scale
developments. If available option, may encourage/facilitate more
substantial developments in rural areas.
3. Role of clustered development
principal form for major rural
yielding more than three lots).
— determine if it is to be the
subdivisions (i.e. subdivisions
Issues/Direction: Tiered development approach — certain
thresholds administrative, allowed to be large lot — above specified
threshold, explore rezoning and apply clustering to large scale
development — cluster only option on prime agricultural soils.
Potential for "massive" scale residential developments in the rural
areas. Is there a cap of lots or dwellings that should not be
exceeded? If so, how achieve — sliding scale, tighter road access
1
standards (i.e. only "x" number of lots created off of existing
roads).
B. Open Space and Resource Conservation
1. The Green Infrastructure — refers to all of Frederick County's
natural, cultural, and heritage resources as a defined system, to
include stream corridors, mountainsides, forested areas, historic
and archeological sites, wetlands, flood plain, sensitive soils (i.e.
limestone "belt"), as well as existing open space assets (natural,
eased and man-made). With conservation and open space
protection as a principal rural areas objective, the green
infrastructure would be employed as the principal organizing
concept for rural areas development, ensuring recognition and
integration of rural resources with all land use decisions, both
public and private.
Issues/Direction: resources need to be mapped accurately — how
determine secondary resources — articulate via policy, with concern
for implementation (express desired framework). Identify
Opequon Creek as focal point of county's green infrastructure —
logical, appropriate to use as foundation for aligning other
resources/conservation areas/recreation areas, etc.
2. Open Space Protection - Development Related:
i. Minimum expected open space area in cluster development
(i.e. percentage/ratio — currently 40%).
ii. Quality/value/organization of conserved open space — criteria
for evaluating and guiding configuration of open space
resources. Consider use of primary and secondary
conservation areas as means of classifying open space based
upon constituent resources (primary includes resources
protected by ordinance, secondary includes all other resources).
iii. Use(s) of conserved open space.
Issues/Direction: Community stables, gardens, etc. — limited
agricultural use — building lot option. Ensure open space is
accessible to neighborhood for maintenance.
iv. Management of conserved open space.
Issues/Direction: Again, access is key — must be accessible to
manage effectively, either by HOA or private owner/user.
2
v. Use of conservation easements to secure open space set asides.
3. Open Space Protection - Non -Development Related:
i. Conservation easements/conservation easement authority.
ii. Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) [framework, priorities]
C. Relationship of Development to Existing Rural Roads
1. Limit access points onto existing secondary roads by restricting
access for newly subdivided lots to private/shared access
easements and new public roads, regardless of subdivision size or
type.
2. Rural Road Corridor Buffer — combination of distance and
preservation of existing roadside features (i.e. vegetation, fences)
to protect rural road viewsheds.
Issues/Direction:. Consider/test 300' to 500' buffer from existing
public roads.
D. Regulatory Changes to Improve Rural Land Use Administration
1. Substandard Lots — determine appropriate/preferred approach for
addressing existing substandard lots in the rural areas (lots
consisting of less than two acres).
Issues/Direction: Recognize existence and endorse more effective
methods for resolving related site development issues — i.e. waiver
opportunity.
2. By Right and Conditional Uses — determine extent to which
additional non-residential uses are appropriate in the rural areas as
an alternative development option, and what process, if any, such
uses should follow to gain approval. Determine effect of current
ordinances on various rural economy uses (bed and breakfasts,
country inns, conference facilities, general small businesses, etc),
and consider policies to guide regulatory changes to spur rural
economic development.
Issues/Direction: Rural areas should be open for business.
Policies should emphasize rural economy — potential for alternative
land uses. Performance standards for certain uses. CUP review for
others.
3
3. Other Non -Discretionary Administrative Issues that Require Policy
Guidance/Clarification — per Zoning Administrator report.
II. Rural Rezoning Concept
A. Location(s) where new development would be subject to rezoning
approval. Determine whether to apply rezoning concept only to specific
geographic areas, or treat rural areas as single policy area and apply
rezoning concept to new development throughout.
B. Density to be allowed through rezoning. Determine whether rezoning will
be used as a means to achieve the overall rural density of one unit per five
acres (i.e. prior to subdividing, rezoning approval would be needed).
C. Size/scale of development that would be subject to rezoning approval.
Determine whether there is a unit or lot threshold above which a
development would require rezoning approval (i.e. over three ... two... ten
lots). Address potential for retention of limited administrative (by right)
subdivision approvals and define parameters for such activity (i.e.
one... two... three lots, per year ... three years ... five years).
D. Format of zoning district to be employed with rural rezoning, distinguish
from existing Rural Areas district (i.e. rural residential district).
E. Criteria for rezoning approval in rural areas.
F. Scope and composition of impact analysis for rural rezoning application to
address fiscal and physical costs of growth (i.e. fiscal impact analysis,
transportation impact analysis, green infrastructure/open space analysis).
III. Rural Community Centers (RCC)
A. Reaffirm need for unique land use plans for each RCC, but expand upon
existing general RCC policies to better guide land use in the interim.
Determine role of RCCs in future of rural areas and express accordingly.
B. Consider role of rezoning in RCC context. Determine whether a higher
density than the overall rural density of one unit per five acres should be
permitted on land surrounding each RCC, or perhaps on land surrounding
select RCCs.
C. Establish "area of influence" surrounding RCCs wherein a rezoning would
be subject to RCC design policies, and/or would be enabled to pursue
higher densities and mixed land uses (pursuant to resolution of III.B.).
11
D. Role of small area plans for individual RCCs in rezoning process. Related
to each of above RCC points, determine whether densities permitted in
"arcas of influence" should be guided by unique RCC plans, or, in the
interim, by general RCC policies.
E. Role of Package Treatment Plants in RCC development. Arguably most
logical context for consideration of package treatment plant use in rural
areas, as such facilities could support enhanced densities and also provide
means for providing sewer service to existing RCC residents, many of
which possess failing health systems. Determine whether such limited use
would be appropriate and establish general parameters for ownership,
management, etc.
IV. Agricultural Support
A. Role of Agricultural and Forestal Districts. Determine means through
which the agricultural district program could be more effective as a land
use planning and farmland protection tool. Use districts to physically and
fiscally distinguish active agriculture from non-farm open space and other
rural land uses that currently enjoy benefits of land use valuation system.
Explore provision of additional tax incentives via formation of special tax
districts that correspond with agricultural districts, or limit application of
land use valuation to property within such districts, etc.
B. Address problems associated with land use incompatibilities.
C. Role of county in creation and management of public education programs
intended to expand general awareness of the benefits of local agriculture,
as well as its realities for new rural residents.
D. Ensure both development and non -development related open space is
available for agricultural use. Preclude prohibitions of such use in deed
covenants of new rural subdivisions.
E. Articulate support for collaboration with Virginia Tech and the Fruit
Research Laboratory in the designation of Frederick County as an urban
agricultural laboratory.
F. Role of county in creation and management of marketing advisory or
assistance programs for local agricultural community. Promotion of rural
economic development founded upon a diverse agricultural base.
5
V. Transportation
A. Determine role of alternative modes of transportation in rural areas
(bicycle, pedestrian/hiking, horseback). Establish goal of multi -modal
system for rural areas that links with UDA at key nodes.
B. Establish scope for transportation analysis associated with rural rezoning
applications. Determine expectations of private developer in mitigation of
traffic impacts of new rural development.
C. Road Construction Standards for new subdivision access — build to state
standards? If so, which standard should be applied? Exclusively public or
limited private road opportunities?
Issues/Direction: Public roads for rural subdivisions regardless of
development size. Concern is road standards for "minor" subdivisions of
three or fewer lots.
n