Loading...
DRRC 01-29-04 Meeting Agenda MEMORANDUM To: Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee From: Mark R. Cheran, Planner I Subject: January Meeting and Agenda Date: January 16, 2004 The Frederick County Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) will be meeting on Thursday, January 29, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. in the first floor conference room (purple room) of the County Administration Building, 107 North Kent Street, Winchester, Virginia. The DRRS will discuss the following agenda items: AGENDA 1) Vote for DRRS Chairman and Vice-Chairman. As stipulated in the DRRS’s Operating Procedures, a chairman and vice chairman will be elected during the first meeting of each year. 2) Discussion to add the definition of Minor Site Plan to the Zoning Ordinance. 3) Discussion of Agricultural Setbacks in the RP Zoning District. Access to this building is limited during the evening hours. Therefore, it will be necessary to enter the building through the rear door of the four-story wing. I would encourage committee members and interested citizens to park in the County parking lot located behind the new addition or in the joint Judicial Center parking lot and follow the sidewalk to the back door of the four-story wing. MRC/bhd Attachment Item #2: Minor Site Plan The Board of Supervisors at the December 17, 2002 meeting, adopted a new Development Review Fee Schedule that included a Minor Site Plan. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance has not reflected this change. Staff would recommend adding the definition of Minor Site Plan to the Ordinance, and include Minor Site Plan with Section 165-144 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. The definition of minor site plan is below in bold print. Definition of Minor Site Plan - A site plan that increases the existing structure or area by twenty percent (20%) or less and does not exceed 5,000 square feet. Section 165-144 E - A Minor site plan is required when an existing structure or area increases by twenty percent (20%) or less; and does not exceed 5,000 square feet. Item# 3: Agricultural Setbacks in the RP Zoning District The Planning Commission at their January 7, 2004 meeting, directed staff to study the feasibility of implementing agricultural setbacks to the RP Zoning District. In September 2003, the DRRS started dialogue regarding the possibility of implementing agricultural setbacks in the RP Zoning District. The lack of an agricultural setback in the RP Zoning District has been a concern of the DRRS for some time. The concern is that under current conditions, a typical building lot in the RP District only has a ten foot setback from agricultural uses. Houses this close to agriculture may be a burden to farmers and raise issues of incompatibility. Therefore, it may be appropriate to require an agricultural setback in the RP District, similar to the 100 foot setback required for a building lot in the RA District. On the other hand, an agricultural setback in the RP could be a waste of valuable land within the Urban Development Area. Staff would like to use the available time this month to discuss potential strategies for this project. Below you will find five potential strategies, from the DRRS meeting in September 2003, contemplated by staff. The input received by the DRRS will provide direction to staff. FIVE POTENTIAL STRATEGIES: Strategy 1 - Setback: This strategy would require that any house in the RP Zoning District be set back an increased distance from RA Zoned parcels used for agricultural purposes. Staff Comment: This approach would not work unless the setback is reduced significantly from the 100 feet required in the RA District. The standard width of an RP lot is less than 100 feet. Strategy 2 - Buffer & Screen: This strategy would require that residential developments establish a buffer, similar to a road efficiency buffer or a zoning buffer, when adjoining agricultural property. Staff Comment: This approach could utilize a full and reduced buffer, which is currently required for road efficiency buffers; or, it could be based on the requirements for zoning buffers, which requires screening based on the buffer distance provided (Category A, B, or C). Strategy 3 - Screen: This strategy would require landscaping and a berm, but not necessarily a buffer, between residential developments and agricultural property. Staff Comment: This option would require the least amount of property - only what is used for the landscaping. This landscaping could be on individual building lots or on common open space. Strategy 4 - Buffer: This strategy would require a buffer, but no landscaping, between residential developments and agricultural property. Staff Comment: This approach has the potential to be the most consistent with what is currently required for building lots in the RA Zoning District. Strategy 5 - Temporary Buffer and/or Screen: This strategy would be the same as either of the three latter strategies, however, the buffer and/or screen could be removed for future development if the adjoining agricultural parcel is ever developed. Staff Comment: If a buffer is required, typical to the standard length of a building lot, this approach may encourage roads to be built along the perimeter of developments to allow for the possibility of future development of the buffer area.