HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 04-17-02 Meeting AgendaAGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
APRIL 17, 2002
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) March 6, 2002 Minutes.................................................(A)
2) Committee Reports ................................................ (no tab)
3) Citizen Comments ................................................. (no tab)
PRESENTATION
4) Safer Transport and Roadways (STAR) Solutions Presentation Regarding Public
Private Transportation Act (PPTA) Proposal For Interstate 81 Improvements.
PUBLIC HEARING
5) Proposed Amendment to Chapter 144, Subdivision Ordinance, Article IV, Subdivision
Review Procedures, Section 144-9, General procedure, and Section 144-12, Subdivision
design plan. Proposed Amendment to Chapter 144, Subdivision Ordinance, Article VI,
Plan Requirements, Section 144-36, Subdivision design plans. Proposed Amendment
to Chapter 165, Article XIX, Section 165-144, Activities requiring site plans, and
Section 165-145, Site plan applications; review, and Section 165-146, Site plan contents.
The amendments were designed to improve the site plan and subdivision design plan review
process.
(Mr. Camp) .......................................................... (B)
6) Proposed Amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article IV, Supplementary
Use Regulations, Section 165-27E, Parking lots. The proposed amendment is intended to
modify the requirements for Drive-in lanes.
(Mr. Wyatt)..........................................................(C)
7) Proposed Amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article IV, Supplementary
Use Regulations, Section 165-37E, Road efficiency buffers; and Article XVII,
Definitions. The proposed amendments are intended to modify the requirements for
residential road efficiency buffers pertaining to their location and landscaping elements, and
to provide for support definitions.
(Mr. Wyatt)..........................................................(D)
8) Proposed Amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning Ordinance, Article V, Rural Areas
District, Section 165-54B, Family Division lots; and Article XXII, Definitions. The
proposed amendments are intended to identify qualifying immediate family members for
family division lots and to provide for support definitions.
(Mr. Wyatt)..........................................................(E)
PUBLIC MEETING
9) Waiver Request of Eastgate Commerce Center, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates,
Inc., for an exception to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Chapterl65-31(6)
regarding steep slopes. The property is identified with Property Identification Numbers 76-A-
53, 53A, 5313, 53C, 53D, and 87-5-17 in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
(Mr. Lawrence) ....................................................... (F)
10) Other
•
•
r-,
u
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 March 6, 2002.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/
Opequon District, Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Greg L.
Unger, Back Creek District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; William
C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Sidney
A. Reyes, Board Liaison; Jay Cook, Legal Counsel and Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison.
ABSENT: Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; and Gene E. Fisher,
Citizen at Large.
STAFF PRESENT: Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director; Eric R. Lawrence, Deputy Planning Director; Jeremy
F. Camp, Planner II; Abbe Kennedy, Senior Planner; and Renee' S. Arlon, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 02/28/02
Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS discussed proposed modifications to the zoning
ordinance for the expansion of nonconforming uses and structures; they more clearly defined the term,
"immediate family members" in the definitions section of the zoning ordinance; and, they also discussed setback
requirements.
Transportation Committee
Commissioner Kriz reported that the Transportation Committee did not meet in March,
however, four committee members were invited and attended the Revenue Sharing Meeting at Aylor School
on March 5.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of March 6, 2002 Page 821
-2 -
Economic Development Commission (EDC) - 03/01/02 Mtg.
Commissioner Thomas reported that the EDC discussed the draft Strategic Analysis work for
the Vision Statement, Goals and Mission Statement, which will be presented to both the Board of Supervisors
and the City Counsel for approval. He said they also discussed the status of the search for a new EDC director.
Winchester Planning Commission (WPC)
Mr. Vincent DiBenedetto reported that the WPC held its annual retreat on February 23, 2002
and discussed a number of topics. Mr. DiBenedetto reported that the WPC discussed Washington Square,
which is the parking lot behind the Joint Judicial Center, and the progress being made to convert it into a city
park; the WPC reviewed the County Planning Commission's Bylaws and hope to use them as a template for
bylaws of their own; and they incorporated the Corridor Overlay as one of the projects on their work plan for
2002.
PUBLIC MEETINGS
Request for a waiver to increase woodlands disturbance in the Autumn Glen Subdivision, submitted by
Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering. This waiver would increase tree disturbance from 4.02 acres
to 11.07 acres on a 56 -acre tract identified by P.I.N. 75-A-104, zoned RP (Residential Performance) in
the Opequon Magisterial District, which was also previously master planned in 1998.
Action - Recommended Approval
Deputy Planning Director Eric R. Lawrence reported that this woodlands waiver request is
for land in the Autumn Glen Subdivision, located on Tasker Road, and is a portion of the larger Tasker Land
Bays master development plan (MDP) which the County approved approximately five years ago. Deputy
Director Lawrence said the approved MDP indicates there are 16.09 acres of woodlands in the Autumn Glen
area and the MDP allows for 25% of woodland disturbance, which is approximately 4.02 acres. He explained
that an additional woodlands disturbance of 7.05 acres is being sought. In summary, he said 16 acres of
woodlands are on the property; four acres are allowed to be disturbed under the current MDP; and the applicant
is requesting additional disturbance of seven acres.
Planning Director Evan A. Wyatt next gave some background information of the project.
Director Wyatt said that originally, a large -area master plan was approved for the Tasker Land Bays which
included Autumn Glen, The Camp, and the Canter Estates project and involved two engineering firms working
on behalf of several property owners. He explained that as the first few subdivisions came in, it was noticed
that a disproportionate amount of woodlands disturbance was being utilized in relation to the overall area. He
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of March 6, 2002 Page 822
-3 -
said that as a result of these difficulties, all the areas were re -master planned independently of each other, and
the issue at Autumn Glen was realized.
Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering, representing the Autumn Glen subdivision, said
the waiver is a way to resolve the issue [of accommodating the road layout, the easements for water and sewer,
and the housing lots; so the master plan. can go forward as originally planned. Mr. Smith said that a field walk
of the property conducted about 12-18 months ago with the County's Zoning and Subdivision Administrator
determined which areas could comply. He explained that the quality of the trees in the proposed disturbed area
are not of great significance and the better trees remain at the perimeter of the property to be saved. Mr. Smith
described the approximate size and types of trees and where they were located. He also gave the Commission
a brief history of the project to date.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to
speak:
Mrs. Virginia Newcome wanted assurances that trees taken down would be removed from the
property.
Mrs. Peggy Ramsey, a resident of Autumn Glen, believed that removing the existing trees
would greatly impact the environment and would disrupt existing wildlife.
Ms. Grace Sabenosh said that when she purchased her lot she was told that trees would remain
a part of the community and the general area was pointed out. Ms. Sabenosh remarked that she and her
neighbors experienced considerable structural, plumbing, and heating problems when they first moved into their
homes.
Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., Shawnee District landowner and one of the developers for the
Tasker Land Bay Project along with Mr. Mark Smith, commented that the woodlands issue is going to be more
frequent because of the utilization and development of the remaining portions of the Urban Development Area
(UDA) without expansion. Mr. Maddox stated that of the approximately 750 lots, this was the only tract of
land designated for multi -family, high-density because of its location at the intersection of two major collector
roads and because it's adjacent to land zoned for commercial neighborhood uses. Mr. Maddox remarked that
the 25% rule creates a significant impediment to planning this type of development and the ordinance
appropriately allows applicants to request waivers where good planning, common sense, and better
development can be achieved in the best interest of Frederick County. He recalled that vegetative planting is
a requirement of the ordinance for the proposed housing type. He believed the replacement trees would be
higher quality than the type that are existing and, as the neighborhood matured, would be visually more
attractive than if an attempt was made to preserve the existing trees.
Mr. Neil Ramsey, a resident of Autumn Glen, was opposed to the waiver request.
Mr. Gil Hamilton, a resident at the corner of Lynn Drive and Oak Drive in Autumn Glen,
stated that the area in question is approximately 35 feet from his back door. Mr. Hamilton said that the area
in question is nothing but underbrush and scrub pine that are destined to fall if separated because they are
shallow -rooted. He commented that property owners will have to pay for the removal of trees that fall in their
yards. Mr. Hamilton was in favor of the waiver request.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of March 6, 2002 Page 823
-4 -
In response to several of the Autumn Glen residents' cor mlents that no trees or shrubs were
planted on their individual lots, Director Wyatt advised that the ordinance does not require plantings for duplex
or multiplex housing types, which are the housing types developed to date in Autumn Glen. Director Wyatt
said that Mr. Maddox was referring to vegetative plantings for the single-family small lot housing, which is
designated for the remainder ofthis property. He said that the single-family small lot housing requires 20 plant
types, five of which must be trees.
The majority of the Commission members believed the area in question was primarily
comprised of scrub and other low quality trees and the developer had chosen to preserve the better quality trees
that were existing around the perimeter of the area. They conceded that work remains to be done on the
County's woodlands ordinance; however, until the work is accomplished, the waiver provision was made
available for the developers to make their situations workable. They believed that in order to utilize this portion
of the UDA, the waiver request was appropriate in this situation. Other commissioners believed this area of
trees should be preserved for quality of life reasons and for the preservation of wildlife; they questioned the
credibility of the developer; they believed the developer should be required to do a grid sampling; they did not
believe there was a convincing reason to grant the waiver.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Morris,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of
the request for a waiver to increase woodlands disturbance in the Autumn Glen Subdivision, submitted by Mr.
Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering. This waiver would increase tree disturbance from 4.02 acres to 11.07
acres on a 56 -acre tract identified by P.I.N. 75-A-104. This waiver was granted by the following majority vote:
YES (TO APPROVE WAIVER): Triplett, Kriz, Thomas, Morris, Unger, Watt, DeHaven
NO: Rosenberry, Gochenour, Straub
DISCUSSION ITEMS
Request to expand the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA) to incorporate a 57.87 -acre site owned
by Kathryn M. Perry and identified with P.I.N. 64-A-116, zoned B2 (Business General) District. This
property is located on Millwood Pike (Rt. 50 East), north of the Westview Business Center, in the
Shawnee Magisterial District. A small portion of the property is currently in the SWSA. The property
is slated for a new County middle school.
No Action Required
Deputy Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, stated that the staff has received a request from
Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr. of G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. to expand the Sewer and Water Service Area
(SWSA) to incorporate a 57.87 -acre parcel, zoned B2. He noted that a small portion of the site is currently
in the SWSA and Rt. 37 (Alternative C), as proposed, would cross the site's eastern boundary. Deputy
Director Lawrence stated that the site is presently vacant, but the Frederick County School Board is seeking
to acquire the tract for use as a future middle school site.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of March 6, 2002 Page 824
-5 -
Deputy Director Lawrence continued, stating that the Comprehensive Plans and Programs
Subcommittee (CPPS) considered this request during their meeting on February 11, 2002 and believed that
based on the site's present B2 (Business General) zoning and its proximity to other commercial and industrial
uses, it would be appropriate to include this site in the County's SWSA.
Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr. of G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. noted that this site is well
within the corridor planning area for business and commercial development. He stated there is good
commercial water flow capacity and sewer is adjacent to the site.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to
speak:
Mr. Ron Combs of the Stonewall District spoke concerning the possibility of Rt. 37 impacting
this property. Mr. Combs believed that planning 20-50 years ahead for future road construction was not
unreasonable. He believed that this particular property should not be built on, if there was a possibility that
buildings would have to be demolished. He did not want his tax dollars to be spent taking down business
establishments that would be impacted by future road construction.
Commissioners pointed out that this property was rezoned long before Rt. 37 was conceived
and, in addition, if a property is zoned, it should have water and sewer. The fact that a portion of the property
was definitely within the SWSA line was significant to most of the Commissioners. Members of the
Commission discussed the impacts to this property that could result if a portion of the site is taken by the
proposed Rt. 37 Interchange. They shared concerns about Rt. 37 and believed it would be a mistake to
willingly approve anything that would interfere with the eventuality of Rt. 37. Chairman DeHaven pointed out
that whether or not this property would be a potential school site is not an issue to the question at hand. He
said that the property is zoned B2 and there is a list of allowed by -right uses; any of those uses could be legally
built on the site today.
Commissioner Thomas suggested the possibility of extending the SWSA to a line along Rt.
37 and to exclude the portion of the property within the potential construction area of Rt. 37. He believed the
justification for excluding this portion would be that it was within the limits of Rt. 37 future intersection
construction.
Other Commission members were opposed to any expansion of the SWSA because of their
uncertainty regarding water issues. They believed that until a use is identified for the site and the user's water
needs known, there was no reason to extend the SWSA.
Deputy Director Lawrence said that he would forward the Commission's comments to the
Board of Supervisors for their discussion.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of March 6, 2002 Page 825
-6 -
DISCUSSION CONCERNING MODIFICATIONS TO THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION
ORDINANCES PERTAINING TO SITE PLAN AND SUBDIVISION DESIGN PLAN
REQUIREMENTS.
No Action Required
Planner Jeremy F. Camp stated that the proposed text amendments are aimed at eliminating
redundancy and improving the review process for site plans and subdivision design plans. Planner Camp said
that the Zoning Ordinance presently requires that all subdivisions, other than single-family subdivisions, submit
both a subdivision design plan and a site plan for review and approval. He stated that staff and the
Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) are of the opinion that this requirement is
redundant and unnecessary; therefore, the proposed text amendments would allow just one design plan, so long
as all information is provided. Planner Camp explained that the proposed text amendments would also clarify
some of the ambiguities that exist in the current text of the Zoning Ordinance, specifically regarding the
information that is needed to be provided on each plan. He added that these changes will assist staff in the
review process, as well as to help engineers, land surveyors, and architects prepare site plans and subdivision
design plans more proficiently.
The Commission and staff reviewed and discussed the proposed modifications. Some minor
corrections were pointed out, such as the inclusion of the Medical Support District; the use of the term,
"Design" Review Committee instead of "Technical" Review Committee in one instance, the inclusion of the
requirement for the height, width, and scientific plant name, as well as the common name, to help eliminate
confusion regarding size of plants; and verification from staff that Section 165-145(E)2 gave the Commission
the option to review plans that don't normally come before the Commission.
Planning Director Evan A. Wyatt said that staff would implement the necessary changes into
the text before the Board's review.
Chairman DeHaven commended the DRRS and staff for revising the text for improved
efficiency and clarification.
DISCUSSION CONCERNING MODIFICATIONS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING
TO DRIVE-IN LANE REQUIREMENTS
No Action Required
Planning Director Evan A. Wyatt presented the discussion regarding drive-in lane
requirements. Director Wyatt said that drive-in lanes are currently required to provide a minimum width of
12 feet; however, the requirements do not specifically address the ability to provide for canopy supports and
raised concrete pads for pneumatic tubes and automatic teller machines within this area. He explained that the
current language provides for drive-in lanes with an excessive width and requires interpretation on the part of
the Zoning Administrator, if the developer desires to construct canopy support and raised concrete pads within
this area.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of March 6, 2002 Page 826
-7 -
Director Wyatt continued, stating that the staff consulted representatives of the design
community, including site design engineers and structural design architects, about whether the proposed
minimum nine -foot -width lane would be both adequate and consistent with applicable structural codes. He said
the representatives concurred with the proposal. Director Wyatt also reviewed the other component of the
amendment, dealing with vehicle stacking. He added that the Development Review and Regulations
Subcommittee recommended approval of the proposed amendments at their meeting in October, 2001.
The consensus of the Coininission was that the amendment was appropriate. Director Wyatt
said the staff will take this item to the Board of Supervisors for discussion.
OTHER
PRIMARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Action - Recommended Approval
Planning Director Evan A. Wyatt said that the Primary Road Improvement Plan takes into
account improvements to the arterial and interstate road system and is prepared to be presented at the
Commonwealth's Transportation Board's Pre -Allocation Hearing, which is scheduled this year for April 5,
2002. Director Wyatt explained that because of the Board of Supervisors' budget public hearing on March
27 and the Commission's work session scheduled for March 20, the staff had to expedite the process normally
used to prepare this document, so that it could be ready in time for the April 5 Pre -Allocation Hearing.
Director Wyatt continued, stating that the primary roads in the rural portion of the County are
in pretty good shape; the goal now is for planning and improvements to the roads in primary road system within
the eastern portion of the County. He said the top priority is the Rt. 37 Eastern Bypass and, as the plan has
evolved, it has been broken into sections: V Phase, Exit 310 at Kernstown to Rt. 522; 2"d Phase, Rt. 522 to
Rt. 50 East; 3rd Phase, Rt. 50 East to Rt. 7; and Final Phase, Rt. 7 to the north and back into the loop. Director
Wyatt said that staff has recommended a modification for this year which VDOT's resident engineer, Jerry
Copp has concurred with, to demonstrate the first priority for Rt. 37 as two legs: the first leg, again, being the
southern terminus extension to Rt. 522, but also program the leg of Rt. 37 on the western side of I-81, between
81 and Rt. 37. Director Wyatt explained the staff's reasoning: first, because of the current congested traffic
situation at the Welltown Road intersection with Rt. 11, it was staff's belief that if this leg of Rt. 37 is built
initially, there's a potential to develop slip ramps in and out of the Stonewall Industrial Park, which will allow
for commercial and industrial traffic to have direct access to Rt. 37 without having to go through the Welltown
Road intersection; and secondly, the I-81 improvements are coming quickly and if this leg of Rt. 37 is
constructed initially, it provides a logical detour of I-81 traffic, while work is performed on that segment of I-
81. Director Wyatt reiterated that the first priority recommended is the leg in the southern part and the leg in
the northern part.
Director Wyatt next talked about the second recommended priority for the County which
involved the Rt. 277 segment from the Exit 307 bridge in the Stephens City area down to the White Oak Road
area, which is a developing residential/conunercial corridor; and following that, the completion ofthe remainder
of Rt. 277 to Double Tollgate; the third priority, the four -lane urban design improvements to both Rt. 11 South
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of March 6, 2002 Page 827
-8 -
from the City limits to Rt. 37, and from the City limits to Old Charles Town Road; the fourth priority, the I-81
improvements which he explained in detail; the fifth priority, a spot -safety improvement at Rt. 50/17; and
lastly, the sixth priority, the Commuter Park and Ride Lots on the Rt. 7 corridor.
Conunissioner Reyes asked for clarification on Item 4A, the reconstruction of the bridge, as
to which exit this was. Director Wyatt replied Exit 323, the White Hall Exit, near to the Flying J Truck Stop.
Commissioner Straub inquired if any ofthe priorities become moot with the possible widening
of I-81. Director Wyatt replied that the priorities for 1-81 may or may not remain the same. He advised that
if the public-private partnership occurs with the Star Solutions proposal, which received endorsement by the
General Assembly, his belief was the community, including the City, the County, and the towns, need to have
a presence in those discussions with the private sector developer to ensure that the communities' goals are
considered in the design process.
Regarding Rt. 277 at Stephens City, Commissioner Straub asked if the County is looking at
improving the on -and -off ramps at that point, but in conjunction with the possibility of widening at the same
time. Director Wyatt replied that the local preference is the construction of a new interchange, keeping the
existing interchange as only a cross-over to I-81, and physically locating a new interchange to the south.
Commissioner Kriz noted for the Planning Commission's information, that the modification
to the Rt. 37 priority was discussed last year at the Transportation Committee meeting.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to
speak:
Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr. stated that the Board, as well as the Town, has gone on record
concerning the Rt. 277 interchange. He said that if the historical and environmental studies could be started,
the Rt. 277 interchange could move ahead in priority, according to VDOT. Mr. Maddox asked if some special
emphasis could be placed here, since it is one of the biggest bottlenecks in the County.
Commissioner Gochenour commented about the short period of time for consideration of this
Primary Road Plan and not being able to make a good decision in such a short time. Commissioner Gochenour
inquired if all of the historical, environmental, endangered species, and stream pollution issues that were raised
during the public hearings on Rt. 37 had been addressed. Director Wyatt said that several items needed to be
re-examined to satisfy not only historical issues, but for noise, etc., and the consultant conducted a redesign
of the EIS and submitted it to address the concerns. He said that all the requirements of the Federal Highway
Administration and VDOT were addressed.
Commissioner Rosenberry asked if the Rt. 37 Eastern Bypass, in terms of the Board of
Supervisors, is a settled matter in terms of direction. He inquired if this is something the County is working
towards and if this is the number one priority. Director Wyatt concurred; he said the County had a consultant
do various alignments for the Rt. 37 corridor and six different selections were singled out. Director Wyatt
recalled that in approximately 1992-1996, the preferred alternative for the Board was Alternative C, which
provided longest mile travel route, but it impacted the least number of existing residences and properties, and
that was the Board's main reason for selecting it. Director Wyatt noted that the County then conducted an
environmental impact statement for that corridor, which has now been completed and has recently been signed
by the Federal Highway Administration and the Department of Transportation.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of March 6, 2002 Page 828
-9-
Carm-nission members were in favor of the plan as presented.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the Board
of Supervisors the adoption of the Primary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County as presented.
YES (TO APPROVE): Straub, Watt, Unger, Morris, Thomas, Kriz, Triplett, Rosenberry, DeHaven
ABSTAIN: Gochenour
RAVENS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Planning Director Evan A. Wyatt stated that staff has received a letter, dated March 6, 2002,
from Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., of G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc. regarding the Ravens Master
Development Plan. Director Wyatt recalled that near the end of last year, a revision was proposed, several
citizens were present with questions and comments, and Mr. Maddox requested an opportunity to redesign and
come back. Director Wyatt said that the letter received indicates that they are going to withdraw the revision
proposal and develop the original approved master plan.
FREDERICK COUNTY RECEIVES TOP HONOR - MEDICAL SUPPORT DISTRICT
Planning Director Evan A. Wyatt stated that the Planning Staff had submitted the Medical
Support District Ordinance for consideration at the State level with other communities in the State of Virginia
under the Program Award for Projects, Programs, and Tools. Director Wyatt was happy to report that the
Selection Committee awarded the top honor to Frederick County for the ordinance.
On behalf of the entire Commission, Chairman DeHaven congratulated the staff and the
Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee on this community -wide effort, which included Medical
Center personnel and the design community.
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of March 6, 2002 Page 829
ADJOURNMENT
unanimous vote.
-10 -
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. by
Respectfully submitted,
Evan A. Wyatt, Secretary
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
Frederick County Planning Commission
Minutes of March 6, 2002 Page 830
_�
C�
COUNTY of FREDERICX
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
1
` 73.3i / FAX: 540/665-6395
1779
MEMORANDUM
T0: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendments to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances Pertaining to Site
Plan and Subdivision Design Plan Requirements
DATE: April 5, 2002
The attached draft amendments concern modifications to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances
pertaining to site plan and subdivision design plan requirements. Staff originally proposed these
amendment changes to the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) in August of
2001. After a few months of discussion, the DRRS unanimously recommended support of the attached
draft amendments in their October 2001 meeting.
The proposed text amendments are aimed at eliminating redundancy and improving the review process
for site plans and subdivision design plans. The Zoning Ordinance presently requires that all subdivisions,
other than single-family subdivisions, submit both a subdivision design plan and a site plan for review and
approval. Staff and the DRRS are of the opinion that this requirement is redundant and unnecessary.
Therefore, the proposed text amendments would allow just one design plan, so long as all required
information is provided. The proposed text amendments would also clarify some of the ambiguities that
exist in the current text of the Zoning Ordinance, specifically regarding the information that is needed to
be provided on each plan. These changes will assist staff in the review process, as well as help engineers,
land surveyors, and architects prepare site plans and subdivision design plans more proficiently.
Please review the proposed draft amendments attached with this memorandum for a public hearing during
the April 17, 2002 Planning Commission Meeting. Changes are proposed to Sections 144-9,144-12, and
144-36 of the Subdivision Ordinance; and Sections 165-144, 165-145, and 165-146 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
JFC/ch
Attachments
U: COA,&1177LL•'SIDRRSIProjec[.v1Sub.Desi,Snr Plan -Sire Plua�PGLII'aL10Pab1icHcariaK�p<Cadp_wpd
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
§§ 144-9. General procedure.
All land divisions shall require the submittal of a subdivision plat for review and approval prior to
recordation. Unless specifically exempted, all residential subdivisions and their associated amenities
shall be required to submit a subdivision design plan for review and approval prior to final plat
approval. Unless speeifteally exempted, all subdivisioft plans shall be feviewed in two (2) stages,
subdivision design plaft review and final plat feview:
U.-ICOMMI7TEESIDRRSIProjectslSub.Design Plan -Site Planl144-9.wpd
§ 144-12. Subdivision design plan.
A. The intention of the subdivision design plan is to provide all review agencies with a
comprehensive design of the proposed layout and improvements required under § 144-36
of this chapter, as well as all requirements of Chapter 165, Zoning. The subdivider shall
submit 28 two (2) copies of the subdivision design plan, applicable fees, and all required
subdivision application materials to the Subdivision Administrator for review and comment.
At least five (5) copies of the final subdivision design plan shall be submitted for approval.
B. For !and ineltided in an approved master development plan, the Planning Commission sl
approve, approve with modifieations or 'Fe all subdivision de -s-.*,—,.. p".-ans within 60
days The Department of Planning and Development shall act on a proposed subdivision
design plan within sixty (60) days after it has been officially submitted by either approving
or disapproving it in writing, and giving with the latter specific reasons therefor. The
Planning Commission may request to review any subdivision design plan for approval. In
cases where subdivision design plans are submitted for land not included in an approved
master development plan, the Board of Supervisors shall approve, approve with
modifications or disapprove such plans after a recommendation has been provided by the
Planning Commission.
U.-ICOMM/TTEESIDRRSIProjectsISub.Design Plan -Site Plan I f 44-12. wpd
§§ 144-36. Subdivision design plans plan contents.
The subdivision design plan shall be drawn at a scale that is acceptable to the Subdivision Administrator. The
subdivision design plan shall include a sheet depicting the full subdivision submitted. The subdivision design
plan shall include the following information:
A. The title of the subdivision ("Subdivision Design Plan for .........
............") with a notation of all previous names of the subdivision.
B. The original property identification number.
C. The page number and total pages on each page.
D. The name of the owner or subdivider.
E. A vicinity map [scale of one to two thousand (1:2,000)], showing all roads, properties and
subdivisions within 1,000 feet of the subdivision.
F. A written and graphic scale.
G. A day, month and year plan, prepared and revised. The dates of revisions should be clearly
listed.
H. A North arrow.
I. The name of the magisterial district in which the subdivision is located.
J. The zoning of all land to be subdivided.
K. A boundary survey of all lots, parcels and rights-of-way mg. The perimeter boundary
line and section lines shall show bearings to the nearest minute and distances to the nearest
one-hundredth (1/100) of a foot.
L. The topography shown at a contour interval acceptable to the Subdivision Administrator but
in no case greater than five feet.
M. The names of the owners, zoning and use of all adjoining properties and deed -book and
page -number references for each adjoining parcel.
N . A tabulation
illustrating the following shall be provided together on the subdivision design plan:
(a) the total land area of the subdivision,
(b) a breakdown of the number of lots in each use category,
(c) the total land area of all common open space,
(d) the total land area of all residential lots,
(a) perimeter and interior landscaping calculations (if required),
(b) and all parking space calculations, including handicap spaces (if required)
All of the above information should be broken down into phases on the subdivision design
plan where applicable.
O. The location of each residential use category area ofeaeh lot and pareel,
P. The location of each parcel of common open space and the total area of common open space.
Q. The location, names, right-of-way widths and classifications of existing and planned roads,
streets and shared private driveways adjacent to and on the property.
R. Existing or proposed utilities, sewer and water lines, manholes, fire hydrants and easements.
S. Existing andproposed drainageways, drainage facilities, culverts and drainage easements with
dimensions and design details.
T. A stormwater management plan, with calculations describing how stormwater management
requirements are being met, including the location and design details of proposed facilities.
U. A proposed grading plan, including spot elevations and flow arrows.
V. Cross sections, profiles and design details of all proposed streets, roads, culverts, storm
sewers, sanitary sewers and water mains.
W. The location, dimensions and cross sections of existing and proposed sidewalks and
walkways.
X. The location of all environmental features, including floodplains, steep slopes, wetlands,
sinkholes, woodlands and natural stormwater detention areas.
Y. The names of all streams and bodies of water, including all one-hundred-year flood limits as
mapped by FEMA.
Z. The location of all land to be dedicated or reserved for public use.
AA. 44te l,.eatio of All required ..-..,-..ek lies on ......h to setback information.
BB. The location of proposed recreational areas and facilities.
CC. The location of proposed buffers and screening, with design details, locations and types of
plants and screening.
DD. Proposed landscaping, with locations ate, types of plants, and size specifications.
EE. Certification by an engineer, surveyor or other qualified professional of the accuracy of the
plat.
FF. The signature of the owner, certifying ownership of property.
GG. A signature line for the Subdivision Administrator.
HE A statement listing all requirements and conditions placed on the land included in the
subdivision resulting from approval of conditional zoning or a conditional use permit.
Il A table illustrating the relationship between the Master Development Plan and the Subdivision
Plan. The intent of this table is to provide an incremental update which will tabulate the
expended acreage, lot counts, open space and special environmental areas disturbed for each
phase of development.
JJ. The location ofall required regular and handicap parking spaces, aisles, curb and gutter, and
pavement striping.
KK. Facilities necessary to meet the requirements of the Fire Code.
LL. Other information necessary to ensure that all requirements of the Frederick County Code
have been met.
U: ICOMM/7TEESIDRRSIProjects ISub.Design Plan -Site Plan U44-36. wpd
§§ 16S-144. Activities requiring site plans.
A. In order to ensure that the requirements of this chapter have been met, a site plan shall be
required to be submitted to the county for the following uses:
(1) Any use in the business or industrial zoning districts, the EM Extractive
Manufacturing District, the MS Medical Support District, or the HE Higher
Education District.
(2) Any developirent or non-residential use in which automobile parking space is to be
used by more than one (1) establishment.
(3) An_v ofthe following residential uses not required to submit a subdivision design plan
for approval':
(a)
Duplexes.
(b)
Multiplexes.
(c)
Atrium houses.
(d)
Weak -link townhouses.
(e)
Townhouses.
(f)
Garden apartments.
(g)
Other allowed multifamily residential uses.
(4) Convalescent and nursing homes and allowed nonresidential uses in the RP, R4 and
R5 Zoning Districts.
(5) Public and semipublic uses and buildings.
(6) Required landscaped buffers and landscaped screens.
(7) Required recreational facilities.
(8) Any parcel of land proposed to contain more than one (1) dwelling unit, except those
allowed as agricultural accessory uses.
(9) Mobile home parks.
(10) The use, change of use or construction of any improvement or facility that is to be
reviewed by the Planning Commission to determine conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan under 15.1-456 of the Code of Virginia.
B. The Zoning Administrator may require a site plan to be submitted with an application for a
conditional use permit.
C. No permit shall be issued for the construction of any building or improvement on the site of
any of the above uses until the site plan is approved.
D. All non -business or non- industrial uses in a residential subdivision shall submit a subdivision
design plan, as required in the Frederick County Subdivision Ordinance, instead of a site plan.
U:'COMA4177'EESIDRRSIProjectsiSub_Design Plan -Site PlanlRevised Revisions1165-144.wpd
§§ 165-145. Site plan applications; review.
A. Applicants shall submit 4-S two (2) copies of the site plan to the Zoning Administrator for
review, along with applicable fees and completed application materials required by the Zoning
Administrator. Prior to offleial submission,
Zoning A4ministrator for an initia4 review by Final approval of the site plan shall
be given by the Zoning Administrator. At least five (5) copies of the site plan are required to
be submitted to the Zoning Administrator for final approval.
B. Applicants shall provide comments on the site plan from various agencies as required by the
Department of Planning and Development. 44te stibmission shallbe complete only when the
Administrator.fees, plans, appheatiott md eomments have been eived by the Zoning
C. The Zoning Administrator may require the applicant to present the siteplan to e design review
eommittee the Technical Review Committee for review, The committee shall make
recommendations to the Zoning Administrator concerning whether the plan meets the
requirements of the Frederick County Code.
D. A site plan submission shall be considered to be complete when the fees plans, application
materials and comments have been received and when the Technical
Review Committee has reviewed the plan, if required.
E. When the site plan submission is complete, the Zoning Administrator may submit the site plan
to the Planning Commission for its review.
(1) The Zoning Administrator shall determine whether to submit the site plan to the
Planning Commission based on the following considerations:
(a)The scale or intensity of the proposed use.
(b)Potential impacts on surrounding properties.
(c)Potential traffic hazards or congestion.
(2) In addition, the Planning Commission may request that the site plan be presented to
the Commission for its review.
F. The Planning Commission may make recommendations to the Zoning Administrator
concerning the site plan. The Zoning Administrator shall incorporate such recommendations
into the review of the site plan. The site plan shall be finally approved or denied by the Zoning
Administrator.
11 G. Approval of the site plan shall expire within 18 menths five (5) years of the approval date
unless building permits have been obtained for construction.
I H. The Zoning Administrator and the zoning sta or his designated representative shall
periodically inspect the site during construction to ensure that the site plan requirements are
met.
4 I_ No certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any use or site requiring a site plan until all
requirements shown on the approved site plan have been met and all improvements shown on
the site plan have been provided. If structures and improvements have been provided sufficient
to guarantee public health and safety but if all site plan improvements have not been
completed, a certificate of occupancy shall only be issued if a bond with surety or other
acceptable guaranties have been provided to insure that all approved improvements will be
provided. Such guaranties shall be for a limited time period acceptable to the Zoning
Administrator, during which time said improvement shall be completed.
Site Plan Review Process
Technical Review Committee
Plan & Application & Agency Comments & Payment
of Fees Submitted
Staff Review
Possible Planning
Commission Review
Final Approval
by Zoning Administrator
K J. The Board of Supervisors, by resolution, may establish a schedule of fees for the review of site
plans.
U. COMMIITIs'GSIDRRSIProjectsiSab.Design Plan -Size Plan TevisedRevisiansl/65-145.wpd
165-146. Site Plan Contents.
The site plan shall be clearly legible and shall be drawn at a scale acceptable to the Zoning
Administrator. The site pian shall include three general sections, the Project Information
Section, the Calculations Section, and the Site Plan and Details Section:. The information
required for each section is listed below
A. Project Information Section
(1) A title that includes the name of the proposed or existing business and a
subtitle which describes the proposed development.
(Z) The name, address, and phone number of the land owner, developer, and
designer.
(3) The Frederick County Property Identification Number (PIN) of all lots
included on the site plan.
(4) The number and type of dwelling units included on the site plan for residential
uses.
(5) The total land area and total developed land area of all lots included on the
site plan.
(6) A detailed description of the proposed use or uses of the development, as well
as a description of the existing use or uses.
(7) A reference to any other site plan or master development plan approved by the
county for the site.
(8) The date the site plan was prepared and a list of all revisions made, including
the date and a description of why the site plan was revised.
(9) A table of contents including all pages of the site plan.
(10) A list of all proposed utility providers, with their address, name and phone
number.
(11) An inset map showing the location of the site, along with the location of
streets, roads and land uses within five hundred (500) feet of the property.
(12) A statement listing all requirements and conditions placed on the land included
in the site plan resulting from approval of conditional zoning or a conditional
use permit.
(13) A description of setbacks or conditions placed on the site as a result of an
approved variance.
(14) The name of the Magisterial District the property is located within.
B. Calculations Section
(1) Calculations showing the Floor Area Ration (FAR) of the site, including the
maximum allowed FAR, total ground floor area, total floor area, and total lot
area.
(2) Calculations showing the total number of required and proposed parking
spaces, including the total number of existing and proposed spaces.
(3) Calculations showing the total number ofrequired handicap spaces, including
the total number of existing and proposed spaces.
(4) Calculations showing the total number of required loading spaces, including
the total number of existing and proposed spaces..
(5) Calculations showing the total number of required perimeter and interior trees
required, including the number of provided trees.
(6) Calculations showing the percentage of the property that will be landscaped
and the percentage of woodlands disturbed.
C. Site Plan & Details Section
(1) The location of all adjoining lots with the owner's name, specific use, zoning,
and zoning boundaries shown.
(2) The location of all existing or planned right-of-ways and easements that adj oin
the property, with street names, widths, and speed limits shown.
(3) All nearby entrances that are within two hundred (200) feet of any existing or
proposed entrances to the site.
(4) All existing and proposed driveways, parking and loading spaces, parking lots
and a description of surfacing material and construction details to be used.
The size and angle of parking spaces, aisles, maneuvering areas, and loading
spaces shall be shown.
(5) A North arrow.
(6) A graphic scale and statement of scale.
(7) A legend describing all symbols and other features that need description.
(8) A boundary survey of the entire parcel and all lots included with distances
described at least to the nearest hundredth of a foot.
(9) The present zoning of all portions of the site, with the location of zoning
boundaries.
(10) The location of all existing and proposed structures, with the height, specific
use, ground floor area, and total floor area labeled.
(11) The location of all existing and proposed outdoor uses, with the height,
specific use, and land area labeled.
(1.2) Existing topographic contour lines at intervals acceptable to the Zoning
Administrator. Proposed finished grades shall be shown by contour.
(13) The location of the front, side, and rear yard setback lines required by the
applicable zoning district.
(14) The location and boundaries of existing environmental features, including
streams, floodplains, lakes and ponds, wetlands, natural stormwater retention
areas, steep slopes, and woodlands.
(15) The location of outdoor trash receptacles.
(16) The location of all outdoor lighting fixtures.
(17) The location, dimensions, and height of all signs.
(18) The location ofrequired buffers, landscaping buffers, and landscaped screens,
including examples, typical cross sections or diagrams of screening to be used.
The location and dimensions of required fencing, berms, and similar features
shall be specified.
(19) The location of recreational areas and common open space.
(20) The location of all proposed landscaping with a legend. The caliber, scientific
name, and common name of all deciduous trees. The height at planting,
scientific name, and common name of all evergreen trees and shrubs.
(21) The height at planting, caliber, scientific name, and common name shall be
provided for all proposed trees. The height at planting, scientific name and
common name shall be provided for all shrubs.
(22) The location of sidewalks. and walkways..
(2?) The location and v,dd-ffi ofprop: sed easementts arid ded cations
(24) A stormwater management plan describing the location of all stormwater
management facilities with design calculations and details.
(25) A soil erosion and sedimentation plan describing methods to be used.
(26) The location and size of sewer and water mains and laterals serving the site.
(27) Facilities necessary to meet the requirements of the Fire Code,
F 28) A signed seal of the certified Virginia land surveyor, architect, or engineer
who prepared the plan..
(29) A space labeled "Approved by the Frederick. County Zoning Administrator"
for the signature of the Zoning Administrator, approval date, and a statement
that reads "site plan valid for five (5) years from approval date."
B D. Other information or statements may be required on the site plan by the Zoning
Administrator to ensure that all requirements of the Frederick County Code are met.
e E. All site plans shall conform with master development plans that have been approved
for the land in question.
BF. When required, deed restrictions, deeds of dedication, agreements, contracts,
guaranties or other materials shall be submitted with the site plan.
U: COMMl7"/EESIDRRSIProjectslSub.Design Plan -Site PlanlRevised Revisionsll65-146.wpd
COUNTY of FREDERICX
Department of Planning and Developm, ent
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Drive -In Lane Requirements
Date: April 8, 2002
The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) considered a proposal to amend
the requirements for drive-in lanes serving commercial and public land uses. The current
requirements call for a minimum width of 12 feet and for a stacking allowance of five (5)
automobiles. This standard is vague as it does not specify if features such as canopy supports and
raised island supports are permitted within the drive-in lane, and it becomes debatable as to the
appropriate distance for the stacking of vehicles.
Staff has prepared an amendment which clarifies the requirements for drive-in lane design. This
amendment was prepared with input from site design and architectural design professionals and has
been discussed at the DRRS and Planning Commission levels. Staff will be presenting this item for
discussion during the April 10, 2002 Board of Supervisors meeting. Should the Board of
Supervisors find this amendment to be appropriate, staffwill present this language forpublic hearing
at the Planning Commission meeting on April 17, 2002. Please find attached the proposed text
amendment that was recommended by the DRRS. Staff asks that the Planning Commission consider
this language and forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final resolution.
U:\COMMITTEES\DRRS\Projects\Drive-In Lanes\DrivelnLaneTm Amendment-PCPublicHearingMc=.wpd
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Current Zoning Ordinance Requirement
165-27E(10) Drive-in lanes.
A separate lane, with a minimum width of twelve (12) feet, shall be provided for all drive-in or
pickup facilities. Such lanes shall be clearly separated from parking spaces, aisles and driveways.
Sufficient drive-in lane length shall be provided to allow the stacking of five (5) automobiles per
drive-in window.
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
165-27E(10) Drive-in lanes.
Drive-in lanes shall be required for all drive-in or pickup facilities. Drive-in lanes shall be
designed to provide fora A separate lane,
provided fbr ali drive-in or pickup . minimum width of nine (9) feet and a minimum
stacking distance of ninety (90) feet. Canopy supports and raised concrete pads designed to
support pneumatic tubes, automatic teller machines and other structures shall not be located
within the area required for minimum drive-in lane widths. All drive-in lanes Such 1wtes shall be
clearly separated from parking spaces, travel aisles, maneuvering areas and driveways. Sufficient
drive-in lane lengffi shall be provided to allow the stacking of five (5) antomobiles per drive -i
window- The Zoning Administrator may reduce the minimum stacking distance ofdrive-in lanes
for retail uses with less than 150 square feet of floor area if it can be demonstrated that the
vehicular frequency for the use does not warrant multiple vehicle stacking.
Complete Zoning Ordinance Amendment
165-27E(10) Drive-in lanes.
Drive-in lanes shall be required for all drive-in or pickup facilities. Drive-in lanes shall be designed
to provide for a minimum width of nine (9) feet and a minimum stacking distance of ninety (90) feet.
Canopy supports and raised concrete pads designed to support pneumatic tubes, automatic teller
machines and other structures shall not be located within the area required for minimum drive-in lane
widths. All drive-in lanes shall be clearly separated from parking spaces, travel aisles, maneuvering
areas and driveways. The Zoning Administrator may reduce the minimum stacking distance of
drive-in lanes for retail uses with less than 150 square feet of floor area if it can be demonstrated that
the vehicular frequency for the use does not warrant multiple vehicle stacking.
U.%COMMMEES1DRRS1ProjectslDrivc-1n Lanes1165.27E(10)Draft.wpd
C:
•
COUNTY of FREDERICX
Department of Planning and Deve9opment
,. P
f
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director p ,�
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Road Efficiency Buffers
Date: April 8, 2002
540/665-5651
FAX: 546/665-6395
The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) considered a proposal to modify
the requirements for residential road efficiency buffers. A road efficiency buffer is intended to
provide for a distance separation between residential land uses and higher road systems ranging from
major collector to interstate systems. The road efficiency buffer requires a landscape element and
in some instances requires an opaque element. The current requirements for road efficiency buffers
do not prohibit the buffer from being within a residential lot and do not allow the residential lot
owner to make any use of the buffer area. The proposed amendments are intended to remove the
inactive portion of the road efficiency buffer from the residential lot, to require the landscaping and
opaque elements to be located outside of the residential lot and to allow the property owner to place
accessory structures within the active portion of the road efficiency buffer if it is situated within the
residential lot.
The proposed road efficiency buffer amendments have been discussed by the DRRS, the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors. All bodies felt that the proposed amendments were
appropriate and felt that the proposed amendments should be advertised for public hearing. Please
find the attached the proposed amendments for consideration as a public hearing item. Staffrequests
that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for final
resolution of this matter.
U\COMMITTEES\DRRS\Projects\Road Efficiency 3uffers\PC_PublicHearingMemo_April)7,2002.wpd
107 North lent Street A Winchester, Virginia 22601-50010
Current Zoning Ordinance requirements
165-37E Road efficiency buffers
(1) All residential structures shall be separated from arterial or major collector roads, as designated
by the Virginia Department of Transportation or the Frederick County Comprehensive flan, by the
following road efficiency buffers:
Distance Buffer Required
Road Type
Inactive (Minimum feet)
Active (Maximum feet)
Total (feet)
Interstate/arteriall1 im i ted
access
Full
50
50
100
Reduced
40
40
80
Major collector
Full
40
40
80
Reduced
25
25
50
(2) Such road efficiency buffers shall be measured from the principal structure to the nearest edge
of the road right-of-way, with the inactive portion starting at the road right-of-way as shown in the
example diagram. Access roads to property through these buffers are permitted.
(3) All road efficiency buffers shall contain a row of evergreen trees intended to reach a minimum
height of six feet at maturity. These plants shall provide a continuous screen, with trees spaced no
more than eight feet apart. The road efficiency buffer may be reduced as described above if full
screening is provided as described in this section. Landscaping shall not obstruct safe sight
distances. A full buffer shall be required if landscaping cannot be provided due to sight distance
requirements.
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments
165-37E Road efficiency buffers
(1) All residential structures shall be separated from interstate, limited access, primary, major
arterial, minor arterial or major collector roads, as designated by the Virginia Department of
Transportation or the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, by the following road efficiency
buffers:
Distance Buffer Required
Road Type
Inactive (Minimum feet)
Active (Maximum feet)
Total (feet)
Interstate/arterial/limited
access
Full Distance Buffer
50
50
100
Reduced Distance Buffer
40
40
80
Major collector
Full Distance Buffer
40
40
80
Reduced Distance Buffer
225 40
MIL5 10
50
(2) Such All road efficiency buffers shall
begin at the edge of the road right-of-way, with the inactive portion starting at the abutting the road
right-of-way . All required elements of the full distance buffer
or the reduced distance buffer identified in Section 165-37E(3) shall be located within the inactive
portion of the road efficiency buffer. The inactive portion of the road efficiency buffer is
permitted to count towards the required percentage of common open space, however, no portion
of a residential lot shall be located within the inactive portion of the road efficiency buffer. The
active portion of the road efficiency buffer may be permitted to be located within a residential lot
provided that the primary structure is not located within the buffer area. Accessory structures
may be located within the activeportion of the road efficiency bufferprovided that the structures
meet all applicable setback requirements. Access roads serving as theprimary means of vehicular
travel to property residential subdivisions ftough these buffers are permitted to traverse road
efficiency buffers.
(3) All road efficiency buffers shall contain arow-o# evergreen trees intended to reach a minimum
height of six twenty (20) feet at maturity. These pmts evergreen trees shall provide a continuous
screen, with trees plantings spaced no more than ei& ten (10) feet apart. The full distance buffer
shall contain a double row of evergreen trees that are a minimum of four feet in height when
planted. The road efficiencybttffermaybe reduced as desciibed above if full scree i -
as described in this sectThe reduced distance buffer shall contain an earth berm that is six
feet in height above the average road grade and shall contain a single row of evergreen trees that
are a minimum of four feet in height when planted. Landscaping Alternative landscaping shall
be permitted near entrance drives to ensure not obstruct safe sight distances. A full buffer shall be
requirements.required if landscaping cwmot be provided due to sight distance The Planning
Commission may allow far alternative designs which meet the intent of the section in the event
of topography or sight distance constraints.
Complete Zening Ordinance Amendments
165-37E Road efficiency buffers
(1) All residential structures shall be separated from interstate, limited access, primary, major
arterial, minor arterial or major collector roads, as designated by the Virginia Department of
Transportation or the Frederick County Comprehensive Plan, by the following road efficiency
buffers:
Distance Buffer Required
Road Type
Inactive (Minimum feet)
Active (Maximum feet)
Total (feet)
Interstate/arterial/lim i ted
access
Full Distance Buffer
50
50
100
Reduced Distance Buffer
40
40
80
Major collector
Full Distance Buffer
40
40
80
Reduced Distance Buffer
40
10
50
(2) All road efficiency buffers shall begin at the edge of the road right-of-way, with the inactive
portion abutting the road right-of-way. All required elements of the full distance buffer or the
reduced distance buffer identified in Section 165-37E(3) shall be located within the inactive portion
of the road efficiency buffer. The inactive portion of the road efficiency buffer is permitted to count
towards the required percentage of common open space; however, no portion of a residential lot shall
be located within the inactive portion of the road efficiency buffer. The active portion of the road
efficiency buffer may be permitted to be located within a residential lot provided that the primary
structure is not located within the buffer area. Accessory structures may be located within the active
portion of the road efficiency buffer provided that the structures meet all applicable setback
requirements. Access roads serving as the primary means of vehicular travel to residential
subdivisions are permitted to traverse road efficiency buffers.
(3) All road efficiency buffers shall contain evergreen trees intended to reach a minimum height of
twenty (20) feet at maturity. These evergreen trees shall provide a continuous screen, with plantings
spaced no more than ten (10) feet apart. The full distance buffer shall contain a double row of
evergreen trees that are a minimum of four feet in height when planted. The reduced distance buffer
shall contain an earth berm that is six feet in height above the average road grade and shall contain
a single row of evergreen trees that are a minimum of four feet in height when planted. Alternative
landscaping may be permitted near entrance drives to ensure safe sight distances. The Planning
Commission may allow for alternative designs which meet the intent of the section in the event of
topography or sight distance constraints.
165-156 Definitions.
BUFFER, ROAD EFFICIENCY ACTIVE PORTION - A distance buffer which may be located
within a residential lot that is permitted to contain accessory structures.
BUFFER, ROAD EFFICIENCY INACTIVE PORTION - A distance buffer which is located outside
of a residential lot that is required to contain all landscaping elements of a fall distance buffer or all
landscaping and opaque elements of a reduced distance buffer.
Editor's Note: The definition for Road Efficiency Buffer needs to be eliminated due to the
inclusion of the definition for Buffer, Road Efficiency added 9-12-2001.
U:\COMMITTEES\DRRS\Projects\Road Efficiency Buffers\165-37EDraft. wpd
J
:-7
COUNTY of FREDE ?I CIS
Department of Planning and Development
To: Frederick County Planning Commission
From: Evan A. Wyatt, Planning Director
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Family Division Lots To Define Immediate
Family
Date: April 8, 2002
The Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) considered a proposal to define
immediate family members. The Zoning Ordinance provides for several types of land divisions in
the RA (Rural Areas) District. One type of land division is a family division lot which provides for
the ability of a family member to sell or gift a lot that is a minimum of two (2) acres to qualifying
family members. Section 15.2244, of the Code of Virginia, states that a member of the immediate
family is defined as, "a person who is natural or legally defined offspring, spouse, sibling,
grandchild, grandparent, or parent of the owner. In addition, any such locality may include aunts,
uncles, nieces, and nephews in its definition of immediate family." Clarification of who qualifies
as an immediate family member will assist staff and local land surveyors in advising land owners
if they qualify for the creation of a family division lot.
Staff research indicates that this item has not been presented to the Planning Commission or the
Board of Supervisors as a discussion item; therefore, this item will need to be tabled to allow for that
portion of the process to be complete. Staff would suggest that the Planning Commission table this
matter as a public hearing item and consider this item for discussion under "Other." Staff will
reschedule this text amendment following discussion with the Board of Supervisors and once staff
can meet all legal advertisement requirements. Please find the attached the proposed amendments
for discussion puposes.
U:\COMMITTEES\DRRS1Projects\Immediate Family - Family Lot Divisions\FamilyDivisionLotlmmediateFaml]yAmendment-PCMemoToTable&Discuss.wpd
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Current Zoning Ordinance Requirement
165-54B Family division lots.
On any parcel which contained seven acres of more prior to the adoption of this article, lots as
small as two acres may be created, provided that the following conditions are met:
(1) Lots are conveyed to members of the immediate family of the owner of record of the
parent tract.
(2) Only one such lot shall be permitted per family member.
(3) One parcel of at least five acres in size shall remain intact following the division.
(4) The creation of all such lots shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Frederick
County Subdivision Chapter and § 15.1-466Al2.of the Code of Virginia.
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
165-54B Family division lots.
On any parcel which contained seven acres of more prior to the adoption of this article, lots as
small as two acres may be created, provided that the following conditions are met:
(1) Lots are conveyed to members of the immediate family of the owner of record of the
parent tract.
(2) Only one such lot shall be permitted per immediate family member.
(3) One parcel of at least five acres in size shall remain intact following the division.
(4) The creation of all such lots shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Frederick
County Subdivision Chapter and § - 2-.15.2-2244 of the Code of Virginia.
165-145 Definitions.
Immediate Family - any person who is a natural or legally defined offspring, spouse, sibling,
grandchild, grandparent, or parent of the property owner.
Complete Zoning Ordinance Amendment
165-54B Family division lots.
On any parcel which contained seven acres of more prior to the adoption of this article, lots as
small as two acres may be created, provided that the following conditions are met:
(1) Lots are conveyed to members of the immediate family of the owner of record of the
parent tract.
(2) Only one such lot shall be permitted per immediate family member.
(3) One parcel of at least five acres in size shall remain intact following the division.
(4) The creation of all such lots shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Frederick
County Subdivision Chapter and 15.2-2244 of the Code of Virginia.
165-145 Definitions.
Immediate Family - any person who is a natural or legally defined offspring, spouse, sibling,
grandchild, grandparent, or parent of the property owner.
U:\COMMITTEES\DRRS\Projects\Immediate Family - Family Lot Divisions\ProposedFarnilyDivisionLotln=ediateFamilyTextAmendmentAndDefinition.wpd
COUNTY of FREDERIC
Department of Planning and Development
540/665-5651
FAX: 540/665-6395I MEMORANDUM
TO: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Eric R. Lawrence, AICP, Deputy Director Sa L/
RE: Request for Waiver to Increase Steep Slope Disturbance in the Eastgate Commerce
Center
DATE: April 8, 2002
Attached is a letter and materials frons. Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., VP, G.W. Clifford &
Associates, Inc., on behalf of Wright's Run LP. Mr. Maddox requests that a waiver of the steep slope
disturbance requirement of the Zoning Ordinance be granted. The subject area is located in the southern
portion of the Eastgate Commerce Center in the Shawnee Magisterial District. The steep slope waiver
would apply to the 235.75 -acre master planned project, zoned B2 (Business General), B3 (Industrial
Transition), and M1 (Light Industrial).
The Zoning Ordinance allows for no more than 25 percent of steep slopes to be disturbed (§ 165-31.B).
The Ordinance further states that the Board of Supervisors may allow larger steep slope areas to be
disturbed in industrial parks [§ 165-31.B(6)]. In such cases, the function of stream valleys shall be
preserved through the use of open space, landscaping and stormwater management facilities. The
applicant is requesting to be permitted to disturb up to 50 percent of the steep slopes on this site in order
to more fully develop the property for an industrial use. This request will result in the disturbance of
approximately 3.32 acres of the 6.65 acres of steep slopes within the Eastgate Commerce Center. Mr.
Maddox has stated that if the steep slope waiver is granted, a stream preservation easement will be
established along the property's southern boundary in an effort to preserve the function of the stream
valley.
In 2000, the Board of Supervisors granted an increase in woodlands disturbance for the Commerce
Center, enabling 55 percent of the woodlands to be disturbed. At that time, the plan was modified to
establish a protection easement for the existing woodlands along the property's southern boundaries.
Mr. Maddox has stated that if the steep slope waiver is granted, this woodlands disturbance would be
reduced to 53.6 percent.
The applicant has provided for the establishment of a buffer along the southern and western perimeter
of the tract, essentially preserving the stream valley natural landscape while maintaining a buffer against
the adjoining properties. The proposed stream preservation area would be consistent with the woodlands
preservation area previously established in 2000. Development activity within the easement area would
107 North Kent Street • Winchester, Virginia 22601-5000
Request for Waiver - Eastgate Commerce Center
Page 2
April 8, 2002
be restrictive, although the applicant has indicated that some utility installation may be required at some
point in the future.
A recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors regarding the steep slope
waiver request is desired. Should the Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation, it
would be appropriate to require a survey description for the "preservation area" to ensure that
subsequent site development plans do not encroach into this area.
ERL/ch
Attachments
O:\Agendas\COMMENTS\Waivers\Eastgate Commerce Center.steep slopes.PC.wpd
"I CORPC1LATED 1972
Engineers — Land Planners — Water Quality
April 3, 2002
Mr. Evan Wyatt
Frederick County Planning
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, VA 22601
RE: Eastgate Commerce Center
1VIaster Development Adjustment
Dear Evan,
Board of Dkectors•
President:
Thomas J. O'Toole, P.E.
Vice Presidents:
Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E.
Earl R. Sutherland, P.E.
Ronald A Mislowsky, P.E.
David J. Saunders, P.E.
Directors:
William >_.. Wright
Michael A. hammer
Thomas W. Price
The attached revised Master Plan shows adjustments necessary to accommodate a major industrial interest on
this economic development site in Frederick County.
A small amount of steep slopes (25% or greater) amounting to 6.65 acres exist on this site. We are disturbing
50% of these steep slopes or 3.32 acres_ Since 25% of steep slope disturbance is allowed by the ordinance, we
hereby request a waiver for the additional 1.16 acres disturbed.
_he Board of Supervisors on April 26, 2000 allowed the disturbance of 55% of woodlands in accordance with
the expected plan at that time. This plan requests the boundary of tree preservation to be modified to allow
53.6% of woodlands to be disturbed, a decrease from 21 acres disturbed to 20 acres in the new plan.
Thank you for your assistance in processing this request.
Sincerely,
gflber ., clfHor associates, inc.
Charles E. Ma o Jr., P.E., VP
cc: Mr. Allen Hudson
RECENEO
Aim 03RE
DEFT, OF P ANI NING!TJEtOROI T
117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200, Winchester, Virginia 22601
(540) 667-2139 Fax (540) 665-0493 e-mail gwcaram ca.earthlink-.net
IlemberAmerican Consulting Engineers Council
U lb ert Yi . diffor d 4L nss 0 Ci a t e5, in C
IN CORFORATED 1972
Em giretir�s — LaDd PlI�ers — Wator Qua -1111
5 April 2002
Mr. Evan Wyatt
Frederick County Planning
107 N. Kent Street
Winchester, Virginia 22601
RE: Stream Valley Preservation
Eastgate Commerce Center
Dear Evan,
Board e i Di rLriars:
President:
Thomas J. O'Toole, P.E.
Vice Presidents:
Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E.
Earl R. Sutherland, P.E.
Ronald A N islowsky, P.E.
David J. Saunders, P.E.
Directors:
William L. Wri¢ t
Nfichael A. Hammer
Thomas W. Price
Thanks for your review of the request for the additional steep slope disturbance of 1.6 acres at Eastgate.
We believe this is a minor disturbance under the "small areas" type as mentioned in 165-31-6 (steep slopes) of
the ordinance however, we have consulted with the owner and he is interested in the stream valley preservation
for not only environmental purposes but to maintain the buffer value against potential future land uses to the
south. For this reason he has advised us to place a stream buffer preservation easement along the entire stream
frontage on this site (see attached plan). This easement will be described by metes and bounds and shall
y)revent clearing or grading except as needed to prevent fire hazard or to implement needed and approved
stream channel maintenance as may be required from time to time. Also, we think it Nvise to allow utility
installations as may be required in the future.
Please accept this as a part of our application.
Sincerely yours,
giiber# w. Offord & associates, inc.
a�t 4 �
C. E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Vice President
CEM/kf
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Allan Hudson
APR 0 5 2002
DEPT. OF PLAININ NG/DEVELORIE` T
1� 117 East Piccadilly Street, Suite 200, Winchester, Virginia 22601
(540) 667-2139 Fax (540) 665-0493 e-mail gwcaram@earthfirhk-net
Member American Consulting Engineers Council
Q
r�
�J
A71
.Ta ENIAi EEATem S
Aisw x �o*Pa I � 1 x aen"m
twoovtAxD as ao no
l.Y3f 6 VDYpt a6 0.0 OA
nxr esmrnw xaAs no � nv � ao
8iF'OP OIAPCO(sldq xri
aeD EO.D
PROJECT SUMMARY
nxea ARA: 07675 Ano
�_��.. Rmrcr eoaoMv we
D OM aone+R M -i RRA
OOfOYD VR.' YMNR ~3 Ip,LL
- •.• � -- � zxep ut
1[M RYR-tF-�tY U[
fROPQM M. 06XYataAt/xDYOl7K
MAOI PRayrtY tl[
TAX O f 70-(iA))'!J/6&1/4W/07C/6W
��•�0•-�-- IX MM 10YQ
R Oi-O-11
-- •+••--pV. iNt OEYR
M6 WOSC.V® MPA RCQ'R
_•_�•�� um
��/7Dx' �/70x-YI
a/�PII(�. IIZ IIM
ft/76'-07/tl0-w
n"M A PAT70`.-H
A7141Q 8/DD' .
rrrmE C tobarA-OJ1f.0-in
76'� rraX, is sb., t Rv - O7
,^I stm ants Ua)
7b'/76' trait. 7S x M Ra - w
ax-anr: Aotwim
�J
'awo
D
OIDMaGTQt YARNaLptf SRMa ![ 1ROAfD OR A lCf Bt IDi Rl9S
`U // 1 / t / /�j Rilurm 001 ias6t
tp%p6�1yR0gx0�0aMi06
PM
M( kl
Flood Ploin
Dnnn or Puiwta uo oAA Q.iii/�w°^'r.. wa "e�r;,w �'��»x i w.u+w s a."u'a.nw. � s�,�• ••
R m�.y.�• .�ra.�• n. � s.. er.r
T,; ;,& St,
""""""`" P°'•�••� x� Preservation
taax- �'. reit ( ��•: �
a :-
V
4
soAU D -M