The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPC 08-21-13 Meeting Agenda AGENDA FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION The Board Room Frederick County Administration Building Winchester, Virginia August 21, 2013 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) July 17, 2013 Minutes ...................................................................................................... (A) 3) Committee Reports .................................................................................................. (no tab) 4) Citizen Comments .................................................................................................... (no tab) PUBLIC HEARING 5) Rezoning #03-13 Madison Village, submitted by Painter-Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone 51.26 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to 46.26 acres of RP (Residential Performance) District and 5 acres of B2 (General Business) District with proffers. The property is located on the west side of Route 522, approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of Route 522 and Airport Road, and is identified by Property Identification Number 64-A-18 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Mr. Ruddy ....................................................................................................................... (B) INFORMATION/DISCUSSION ITEM 6) Height Requirements in the EM, M1, and M2 Districts – Revision to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to increase the maximum heights in the EM (Extractive Manufacturing), M1 (Light Industrial), and M2 (Industrial General) Zoning Districts. Mrs. Perkins ....................................................................................................................... (C) 7) Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Ordinance Revision – Revisions to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to update the TDR density rights table, include a provision for contiguous lots and addition of a TDR density conversion rate for rural to urban transfers. Mrs. Perkins ....................................................................................................................... (D) 8) Adjourn Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2986 Minutes of July 17, 2013 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 July 17, 2013. PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Member at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Brian Madagan, Opequon District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Shawnee District; Kevin Kenney, Gainesboro District; Charles E. Triplett, 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; Rod Williams, County Attorney; Robert Hess, Board of Supervisors Liaison; and Jennifer Beatley, 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 to order the July 17, 2013 meeting of the Frederick County Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m. ------------- ADOPTION OF AGENDA Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the agenda for this evening’s meeting as presented. ------------- RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR KEVIN CROSEN Chairman Wilmot announced that Mr. Kevin Crosen has resigned from the Planning Commission after a full term of four years. Chairman Wilmot thanked Mr. Crosen for his contribution and she read a Resolution of Appreciation from the Planning Commission. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2987 Minutes of July 17, 2013 Mr. Crosen said he has immense respect for the members of the Planning Commission for the amount of time and devotion they give to provide guidance to Frederick County. Mr. Crosen said there is a tremendous amount of effort and work, and he especially recognized those members who have been on the Commission for many years. He believed the County has good leadership in its Planning Commission. Mr. Crosen said he learned a lot while on the Planning Commission and he was glad to be a part of the Commission. He thanked the Commission again for their support. -------------- MINUTES Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the minutes of the June 19, 2013 meeting were unanimously approved as presented. ------------- COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC) – 7/08/13 Mtg. Commissioner Oates reported the CPPC discussed the Southern Frederick Area Plan, which combines the Tasker Woods Land Use Plan and the Route 277 Triangle Plan together. Commissioner Oates said Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, laid out an aggressive time line and he believed it could be met. Commissioner Oates said committees will need to be formed, similar to what was done for the Senseny Road Project, and the entire plan will be broken down into smaller parts. Commissioner Oates said the CPPC will be looking for volunteers to serve on the subcommittees and anyone who may be interested, please contact the Planning Staff. ------------- City of Winchester Planning Commission – 7/16/13 Mtg. Winchester City Planning Commission Liaison, Jennifer Beatley, reported the City Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning of 44 acres on Papermill Road, which is the Federal Mobil Abex Plant site, from M2 to B2; they recommended approval of rezoning eight acres on Jubal Early/Valley Avenue from Limited Industrial, High Residential, and Highway Commercial to B2 District with Planned Units Development Overlay for an upscale apartment project with 140 apartments on Jubal Early Drive; and they initiated two zoning ordinance amendments: one to amend the zoning ordinance pertaining to restaurants and entertainment establishments, and the second was to rezone the land along Berryville Avenue to be included in the Corridor Enhancement District, which will apply to 86 properties along Berryville Avenue. She said the Planning Commission also tabled a rezoning ordinance for the historical Coca-Cola plant on Valley Avenue until August; and they had one administrative authorization for improvements to the Southside Church of Christ to improve parking and traffic flow. Ms. Beatley said the City Planning Commission’s next work session will be August 13, 2013 and the next meeting is scheduled for August 20, 2013. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2988 Minutes of July 17, 2013 ------------- Establishment of New Development Consult Committee Commissioner Charles F. Dunlap informed everyone of the establishment of a new committee, called the Development Consult Committee. Commissioner Dunlap said this new committee will be made up of professionals from both the County and the private sector, such as architects and planners, etc., with the purpose of over-viewing the planning process from a global perspective. Questions will be asked, such as, is the County’s planning process getting in the way, or is it helpful, or is there room for improvement, or openness for suggestions. Mr. Dunlap explained this will be somewhat of an informal process in that members will communicate electronically and not necessarily just have face-to-face meetings. He said the Planning Department has set up a website where members can communicate ideas back and forth to each other. Mr. Dunlap noted the committee has received its first assignment, which is to get all of the resumes and contact information up-to-date. ------------- Committee Appointment Chairman Wilmot announced the appointment of Mr. Tony Morelli from the Opequon District to the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC). ------------- Citizen Comments Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any subject not currently on the Planning Commission’s agenda. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the citizen comments portion of the meeting. ------------- PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit #03-13 of Verizon Wireless and Bertha McIlwee Trust for a 195-foot telecommunications tower and equipment shelter at 2250 Back Mountain Road (Rt. 600). The property is identified with P.I.N. 49-A-28 in the Back Creek Magisterial District. Action – Recommended Approval with Conditions & Submissions Zoning & Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported the subject property is surrounded by RA (Rural Areas) zoned properties, except to the west which is R5 (Residential Recreational Community) District, and the land uses are residential and vacant. Mr. Cheran stated the Comprehensive Policy Plan identifies the subject property within the Shawneeland/ North Mountain Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2989 Minutes of July 17, 2013 Rural Community Center; however, this area is to remain rural and is not a part of any current land use studies. As a part of the conditional use permit process, comments are requested from various reviewing agencies. Mr. Cheran stated the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) had identified three potentially significant structures within the immediate area of the subject site and one of the structures is located on site. He said the HRAB requested the applicant prepare a detailed preliminary information form (PIF) for the subject property, but should consider a PIF for the surrounding area as well, because this area could be a potential Rural Historic District. Furthermore, this PIF should be included as part of the conditional use permit application submitted to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Cheran said the PIF had not been submitted; therefore, was not included within the Planning Commission’s agenda packet. He said he spoke with the applicant and the applicant is working on the PIF; he said the applicant would explain to the Commission where they are in this process. Mr. Cheran next read a list of conditions, should the Planning Commission find this use to be appropriate. Tracy L. Themak, of Donohue & Stearns, PLC, was the zoning attorney representing Verizon’s application. Ms. Themak noted the RF (Radio Frequency) Propagation Maps and the Demonstration of Need for this site are enclosed in the Planning Commission’s agenda packet. She said the discussion with Mr. Cheran centered primarily on the PIF requested by the HRAB and it is being developed and will be submitted. Ms. Themak said the applicant understands this would be a condition of the Commission’s recommendation of approval. Ms. Themak said the applicant also worked with the staff on a possible collocation tower. She said an AT&T tower located about 1.89 miles away was considered and propagation maps were generated. Although collocation is the carrier’s preference, rather than a land site where they would have to invest money to construct; this AT&T tower site unfortunately would not solve the coverage gap for them in their targeted area. Ms. Themak said the AT&T site may accommodate them in a different search ring at a later time; however, it does not solve their problem at this location. Commissioner Thomas asked Ms. Themak if the applicant completely understood Conditions #5 (In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within 12 months of the approval of this conditional use permit (CUP), the CUP will be deemed invalid.) and #6 (Any expansion or modification of this use will require a new CUP.). Ms. Themak said yes, Verizon does understand those conditions. Commissioner Oates inquired if the applicant would have the PIF prior to the Board of Supervisors’ meeting. Ms. Themak replied yes. She said they are scheduled to be heard before the Board on August 14 and they will have the PIF in time for the Board to review. Chairman Wilmot commented that a letter from the engineer addressing tower circumference was not attached, as required for the setback waiver request. Ms. Themak said they are at exactly half the height of the tower from the property line; therefore, they are not required to submit an engineer’s letter. She said if they were below half, they would be required to submit. Ms. Themak said they typically show the collapse zone, regardless of setback, and will provide that information for the Commission. She said the tower height is 197’ and 98.5’ is the waiver requested for the setback. Ms. Themak stated these structures are designed to collapse on themselves and not topple over. She said she would have their engineers provide this information. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2990 Minutes of July 17, 2013 Commissioner Kenney asked to see the location and elevation of the tower. Mr. Cheran pointed out the location, noting the tower is approximately 260’ from the Rappahannock right-of-way and over 1,000’ from Route 600. Commissioner Thomas inquired about the distance to the closest residence and Mr. Cheran replied the closest residence was slightly under 300’. Mr. Cheran added there were two adjacent vacant properties. Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing for citizen comments. The following person came forward to speak: Mr. Hugh VanMeter, Back Creek District, introduced himself as the Chairman of the Shawneeland Advisory Committee. Mr. VanMeter requested a copy of the Verizon information packet for the Shawneeland Advisory Committee and one for the Shanwneeland Manager. The applicant said she would provide a paper copy and Mr. Lawrence, Planning Director, said the information was also accessible on line. No one else wished to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Unger stated that cell service was needed in this particular area and he made a motion to recommend approval of the CUP with the conditions read by the staff along with the submission of a Preliminary Information Form (PIF) requested by the HRAB and the submission of information regarding the collapse zone. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Triplett and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #03-13 of Verizon Wireless and Bertha McIlwee Trust for a 195-foot telecommunications tower and equipment shelter at 2250 Back Mountain Road (Rt. 600) with the submission of a Preliminary Information Form (PIF) requested by the Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB), the submission of information regarding the collapse zone, and the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. The tower shall be available for collocating personal wireless services providers. 3. A minor site plan shall be approved by Frederick County. 4. The tower shall be removed by the applicant or property owner within 12 months of abandonment of operation. 5. In the event a telecommunications tower is not erected within 12 months of the approval of the conditional use permit, the conditional use permit will be deemed invalid. 6. Any expansion or modification of this use will require a new conditional use permit. (Note: Commissioner Crockett was absent from the meeting.) Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2991 Minutes of July 17, 2013 ------------- Conditional Use Permit #04-13 of Tracy Alt for a revision to the requirements under Conditional Use Permit #01-11 enabling an In-Home Family Day Care Facility at 110 O’Brien’s Circle in Shenandoah Hills. The purpose of this request is to increase the number of children being cared for at any given time from ten to 12. The property is identified with P.I.N. 55F-1-3-140 in the Red Bud Magisterial District. Action – Recommend Approval with Conditions Zoning & Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, reported the adjoining properties are zoned RP (Residential Performance) District and the use is residential. Mr. Cheran said the request is for a revision to the requirements under Conditional Use Permit (CUP) #01-11 approved by the Board of Supervisors on February 9, 2011, enabling an In-home Family Day Care Facility. He said the request is for the purpose of expanding the CUP to allow for 12 children, rather than ten, being cared for at any one time. Mr. Cheran noted with the approval of a new CUP, the Department of Social Services has granted approval to allow Ms. Alt to increase her capacity to a maximum of 12 children. Mr. Cheran added that staff has received a letter from an adjoining property owner, dated July 8, 2013, stating several concerns regarding this day care operation. Mr. Cheran next read a list of recommended conditions, should the Commission find the request to be appropriate. Commissioner Mohn said the letter expressed concerns about traffic on the street. He asked if the County had recently received any other complaints about traffic or parking from other owners along the street or within the neighborhood. Mr. Cheran replied that staff has not received any other complaints involving this day care facility from either the Department of Social Services or other neighboring residents. Regarding parking, Mr. Cheran said the streets within this older neighborhood are narrow. Commissioner Thomas referred to Condition #6, “…there shall be no more than one employee working at the day care at any time,” and inquired what was the basis for that determination. Commissioner Thomas commented that depending on the age of the children, only one or two adults taking care of 12 children could be challenging. Mrs. Tracy Alt, the applicant, replied that a point system is used by the Department of Social Services to determine the number of children she could have under her care and it is based on the age of the children. Commissioner Dunlap said he drove through the neighborhood and observed that the streets are indeed narrow and do not have curb and gutter. Commissioner Dunlap asked Mrs. Alt if her clients’ arrival and pick-up times were staggered, or if everyone was arriving at the same time. He believed there would be a parking issue, which was described in the letter from the adjoining property owner, if all the clients arrived at the same time. Mrs. Alt said the arrival times vary and one parent comes with three children in her vehicle and a few other parents come with two children. Mrs. Alt said most times, it works out okay, but the driveways are close together. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2992 Minutes of July 17, 2013 Chairman Wilmot called for anyone in the audience who wished to speak regarding this CUP. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Oates said he was generally supportive of this CUP with 12 children, but believed this should be the maximum number of children and he could not support any more than 12 on this particular street. Mrs. Alt said the Department of Social Services will not approve any more than 12 children at a family day home. She said she is at the maximum limit with the 12 children. Commissioner Dunlap made a motion to recommend approval of the CUP with the conditions read by the staff. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Mohn and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #04-13 of Tracy Alt for a revision to the requirements under Conditional Use Permit #01-11, enabling an In-Home Family Day Care Facility at 110 O’Brien’s Circle in Shenandoah Hills, by increasing the number of children being cared for at any given time from ten to 12, with the following conditions: 1. All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times. 2. Hours of operation shall be permitted from 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. 3. The applicant shall satisfy the licensing requirements of the Virginia Department of Social Services and the County of Frederick. 4. No business sign associated with this conditional use permit shall be erected on the property. 5. Other than those children residing on the property, there shall be no more than 12 children being cared for at any given time. 6. Other than those persons residing on the property, there shall be no more than one employee working at the day care at any time. 7. Any expansion or change of use will require a new conditional use permit. (Note: Commissioner Crockett was absent from the meeting.) ------------- Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2993 Minutes of July 17, 2013 Consideration of an amendment to the 2013-2014 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for Frederick County. The CIP is a prioritized list of capital projects requested by various County departments and agencies. The CIP is created as an informational document to assist in the development of the County’s annual budget. Once adopted, the CIP is a component of the 2030 Comprehensive Policy Plan. Frederick County seeks to amend the current CIP to add one project, a new County/School Board Administration Building, to be located generally within the County’s Urban Development Area. Action – Recommended Denial Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported this public hearing item is an amendment to the 2013-2014 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) to add one project, a new County/School Board Administration building, to be located generally in the County’s Urban Development Area. Mr. Ruddy explained that with the addition of this joint project, it is necessary to remove an existing project from the CIP, the Frederick County Public Schools Administration Office Expansion and Renovation. Mr. Ruddy noted that previously, the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC), the Planning Commission, and ultimately the Board of Supervisors, reviewed and endorsed the 2013-2014 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). He said the Planning Commission expressed their belief the CIP was consistent with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Board of Supervisors’ approval occurred on January 23, 2013, following a public hearing. Mr. Ruddy said this new project consists of a County/School Board Administration Building, to be located generally in the County’s Urban Development Area. The Capital Cost of the project is to be determined, as is the construction schedule. He said the inclusion of this capital facility will allow for improvements to general governmental facilities and services for the benefit of the residents of Frederick County and will meet the increasing need for office space, meeting space, and government services in an accessible location. Commissioner Oates asked why this request had not gone before the Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC), subsequently skipping over any discussion, and why it has gone to public hearing so quickly. Mr. Ruddy replied that the CIP in its entirety has been well vetted through the CPPC, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Supervisors through the regular process. So with this one addition, it was felt to be appropriate to move it forward directly to the Planning Commission. He said the Planning Commission could make their evaluation solely on this one project. Commissioner Oates stated regarding public facilities within the Comprehensive Plan, this area is one that is in need of a new fire department and a new library. He said there is no land use plan addressing the location of a new County building. Mr. Ruddy noted the Comprehensive Plan is a guide which provides a general land use direction and general future guidance as to what the County would like to see and where. Therefore, for a facility serving the vast majority of the residents of Frederick County, an appropriate location would appear to be within the Urban Areas of Frederick County. Commissioner Oates commented that the proposed administrative building is now being considered as a joint administration and school board structure. He said the current administration building is 100,000 square feet and the school board’s building has 30,000 square feet with anticipation of expansion. Commissioner Oates inquired if the County is considering a joint building consisting of a couple hundred thousand square feet to accommodate both expansions by putting these two entities Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2994 Minutes of July 17, 2013 together. Mr. Ruddy replied he did not have involvement in this level of discussion for this project at this time. Mr. Ruddy said the Board received a request for this project and they have moved it forward to the Public Works Committee, who will most likely be dealing with this over the next couple months. Mr. Ruddy recognized, however, that placing this project on the CIP was good planning, as well as considering its conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Oates expressed his concern that the proposed project should first have been incorporated within the Comprehensive Plan itself. Commissioner Oates said along with the school board building, there is a need to consider transportation, water and sewer, and what location the structure should be built. He said the Commission has no idea where the structure is to be located other than the Urban Area. Commissioner Oates said he was having difficulty seeing where it is written within the Comprehensive Plan showing support for this CIP request. Chairman Wilmot next opened the public hearing to citizen comments and called for anyone who wished to speak to come forward. No one came forward and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Oates did not believe he could support the request because he could not find where the Comprehensive Plan supported this. Commissioner Oates said it’s not that he wouldn’t support moving the administration building into the County, but the Commission would be putting something forward without a leg to stand on, in his opinion. Commissioner Mohn agreed with Commissioner Oates’ comments. He pointed out that not all parts of the Urban Development Area are equal in terms of their capacity to serve a facility. Commissioner Mohn said he would whole-heartily agree it would be far more helpful to be able to at least narrow down the area being considered for this proposed facility. Commissioner Unger also agreed with the comments made by his fellow Commissioners. Commissioner Unger commented about the public’s reaction to these issues. Chairman Wilmot commented that the CIP is basically an advisory document in terms of capital facilities and the construction thereof. She said the role of the CIP is not to dictate that something has to be, or should be, in a specific location. Chairman Wilmot did agree, however, that the request should have had the opportunity to be discussed by the CPPC. Commissioner Oates next made a motion to deny the amended 2013-2014 Capital Improvements Plan request because it does not conform to the Comprehensive Plan. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ambrogi and was passed by the following vote: YES (TO DENY): Unger, Marston, Ambrogi, Manuel, Oates, Kenney, Triplett, Dunlap, Mohn NO: Madagan, Thomas, Wilmot (Note: Commissioner Crockett was absent from the meeting.) ------------- Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2995 Minutes of July 17, 2013 Consideration of an Amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Amendments, and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101 General Provisions, 165- 101.02 Definitions and Word Usage; Article II Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers, and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204 Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, 165-204.27 Temporary Family Health Care Structures; Article IV Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401, (RA) Rural Areas District, 165-401.02 Permitted Uses, Part 402, (RP) Residential Performance District. This amendment is a revision to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to include standards for the inclusion of temporary family health care structures (MEDCottage) as a permitted use. Action – Recommended Approval Senior Planner, Candice E. Perkins, reported this is a proposed revision to the zoning ordinance to include “temporary family health care structures,” also termed, “MedCottages,” as a permitted use in the RA (Rural Areas), RP (Residential Performance), R5 (Residential Recreational), and R4 (Residential Planned Community) Districts. Ms. Perkins stated the Code of Virginia requires localities to permit these health care structures as a permitted accessory use in all residential zoning districts where single-family dwellings are permitted. She said the staff has added this use as a permitted use in the districts specified and has also drafted a number of supplemental use regulations which are consistent with the State Code. Ms. Perkins said this proposal was discussed by the DRRC (Development Review & Regulations Committee) on April 25, 2013, it was discussed by the Planning Commission on May 15, 2013, and the Board of Supervisors discussed the proposed amendment at their meeting on June 12, 2013. The Board of Supervisors had no changes and directed the staff to schedule the proposed amendment for public hearing. Commissioner Thomas commented if this structure is limited to no more than 300 square feet, and an off-site constructed building is brought in, it would probably be 12-feet wide. Therefore, there could be a 12-by-20, a 12-by-24, or a 12-by-30, but any size greater than the 12-by-24, the 300 square feet is exceeded. Ms. Perkins said the 300 square feet is mandated by the Virginia State Code. Ms. Perkins added there is currently only one company which manufactures these buildings out of Salem and she believed the State Code was modeled after that particular unit. Commissioner Unger inquired what health system the structures are connected to when they are brought in. Ms. Perkins replied they are connected to whatever system the primary structure has. Chairman Wilmot opened the public hearing to citizen comments and called for anyone who wished to speak to come forward. No one came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Commissioner Kenney said the DRRC was somewhat concerned about the appearance of these structures until slides were shown of the building. Commissioner Kenney said the structures are very attractive and will blend in well with adjoining homes. He thought the designers of the structures did a very good job and this swayed the DRRC. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2996 Minutes of July 17, 2013 Commissioner Unger commented this is a requirement of the State Code that Frederick County has not recognized until now. He said Frederick County is trying to bring its ordinances up to date. Commissioner Thomas made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance amendment. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Oates and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of an amendment to the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article I, General Provisions, Amendments, and Conditional Use Permits, Part 101 General Provisions, 165-101.02 Definitions and Word Usage; Article II Supplementary Use Regulations, Parking, Buffers, and Regulations for Specific Uses, Part 204 Additional Regulations for Specific Uses, 165-204.27 Temporary Family Health Care Structures; Article IV Agricultural and Residential Districts, Part 401, (RA) Rural Areas District, 165-401.02 Permitted Uses, Part 402, (RP) Residential Performance District. This amendment is a revision to the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance to include standards for the inclusion of temporary family health care structures (MEDCottage) as a permitted use. ------------- COMMISSION ACTION ITEM Master Development Plan #01-13 for Shenandoah, submitted by Bowman Consulting Group to revise Master Development Plan #03-07, which is located on the western side of Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South), south of Fairfax Pike (Route 277) , and east of Hudson Hollow Road (Route 636). Existing primary access to this site is located on Front Royal Pike (Route 522 South) via Lake Frederick Drive. The properties are identified by P.I.N.s 87-A-103, 87-A-103C, and 87-A-102 in the Opequon Magisterial District. Action – Severing Tabled for 45 Days Commissioner Mohn said he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this particular item, due to a potential conflict of interest. Senior Planner Candice E. Perkins first provided a brief overview of what a master development plan (MDP) constitutes. Briefly, Ms. Perkins stated a MDP is a compliance document, which provides the Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors, and the public with a view of what a developer is proposing to construct on their property. She said that prior to a MDP coming before the Commission and the Board, it is thoroughly vetted by the Planning Staff and all reviewing agencies and it is not brought forward until it meets all of the agency comments and county codes. Therefore, there is no opportunity for the Commission or Board to make changes or to recommend the applicant make amendments to the plan. Ms. Perkins reported this MDP for Shenandoah depicts the development of approximately 926.27 acres zoned R5 (Residential Recreational Community) District with a total of 2,130 residential dwelling units, which includes the 253 platted lots within the subdivision. Ms. Perkins pointed out this development was originally rezoned in 1975 and, subsequently, there are no proffers associated with this project. She said it was originally master planned in 1991, it was revised in 2001, and then administratively revised in 2007. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2997 Minutes of July 17, 2013 Ms. Perkins explained the primary purpose for the MDP revision is to remove the age- restricted requirement for the majority of the residential units located on the east side of Lake Frederick. Ms. Perkins said the age-restricted component and the private streets associated with it were approved in the 2001 MDP. She said under the new MDP, the area on the west side of Lake Frederick will consist entirely of age-restricted dwellings (a total of 517 units) and will continue to be served by private streets. The land area east of Lake Frederick will consist primarily of traditional residential units, specifically, a mix of single-family detached and attached (townhouse) and will be served by public streets. She noted an additional component of the MDP revision is a request to the Board of Supervisors to severe the residential component from the commercial component which are owned by two separate entities. Ms. Perkins concluded her presentation by noting the MDP for Shenandoah is consistent with the requirements of the zoning ordinance, it is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, and it is being presented to the Planning Commission as an informational item only. However, the staff is seeking a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the Board of Supervisors only on the applicant’s request to severe the residential and commercial land bays. Commissioner Thomas questioned what the impacts would be and the significance, if the commercial area was severed from the residential. Commissioner Thomas recalled when the Commission initially considered the age-restricted MDP and how there was considerable discussion around the numbers of potential school students. He said if the age-restricted requirement is removed, 1,500 traditional family houses could generate about 300 school-age children resulting in the need for an additional school. Commissioner Thomas didn’t believe there was a school in that part of the County that could handle another 100 students and not have an impact. He said there was also considerable discussion on the commercial area, whether there would be a fire station, and the possibility of land being donated to the County for an emergency response station. He commented this area is essentially a small town and there could be a significant impact on roads, commercial facilities, and emergency facilities by removing the age-restricted requirement and severing the commercial area from the residential. Ms. Perkins responded by noting there are no proffers or phasing associated with this development. Ms. Perkins stated that with a MDP, additional requirements cannot be placed on the applicant and any impacts will have to be absorbed by the existing transportation, schools, and utilities. She said the Commission may recall from the previous 2001-2007 MDP, there were a number of notes on the MDP pertaining to this development; however, notes on the MDP are not enforceable. She said the residential and commercial components were planned together a number of years ago and, obviously, the residential is needed in order to develop the commercial. Ms. Perkins commented the two parties have agreements as to what is required to be installed. She said the commercial portion already has access, but the applicant will have to confirm who has responsibility for the public utilities. She noted that the commercial property will have the ability to fully develop on its own. Chairman Wilmot asked Ms. Perkins if there were other examples of a “severing” that took place within the county. Ms. Perkins recalled two recent occasions, the Snowden Bridge development and prior to that, the Lynnhaven/Sovereign Village/Twin Lakes Overlook was severed as well. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2998 Minutes of July 17, 2013 Mr. Thomas Moore (Ty) Lawson, with Lawson and Silek, P.L.C., came forward on behalf of Lansdowne Development Group, LLC, to answer questions from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. Lawson if the developer would consider placing a phasing plan on the residential development so the County could have a plan to accommodate the additional school children and other impacts that will be generated. Mr. Lawson replied when this project was first approved, rezoned, and entitled, that was when those types of things would have been generated. Mr. Lawson said this amendment is simply to change the streets slightly and the character from private to public. Mr. Lawson said it wasn’t physically possible to build and deliver 1,500 homes in a short period of time and with the realities of the economy, he did not think it was feasible. Mr. Lawson believed there would be considerable dialogue with the County as this project moves forward. Mr. Ray Smith, the manager of Dogwood Development Group, LLC, the manager and owner of Wheatlands, LLC, said his group brought this MDP through in 2001 and changed it from what it was under Fred Glaize and Jim Bowman to what it is now. Mr. Smith said he first learned about this application on Saturday evening, July 13, 2013, after an adjoining property owner’s letter from the County was received by one of his representatives on July 8, 2013. Mr. Smith said he immediately wrote a letter of concern to the County Attorney, Rod Williams on Sunday. Mr. Smith said his group sold the residential portion of this property to Oxbridge Development in 2004 and has not had any dialogue with them during all this time. He said someone is now asking to separate his property from the residential portion without his knowledge. Mr. Smith was unsure what affect this severing may have on his property and if it would negatively affect his property. He wanted to be assured that if his property is severed into a separate, independent MDP, that his zoning and entitlements would not be affected. He had a number of concerns: could he still develop the shopping center in the way it was initially planned; could this residential development seek their commercial from another location; would there be new setback and buffer requirements for his property; and will there be a reduction in the number of residential units, as this could adversely affect the success of the shopping center originally planned. Mr. Smith said his understanding was that he was a part of an R5 master-planned community and subsequently, had rights to a certain amount of commercial. He asked if he would lose those rights, if he was not a part of the overall MDP. Mr. Smith said there were two underlying agreements of record: one is between Dogwood Development Group, LLC and the Sewer and Water Authority; the other agreement is between the applicant’s residential land and his commercial property, where he has rights and they have obligations to provide him with utilities. Mr. Smith asked if those agreements would be affected by this separation. Mr. Smith referenced several letters between the applicant’s counsel, Mr. Lawson, and Frederick County Attorney, Rod Williams. Mr. Smith was opposed to a severing of his commercial property from the MDP at this time. He said he has not had time to study this and does not know what the impacts would be on his property; he was concerned about losing his entitlements and zoning. Mr. Smith added that a sewer plant was built in Phase I; he said a Phase II construction is needed to serve the remaining residential and the shopping center. He said this was supposed to be constructed under the original MDP. Mr. Smith asked if the applicant would still be required to construct the Phase II portion and if the sewer and water will still be available to him. He said these utilities were supposed to be constructed to his property line. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2999 Minutes of July 17, 2013 Commissioner Thomas inquired whether Mr. Smith should have been given 30-60 days notice before it came to the Planning Commission for due diligence and adequate research. Frederick County Attorney, Rod Williams, said the notification that was sent to Mr. Smith by Frederick County was the same notice that would be given for a rezoning—the most aggressive action that can be taken by the County under Planning Law for a notification. Commissioner Thomas asked if the buffers and setbacks stipulated in the zoning ordinance for a commercial development adjacent to residential use would be required, if these two properties are severed into two independent MDPs. Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, stated that for the purpose of severing, the staff will recognize this as a single project, similar to what was done with Snowden Bridge and Channing Drive. Mr. Lawrence said the severing is simply because the original MDP is now owned by two different parties/developers, so they both have the rights to proceed with their development schemes and not have to go back and forth with each other to sign off MDPs. He stated this was the driving force behind this severing exercise. Mr. Lawrence said there are no buffers, so staff is going to recognize the properties as being one. Commissioner Thomas asked if this would be documented, since this project has been ongoing for the past 35 years and may go on for some time into the future. Commissioner Thomas inquired if the documentation would be on the plats or the MDP. Mr. Lawrence said it is due diligence and whoever develops the property at that time will need to look at the MDP; he said the 2001 MDP is going to drive how this project advances. Mr. Lawrence stated this severing will not affect Mr. Smith’s zoning rights and he will continue to have all of his commercial rights. Mr. Lawrence stated the severing simply indicates that the Lansdowne property can advance on its own without asking for a signature from the other party. Likewise, Mr. Smith’s property could advance on its own without having a signature from the Lansdowne party. Mr. Lawson returned to the podium and stated that both he and Mr. Leonard S. “Hobie” Mitchel of Lansdowne Development Group, LLC, have spoken with Mr. Smith as recently as Monday. Mr. Lawson assured the Commission there would be no loss of entitlements to Mr. Smith’s property. He said both water and sewer and road connections are provided in this plan to the commercial. Mr. Lawson said Mr. Mitchel wants to facilitate and drive the commercial development because it’s an asset and benefit to the residential community. Chairman Wilmot stated this MDP meets the County’s ordinances and the Commission’s action is to either recommend or not recommend severance to the Board of Supervisors. Commissioner Thomas said he did not favor the severing, but if the Commission would recommend approval of the severing to the Board, he would like to see additional language stating the need to consider this overall development as one MDP, not two separate MDPs. Commissioner Thomas said he would have preferred to see proffers for school children, emergency services, and transportation. Commissioner Oates recalled in past incidences where developments have been severed, he couldn’t remember any case where one of the parties came before the Commission to say he was opposed to the severing. Commissioner Oates said in this case, one party is opposed and considering that standpoint, if they’re joined in the one MDP, then both owners have to cooperate as far as access and utilities. He was concerned because so much has changed with this MDP and Mr. Smith was unaware of what was taking place when he should have been involved. Commissioner Oates commented this comes before the Planning Commission now to be severed and Mr. Smith still has no documented comments on how the severing would affect him regarding interconnectivity. He said if both owners have to agree on the MDP with a signature, it protects one from the other on the interconnectivity and utilities. Frederick County Planning Commission Page 3000 Minutes of July 17, 2013 Commissioner Thomas suggested the Commission table this severing request for 45 days in order to let the two parties come to a better agreement. Commissioner Oates said until the two separate owners are in favor of the severing, he would not vote in favor of the severing. Commissioner Thomas made a motion to table this severing request for 45 days and he encouraged the two developers to come to an agreement on future utility connectivity, roads, and compatibility between the two severed MDPs and who is responsible for what activity. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Dunlap and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby table action for 45 days on the request to sever the commercial and residential land bays of Master Development Plan #01-13 for Shenandoah to allow time for the two separate developers to come to an agreement concerning who will be responsible for various future activities including utility connectivity, roads, and compatibility between the two severed MDPs. (Note: Commissioner Mohn abstained from voting; Commissioner Crockett was absent from the meeting.) ------------- OTHER CANCELLATION OF THE AUGUST 7, 2013 MEETING Chairman Wilmot announced there were no pending items for the Planning Commission’s August 7, 2013 meeting. A motion was made by Commissioner Oates, seconded by Commissioner Thomas, and unanimously passed to cancel the August 7, 2013 meeting. -------------- ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed. A motion was made by Commissioner Oates, seconded by Commissioner Manuel, and unanimously passed to adjourn the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ____________________________ June M. Wilmot, Chairman ____________________________ Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary REZONING APPLICATION #03-13 Madison Village Staff Report for the Planning Commission Prepared: August 5, 2013 Staff Contact: Michael T. Ruddy, AICP, Deputy Planning Director Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 08/21/13 Pending Board of Supervisors: 09/11/13 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 51.26 acres from RA (Rural Area) District to 46.26 acres of RP (Residential Performance) District and to 5 acres of B2 (General Business) District with proffers. LOCATION: The property is located on the west side of Route 522, approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of Route 522 and Airport Road. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & STAFF CONCLUSION FOR THE 08/21/13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Madison Village rezoning application is generally consistent with future land use designations of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Plan which provide guidance on the future development of the property. A couple of elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure that they fully address the impacts associated with this rezoning request. The Planning Commission should pay particular attention to the transportation impacts; in particular, the extension of the roads to the adjacent properties is proffered at the time of the Master Development Plan for the project. Specific commitments as to the timing of these extensions are not proffered. Also, it is important to recognize there is no minimum limitation placed on the development to ensure the more intensive development of this site. Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission. Following the required public hearing, a recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. Rezoning #03-13 Madison Village August 5, 2013 Page 2 This report is prepared by the Frederick County Planning Staff to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors to assist them in making a decision on this application. It may also be useful to others interested in this zoning matter. Unresolved issues concerning this application are noted by staff where relevant throughout this staff report. Reviewed Action Planning Commission: 08/21/13 Pending Board of Supervisors: 09/11/13 Pending PROPOSAL: To rezone 51.26 acres from RA (Rural Area) District to 46.26 acres of RP (Residential Performance) District and to 5 acres of B2 (General Business) District with proffers. LOCATION: The property is on the west side of Route 522, approximately 1,000 feet south of the intersection of Route 522 and Airport Road. MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Shawnee PROPERTY ID NUMBERS: 64-A-18 PROPERTY ZONING: RA (Rural Area) PRESENT USE: Vacant/Agricultural ADJOINING PROPERTY ZONING & PRESENT USE: North: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Vacant (Russell 150) South: RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential/Vacant East RP (Residential Performance) Use: Residential B2 (Business General) Vacant West: RA (Rural Area) Use: Vacant/Agricultural Rezoning #03-13 Madison Village August 5, 2013 Page 3 REVIEW EVALUATIONS: Virginia Dept. of Transportation: Please see attached e-mail dated June 11, 2013, from Matt Smith, VDOT and a July 3, 2013 e-mail from Tim Stowe to Matt Smith, VDOT. Fire and Rescue: Plan approved. Public Works Department: Indicate the location of the existing overhead power lines on the generalized development plan and future MDP. We anticipate that the private development will be served by a private waste hauler. Department of Inspections: N/A Frederick County Sanitation Authority: Per your request, a review of the proposed rezoning has been performed. The Frederick County Sanitation Authority offers comments limited to the anticipated impact/effect upon the Authority’s public water and sanitary sewer system and the demands thereon. The parcel is in the water and sanitary sewer area served by the Authority. Based on the anticipated usage, water capacity is presently available. Sanitary sewer treatment capacity at the waste water treatment plant is also presently available. Conveyance capacity and layout will be contingent on the applicant performing a technical analysis of the existing sanitary sewer system within the area to be served and the ability of the existing conveyance system to accept additional load. Both water and sanitary sewer facilities are located within a reasonable distance from this site. Please be aware that the Authority does not review or comment upon proffers and/or conditions proposed or submitted by the applicant in support of or in conjunction with this application for rezoning, nor does the Authority assume or undertake any responsibility to review or comment upon any amended proffers and/or conditions which the Applicant may hereafter provide to Frederick County. Service Authority: No comments. Frederick-Winchester Health Department: N/A Parks & Recreation: Rezoning application appears to contain verbiage which addresses the County Development Impact Model. Winchester Regional Airport: No comments. Frederick County Attorney: Please see attached letter dated May 14, 2013, from Roderick B. Williams, County Attorney. Frederick County Public School: Please see attached letter date June 28, 2013, from K. Wayne Lee, Jr., LEED GA Historic Resources Advisory Board: Upon review of the proposed rezoning, it appears the proposal does not significantly impact historic resources and it is not necessary to schedule review of the Rezoning #03-13 Madison Village August 5, 2013 Page 4 rezoning application by the HRAB. According to the Rural Landmarks Survey, there are no significant historic structures located on the property nor are there any possible historic districts in the vicinity. It was also noted that the National Park Service Study of Civil War Sites in the Shenandoah Valley does not identify a core battlefield within this area. Planning & Zoning: 1) Site History The property is currently zoned RA (Rural Areas) and has historically been used for agricultural and residential land uses. The original Frederick County Zoning for this property as identified on the Winchester Quadrangle is A1 (Agricultural General). In 2012, a single five-acre lot was subdivided from this parent tract adjacent to Route 522 which contained the existing residential land use. Directly to the north of this site is the Russell 150 property which was rezoned for residential and commercial land uses in 2006. Two smaller B2 (Business General) properties adjoin this site at its proposed entrance to Route 522. These properties, the Shepherd Properties, were rezoned at around the same time. 2) Comprehensive Policy Plan The 2030 Comprehensive Plan is the guide for the future growth of Frederick County. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Plan provide guidance on the future development of the property. Appendix I includes the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Plan as an approved Area Plan. The property is located in the UDA (Urban Development Area) and the SWSA (Sewer and Water Service Area). The 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies the general area surrounding this property with a high- density residential land use designation. In general, the proposed residential designation for this property is consistent with this residential land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed residential density is consistent with the residential densities of the RP section of the Zoning Ordinance, which was recently updated in implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the introduction of a small area of commercial land use provides for a mix of uses in conjunction with each other, also an element of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The CIP (Capital Improvements Plan), a component of the Comprehensive Plan, has identified the general area of this property, along Route 522 South, as a location for a smaller scale park that would be designed to serve the anticipated additional residents in this area. Rezoning #03-13 Madison Village August 5, 2013 Page 5 3) Site Suitability/Environment The property is well suited to future development. It is relatively open, flat land with small areas of slopes and wetlands associated with drainage across the site. The site does contain a pond on the northern property line, close to the entrance road to the site. This pond will be preserved during the development of the site and used as a recreational feature. Access to the site will be directly to Route 522 via a new public street entrance designed for the project. This new public street will contain bicycle and pedestrian accommodations as called for in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This public street will be extended to provide access to adjacent properties as the development progresses. It should be satisfied that the extension of the public street network occurs in a timely manner and key connections are made to adjacent properties. 4) Potential Impacts Transportation. The Frederick County Eastern Road Plan recognizes Route 522 as an improved major arterial road. In addition, the Comprehensive Plan recognizes a minor collector road that runs east-west from Route 522 over to future Warrior Drive. Interparcel connections are also a potential as this project develops, in particular, to the property to the south. Recent traffic volumes on Route 522 in the vicinity of the site showed the average annual daily traffic was 15,220 vehicles per day. The Applicant’s TIA projects traffic on Route 522 to be 26,585 vehicles per day in 2026. The proposed impacts to Route 522 at the site entrance will be significant. The proposed project will have a single entrance on to Route 522. In order to mitigate the impacts of the project, the Applicant will implement the following improvements: Installation of a traffic signal at the proposed entrance and right and left turn lanes on Route 522; dual eastbound left turn lanes from the project entrance; and a roundabout internal to the project at the commercial area. The Applicant’s TIA further addresses the traffic impacts of this project. Schools. This development, along with other anticipated developments, will require construction of new schools and support facilities to accommodate increased student enrollment. The Applicant is addressing this impact through their recognition of the County’s Development Impact Model values which provides a value for the capital impacts of the proposed development. The Applicant is addressing the other capital impacts identified in the development impact model by proffering the appropriate values to mitigate any potential impacts. Rezoning #03-13 Madison Village August 5, 2013 Page 6 5) Proffer Statement – A) The applicant has provided a Generalized Development Plan for the purpose of identifying the general configuration of the street providing access to and through the project, residential and commercial land use areas, and improvements at the Route 522 entrance. The GDP also shows the location of potential roundabouts internal to the site and bicycle and pedestrian accommodations. Generalized Development Plan B) Land Use The applicants have proffered a limit to the total number of residential units to six hundred forty (640). It is important to recognize there is no minimum limitation placed on the development to ensure the more intensive development of this site. C) The applicant has proffered the signalization of the intersection of the site driveway and Route 522. In addition, the Applicant has proffered five initial transportation improvements and right-of-way dedication to support the site’s access. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities are also proffered internal to the project along the public roads. Access Management. D) The Applicant has also proffered to construct the internal road system as shown on the GDP which includes interparcel access and connections to adjacent properties. Proffer 6 a) and b) detail the extension of the public road system to the adjacent properties. It is important to recognize the extension of these roads to the adjacent properties is proffered at the time of the Master Development Plan for the project. Specific commitments as to the timing of these extensions are not proffered. Transportation E) Community Facilities The Applicant has proffered a monetary contribution to community facilities to offset the impact of the residential development. The amount per single family detached, attached, and multifamily dwelling unit is consistent with the County’s Development Impact Model values for 2013. The Applicant has proposed an alternative payment program for the multifamily units which is generally acceptable to the County Attorney and Staff. The Applicant has also included a provision for a reduced contribution in the case of any age restricted components of this development, proffer 10. Rezoning #03-13 Madison Village August 5, 2013 Page 7 STAFF CONCLUSIONS FOR THE 08/21/13 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Madison Village rezoning application is generally consistent with future land use designations of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan and the Senseny/Eastern Frederick Urban Areas Plan which provide guidance on the future development of the property. A couple of elements of the rezoning application have been identified that should be carefully evaluated to ensure they fully address the impacts associated with this rezoning request. The Planning Commission should pay particular attention to the transportation impacts; in particular the extension of the roads to the adjacent properties is proffered at the time of the Master Development Plan for the project. Specific commitments as to the timing of these extensions are not proffered. Also, it is important to recognize there is no minimum limitation placed on the development to ensure the more intensive development of this site. Confirmation of the issues identified in the staff report, and any issues raised by the Planning Commission, should be addressed prior to the decision of the Planning Commission. Following the required public hearing, a recommendation regarding this rezoning application to the Board of Supervisors would be appropriate. The applicant should be prepared to adequately address all concerns raised by the Planning Commission. CHAPEL HILLSubdivision PRESTONPLACESubdivision01522 BEN T L E Y AVE LONGCROFT RD F R O N T R O Y A L P I K E 64 A 16 64 A 20 64 A 44 64 2 A3 64 2 C 64 2 A3 63 A123A 64C A 13 64C 2 7 64D A 2 64D A 4 64D A 8 64D A 10 64D A 15 64D 81 66 64 A 12 64 A 15 64 A 18 64 A 44B 64 A 45B 64 2 A 64 2 A2 64 2 B2 63 A 124 64C A 10 64C A 11 64C A13A 64C A 16 64C A16A 64C 2 3 64C 2 5 64C 2 6 64C2 10 64C 2 11 64D A 664D A 7 64D 81 86A 64 A 14 63 A 145 64C A 14 64C A 15 64C 2 2 64C 2 4 64C 2 9 64C 2 12 64C 2 13 64D A 1 64D A 3 64D A 9 64D A 12 64 A 17 64 A 18A 64 A 41 64 A 42 64 A 43 64 2 A1 63 A146A 64C 2 1 64C 2 8 64C 2 14 64C2 15 64C 2 16 64D A 5 64D A 14 64D 81 67 REZ0313 Applications Parcels Building Footprints B1 (Business, Neighborhood District) B2 (Business, General Distrist) B3 (Business, Industrial Transition District) EM (Extractive Manufacturing District) HE (Higher Education District) M1 (Industrial, Light District) M2 (Industrial, General District) MH1 (Mobile Home Community District) MS (Medical Support District) OM (Office - Manufacturing Park) R4 (Residential Planned Community District) R5 (Residential Recreational Community District) RA (Rural Area District) RP (Residential Performance District) I Note:Frederick County Dept ofPlanning & Development107 N Kent StSuite 202Winchester, VA 22601540 - 665 - 5651Map Created: July 30, 2013Staff: mruddy Winchester P A P E R M I L L R D F R O N T R O Y A L P I K E BENTLEY AV E MCCLURE WAY T R A V I S C T WESTWOOD DR AD M I R A L B Y R D D R F R O N T R O Y A L P I K E AIRPORT RD CALDW E L L L N LONGCROFT RD GRINDSTONE DR ELMWOOD RD MA T E C T SHELBY C T TRENT CT MELI S S A A V E REZ # 03 - 13Madison VillagePINs:64 - A - 18RA to RP (46.26 Ac.) RA to B2 (5 Ac.) REZ # 03 - 13Madison VillagePINs:64 - A - 18RA to RP (46.26 Ac.) RA to B2 (5 Ac.) 0 425 850212.5 Feet A c Planning Commission Discussion EM, M1 and M2 Height Revisions August 5, 2013 The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes supported by the DRRC (bold italic for text added). This item is presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Attachment: 1. Proposed Revision (deletions shown in strikethrough and additions show in bold underlined italics). 2. Request Letter. CEP/pd DRAFT Ordinance Amendment EM/M1/M2 Districts 8/05/13 ARTICLE VI BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Part 608 – EM Extractive Manufacturing District § 165-608.01 Intent. The intent of the Extractive Manufacturing District is to provide for mining and related industries, all of which rely on the extraction of natural resources. Provisions and performance standards are provided to protect surrounding uses from adverse impacts. It is also the intent of this article to avoid the encroachment of incompatible uses on the borders of the EM District. § 165-608.02 Permitted and Conditional uses. 1. The following uses shall be allowed: A. Surface or subsurface mining of rock, metal and nonmetallic ores. B. Oil and natural gas extraction and/or pumping, including storage of production produced on the site. No refining is allowed. C. Sand and gravel mining and processing. D. Crushed stone operations. E. Manufacture and processing of cement, lime and gypsum. F. Asphalt and concrete mixing plants. G. Brick, block and precast concrete products. H. Farming, agriculture, orchards, nurseries, horticulture, dairying and forestry. I. Accessory uses. J. Business signs. K. Public utilities, including poles, lines, distribution transformers, pipes, meters and sewer facilities. L. Signs allowed in § 165-201.06B. M. Freestanding building entrance signs. 2. Uses allowed with a conditional use permit shall be as follows: A. Unmanned structures utilized for a use permitted in the EM District exceeding 60 feet in height. DRAFT Ordinance Amendment EM/M1/M2 Districts 8/05/13 § 165-608.03 Performance standards. All uses shall conform to applicable state or federal regulations governing noise and vibration. The Zoning Administrator may require the submission of a copy of data submitted to state or federal agencies pertaining to these performance standards with the required site plan. § 165-608.04 Landscaping. Appropriate landscaping or screening may be required by the Board of Supervisors within any required yard setback area in order to reasonably protect adjacent uses from noise, sight, dust or other adverse impacts. § 165-608.05 Setback and yard requirements. A. Front setback. (1) All principle and accessory structures shall be set back 75 feet from any road, street or highway right-of-way. (2) Excavations shall be no closer than 100 feet from any road, street or highway right-of-way. The Board of Supervisors may reduce the required front setback for excavation to 50 feet if it determines that, through the use of measures, such as landscaping or screening, the effective protection afforded to adjacent properties has not been reduced. B. Side and rear setbacks. All principle and accessory structures shall be set back at least 25 feet from any side or rear property boundary. (1) No structure shall be closer than 100 feet from any property line zoned RA, RP, R4, R5 or MH1. The Board of Supervisors may reduce this required setback to 50 feet if it determines that, through the use of measures, such as landscaping or screening, the effective protection afforded to adjacent properties has not been reduced. (2) Excavations shall be no closer than 100 feet from any property zoned RA, RP, R4, R5 or MH1. No excavation shall be located closer than 200 feet from any dwelling or platted residential subdivision. The Board of Supervisors may reduce these required setbacks to 50 feet if it determines that, through the use of measures, such as landscaping or screening, the effective protection afforded to adjacent properties has not been reduced. (3) All crushing or screening machinery shall be set back at least 300 feet from any property boundary. If such equipment is fully enclosed within a building which maintains the effective protection afforded adjacent properties, the Board of Supervisors may reduce this yard requirement to a minimum of 200 feet. § 165-608.06 Height limitations. No structure shall exceed 45 feet in height. DRAFT Ordinance Amendment EM/M1/M2 Districts 8/05/13 A. No structure shall exceed 60 feet in height, except as outlined below: § 165-608.07 Additional requirements. 1. Unmanned structures utilized for a use permitted in the EM District may exceed 60 feet in height with a Conditional Use Permit. All structures over 60 feet in height must be set back from property lines an additional two feet for each one foot in height above 60 feet. In no case shall any unmanned structure exceed 200 feet in height. All uses in the EM District must conform with all state, federal and local regulations. All mining operators shall submit to the Zoning Administrator a copy of the operations plan required by state agencies with the required site plan. Article II SUPPLEMENTARY USE REGULATIONS, PARKING, BUFFERS, AND REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC USES Part 201 – Supplementary Use Regulations § 165-201.03 Height limitations; exceptions. B. Exceptions to height requirements. (4) Automated storage and manufacturing facilities in the OM, M1 and M2 Zoning Districts shall be exempt from the maximum height requirement. This exemption shall be granted only when the facility is provided with full sprinkling for fire protection according to the specifications of applicable codes. Such exemptions shall be approved by the Frederick County Fire Marshal. In no case shall the height of these facilities exceed 100 feet in height. ARTICLE VI BUSINESS AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS Part 601 – Dimensional and Intensity Requirements § 165-601.02 Dimensional and intensity requirements The following table describes the dimensional and intensity requirements for the business and industrial districts: DRAFT Ordinance Amendment EM/M1/M2 Districts 8/05/13 Part 606 – M1 Light Industrial District § 165-606.03 Conditional Uses. Uses permitted with a conditional use permit shall be as follows: District Requirement B1 B2 B3 OM M1 M2 Front yard setback on primary or arterial highways (feet) 50 50 50 50 75 75 Front yard setback on collector or minor streets (feet) 35 35 35 35 75 75 Side yard setbacks (feet) - - 15 15 25 25 Rear yard setbacks (feet) - - 15 15 25 25 Floor area to lot area ratio (FAR) 0.3 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 Minimum landscaped area (percentage of lot area) 35 15 25 15 25 15 Maximum height (feet) 35 35 35 60 60 * 60 * *In the M1 and M2 Districts the maximum height may be increased to 150 feet (see 165-606.03 and 165-607.03) with a conditional use permit. Such structures shall provide an additional setback of two (2) feet for each one (1) foot in height above 60 feet. Conditional Uses Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Tractor Truck and Tractor Truck Trailer Parking ----- Structures exceeding 60 feet in height, not to exceed 150 feet in height. ----- DRAFT Ordinance Amendment EM/M1/M2 Districts 8/05/13 Part 607 – M2 Industrial General District § 165-607.03 Conditional Uses. Uses permitted with a conditional use permit shall be as follows: Conditional Uses Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Tractor Truck and Tractor Truck Trailer Parking ----- Structures exceeding 60 feet in height, not to exceed 150 feet in height. ----- D Planning Commission Discussion TDR Ordinance Revisions August 5, 2013 Page 2 In reviewing the TDR Ordinance and discussions with parties interested in utilizing TDR rights for their developments, it has come to staff’s attention that the projected value of a TDR would only be economically feasible to utilize when developing a single-family detached development and would not be attractive when developing single-family attached (townhouse) or multifamily units. With a rezoning, the capital impact a dwelling unit has on the County is based on the development impact model which is broken down by housing type. As outlined in the impact model output, a single-family dwelling unit has a higher impact on capital facilities than a multifamily unit. The development impact model currently calculates the capital facility impacts as follows: • Single-Family Dwelling Unit = $ 19,600 • Town Home Dwelling Unit = $ 13,062 • Apartment Dwelling Unit = $ 11,339 A single family dwelling unit constructed in both the rural areas and the urban areas has an impact of $19,600 on capital facilities (based on the 2013 Development Impact Model). This impact doesn’t include the impact on the local transportation network. Dwellings constructed in the urban areas typically have access to a road network that is better capable of accommodating the traffic generated by new dwellings, while dwellings constructed in the rural areas access the existing rural road network which typically is not constructed in a way to accommodate additional units. Additionally, state transportation funding programs favor transportation in urban and suburban areas. While the use of TDR’s prohibit the County from collecting proffers and capital facility impacts, the County does not lose out by the use of TDR’s. The County absorbs the fiscal and transportation impacts of rural development either way, and the use of TDR’s allows those units to be transferred to the urban areas which are better equipped to handle that development. To help bridge this value gap, staff has prepared a revision to the TDR ordinance that allows for the following: • When utilizing TDR’s to develop single-family detached dwellings on a receiving property, one TDR density right can be used to develop one single-family detached dwelling unit. • When utilizing TDR’s to develop single-family attached dwellings (townhouses) on a receiving property, one TDR density right can be used to develop 1.5 single-family attached dwelling units. • When utilizing TDR’s to develop multifamily dwellings on a receiving property, one TDR density right can be used to develop 1.75 multifamily dwelling units. By including a conversion rate, it allows the TDR value to remain fair and stable while allowing a developer to construct various housing types. Review History Revision #1 was discussed by the DRRC on April 25, 2013 and by the Planning Commission on May 15, 2013. The Planning Commission recommended that the density updates be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for review. Following the Planning Commission review of the density table Planning Commission Discussion TDR Ordinance Revisions August 5, 2013 Page 3 updates, staff drafted additional changes to the TDR ordinance and the previously discussed updates were put on hold so all the TDR updates could be processed concurrently. Revisions #2 and #3 were discussed by the DRRC on July 25, 2013. The DRRC was supportive of the proposed amendments being forwarded to the Planning Commission for discussion. The attached document shows the existing ordinance with the proposed changes supported by the DRRC (bold italic for text added, strikethrough for deleted text). This item is presented for discussion. Comments and suggestions from the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. Attachments: 1. Revised ordinance with additions shown in bold underlined italics and deletions shown with strikethrough. 2. Adopted RP Density table. 3. Development Impact Model. CEP/pd CHAPTER 165 - ZONING 1 ARTICLE III Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program Part 301 – Establishment and Purpose. §165-301.01. Purpose. Pursuant to the authority granted by §§ 15.2-2316.1 and 2316.2 of the Code of Virginia, there is established a transfer of development rights (TDR) program, the purpose of which is to transfer residential density from eligible sending areas to eligible receiving areas and/or transferee through a voluntary process for permanently conserving agricultural and forestry uses of lands and preserving rural open spaces, and natural and scenic resources. The TDR program is intended to supplement land use regulations, resource protection efforts and open space acquisition programs and encourage increased residential density where it can best be accommodated with the least impacts on the natural environment and public services by: A. Providing an effective and predictable incentive process for property owners of rural and agricultural land to preserve lands with a public benefit; and B. Implementing the Comprehensive Policy Plan by directing residential land uses to the Urban Development Area (UDA); and C. Providing an efficient and streamlined administrative review system to ensure that transfers of development rights to receiving areas are processed in a timely way and balanced with other county goals and policies, and are adjusted to the specific conditions of each receiving area. §165-301.02. Applicability. The procedures and regulations in Article III of Chapter 165 shall apply to the transfer of development rights from land qualifying as sending properties to land qualifying as receiving properties and/or to a transferee. Land utilizing transferred development rights may be subdivided at an increased density above the base density specified by Tables 1-3 1 and Table 2 in §165-302.03 in applicable receiving areas. All development utilizing transferred development rights shall conform to the guidelines contained in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. §165-301.03. Right to Transfer Development Rights; General Provisions. A. A development right shall be transferred only by means of documents, including a covenant to which Frederick County is party and any appropriate releases, in a recordable form approved by the Director of Planning and Development or his designee. The covenant shall limit the future construction of dwellings on a sending property to the total number of development rights established by the zoning of the property minus all development rights previously transferred in accordance with this chapter, any development rights previously extinguished or limited as a result of a recorded covenant against the property, the number of development rights to be transferred CHAPTER 165 - ZONING 2 by the proposed transaction, and the number of existing single-family detached dwellings on the sending property. If a sending property contains no dwelling units, a development right equal to that for one single-family dwelling must be maintained for the property, except that, for properties larger than one hundred (100) acres, one development right equal to that for one single-family dwelling must be maintained for each multiple of one hundred (100) acres, or fraction thereof, contained within the sending property. B. Each transferor shall have the right to sever all or a portion of the rights to develop from the parcel in a sending district and to sell, trade, or barter all or a portion of those rights to a transferee consistent with the purposes of §165-301.01 so long as the conditions of §165-301.03A are met. C. Any transfer of development rights pursuant to this Chapter authorizes only an increase in maximum density and shall not alter or waive the development standards of the receiving district, nor shall it allow a use otherwise prohibited in a receiving district. D. Transfer of development rights shall not be available for the following: 1) Portions of lots owned by or subject to easements (including, but not limited to, easements of roads, railroads, electrical transmission lines, gas or petroleum pipelines) in favor of governmental agencies, utilities and nonprofit corporations. 2) Land restricted from development by covenant, easement or deed restriction. E. Any transfer of development rights shall be recorded among the land records of Frederick County, Virginia. F. Value of transferable development rights. The monetary value of transferred development rights is completely determined between the seller and buyer. Part 302 – Sending and Receiving Properties §165-302.01. Sending Properties. A. For the purposes of this chapter, a sending property must be an entire tax parcel or lot qualified under §165-302.01B of this section. Sending areas may only be located within the rural areas outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), and zoned RA (Rural Areas), as described in the Comprehensive Policy Plan and the RA Zoning District of this Chapter. A sending property shall be maintained in a condition that is consistent with the criteria in this section under which the sending was qualified. CHAPTER 165 - ZONING 3 B. Qualification of a sending property shall demonstrate that the site contains a public benefit such that the preservation of that benefit by transferring residential development rights to another site is in the public interest, according to all of the following criteria: 1) Designated in the Comprehensive Policy Plan as Rural Area; 2) Designated on the Zoning Maps of Frederick County as being zoned RA (Rural Areas) and be located outside of the Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA); 3) Designated on the Sending Areas Map; 4) Comprised of at least twenty (20) acres in size; and 5) Qualified for subdivision in accordance with Chapter 144 of the Frederick County Code including, but not limited to, meeting all state road and access requirements. For TDR purposes, if the sending property consists of more than one parcel of land, at least one lot must meet all the subdivision requirements of Chapter 144; this lot shall be deemed the primary lot. Additional parcels that do not meet the subdivision requirements but are contiguous to the primary lot may be added to the sending property, if they are all under common ownership. For purposes of this section, lots divided by a street are considered contiguous if the lots would share a common lot line if the street was removed. C. If a sending property has any outstanding code violations and/or unpaid taxes, the owner shall resolve these violations, including any required abatement, restoration, or payment of penalties or taxes, before the property may be qualified as a sending property in the transfer of development rights program. §165-302.02. Receiving Properties. A. Except as provided in subsections B and C of this section, in order to be eligible as a receiving property, a property must be: 1) Located in one of the following zoning districts: a. RP (Residential Performance) District; b. R4 (Residential Planned Community) District; or c. RA (Rural Areas) District; and 2) Designated on the Receiving Areas Map; 3) Served by public water and public sewer; CHAPTER 165 - ZONING 4 4) Served by state-maintained roads or have the ability to utilize private roads in the RP District as permitted by Chapter 165 or Chapter 144. 5) Located within the Urban Development Area (UDA) or a designated and defined Rural Community Center as identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan; and 6) Identified in the Frederick County Comprehensive Policy Plan for residential land uses. B. A property is not eligible as a receiving property if the transfer of development rights to the property would adversely impact regionally or locally significant historical resources or naturally sensitive areas as specified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan. C. A property is not eligible as a receiving property if the property is located within the airport support area as identified by the Comprehensive Policy Plan. D. If a receiving property has any outstanding code violations and/or unpaid taxes, the owner shall resolve these violations, including any required abatement, restoration, or payment of penalties or taxes, before the property may be qualified as a receiving property in the transfer of development rights program. E. A receiving property may accept development rights from one or more sending properties, up to a maximum density specified in Tables 1-3 1 and Table 2 in §165-302.03. §165-302.03. Calculation of development rights. A. The number of residential development rights that a sending property is eligible to send to a receiving property and/or transferee shall be determined by applying the sending property base density established in subsection C of this section to the area of the sending property after deducting all the following: 1. Development rights previously transferred in accordance with this chapter; 2. Development rights previously extinguished or limited as a result of a recorded conservation easement or similar covenant against the property; 3. The number of existing single-family dwellings on the sending property; 4. The amount of any submerged land (i.e., lakes, ponds, streams), floodplains, and steep slopes as determined by Frederick County GIS Data. 5. The amount of any land contained within easements (including, but not limited to, easements of roads, railroads, electrical transmission lines, gas or petroleum pipelines) in favor of governmental agencies, utilities and nonprofit corporations. B. If a sending property contains no dwelling units, a development right equal to that for one single- family dwelling must be maintained for the property. Properties with over 100 acres shall be required to retain the number of development rights required in accordance with Section 165- 301.03A. CHAPTER 165 - ZONING 5 C. For the purposes of calculating the amount of development rights a sending property can transfer, the square footage or acreage of land contained within a sending property shall be determined by a valid recorded plat or survey, submitted by the applicant property owner and that has been prepared and stamped by a land surveyor licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia. D. For the purposes of the transfer of development rights program only, sending sites zoned RA (Rural Areas) shall have a base density of one dwelling unit per five acres for transfer purposes. E. Any fractions of development rights that results from the calculations in subsection A of this section shall not be included in the final determination of total development rights available for transfer. F. Development rights from one sending property may be allocated to more than one receiving property and/or transferee and one receiving property and/or transferee may accept development rights from more than one sending property. G. The determination of the number of residential development rights a sending property has available for transfer to a receiving property and/or transferee shall be documented in a TDR LETTER OF INTENT to issue a TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE issued by the Director of Planning and Development or his designee, pursuant to the provisions of this Part 302.05 of Chapter 165, and shall be considered a final determination, not subject to revision. Such a determination shall be valid only for purposes of the transfer of development rights program and for no other purpose. Any changes to the proposed sending property shall void any issued letters of intent. H. A sending property transferee may extinguish TDR density rights, sever and hold TDR density rights, sever and sell TDR density rights, or apply TDR rights to a receiving property in a receiving district in order to obtain approval for development at a density greater than would otherwise be allowed on the land in the receiving district, up to the maximum density or intensity outlined in the table below: CHAPTER 165 - ZONING 6 Table 1 Maximum Density Allowed in Zoning Districts through Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program Zoning District Property Size And Land Use In Acres Maximum Density in Dwelling Units per Acre Maximum Density Without TDRs Dwelling Units per Acre with TDR Transfers for RA (Rural Areas) RA Receiving Property 1 Unit Per 5 Acres Maximum Density allowed in the RP District within the UDA per § 165- 402.05 RA Density for qualified RA Receiving Properties in the UDA shall be consistent with the allowable RP Density Utilizing TDR’s (see below) (Rural Areas) RA *For Designated Rural Community Centers Receiving Property 1 Unit Per 5 Acres 1 Unit Per Acre in Designated Rural Community Centers served by Community Septic Systems RP (Residential Performance) *Density by parcel size for all other housing types and developments with mixed housing types) <10 *See § 165-402.05 for maximum percentage of multifamily housing 10-100 >100 0-10 10.1-25 25.1 -50 10 50.1 + 5.5 4 10 6 6 6 15 8 6 15 10 10 10 RP (Residential Performance) Multifamily Residential Buildings & Age Restricted Multifamily Garden Apartments Townhouse (single family attached) N/A 20 10 10 24 15 R4 15 (Residential Planned Community) >100 4 6 10 CHAPTER 165 - ZONING 7 I. TDR density rights may be converted to bonus density rights by an increase in the residential density on the receiving property, based on the conversion factors in the table below: Table 2 Maximum Density Allowed in Zoning Districts through Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program Designated Sending Area Each Transferred Density Right May Be Converted to This Bonus Density in the Receiving Area Sending Area #1 1 Density Right =2 Dwelling Units Sending Area #2 1 Density Right =1.5 Dwelling Units Sending Area #3 1 Density Right =1 Dwelling Unit 1. Allowable sending area bonus density remains subject to the maximum density provisions outlined in Table 1 of §165-302.03H. 2. If properties located in Sending Area #1 (designated Agricultural and Forestal District) that have transferred bonus density rights are subsequently withdrawn from the designated sending area (the designated Agricultural and Forestal District), the total number of density rights transferred, including bonus density rights, shall be counted against any future subdivision ability of the property. 3. When TDR density rights are applied to a receiving property, the density right to housing type conversion rate shall be outlined in the table below. Such density conversions shall be demonstrated on the Master Development Plan for the receiving property. Table 3 TDR Denisty Right Conversation Rate Housing Type Conversation Rate Single Family 1 TDR Density Right =1 Dwelling Unit Single Family Attached 1 TDR Density Right =1.5 Dwelling Units (*all fractions must be rounded down) Multifamily 1 TDR Density Right =1.75 Dwelling Units (*all fractions must be rounded down) §165-302.04. TDR Sending Property Development Limitations. A. Following the transfer of residential development rights, a sending property that has retained part of their development rights may subsequently accommodate remaining residential dwelling units on the sending property consistent with the requirements of the RA (Rural Areas) District and all requirements of the Frederick County Code. A sending property that has retained part of its CHAPTER 165 - ZONING 8 development rights may also transfer the remainder of the eligible rights through the transfer of development rights program. B. On sending properties with environmental features as outlined in § 165-302.03A, the development rights shall be severed from the areas outside of the specified environmental features. If development rights are retained on the sending property, future subdivision of the parcel cannot occur on the areas where development rights have already been severed. C. The limitations in this section shall be included in a deed covenant applicable to the sending property. §165-302.05. Sending Property Certification. A. The Director of Planning and Development or his designee shall be responsible for determining that a proposed sending property meets the qualifications of §165-302.01. The Director of Planning and Development or his designee shall render a determination or denial under this subsection within sixty (60) days of the date of submittal of a completed sending property determination application. If the determination is that a property meets the qualifications of §165-302.01, the Director of Planning and Development or his designee shall issue the determination in the form of a LETTER OF INTENT to issue a TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE. A LETTER OF INTENT issued under this subsection shall be valid until the development rights are severed and extinguished through the transfer process, or unless applicable zoning changes are approved that would affect the sending property, or unless the property is developed. B. Determinations of sending property qualifications under subsection A of this section are appealable to the Board of Supervisors by filing a notice of appeal with the Director of Planning and Development or his designee within thirty (30) days of the date of the determination. C. The Director of Planning and Development shall be responsible for maintaining permanent records of action taken pursuant to the transfer of development rights program under this Article III of Chapter 165, including records of letters of intent issued, certificates issued, deed restrictions and covenants known to be recorded, and development rights retired, otherwise extinguished, or transferred to specific properties and/or transferees. D. Responsibility for preparing a completed application for a determination that a proposed sending property meets the qualifications of §165-302.01 rests exclusively with the applicant/property owner. An application for a transfer of development rights to issue a transfer of development rights LETTER OF INTENT shall contain: 1) A certificate of title for the sending property prepared by an attorney admitted to practice law in the Commonwealth of Virginia; CHAPTER 165 - ZONING 9 2) Five copies of a valid recorded plat or survey, of the proposed sending parcel and a legal description of the sending property prepared by a land surveyor licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia; 3) A plan showing the existing and proposed dwelling units and any areas already subject to a conservation easement or other similar encumbrance; 4) A completed density calculation worksheet for estimating the number of available development rights; 5) The application fee as set forth in the Development Review Fees adopted by the Board of Supervisors; and 6) Such additional information required by the Director of Planning and Development or his designee as necessary to determine the number of development rights that qualify for transfer. E. A transfer of development rights LETTER OF INTENT issued by the Director of Planning and Development or his designee shall state the following information: 1) The name of the transferor; 2) The name of the transferee , if then known; 3) A legal description of the sending property on which the calculation of development rights is based; 4) A statement of the size, in acres, of the sending property on which the calculation of development rights is based; 5) A statement of the number of development rights, stated in terms of number of dwelling units, eligible for transfer; 6) If only a portion of the total development rights are being transferred from the sending property, a statement of the number of remaining development rights, stated in terms of number of dwelling units, remaining on the sending property; 7) The date of issuance; 8) The signature of the Director of Planning and Development or his designee; and 9) A serial number assigned by the Director of Planning and Development or his designee. F. No transfer of development rights under this ordinance shall be recognized by Frederick County as valid unless the instrument of transfer contains the transfer of development rights certificate issued under this section. §165-302.06. Instruments of Transfer. A. An instrument of transfer of development rights shall be reviewed and approved as to the form and legal sufficiency by the County Attorney and, upon such approval, the County Attorney shall notify the transferor or his or her agent, who shall record the instrument with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and shall provide a copy to the Commissioner of the Revenue. An instrument of transfer of CHAPTER 165 - ZONING 10 development rights shall conform to the requirements of this section and shall contain the following: 1) The names of the transferor and the transferee; 2) A legal description and plat of the sending property prepared by a land surveyor licensed in the Commonwealth of Virginia; 3) The transfer of development rights certificate described in §165-302.03F; 4) A covenant indicating the number of development rights remaining on the sending property and stating that the sending property may not be subdivided to or developed to a greater density than permitted by the remaining development rights; 5) A covenant that the transferor grants and assigns to the transferee and the transferee’s heirs, assigns, and successors a specific number of development rights from the sending property to a receiving property and/or a transferee; 6) A covenant by which the transferor acknowledges that he has no further use or right of use with respect to the development rights being transferred; and 7) A covenant that all provisions of the instrument of transfer of development rights shall run with and bind the sending property and may be enforced by Frederick County. B. An instrument of transfer of development rights shall be recorded prior to release of development permits, including building permits, for the receiving property. Part 303 – Transfer Process and Development Procedures. §165-303.01. Transfer Process. Development rights shall be transferred using the following process: A. Following approval of the sending property determination application and issuance of the LETTER OF INTENT as described in §165-302.05, the Director of Planning and Development or his designee shall issue the TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE, agreeing to a transfer of development rights in exchange for the proposed sending property deed covenant to which Frederick County is a party. If a sending property with a TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE changes ownership, the certificate may be transferred to the new owner if requested in writing to the Department of Planning and Development by the person(s) that owned the property when the certificate was issued, provided that the documents evidencing the transfer of ownership are also provided to the Department of Planning and Development. B. In applying for receiving property or receiving person approval, the applicant shall provide the Department of Planning and Development with one of the following: 1) A TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE issued in the name of the applicant; CHAPTER 165 - ZONING 11 2) A TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE issued in the name of another person or persons and a signed option to purchase those TDR sending property development rights; or 3) A TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE issued in the name of the applicant or another person(s) and a copy of a signed option to purchase those TDR sending property development rights. C. The receiving property applicant and/or transferee shall deliver the documentation outlined in § 165-303.01B for the number of TDR development rights being severed or transferred and the TDR extinguishment document to the County. D. Development rights from a sending property shall be considered transferred to a receiving property and/or a transferee and extinguished when the extinguishment document for the sending property has been recorded. §165-303.02. Development Approval Procedures. A. A request to utilize transferred development rights on an eligible receiving property must be in the form of a Master Development Plan and a Subdivision Design Plan submitted to the Department of Planning and Development in accordance with the Zoning and Subdivision regulations contained in Chapters 165 and 144 of the County Code. B. All subdivisions for receiving properties zoned RA (Rural Areas) utilizing development rights shall be subject to the same requirements as property zoned RP (Residential Performance) and shall not qualify for the standards specified in §144-31 of the Frederick County Code. C. A final recorded plat for a subdivision using transferred development rights shall contain a statement setting forth the development proposed, the zoning classification of the property, the number of development rights used, and a notation of the recordation of the conveyance required by §165-302.06. Adopted RP Density Table ARTICLE IV AGRICULTURAL AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Part 402 – RP Residential Performance District § 165-402.05 Gross density. A gross density shall be established for each proposed development, including all land contained within a single master development plan, according to the characteristics of the land, the capacity of public facilities and roads and the nature of surrounding uses. Because of these characteristics, some developments may not be allowed to employ the maximum density allowed by these regulations. The following density requirements shall apply to all parcels as they exist at the time of the adoption of this section: A. Subsequent divisions of land shall not increase the allowed density on parcels of land. B. In no case shall the gross density and maximum percentage of multifamily housing of any development within an approved master development plan exceed the densities and percentages set forth in the following table: Density by Land Use Density (Units/Acre) Maximum Percentage of Multifamily Housing Multifamily Residential Buildings and Age Restricted Multifamily (excluding garden apartments) 20 Units/Acre 100% Garden Apartments 10 Units/Acre 100% Townhouse (single family attached) 10 Units/Acre N/A Density by Parcel Size (for all other housing types and development with mixed housing types) Density (Units/Acre) Maximum Percentage of Multifamily Housing 0-10 acres 10 Units/Acre 100% 10.1-25 acres 6 Units/Acre 100% 25.1 -50 acres 6 Units/Acre 60% 75% 50.1 + acres 6 Units/Acre 50% C. Within developments utilizing Transferable Development Rights, the maximum gross residential density for the development shall be determined in §165-302.03H. Development Impact Model On October 12, 2005, the Frederick County Board of Supervisors directed staff to use the Development Impact Model (DIM) to project the capital fiscal impacts that would be associated with any rezoning petitions containing residential development, replacing the existing Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model. The DIM was created by an economic consultant who evaluated and analyzed development within the County in an effort to assist the County in planning for future capital facility requirements. Critical inputs to the DIM are to be reviewed and updated annually to assure that the fiscal projections accurately reflect County capital expenditures. The Board of Supervisors authorized use of the annual model update on June 12, 2013. The DIM projects that, on average, residential development has a negative fiscal impact on the County’s capital expenditures. As such, all rezoning petitions with a residential component submitted after July 1, 2013 will be expected to demonstrate how the proposal will mitigate the following projected capital facility impacts: Single Family Dwelling Unit = $ 19,600 Town Home Dwelling Unit = $ 13,062 Apartment Dwelling Unit = $ 11,339 The following is a breakdown of the projected impacts per dwelling unit for each capital facility. Capital facility Single Family Town home Apartment Fire And Rescue $564 $419 $425 General Government $43 $33 $33 Public Safety $0 $0 $0 Library $496 $379 $379 Parks and Recreation $1766 $1,350 $1,350 School Construction $16,731 $10,881 $9,152 Total $19,600 $13,062 $11,339 The projected capital expenditures depicted above do not include a credit for future real estate taxes. A “read-only” copy of the Development Impact Model is available on the public workstation within the Planning and Development’s office. A user manual is also available. 06/12/2013