PC 05-07-14 Meeting Agenda AGENDA
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
The Board Room
Frederick County Administration Building
Winchester, Virginia
May 7, 2014
7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER TAB
1) Adoption of Agenda: Pursuant to established procedures, the Planning Commission
should adopt the agenda for the meeting ................................................................. (no tab)
2) April 2, 2014 Minutes ...................................................................................................... (A)
3) Committee Reports
Agricultural District Advisory Committee ................................................................... (B)
Comprehensive Plan and Programs Committee ........................................................... (C)
Development Review and Regulations Committee ...................................................... (D)
4) Citizen Comments .................................................................................................... (no tab)
PUBLIC HEARING
5) Draft Update of the 2014-2015 Frederick County Primary and Interstate Road
Improvement Plans - The Primary and Interstate Road Improvement Plans establish priorities for improvements to the Primary and Interstate road networks within Frederick County. Comments from the Transportation Committee will be forwarded to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Ultimately, the priorities adopted by the Board of Supervisors will be forwarded to the Commonwealth Transportation Board for consideration.
The Virginia Department of Transportation and the Planning Commission of
Frederick County, in accordance with Section 33.1-70.01 of the Code of
Virginia, will conduct a joint public hearing in the Board Room of the
Frederick County Government Center, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester,
Virginia at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, May 7, 2014. The purpose of this public
hearing is to receive public comment on the proposed Six Year Plan for
Secondary Roads for Fiscal Year 2015. Copies of the proposed Plan and Budget may be reviewed at the Edinburg Office of the Virginia Department of Transportation, located at 14031 Old Valley Pike, Edinburg, Virginia or at the Frederick County offices located at 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. All projects in the Secondary Road Improvement Plan that are eligible for federal funds will be included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), which documents how Virginia will obligate federal transportation funds. Persons requiring special assistance to attend and participate in this hearing should contact the Virginia Department of Transportation at 1-800-367-7623. Persons wishing to speak at this public hearing should contact the Frederick County Planning Department at 540-665-5651.
Mr. Bishop ....................................................................................................................... (E)
INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEMS
6) Private Streets in the R5 Zoning District – Revisions to the Frederick County zoning
Ordinance to remove the requirement that R-5 communities must be “age restricted
communities” to qualify for private streets.
Mrs. Perkins ...................................................................................................................... (F)
7) Setback Requirements for Multifamily residential buildings- Revision to the Frederick
County Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum front setback for multifamily residential
buildings.
Mrs. Perkins ....................................................................................................................... (G)
8) Other
Adjourn
-2-
Commonly Used Planning Agenda Terms
Meeting format
Citizen Comments – The portion of the meeting agenda offering an opportunity for the public to provide
comment to the Planning Commission on any items not scheduled as public hearing items.
Public Hearing– A specific type of agenda item, required by State law, which incorporates public comment as a
part of that item prior to Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors action. Public hearings are held for
items such as: Comprehensive Plan policies and amendments; Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance
amendments; and Rezoning and Conditional Use Permit applications. Following the Public Hearing, the
Planning Commission will take action on the item (see below).
Action Item–There are both public hearing and non‐public hearing items on which the Planning Commission
takes action. Depending on the actual item, the Planning Commission may approve, deny, table, or forward a
recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding the agenda item. No public comment is accepted
during the Action Item portion of the agenda.
Information/Discussion Item– The portion of the meeting agenda where items are presented to the Planning
Commission for information and discussion. The Planning Commission may offer comments and suggestions,
but does not take action on the agenda item. No public comment is accepted during the
Information/Discussion Item portion of the agenda.
Planning Terminology
Urban Development Area or UDA – The UDA is the county’s urban growth boundary identified in the
Comprehensive Plan in which more intensive forms of residential development will occur. The UDA is an area
of the county where community facilities and public services are more readily available and are provided more
economically.
Sewer and Water Service Area or SWSA – The SWSA is the boundary identified in the Comprehensive Plan in
which public water and sewer is or can be provided. The SWSA is consistent with the UDA in many locations;
however the SWSA may extend beyond the UDA to promote commercial, industrial, and institutional land uses
in area where residential land uses are not desirable.
Land Use – Land Use is the nomenclature which refers to the type of activity which may occur on an area of
land. Common land use categories include: agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial.
Zoning District ‐ Zoning district refers to a specific geographic area that is subject to land use standards.
Frederick County designates these areas, and establishes policies and ordinances over types of land uses,
density, and lot requirements in each zone. Zoning is the main planning tool of local government to manage
the future development of a community, protect neighborhoods, concentrate retail business and industry, and
channel traffic.
Rezoning – Rezoning is the process by which a property owner seeks to implement or modify the permitted
land use activities on their land. A rezoning changes the permitted land use activities within the categories
listed above under Land Use.
Conditional Use Permit or CUP ‐ A CUP allows special land uses which may be desirable, but are not always
appropriate based on a location and surrounding land uses. The CUP requested use, which is not allowed as a
matter of right within a zoning district, is considered through a public hearing process and usually contains
conditions to minimize any impacts on surrounding properties.
Ordinance Amendment – The process by which the County Code is revised. Often the revisions are the result
of a citizen request with substantial justification supporting the change. Amendments ultimately proceed
through a public hearing prior to the PC forwarding a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.
County Bodies Involved
Board of Supervisors or BOS ‐ Frederick County is governed by an elected Board of Supervisors composed of
seven members, one from each magisterial district, and one chairman‐at‐large. The Board of Supervisors is the
policy‐making body of the county. Functions of the Board of Supervisors related to planning include making
land use decisions, and establishing growth and development policies.
Planning Commission or PC ‐ The PC is composed of 13 members, two from each magisterial districts and one
at‐large, appointed by the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Commission serves in an advisory capacity to the
Board of Supervisors which then takes final action on all planning, zoning, and land use matters.
Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee or CPPC – The CPPC is a major committee of the PC whose
primary responsibility is to formulate land use policies that shape the location and timing of development
throughout the County. Included in the work are studies of specific areas to develop guidelines for future land
use within those areas. The CPPC also considers requests for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan.
Decisions by CPPC are then forwarded to the PC for consideration.
Development Review and Regulations Committee or DRRC – The DRRC is the second major committee of the
PC whose primary responsibilities involve the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan in the form of
Zoning and Subdivision ordinance requirements. Requests to amend the ordinances to the DRRC are made by
the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, local citizens, businesses, or organizations. DRRC decisions
are also forwarded to the PC for consideration.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3074
Minutes of April 2, 2014
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; 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.
-------------
ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Manuel, the
Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting.
-------------
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Manuel, the
minutes of the March 5, 2014 Planning Commission meeting were unanimously approved as presented.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3075
Minutes of April 2, 2014
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Economic Development Commission (EDC) – 3/07/14 Mtg.
Commissioner Thomas reported the EDC discussed the annual report. He said some of
the interesting observations were that the tax base for Winchester-Frederick County was up in 2013 from
2012; average wages were up during the same period; and the unemployment rate is dropping within the
same time frame. He said only one item was somewhat negative and that was the average wage for the
Winchester-Frederick County area, which is about $10,000 less than the average wage for the State. He
noted Winchester-Frederick County is $42,512 and the average wage for the State is $52,000.
-------------
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC) – 4/14/14 Mtg.
Commissioner Mohn reported the next CPPC meeting is scheduled for April 14, 2014.
He said work is continuing on the South Frederick Land Use Study.
--------------
Sanitation Authority (SA) – 3/18/14 Mtg.
Commissioner Unger reported the following information from the SA meeting: total
customer base for water is 14,304 and for sanitation is 13,549; rainfall for March was average at 3.16
inches; water production for the Diehl Plant was 2.57mgd and the Anderson Plant was 1.78mgd; .85mgd
was purchased from the City of Winchester; the daily average water use was normal at 5.2mgd; the Diehl
Plant rose about four feet within the previous month and a half; and the Anderson Plant rose about three
feet within the previous month and a half. Commissioner Unger reported the Parkins Mill Plant is
experiencing some issues with high nitrogen, which is coming from the Hood Plant. He added that water
leaks are down to only about 5% for March, which is very good.
-------------
Transportation Committee – 3/24/14 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported the Transportation Committee discussed the Route 277
Improvement Project. He said the cost of the right-of-way acquisition is more than what was budgeted,
so although VDOT will engineer the plans for the full design of build out, the construction will probably
be short, somewhere around Double Church Road or a little less for now, until more money can be
obtained. In addition, Commissioner Oates reported that the Shenandoah Project came back to the
Committee and private streets were again discussed. He said the Transportation Committee directed that
this item be sent to the DRRC.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3076
Minutes of April 2, 2014
Development Review & Regulations Committee (DRRC) – 3/27/14 Mtg.
Commissioner Unger reported the DRRC had a lengthy discussion about private streets in
the R5 Zoning District. Specifically, the discussion focused on revisions to the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance to remove the requirement that R5 communities must be age-restricted communities to qualify
for private streets. Commissioner Unger said none of the committee members had opposition to the
proposal; however, the biggest fear is that the County may have to someday take the streets over if
something happens and the residents of the subdivision would not have enough money to take care of the
streets themselves.
-------------
City of Winchester Planning Commission
City Planning Commissioner, Stephen Slaughter, Jr., reported there were some
amendments to the zoning ordinance at the City’s last meeting: the first dealt with floodplain regulations
and the other dealt with alternative financial institutions. Commissioner Slaughter said there was also a
discussion about relocating a portion of Indian Alley for the Shenandoah Valley Discovery Museum. He
said the next meeting of the City’s Planning Commission will have four public hearings; there will also be
a work session discussion on corridor enhancement districts and the Comprehensive Plan, and how that
fits with the new John Kerr Elementary School.
-------------
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.
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.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3077
Minutes of April 2, 2014
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.
-------------
PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit #02-14 of Jessica M. Neff for a kennel at 461 Laurel Grove Road. This
property, zoned RA (Rural Areas), is identified with P.I.N. 73-9-3 and is located in the Back Creek
Magisterial District.
Action – Recommended Approval with Conditions
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran reported that kennels are a
permitted use in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District with an approved Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
Mr. Cheran said the proposed use will take place on a 7+ acre parcel, surrounded by properties zoned RA.
He said the 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies this area of the County to remain rural in nature
and is not a part of any land use study.
Mr. Cheran stated there will be no employees with this proposed kennel per the Frederick
County Health Department. He noted the nearest residential dwelling is approximately 600 feet from the
proposed dog kennel; therefore, the Category C Buffer can be met, as 400 feet is required for a no-screen
Category C Buffer. Mr. Cheran reported the applicant will be constructing a 30 X 20 square-foot
enclosed kennel with a fenced area at the rear of the property. The applicant has indicated that no more
than 28 dogs will be on the property at any given time. He pointed out that all dogs must be confined
indoors with the exception of when they are exercised and will not be let outdoors prior to 8:00 am. He
added the dogs must be indoors by 9:00 p.m. Mr. Cheran next read a list of recommended conditions,
should the Planning Commission find this use to be appropriate.
Ms. Jessica M. Neff, the applicant, came forward and stated she is proposing to operate a
dog-boarding kennel; no breeding will take place at the kennel. Ms. Neff said all the dogs will be inside
at all times, except when exercising, approximately four-to-six times per day.
Commissioner Unger inquired about the construction of the kennel building. Ms. Neff
said the structure will basically be a free-standing garage with wider-than-normal walls to provide noise
insulation; the walls and attic will be insulated for better heating and air conditioning.
Chairman Wilmot called for any citizen in the audience who wished to speak regarding
this CUP. The following persons came forward to speak:
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3078
Minutes of April 2, 2014
Mrs. Shelia Pinner, a resident at 408 Laurel Grove Road, came forward to speak in
opposition to the proposed kennel. She said her home would face the proposed kennel and she wanted to
speak about the possible devaluation of her property. Mrs. Pinner said she has been researching this
matter and has read that properties can devalue from 15-20%, if located next to a kennel. She wanted to
know how her property would be protected from being devalued. Mrs. Pinner said her family has been at
this location for 42 years; she said they built on family property and most of her neighbors are local
families. She stated both she and her husband are retired and they were hoping to enjoy their retirement in
the serenity and peacefulness of the County’s rural area, not next to a business. Mrs. Pinner believed
there was no need for the proposed kennel; she said this service is provided throughout Frederick County
and other facilities are available. Mrs. Pinner did not understand why she should be subjected to this.
She also wanted to know if a noise study had been done; how dog waste would be disposed; how odor
will be controlled; and she asked if water runoff will be affected.
Dr. Scott Berman, a resident at 247 Laurel Grove Road, came forward and stated he
shared the same concerns as Mrs. Pinner. Dr. Berman said he wanted to see for himself an operation
similar to the kennel proposed and he found one in Warren County, Cavalier Kennel. He said it was
explained to him that Cavalier Kennel was built with triple drywall, sound-dampening walls, and two-by-
six construction. Dr. Berman said he started talking with surrounding neighbors, some a mile away, who
said they were not initially opposed to the kennel, based on what they heard about the building
construction, but they are now very unhappy about their property values. Dr. Berman said he lives across
a field from the Neffs and they have been great neighbors and this is a great neighborhood. He said there
is open space between the Neff’s house and his; however, he can hear a single dog in that area now; he
couldn’t imagine the noise from 20 dogs. Dr. Berman stated this was not a practical location; he said
there are better places for this, preferably a non-residential area. He commented this is a residential, quiet
area and he spent a lot of money for his home and improvements. He added this kennel will not be a
good thing for the community.
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of
the hearing.
Chairman Wilmot next emphasized that the conditions of the CUP must be adhered to at
all times. She said if the neighbors find there is a dilemma, it is the neighbors’ right to come to the
Planning Department with those concerns. She said if the CUP is not being operated properly, or if there
is too much dog noise, the permit can be revoked.
Mr. Cheran returned to the podium to reiterate some of the recommended conditions that
were aimed at addressing the concerns raised by the neighbors.
Chairman Wilmot inquired of the County Attorney, Rod Williams, if he could provide
any information on the valuation and assessment aspect of the discussion. Mr. Williams replied that
valuation and assessment is a subjective study that is done by the Commissioner of Revenues Office
based on data they have available to them. He was not aware of any hard and fast rules that dictate a
value when a property is located next to a kennel.
Commissioner Thomas advised the applicant that there were a number of different
construction techniques for sound abatement in a building. He said a building could be constructed in
such a way that there could be 50 dogs inside barking and no one outside would hear it. He said there is a
benefit/cost ratio standpoint to be considered and the applicant has to decide where she wants to be.
Commissioner Thomas cautioned, however, that when the dogs are outside, they are going to bark and
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3079
Minutes of April 2, 2014
there’s no way to muzzle them outside. He encouraged the applicant to be mindful of what the Chairman
advised regarding the conditions of the permit.
Commissioner Unger said he was also concerned about the noise of this operation. He
said he visited the SPCA and stood outside in the parking lot to determine how bad the noise was. He
said he heard no barking at all and he assumed at least some dogs were barking during the time he was
there. Commissioner Unger didn’t feel there would be a problem with an enclosed building.
Commissioner Kenney said he was familiar with the location and the surrounding area.
He said this is agricultural land buffered by cornfields and large stands of trees. Commissioner Kenney
agreed there were things that could be done to soundproof the building.
Commissioner Oates mentioned the adjoining State Agricultural Research Center. He
said this location is out within the County. He stated in the springtime, there is spraying taking place,
tractors are running, and other animals are raised that could be noisier than dogs.
Commissioner Unger next made a motion to recommend approval of Conditional Use
Permit #02-14 of Jessica M. Neff for a kennel for dog boarding with the conditions as recommended by
the staff. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kenney and unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval
of Conditional Use Permit #02-14 of Jessica M. Neff for a dog-boarding kennel at 461 Laurel Grove Road
with the following conditions:
1. All review agency comments shall be complied with at all times.
2. No more than 28 dogs shall be permitted on the property at any given time.
3. This conditional use permit (CUP) is solely to enable the boarding of dogs on this property.
4. No employees other than those residing on the property shall be allowed.
5. All dogs shall be controlled so as not to create a nuisance to any adjoining properties by roaming
free or barking.
6. All dogs must be confined indoors by 9:00 p.m. and not let outdoors prior to 8:00 a.m.
7. Any proposed business sign shall conform to cottage occupation sign requirements and shall not
exceed four square-feet in size and five feet in height.
8. Any expansion or modification of this use will require approval of a new conditional use permit.
(Note: Commissioner Crockett was absent from the meeting.)
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3080
Minutes of April 2, 2014
An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VII, Overlay
Districts, Part 702, (FP) Floodplain Districts. The proposed revisions will bring Part 702,
Floodplain Districts, in compliance with the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation’s
(DCR) Virginia Model Floodplain Management Ordinance.
Action – Recommended Adoption
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported the staff has prepared revisions to Part 702
of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Floodplain Districts. She noted this portion of the zoning
ordinance lays out the various floodplain districts and the uses and disturbance permitted within the
various districts. Ms. Perkins said the current floodplain ordinance was revised in 2009 as directed by the
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR). She stated the DCR has since modified the
floodplain ordinance and, therefore, revisions to Frederick County’s Floodplain Overlay District are now
once again necessary in order to meet the minimum regulatory standards required in a fully compliant
floodplain ordinance.
Ms. Perkins said the primary revisions to the Floodplain Ordinance are: new text
regarding designation and duties of the Floodplain Administrator; new sections for “Jurisdictional
Boundary Changes” and “Submitting Technical Data;” relocation and revisions to the “Description of
Special Flood Hazard Districts” sections; revised “Factors to be Considered in Granting Variances;”
revised “Elevation and Construction Standards;” and new and revised definitions.
Ms. Perkins stated the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC)
reviewed and endorsed the revisions at their meeting on January 23, 2014. Discussions were held by the
Planning Commission on March 5, 2014 and by the Board of Supervisors on March 12, 2014. She said
the Board had no changes and directed the item be scheduled for public hearing.
Commissioner Oates remarked that if Frederick County does not adopt these revisions,
the citizens of Frederick County will not be able to participate in the Department of Homeland Security’s
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Program. Ms. Perkins replied that if the County does
not have a fully compliant floodplain ordinance, FEMA will not offer flood insurance in our locality.
Chairman Wilmot called for anyone in the audience who wished to speak regarding these
revisions and the following person came forward to speak:
Ms. Dody Stottlemyer, a resident of the Shawnee District, said she was concerned about
some of the language relating to the addition of the Floodplain Management Administrator. In addition,
Ms. Stottlemyer said she visited the DCR website and it states on the model floodplain management
ordinance that, “…the provisions cannot be copied verbatim and every municipality making use of the
provisions will have to make some choices and modifications, depending on the kind of flood hazard
districts and information contained in its flood insurance study and the community’s own particular
circumstances and objectives or policy.” She said she read the model ordinance and it is almost verbatim
with what is being proposed by Frederick County.
Commissioner Oates responded to Ms. Stottlemyer’s inquiry by noting it was decided to
simply make the minimum amount of revisions and not to add or embellish the flood plain ordinance.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3081
Minutes of April 2, 2014
No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of
the hearing.
Ms. Perkins returned to the podium and commented that the State model ordinance is a
very large document and in its entirety, applies to all different localities, such as areas with coastal issues,
that wouldn’t apply to our locality. She said there are also modifications to the text which are needed to
insert your particular jurisdiction name. Therefore, the model ordinance cannot be adopted as is;
modifications to fit the individual jurisdiction must be made. She added that the revisions done in 2009
were done the same way.
Commissioner Oates next made a motion to recommend adoption of the revisions to Part
702 of the Floodplain Districts. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and was
unanimously passed.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval
of ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VII, Overlay Districts,
Part 702, (FP) Floodplain Districts. The proposed revisions will bring Part 702, Floodplain Districts, in
compliance with the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation’s (DCR) Virginia Model
Floodplain Management Ordinance.
(Note: Commissioner Crockett was absent from the meeting.)
-------------
INFORMATION/ DISCUSSION ITEMS
Discussion on Proposed Revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance, Master Development
Plan Requirements, Part 801, per the Business-Friendly Recommendations Committee.
No Action Required
Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported that back 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. She said the purpose of the effort was to search for ways the County could meet the needs of
new and existing businesses in the community. Ms. Perkins stated the committee’s final report was
adopted by the Board of Supervisors in July of 2013. One recommendation contained in the report was to
eliminate the master development plan (MDP) requirement contained in the zoning ordinance.
Ms. Perkins said the Land Use and Development Subcommittee of the Business-Friendly
Committee “recommended the elimination of the MDP process. They felt this process was already
incorporated in other existing ordinances and results in a duplicative process.”
Ms. Perkins stated the Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC)
reviewed the MDP requirements at their October 2013 and January 2014 meetings. She said the DRRC
disagreed that the MDP requirement should be eliminated. The DRRC believed it was an important
process for both the applicant and the public. She said the DRRC did recommend the MDP ordinance be
modified to allow for a waiver of the MDP requirement, if the applicant chooses to process a detailed site
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3082
Minutes of April 2, 2014
plan in lieu of a MDP. Ms. Perkins said the staff is seeking comments from the Planning Commission to
forward to the Board of Supervisors on this effort.
Commissioner Oates, a member of the DRRC, said he was against removing the MDP
requirement because in his surveying business, he believed it protected his clients to have an approved
MDP, especially on larger developments, because it guarantees where roads, entrances, buffers, etc. will
be located on the site. He said his clients are protected from changes that may occur in the future.
Commissioner Thomas said the proposed revisions give the client the option to decide if
they want to request a waiver of the MDP; if they don’t want to request the waiver, they don’t have to.
He believed it was a good compromise.
Ms. Perkins said she would forward the Commission’s comments to the Board.
-------------
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, which could significantly drop the cost of site
development. 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 sway the recommendations of
the DRRC.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3083
Minutes of April 2, 2014
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
-------------
Discussion of a proposed amendment to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan; Frederick County UDA
Centers and the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This amendment is a follow-up to and in support of the
UDA Center Design Cabinet Report and the draft Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND)
Ordinance discussion. The proposed amendment continues to consolidate and reinforce the UDA
Center discussion within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and further strengthens sound planning
principles within the County’s urban areas. The aim of this proposed amendment is to illustrate
why UDA Centers in Frederick County are important and to highlight who would benefit from
living in these strategic growth areas. The proposed amendment would be inserted in the Plan with
Chapter I, Urban Areas.
Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported the proposed amendment was
initiated by the CPPC (Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee) and is the result of the ongoing
discussion of the Urban Center Design Cabinet report and the TND (Traditional Neighborhood Design)
Zoning Ordinance which was discussed at various work sessions and most recently, at the Planning
Commission Retreat. Mr. Ruddy said the CPPC discussed this proposed amendment at their March 10,
2014 meeting and expressed their support, along with the overall UDA Center and TND effort.
Mr. Ruddy explained the aim of the proposed amendment is to illustrate why UDA
Centers in Frederick County are important and to highlight who would benefit from living in these
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3084
Minutes of April 2, 2014
strategic growth areas. He said questions were asked during the work session about the density, intensity,
and marketability of this type of development. There was also a belief the County should further qualify
why this was important to Frederick County. Mr. Ruddy said the general consensus is that this
amendment consolidates and reinforces the UDA Center discussion within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
and further strengthens sound planning principles within Frederick County’s urban areas.
Mr. Ruddy addressed the question of why the County has UDA Centers. Mr. Ruddy
stated the UDA centers are an integral part of Frederick County’s overall growth management strategy.
He explained the UDA centers are located at very important locations within the County’s Urban Areas
and are strategic growth areas which will absorb a greater amount of the anticipated community growth in
an efficient and effective way, providing relief and protection for the County’s Rural Areas, and
encouraging a variety of housing choices within the urban areas.
Mr. Ruddy next addressed the question of who would benefit from living in these
strategic growth areas. Mr. Ruddy stated the County’s planning efforts enable residents, both current and
future, recent graduates, and recent retirees, to choose from an array of housing types that suit their needs
and provide affordable housing opportunities. He said the implementation of this effort will ensure that
the needs of all residents are met.
Mr. Ruddy said the amendment itself, entitled Frederick County UDA Centers, contains
several policies and a variety of ways to implement them. He said the primary policy states, “As
Frederick County continues to grow, it is essential that the vision of the Comprehensive Plan for the
Urban Areas meets expected growth in a sustainable manner. Growth should primarily be focused within
the Urban Areas.” In addition, “More intensive development should be focused in UDA Centers,
particularly meeting the residential needs of the young adults, the retirement generation, and the
workforce needed for business development.” Furthermore, “UDA Centers, located at strategic locations
within the urban areas, should absorb a portion of the anticipated community growth with the maximum
efficiency and effectiveness.”
Mr. Ruddy said this is a discussion item for the Planning Commission and the staff is
seeking input from the Commission to forward on to the Board of Supervisors.
Commissioner Kenney commended the staff for their efforts and tenacity on this
important project.
Chairman Wilmot said during the retreat, one issue raised by the Chairman of the Board
of Supervisors during this topic of discussion was, “for whom are we doing this.” Chairman Wilmot
wanted to make sure his question was answered by the iteration presented this evening.
Mr. Ruddy believed it did answer the Chairman’s question. He said the issue is currently
within the Comprehensive Plan, but in a variety of places. He said this reiteration re-enforces, it
recognizes, and states several times who this is aimed towards. Mr. Ruddy said this is aimed at existing
residents, both young adults and the retirement generation, and as the County continues to grow, more of
those people are going to be Frederick County residents and this is aimed at opportunities available for
those residents. He said it meets both the needs of the residential community and the workforce housing.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3085
Minutes of April 2, 2014
Commissioner Thomas believed this reiteration answered that particular question for him;
however, he thought it depended on how specific an answer someone was seeking.
Commissioner Oates thought the policies would promote keeping young adults within the
local community versus young graduates leaving the area for amenities in larger cities.
Chairman Wilmot added the intention is to provide young adults with a variety of
housing types and jobs.
Mr. Ruddy said he would forward the Commission’s comments on to the Board of
Supervisors for their discussion.
-------------
OTHER
DIM-OC (Development Impact Model Oversight Committee) Report
Planning Department Director, Eric R. Lawrence, reported the Development Impact
Model Oversight Committee (DIM-OC) has concluded their study of re-evaluating the DIM
(Development Impact Model), along with considering a business-friendly initiative. Mr. Lawrence said
the DIM-OC is a committee of the Board of Supervisors and he wanted to provide the Planning
Commission with an update of their study and its conclusions.
Mr. Lawrence said the DIM -OC was tasked with re-evaluating the DIM taking into
account current economic conditions, specifically the capital projects within the model, and consideration
of credits that could be used to offset the capital impacts. The committee learned that residential building
permits were up 30% over the previous year, reflecting an improvement in the economy. It was also
noted that only 7.2% of the County’s budget on average over the past ten years was actual capital. Mr.
Lawrence said the committee confirmed that all the local tax rates are properly installed within the model;
they also clarified that the DIM output used for rezoning evaluation is solely capital expense and does not
include any credit for revenue nor does it include debt service.
Mr. Lawrence said the model was run for the committee, which looks at all the revenue
and all the capital impacts. In particular, the model provides the fiscal impacts on the County over a 20-
year period for a single-family home and it was determined that the expenses of a single-family home
generate about $133,511 in service demands, but the revenues coming out of that same house are about
$73,924. Mr. Lawrence said the importance of those numbers is that there is a shortfall. He said the cash
proffer expectation is currently $19,600 per single-family dwelling. When other jurisdictions were
considered, it was learned that impacts in other jurisdictions ranged from $15,000 to over $50,000. He
said Frederick County’s impacts were on the lower end of that range and reflects that Frederick County’s
model is working properly.
Mr. Lawrence stated the DIM-OC also considered cash proffer payments and learned that
through the DIM/rezoning application, cash proffers have exceeded $9.4 million since 1995. In FY2013,
the County received $1,185,263 in cash contributions.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3086
Minutes of April 2, 2014
In addition, he said the DIM-OC had an opportunity to have a “question and answer”
session with Mr. Carson Bise, the author of the DIM used by Frederick County, which was created back
in 2005. One of the things learned was that Frederick County’s model is designed as a direct impact
model, not an indirect impact model, which means it is designed to examine the impacts on Frederick
County’s budget, but it doesn’t look at all the outside affects or indirect costs (going to a retail store or
restaurant which are indirect costs); it only looks at the costs an individual pays directly to the County
(real estate tax, personal property tax).
One of the questions posed to Mr. Bise was whether the model still functioned as it was
designed to and Mr. Bise offered to go back into the model and see if it was still functioning properly.
Mr. Bise reported back that he had the opportunity to dissect the County’s model and his findings were
that the calculations, the functions and formulas, and the links, were all continuing to work properly. Mr.
Bise had reported that the figures that needed to be updated, such as tax rates and budgetary figures, all
had been updated. He said the model is still accurate and works as designed.
Mr. Lawrence said the DIMOC also discussed potential revenue credits for inclusion in
proffer expectation calculations; this was something that came from the Business-Friendly Committee.
He noted the DIM for proffer expectation only looks at capital, so the group decided to look at providing
revenue credits. They looked at three different possible scenarios: revenue credits from new residential
growth; revenue credits for commercial/residential mixed-use projects; and credits for transportation
proffers above what a TIA (Transportation Impact Analysis) is recommending. Mr. Lawrence said the
DIM -OC made a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to enable a credit when proffered
transportation improvements exceed TIA identified improvements. The Board of Supervisors approved
this recommendation in January of 2014.
Mr. Lawrence stated the DIM-OC concluded there were no glaring inequities with the
DIM to date. The DIM-OC also concluded that no additional revisions to the DIM and the process of
calculating the proffer expectation were warranted. The DIMOC’s recommendation was to keep the
model as is and they concluded their study.
Mr. Lawrence said he wanted to provide this opportunity to share this information with
the Planning Commission, although some members of the Commission were on the committee. Mr.
Lawrence said the DIM -OC completed their study and will not have any further meetings. He noted the
committee will re-convene again in May or June of next year.
-------------
OTHER
CANCELATION OF THE APRIL 16, 2014 MEETING
Chairman Wilmot announced there were no pending items for the Planning
Commission’s April 16, 2014 meeting.
Commissioner Oates made a motion to cancel the April 16, 2014 Planning Commission
meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Thomas and unanimously passed.
-------------
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3087
Minutes of April 2, 2014
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and a motion was made by Commissioner
Oates to adjourn the meeting. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Manuel and unanimously
passed. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
June Wilmot, Chairman
____________________________
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Page 1
Frederick County Agricultural District
Advisory Committee (ADAC)
April 21, 2014
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE (ADAC)
Held in the first floor conference room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107
North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on April 21, 2014 at 6:00 p.m.
ADAC PRESENT: Carl Ay, Dudley Rinker, John Marker, Gary Oates, and Gary Lofton.
ADAC ABSENT: John Cline and John Stelzl
STAFF PRESENT: Mark Cheran, Zoning Administrator, Pam Deeter, Secretary II
OTHERS PRESENT: Ellen Murphy ,Commissioner of the Revenue
CALL TO ORDER
Mr. Cheran called the meeting to order. Mr. Cheran stated that as required by the Code of
Virginia, Agricultural and Forestal Districts must be reviewed by the local government every five
years after establishment. The Agricultural District Advisory Committee was created for the
purpose of reviewing proposals that establish or renew districts. Tonight, we have one new
district applying to be created and included in the Agricultural and Forestal Districts, and we
also have one existing district requesting the increase of acreage.
Mr. Cheran stated that people have expressed a desire to come into an Agricultural District, but
they missed the state enforced renewal deadline. For those people, and any others who are
interested, we will be meeting in 2015.
Creation of Green Springs Agricultural and Forestal District
This proposed District contains 385.63+/- acres within two (2) parcels, managed by two (2)
property owners and is located in Gainesboro Magisterial District, fronting Glaize Orchard Road
(Route 682) to the south, and Green Springs Road (Route 671) to the east. The predominantly
agricultural operations in the proposed District are 40 percent agriculture (livestock, and crop
harvesting) and 60 percent open-space/woodlands. The area within the District is rural in
nature. The location of this proposed District lies outside the Urban Development Area (UDA)
and Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), and is no part of any land use plan or study by the
County. This proposed District meets the intent of Chapter 43, Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of
Page 2
Frederick County Agricultural District
Advisory Committee (ADAC)
April 21, 2014
Virginia 1950, as amended, that enable local governments to establish Agricultural and Forestal
Districts to conserve and protect agricultural and forestal land. Staff recommends that this
District be created and included as one of the County’s Agricultural and Forestal Districts.
The Committee unanimously voted to establish and included Green Springs within the
Agricultural and Forestal Districts.
Proposed addition to the South Timber Ridge Agricultural and Forestal District
This District currently contains 15 parcels 883+/- acres, managed by one (1) property owner.
The proposed addition will be one (1) parcel containing of total acreage of 85+/- acres. If this
addition is approved, the resulting District will contain a total of 968+/- acres, to be managed by
the same property owner and is located in the Gainesboro Magisterial District along Hollow
Road (Route 707) to the north, Muse Road (Route 610) and Gold Orchard Road (Route 708) to
the east. The proposed parcel is in agricultural use. The 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan of
Frederick County provides guidance when considering land use actions. The location of the
proposed addition to the District lies outside the Urban Development Area (UDA) and Sewer
and Water Service Area (SWSA), and is not part of any land use plan or study. The proposed
addition to the District meets the intent of Chapter 43, Section 15.2-4300 of the Code of
Virginia, 1950, as amended that enable local governments to establish Agricultural and Forestal
Districts to conserve and protect agricultural and forestall land. Staff would recommend that
this proposed addition of this one (1) parcel containing 85 acres to be included in the South
Timber Ridge District. This additional acreage will increase the District from 883 acres to 968
acres.
The Committee unanimously voted to include the 85 acres into the South Timber Ridge District.
There will be a meeting in 2015 for the renewal of the Districts. Notification will be sent out to
the Committee members.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
c
Page 1
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC)
Meeting Minutes
April 14, 2014
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLANS & PROGRAMS COMMITTEE (CPPC)
The meeting was held in the Purple Room conference room of the Frederick County
Administration Building, 107 N. Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, on Monday, April 14, 2014.
CPPC MEMBERS PRESENT: Gary Oates, Jim Golladay, Kay Dawson, Tony Morelli, June Wilmot,
CPPC MEMBERS ABSENT: Chris Mohn, J. Rhodes Marston, J.P. Carr, H. Paige Manuel.
STAFF PRESENT: Mike Ruddy
OTHERS PRESENT: Chuck Dunlap, Richard Pawlowski, Larry Atkinson, Chuck DeHaven, Judith
McCann-Slaughter, Guest of Judith McCann-Slaughter.
CALL TO ORDER
The Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC) meeting was called to order at 7:00
PM by Vice-Chairman Gary Oates (Chairman Mohn was not present at the meeting).
Mr. Oates turned the meeting over to Mr. Ruddy to chair the discussion on Item 1 as Mr. Oates
represented the Applicant on this matter.
Item 1.
McCann-Slaughter Properties. The CPPC will look to complete their evaluation of a land use
study for the McCann-Slaughter properties, and surrounding area, near the intersection of
Martinsburg Pike (Route 11) and Old Charlestown Road (Route 761). Previously, the CPPC
discussed this request and identified several approaches to update the Northeast Land Use Plan
for this area. The CPPC proposed the study be coordinated with the HRAB. The HRAB has made a
recommendation on this request.
Mr. Ruddy presented an overview of this request, an update on the status of this request, and
described the input received previously from the CPPC and more recently from the HRAB. The
HRAB had recommended denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the McCann
Page 2
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC)
Meeting Minutes
April 14, 2014
Slaughter Properties. The HRAB stated that should additional information regarding the history
on the site be made available, the Board could revisit the subject.
Mr. Ruddy further discussed the options available to the CPPC as listed in the agenda.
1) Support the recommendation of the HRAB.
2) Propose the approach discussed by the CPPC at your earlier meetings, prior to the input
of and notwithstanding the recommendations of the HRAB, where the CPPC described
the following scenario:
• The recommendations of the HRAB.
• Protection of the environmental features of the site.
• Preservation of those areas identified with DSA’s and development limited to
those areas to the south of the DSA’s and south of McCann’s Road.
• Utilizing McCann’s Road and other historical features, such as Milburn Road, as
features to be protected and potentially used in a manner that promotes their
historical context (an extension of the historical trail system in the area).
• An O.M. (Mixed Use Office/Industrial) land use designation.
• If an alternative land use designation is deemed to be appropriate, access to be
provided via a new north south road that would generally be parallel to the west
side of the existing railroad. This road would connect into proposed
development to the south. No access would be permitted to McCann’s Lane for
vehicular access to Martinsburg Pike or Milburn Road.
3) An alternative recommendation to the above of the CPPC.
Members of the CPPC discussed the features of the site in more detail and reflected on the
recommendation of the HRAB. The Applicant’s representative, Mr. Oates, described the
environmental features of the site, the discussion of the HRAB, and the Applicant’s desired
future land use and potential development plan.
Balance was the overarching theme of the discussion of the CPPC. It was recognized that
balance was emphasized in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and in an earlier planning document,
the Battlefield Network Plan, which also sought to achieve a balanced approach to future land
uses that were respectful of the identified DSA’s associated with Stephenson’s Depot.
In making their recommendation, the CPPC expressed their desire to achieve a balance
between the DSA designation, the recommendation of the HRAB, and the other land uses
Page 3
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC)
Meeting Minutes
April 14, 2014
envisioned by the property owner, the OM (Office-Manufacturing) land use designation.
The CPPC recommended that the scenario described as item 2 in the agenda package be
forwarded to the Planning Commission for their consideration. The motion was made by Jim
Golladay, seconded by Kay Dawson, and unanimously approved by the CPPC members
present.
Following the recommendation, the CPPC recognized the importance of the openness of the
planning process. A suggestion was made to have members of the CPPC meet with members of
the HRAB to further evaluate the details of the proposal to ensure the historic elements of the
property were protected and any areas of development were as sensitive to the historic
resources as possible.
Mr. Ruddy returned the chairmanship of the meeting back to Mr. Oates at this time.
Item 2.
Southern Frederick Area Plan
Mr. Ruddy presented an update on the Southern Frederick Area Plan and the work of the
Facilitator Group. Members of the group had met on one occasion since the last CPPC meeting
and were looking to set up a Facilitator Group meeting within the next couple of weeks. In the
meantime, work had continued on the mapping part of the exercise which was shared with the
CPPC and interested others attending the meeting.
Following the conclusion of the discussion of the items, the meeting adjourned.
D
Page 1
Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC)
Meeting Minutes
March 27, 2014
MEETING MINUTES
OF THE
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE (DRRC)
Held in the First Floor Conference Room of the Frederick County Administration Building, 107 N.
Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia, on March 27, 2014.
DRRC MEMBERS PRESENT: Greg Unger, Tim Stowe, Gary Oates, June Wilmot, Jay Banks
DRRC MEMBERS ABSENT: Larry Ambrogi, Kevin Kenney, Eric Lowman, Dwight Shenk, Whit
Wagner and Roger Thomas
STAFF PRESENT: Candice Perkins
OTHERS PRESENT: Rick Lanham, Josh Hummer-Attorney
CALL TO ORDER
The Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC) meeting was called to order at
7:00 p.m.
Item 1: Private Streets in the R5 Zoning District. Discussion on revisions to the Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance to remove the requirement that R-5 communities must be “age restricted communities” to
qualify for private streets.
The Applicant’s Attorney summarized the Transportation Committee meeting. The TC wanted the roads
built to state standards and cbr's to be provided to the county. They also wanted to have the PE
requirement to monitor the instillation and certify the construction. Mr. Unger asked about the
construction and the PE certification. The applicant stated that the same standards would apply to
them; paving design would be provided to the county and bonded. They would be inspected and then
fixed at the end and off bond.
The committee was concerned because private streets don’t have the same requirements as the public
streets. Private streets go bad eventually; the committee questioned how this could be avoided. The
applicant stated that the ordinance includes a provision for a reserve fund and a reserve balance
analysis to make sure there are adequate funds for repairs. He further stated that Shenandoah is a large
community and the residents are asking for private streets. Every two years a capital reserve study is
completed that ensures there are adequate funds for repairs.
Page 2
Development Review and Regulations Committee (DRRC)
Meeting Minutes
March 27, 2014
Mr. Unger expressed concern about busses not being able to go into the community. Ms. Wilmot
wanted to know if this community would draw more residents with or without kids. The applicant stated
that he believes that it will draw fewer children, but can't be sure. The DRRC also had questions about
liability for accidents on the private streets.
The committee questioned how the reserve is started? The Applicant stated that it is created at day one
and as more improvements get underway more gets added to the fund.
The committee expressed concern about the guarantee that the HOA would never fold and then the
residents come back to the county for help. The applicant stated that there is no way to provide a
complete guarantee but they are trying to put ordinances in place to help that from happening. The
applicant further stated that Shenandoah is proposed to be a nice development and the residents are
going to want to keep it up but how do you make sure the maintenance is kept up. If the HOA doesn't do
the reserve study then the county would have to enforce the ordinance and make them do it.
Item 2: (Other) Setbacks for Multifamily residential buildings.
The committee expressed concern with the proposal to reduce the front setback from 35 feet to 15 feet.
They felt that it seemed to close to a public street.
TND or high density developments should have commercial elements that include eating establishments
which would be between the street and the building and 15 feet seems close. The committee expressed
comfort with reducing the setback from 35 feet to 20 feet because it would provide more distance to
the public road.
The committee also stated the possibility of going off the speed limit. Roads with a 25 mph should be 20
feet and anything overt that should be 35 feet.
Next meeting of the DRRC is April 24, 2014
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
E
2014-2015
INTERSTATE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN
for
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Frederick County Transportation Committee: 04/28/2014
Frederick County Planning Commission: 05/07/2014
Frederick County Board of Supervisors: 05/14/2014
2014-2015
PRIMARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN
for
FREDERICK COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Frederick County Transportation Committee: 04/28/2014
Frederick County Planning Commission: 05/07/2014
Frederick County Board of Supervisors: 05/14/2014
£¤50
£¤11
£¤7
£¤522
£¤37 £¤522
£¤11
£¤11
£¤50
£¤37
£¤522
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
Winchester
Stephens City
Frederick CountyMajor RoadImprovement Projects2014/2015 thru 2019/2020
0 1 20.5 Milesµ
1
2
3
4
5
6
78
1. Sulpher Springs Rd
2. Redbud Rd
3. Brucetown Rd
4. East Tevis Street
5. East Tevis Street
8. Renaisance Dr7. Carpers Valley Rd
6. Martinsburg Pike
£¤522
£¤37
£¤259
£¤277
£¤55
£¤50
£¤11
£¤127
£¤522
£¤7
£¤11
£¤37
£¤50
£¤522
§¨¦66
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
§¨¦81
Winchester
Stephens City
Middletown
Frederick CountyHardsurface RoadImprovement Projects2014/2015 thru 2019/2020
µ
0 4 82 Miles
1 2
3
4
5
6
7
1. Woodside Rd
2. Woodside Rd
3. Wright Rd
4. Carter Ln
5. Pack Horse Rd
6. Laurel Grove Rd
7. Laurel Grove Rd
£¤522
£¤50
QR6
!(12
!(7
!(9
!(5
!(21
!(13
!(2
!(19
!(3
!(18
!(15
!(11
!(16
!(8
!(4
!(10
!(14
!(1
!(20
!(17
!(22
!(23
£¤259
£¤277
£¤55
£¤50
£¤11
£¤127
£¤522
£¤7
£¤11
£¤37
£¤37
£¤50
£¤522
£¤522
§¨¦81
§¨¦66
§¨¦81
BACK CREEK
GAINESBORO
STONEWALL
OPEQUON
SHAWNEE
REDBUDWinchester
Stephens City
Middletown
Frederick CountyUnscheduledHardsurface RoadImprovement ProjectsRatings Updated April 20142014/2015 thru 2019/2020
µ
0 4 82 Miles
1. Hollow Rd
2. North Sleepy Creek Rd
3. Babbs Mountain Rd
4. Old Baltimore Rd
5. Heishman Rd
6. Middle Fork Rd
7. Fletcher Rd
8. Canterburg Rd
9. Cougill Rd
10. Fishel Rd
11. Clark Rd
12. East Parkins Mill Rd
13. Timberlakes Ln
14. Glaize Orchard Rd
15. Huttle Rd
16. McDonald Rd
17. South Timber Ridge Rd
18. Light Rd
19. Cattail Rd
20. Hunting Ridge Rd
21. Sir John's Rd
22. Mount Olive Rd
23. Shockeysville Rd
f
COUNTY 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: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Discussion – Private Streets in the R5 Zoning District
DATE: April 22, 2014
Staff has received a second request to allow the use of private streets for all types of developments in the
R5 (Residential Recreational Community) Zoning District. Currently, the use of private streets in the R5
District is only permitted within age-restricted communities and only if approved by the Board of
Supervisors. The age-restricted private street allowance was added into the R5 Zoning District in 2000,
along with a number of other revisions that were requested by Dogwood Development Group (prior
owner of the Shenandoah Development (Wheatlands). The changes in 2000 were approved to allow
increased flexibility and alternative designs in the R5 District while recognizing that an age-restricted
development would have a reduced impact on capital facilities. Prior to the adoption of the age-restricted
private street allowance, the use of public streets was mandatory for all new developments in the R5
District.
The amendment proposes to allow the use of private streets within all developments in the R5 District,
but would still require Board of Supervisors approval. The only modification to the text has been the
addition of a requirement that the development must include a minimum of 1,000 lots.
A previous request for private streets was discussed by the DRRC in October 2012; at that time the DRRC
endorsed the proposed text amendment. The Planning Commission, Public Works Committee, the
Transportation Committee and the Board of Supervisors also discussed this item in 2012 and 2013.
Ultimately, the Board of Supervisors declined to send the requested amendment forward for public
hearing. The applicant has since requested another review of the text amendment and the discussion was
moved forward by the Board of Supervisors.
The Transportation Committee discussed this proposed change at their February 2014 meeting and
forwarded it to the DRRC for comment. The DRRC discussed the requested amendment at their March
2014 meeting; the minutes from the DRRC meeting are included under tab (D) of the agenda. The DRRC
expressed concern about maintenance of the private streets and the potential for HOA’s to go defunct and
request the County take over the streets.
Staff has attached a draft ordinance revision that includes the amendments requested by the applicant
(with strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added). This item is presented for
Planning Commission discussion
R5 Private Streets
April 22, 2014
discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of
Supervisors.
Attachments:
1. Proposed Revisions
2. Correspondence from Supervisors Wells
3. Applicant Request Letter
4. Board of Supervisors minutes
CEP/pd
ATTACHMENT 1
1
ARTICLE IV
AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Part 502 – R5 Residential Recreational Community District
§ 165-502.05 Design requirements.
F. Open space. A minimum of 35% of the gross area of any proposed development shall be designated
as common open space. This open space shall be for purposes of environmental protection and for
the common use of residents of the development. No more than 50% of the required open space
shall be within lakes and ponds, wetlands or steep slopes. The Board of Supervisors may allow a
larger amount of steep slopes to be utilized where the developer can demonstrate a viable plan for
the use of these areas. Where age-restricted When communities are approved with private streets, a
minimum of 45% of open space shall be required.
K. Streets. The residential recreational community development shall be provided with a complete
system of public streets dedicated to the Virginia Department of Transportation. The road system
shall conform with the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan and with road improvement
plans adopted by the County.
(1) Within any portion of a residential recreational community which qualifies as an age-restricted
community, the Board of Supervisors may waive the public street requirement and allow for the
installation of private streets, provided that all road sections meet the minimum thickness based
on the Virginia Department of Transportation pavement design standards, all storm sewer,
signage, guardrails, and any other accessory features shall be designed following the VDOT
Manual of Road and Bridge Standards streets conform to the construction details and materials
of the Virginia Department of Transportation Standards and that a program for the perpetual
maintenance of all streets by the property owner’s association is provided which is acceptable to
the Board of Supervisors and the Transportation Planner.
(a) Three classes of private streets shall be permitted in age-restricted communities and shall be
identified on a MDP as follows:
[1] Greenways. All private streets with a projected ADT of over 3,000 shall have a minimum
right-of-way of 50 feet and shall have no direct lot frontage. Greenways shall be lined on
both sides with street trees having a minimum caliper of two inches at the time of
planting, spaced not more than 50 feet apart. Along the portions of right-of-way which
abut mature woodland, the Planning Director may waive the requirement for street
trees. The horizontal center line geometrics and vertical profile design shall meet the
VDOT criteria for subdivision streets with a design speed of 30 miles per hour (mph).
[2] Neighborhood collectors. All private streets with a projected ADT of over 400 shall have a
minimum right-of-way of 50 feet and may have lot frontage. Neighborhood collectors
shall be lined on both sides with street trees having a minimum caliper of two inches at
ATTACHMENT 1
2
the time of planting, spaced not more than 50 feet apart. The horizontal center line
geometrics and vertical profile design shall meet the VDOT criteria for subdivision streets
with a design speed of 30 mph.
[3] Local streets. All private streets with a projected ADT of 400 or less shall have a minimum
right-of-way of 30 feet and may have lot frontage. Local streets shall be lined with street
trees having a minimum caliper of two inches at the time of planting, spaced not more
than 50 feet apart. The horizontal center line geometrics and vertical profile design shall
meet the VDOT criteria for subdivision streets with a design speed of 20 mph.
(b) The subdivision design plans and final subdivision plats for all lots contained within an age-
restricted community that utilize private roads shall include the following language:
The proposed private streets will not be maintained by the Virginia Department of
Transportation or the County of Frederick. The maintenance and improvement of
said private streets shall be the sole responsibility of the owners of the lots within
the age-restricted community which are provided access via the private streets.
(b) Developments utilizing private streets shall meet the following conditions:
[1] The plan for the development shall include 1000 or more planned lots.
[2] The subdivision design plans and final subdivision plats for all lots that utilize private
streets shall include language that states “The private streets within this development
are not intended for inclusion in the system of state highways and will not be
maintained by VDOT or Frederick County. Frederick County and VDOT have no, and will
have no, responsibility for the maintenance, repair, or replacement of the private
streets within this development. The maintenance and improvement of said private
streets shall be the sole responsibility of the property owners’ association”.
[3] The developer shall establish a reserve fund dedicated solely for the maintenance of the
private streets within the development. The reserve fund shall consist of a specified
percentage of all dues collected from the residents as determined by the developer.
The percentage may be reduced by the developer or the property owners association
only after a reserve study has been completed and said study shows that a lesser
amount is necessary to maintain the private street system within the development.
[4] Sales brochures or other literature and documents, provided by the seller of lots served
by such private streets, shall include information regarding responsibility for
maintenance, repair, replacement, and covenants pertaining to such lots, including a
statement that the County has no, and will have no, responsibility for the maintenance,
repair, or replacement of private streets.
ATTACHMENT 1
3
(2) Within R-5 residential recreation community developments approved prior to 1980, the Board of
Supervisors may allow the extension of existing private roads if no other means of access is
available.
(3) Within developments utilizing private streets, a certified professional engineer, licensed in the
State of Virginia, shall be employed by the developer to monitor and supervise the materials
used; the adequacy of the subgrade; the installation of drainage structures, curb and gutter
and all concrete items; and all road, driveway and parking area construction activities,
including material compaction, grading tolerances and compliance with the plans and
specifications. Prior to issuance of the last certificate of occupancy, the certified professional
engineer, licensed in the State of Virginia, shall provide the county with certification that each
phase of construction met density requirements; that all material depths were verified for
compliance; and that the road and parking areas have been constructed in strict accordance
with the plans and specifications.
L. Curb and gutter. All public and private streets shall be provided with curb and gutter.
COUNTY 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: Frederick County Planning Commission
FROM: Candice E. Perkins, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Discussion- Setback Requirements for Multifamily Residential Buildings
DATE: April 22, 2014
________________________________________________________________________
Changes to the RP (Residential Performance) Zoning District were approved by the Board of
Supervisors in January of 2013. One change to the ordinance was the addition of a new housing
type called “multifamily residential buildings”. This multifamily housing type allows for high
density (up to 20 units per acre) in areas designated by the Comprehensive Plan as
neighborhood villages, urban centers or other areas planned for high density residential. During
the discussion and public hearing process a high density residential streetscape section
schematic was provided of how this housing type could be developed. The schematic depicted a
multifamily building with a front setback of 12-20 feet. The text adopted for multifamily
residential buildings requires a 35 foot front setback which is contrary to what was shown
during the initial discussions. An applicant is now trying to implement this housing type and
they have requested that the setback be re-evaluated to reduce the 35 foot front setback to 15
feet.
The DRRC reviewed proposed change at their March 2014 meeting. The DRRC initially discussed
a change to reduce the setback from 35 feet to 15 feet but felt that 15 feet was to close to a
public street. The committee expressed comfort with reducing the setback from 35 feet to 20
feet because it would provide a comfortable distance to the public road while still allowing the
buildings to be closer to the road which is common in high density and TND developments. The
20 foot setback would fit the maximum shown in the schematic.
The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes supported by
the DRRC (with strikethroughs for text eliminated and bold italic for text added). This item is
presented for discussion. Please contact staff should you have questions.
Attachment: 1. Proposed Revisions (deletions shown in strikethrough and additions show in
bold underlined italics).
2. High Density Residential Streetscape Section Schematic
CEP/pd
ARTICLE IV
AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Part 402 – RP Residential Performance District
§ 165-402.09 Dimensional requirements.
J. Multifamily residential buildings. This housing type consists of multifamily buildings with a minimum
of four dwelling unit entrances sharing an internal corridor per floor. The entire dwelling unit does
not necessarily have to be on the same floor. External corridors are not permitted. Multifamily
residential building shall only be located in areas designated in the Comprehensive Plan as
neighborhood villages, urban centers or other areas planned for high density residential.
Dimensional requirements shall be as follows:
A. Lot Dimensions
A1 Maximum site impervious surface ratio .60
B. Building Setbacks
B1 From public road or private right-of-way 35 feet 15 feet
B2 From off street parking lot or driveway 20 feet 10 feet
B3 Side (perimeter) 50 feet
B4 Rear (perimeter) 50 feet
B5 Rear for balconies and decks 20 feet
B6 Minimum on-site building spacing: Minimum on-site building spacing. Buildings placed side to side
shall have a minimum distance of 20 feet between buildings; buildings placed side to back shall have a
minimum distance of 35 feet between buildings. Buildings back to back shall have a minimum distance
of 50 feet between buildings.
C. Minimum Parking
C1 Required off street parking 2 per unit
D. Height
D1 Principal Building (max): 60 feet provided that a multifamily residential building may be erected to a
maximum of 80 feet if it is set back from road right-of-ways and from lit lines in addition to each of the
required minimum yard dimensions, a distance of not less than one foot for each one foot of height that
it exceeds the 60 foot limit.
D2 Accessory Building (max) 20 feet