AGENDA BEDFORD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

County Administration Board Room

122 E. Main Street, Bedford, VA Tuesday, May 20, 2014

7:00 p.m. – Regular meeting

1. Approval of Agenda 2. Approval of Minutes - April 15, 2014

3. Citizen Comment Period 4. Old Business

a) Comprehensive Plan – continued review of Citizen Advisory Committee comments

1) Chapter 14 – Urban Development Areas (UDAs) 5. New Business

a) RZ060004 Master plan revision – Thomas Jefferson Crossing

6. Adjourn

Planning Commission

Minutes

April 15, 2014

DRAFT

MINUTES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47

For Bedford County Planning Commission

April 15, 2014 The Planning Commission held a work session on Tuesday, April 15, 2014 in the Bedford County Administration Building Boardroom. Commissioners Brown, Burdett, Craig, Huff, Scott and Tillett were present. Commissioner Noell was absent. County staff present was Mr. Tim Wilson, Director of Community Development, Mr. Jordan Mitchell, Planner and Mrs. Patricia Robinson, Planning/Zoning Technician. Mr. Craig called the work session to order at 5:00 pm. The purpose of the work session was to begin the review of the recommendations from the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) after their review of the draft Comprehensive Plan 2025 update. Mr. Mitchell noted the CAC recommendations are noted as track changes in the document. Additionally he noted some of the changes will appear repetitively from chapter to chapter. Mr. Mitchell stated each chapter would be reviewed, discussion held and the applicable decisions of the Commission regarding the proposed CAC recommendations would be modified in the draft document. The Commission recessed at 6:34 pm and reconvened for their regular meeting at 7:00 pm. Mr. Craig called the Planning Commission to order and determined there was a quorum for conducting business. Commissioners Brown, Burdett, Craig, Huff, Noell, Scott and Tillett were present. County staff present included Mr. Tim Wilson, Director of Community Development, Mr. Mark Jordan, Mr. Jordan Mitchell, Mr. Brad Robinson, Planners and Mrs. Patricia Robinson, Planning/Zoning Technician. County Attorney Mr. Carl Boggess was also present. Mr. Craig asked if there were any changes to the agenda. There being none Mr. Huff made a motion to approve the agenda as presented. Mr. Tillett seconded the motion. The motion passed with a 7-0 vote. Mr. Craig asked if there were any changes to the minutes of March 18, 2014. Mr. Burdett requested a change on page 3, line 102. He requested the extra word “Mr.” be removed. On page 4, line 158 change the word “requested” to requesting” and on page 5 line 217 change the word “like” to “likes”. Mr. Tillett made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Mr. Scott seconded the motion. Voting yes: Mr. Brown, Mr. Burdett, Mr. Huff, Mr. Noell, Mr. Scott, Mr. Tillett and Mr. Craig Voting no: None Motion passed 7 – 0

Planning Commission Minutes 1 04/15/14

DRAFT

48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95

Mr. Craig asked if there were any citizens to speak during the Citizen’s Comment Period. Mr. Richard Ruff 1485 Colony Heights Road, Goode, VA spoke regarding the positive impacts possible as a result of commercial poultry operations. There being no additional speakers, the Citizen’s Comment Period was closed. Mr. Craig moved to item 4a under Public Hearings for Special Use Permit SU140009. Mr. Mark Jordan stated Roy E. Reaves of Coleman Falls Land, LLC 2806 Walker Road, Coleman Falls, VA. is requesting a special use permit for a Industry Type I use for the collection, processing, and distribution of yard materials consisting of wood chips, leaves, grass and brush in a C-2 (General Commercial) zoning district. The yard materials will be processed by a grinder, and will be reloaded and shipped by tractor-trailer to local plants to be utilized as fuel. According to information provided by the applicant, a portable grinder will be utilized 2-4 days per month, and the hours of operation will be 8:00 am - 5:00 pm on weekdays, and on Saturdays by appointment. The applicant has also indicated that the material will stay on the site for up to two months. Ten (10) trucks are anticipated at the site on a daily basis, and the entrance will contain a gate that will be locked when the facility is closed. The subject property consists of 4.08 acres, and is located along the south side of Forest Road (Route 221) adjacent to 18477 Forest Road and 18395 Forest Road, Forest, VA. The subject property is located within the Jefferson Magisterial District identified as Tax Map Number 101-A-44 and in Election District 4. The applicant's agent is attorney Robert Wandrei, PO Box 1008, Bedford, VA. The site is currently vacant, and slopes downward from Forest Road and the adjoining properties. The adjacent properties on Forest Road are zoned General Commercial (C-2), and contain a retail use (Grainger Electrical Supply) and a computer repair use (Access Computer Services). The existing uses across Forest Road are also zoned General Commercial (C-2) and contain a combination of retail and office uses. The three located properties to the immediate rear are zoned Low Density Residential (R-1). Two of these parcels are vacant and one of these parcels (Tax Map 101A-5-17) contains a single family dwelling. Questions and comments from the Commissioners covered the following: (a) has the information on permitting from VDOT and the Corp of Engineers been completed, (b) sound decibel levels from chipping operation will be high, and (c) how close is the nearest home on the back side of the property? Mr. Craig asked for the applicant’s presentation. Mr. Bob Wandrei spoke on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Wandrei noted the property is located in a bowl and therefore this should help to alleviate the noise. He noted the plan is that the site would be open to the public to bring in brush. Mr. Wandrei stated they have been unsuccessful in reaching the appropriate person in the Grainger Company that can make a decision regarding the commercial entrance decision. Until such time as the commercial entrance issue is resolved the site will be limited to commercial landscapers only, gated and not open to the public. The anticipated number of trucks per day would be 10 at the maximum. The chipping operation will be conducted two to four times a month between the hours of 8:00 am – 5:00 pm.

Planning Commission Minutes 2 04/15/14

DRAFT

96 97 98 99

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143

Questions and comments from the Commissioners covered the following: (a) how many employees will you employ, and (b) will any of the employees be at the site all day? Mr. Craig asked if there were any citizens to speak. Mr. Timothy Rolfes 2587 Thomas Jefferson Road Forest, Va spoke in favor of the application. There being no additional speakers, Mr. Craig closed the public hearing and asked for discussion among the Commissioners. Discussion covered the following: (a) not concerned about the noise due to the setbacks and buffers in place, (b) will there be any composting of food and (c) concern regarding tractor trailers coming off a gravel entrance onto Rt. 221 Forest Road. Mr. Wandrei, the applicant’s attorney stated they would offer that the applicant will limit the traffic at the site to commercial landscapers, and the site will not be open to the general public until either joint access or an access exception is approved by VDOT.

Mr. Tillett made a motion to recommend approval of Special Use Permit SU140009 to the Board with the condition that the applicant will limit the traffic at the site to commercial landscapers, and the site will not be open to the general public until either joint access or an access exception is approved by VDOT. Mr. Huff seconded the motion.

Voting yes: Mr. Brown, Mr. Burdett, Mr. Huff, Mr. Noell, Mr. Scott, Mr. Tillett and Mr. Craig Voting no: None Motion passed 7 – 0 Mr. Craig moved to item 4b under Public Hearings for Special Use Permit SU140010. Mr. Mark Jordan stated Tom Buck, with Halesford Harbour, LLC 1336 Campers Paradise Trail Moneta, VA is requesting a special use permit for the expansion of an existing campground containing 112 existing campsites. The proposed expansion will consist of twenty-three park model sites and seven recreational vehicle sites on 1.77 acres of a 34.40 acre parcel, along with a 1,500 sq. ft. office with associated parking. The property located at 1336 Campers Paradise Trail Moneta, VA is identified as Tax Map Number 221-A-9 and is zoned Planned Commercial Development (PCD) and Corridor Overlay (CO). The parcel to the immediate right is also zoned PCD and contains a single family dwelling (built in 1871). The parcels across Moneta Road are vacant, and are zoned PCD. The parcels to the south along Kaseys Lakeview Drive and Angel Wing Place contain single family dwellings, and are zoned Medium Density Residential (R-2). Questions and comments from the Commissioners covered the following: (a) do all 30 of the new campsite meet the Zoning Ordinance standard, and (b) is the requirement that the campground contain 15% of the site for recreational uses met? Mr. Tom Buck presented his application request. Mr. Buck provided each of the Commissioners with a brochure of the current campground which also reflects the proposed expansion areas. Mr. Buck provided an overview of the subject properties past and current uses and the proposed expansion. He noted the expansion will include 23 new park home sites and 7 new RV sites.

Planning Commission Minutes 3 04/15/14

DRAFT

144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191

Questions and comments from the Commissioners covered the following: (a) are you planning on putting in a turning lane? Mr. Buck stated they do not intend to install a turning lane unless directed to by VDOT. He noted they have widened the apron on the two sides of the entrance. Since the campground tends to be individuals with annual leases, the amount of daily vehicle trips is reduced as opposed to a more transient campground with weekly or weekend campers. Mr. Craig asked if there were any citizens to speak. Mr. George Aznavorian 1169 Cranberry Court Moneta, VA spoke in favor of the project and recommended the project be approved. There being no additional speakers, Mr. Craig closed the public hearing and asked for discussion among the Commissioners. Discussion covered the following: (a) positive thoughts regarding the project, (b) meets a need of the count, (c) existing facility is a well run and nice looking campground, and (d) need to encourage more activity like this in the county. Mr. Burdett made a motion to recommend approval of Special Use Permit SU140010 to the Board of Supervisors as noted in the staff report. Mr. Scott seconded the motion. Voting yes: Mr. Brown, Mr. Burdett, Mr. Huff, Mr. Noell, Mr. Scott, Mr. Tillett and Mr. Craig Voting no: None Motion passed 7 – 0 Mr. Craig moved to item 4c under Public Hearings for Rezoning Application RZ140004. Mr. Brad Robinson stated the applicants are Spencer and Susan Tinsley, 2541 Morgans Church Road, and Gladys Meador Hoover, 12918 Old Moneta Road, both of Moneta VA, 24121. They are jointly requesting in the application to remove commercial zoning from their parcels in Moneta and rezone them to AP (Agricultural/Rural Preserve District). The subject parcels are identified as Tax Maps 211-A-16, 16A and 17 and are located adjacent to each other along Morgans Church Road (Route 805) just east of the intersection with Promised Land Road (Route 864). Moneta Road (Route 122) is in close proximity to the parcels (approximately 1800 feet). Two of the parcels, Tax Maps 211-A-16 and 16A, are under the ownership of Mr. and Mrs. Tinsley while the other, Tax Map 211-A-17, is owned by Gladys Hoover. All parcels together total 102.64 acres per county real estate information, however only approximately 13.44 acres are proposed for rezoning per the applicant. Tax Map 211-A-16A is legally described as “strip of land” measuring 350’ x 10’ in size and is not shown on a survey. It is included with this request to ensure all of Mr. and Mrs. Tinsley’s property is accounted for. Currently Tax Maps 211-A-16 and 16A are fully zoned C-2 (General Commercial District) while Tax Map 211-A-17 is split zoned C-2 and AP. The applicant is requesting to rezone Tax Maps 211-A-16 and 16A to AP in their entirety and rezone the C-2 portion of the split-zoned parcel to AP. The request would result in all parcels being fully zoned AP which corresponds to their existing uses. The parcels are currently developed with residential uses. One parcel (Tax Map 211-A-17) also contains agricultural activity. No development is proposed as a

Planning Commission Minutes 4 04/15/14

DRAFT

192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222

223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238

result of the rezoning. The main objective of the request is to remove nonconforming status and limitations on the ability of existing structures to expand, primarily the residence of Mr. and Mrs. Tinsley. An addition constructed to the Tinsley residence in 2002 utilized the 50 percent expansion allowance permitted under administrative approval. County records indicate the residences on the parcels have been in existence prior to the adoption of zoning in 1998. Additionally, Tax Map 211-A-17 has participated in the County’s Land Use Program since 1997 also prior to zoning. All uses are deemed to be legally nonconforming. Questions and comments from the Commissioners covered the following: (a) although the land is zoned commercially, the area is clearly agricultural, (b) very limited commercial uses in this area and (c) why were the subject properties originally classified C-2 General Commercial? Mr. Craig asked for the applicant’s presentation. Mr. Spencer Tinsley and Ms. Glady Hooper asked the Commissioners if there were any questions they could answer. There were no questions from the Commissioners. Mr. Craig asked if there were any citizens to speak. Being no speakers, Mr. Craig closed the public hearing and asked for discussion among the Commissioners. Mr. Burdett made a motion to recommend approval of Rezoning Application RZ140004 to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Tillett seconded the motion. Voting yes: Mr. Brown, Mr. Burdett, Mr. Huff, Mr. Noell, Mr. Scott, Mr. Tillett and Mr. Craig Voting no: None Motion passed 7 – 0

Mr. Craig moved to item 4d under Public Hearings for Rezoning Application RZ140005. Mr. Jordan Mitchell stated the applicant and property owner is Maria Elizabeth Freire (Trustee of the Del Ankers Living Trust), 616 Springvale Road, Great Falls, Virginia 22066. The agent and contact person for the applicant is Jody Lyons, 1123 Celebration Avenue, Suite 106, Moneta, Virginia 24121. Maria Elizabeth Freire is requesting to rezone one parcel (72.03 acres) from I-2 (Higher-Intensity Industrial) to AV (Agricultural Village) and one parcel (162.15 acres) from I-2 and AR (Agricultural Residential) to AV. Tax Map #111-A-35 is zoned I-2 with the Corridor Overlay (CO) District along Forest Road (Route 221). Tax Map #111-A-55 is split zoned I-2 and AR with the CO District along Forest Road (Route 221). Surrounding properties are zoned I-2 and AR. Surrounding land uses include residential, agricultural, and commercial/industrial (Little Otter Business Park). The Town of Bedford is less than one mile from the subject properties. The properties (Tax Map #111-A-35 and 111-A-55) are located along the north and south sides of Forest Road (Route 221) near the Town of Bedford between Little Otter Drive (Private Road) and Hoback Road (Private Road). Tax Map #111-A-35 is 72.03 acres and Tax Map #111-A-55 is 162.15 acres in size. The applicant has no

Planning Commission Minutes 5 04/15/14

DRAFT

239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286

proposed use associated with the rezoning request. Mr. Mitchell noted the location and characteristics of both parcels proposed for rezoning do not meet the intent of the AV zoning district. Questions and comments from the Commissioners covered the following: (a) is the adjoining lot to the northwest of subject property for rezoning also zoned I-2. Mr. Craig asked for the applicant’s presentation. Mr. Lyons stated the property has been marketed for a number of years with few potential buyers. He stated he had spoken with numerous neighbors regarding the rezoning with favorable responses. Mr. Lyons noted the two most promising potential buyers are interested in putting in a drag strip and campground. The neighbors would rather see an AV zoning with residential uses or small restaurants than a drag strip or industrial uses. The property could be served with public water as there is water nearby from the Bedford Regional Water Authority. Additionally Mr. George Aznavorian 1169 Cranberry Court Moneta, VA spoke on behalf of the applicant. He offered a brief history of property. Mr. Aznavorian noted the industrial park contains 80 acres, is over 15 years old and contains only three businesses. The down zone of the subject property will open the door to a variety of different potential uses. There were no questions from the Commissioners to Mr. Lyons or Mr. Aznavorian. Mr. Boggess, County Attorney had the following concerns and questions: (a) overburdening of the existing access easement, (b) would the applicant consider the submittal of a proffer pertaining to the future use of the access easement road, (c) if there is to be a house built on the rear adjoining parcel in the future it would make sense to use that road, and (d) if future development and use were to be for other possible uses that this could be a potential issue. Mr. Aznavorian responded that could be a good thing for the neighbors that do reside there. The existing private road is very narrow. He stated a proffer for limited access regarding the easement makes a lot of sense. Mr. Boggess stated the proffer would be something to the effect that Shady Lace Lane would be limited. Mr. Boggess stated proffers have traditionally been in writing at this level. But in this case there could be some comments referencing that the proffer will be put in place and in writing prior to the public hearing with the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Boggess noted it would be a little tough to do this proffer on the fly. Mr. Aznavorian and Mr. Lyons agreed with Mr. Boggess. Mr. Craig asked if there were any citizens to speak regarding the application: Mr. Charles Parker of 1271 Rock Castle Road Bedford, VA noted he has property adjoining the subject property being considered for rezoning. He noted his ancestors and his family have lived on property on a road behind the Bedford Funeral Home for over 100 years. Mr. Parker expressed concern that a drag strip could be built on property which adjoins his property. He stated he should have a say on what is placed on the property which adjoins his. Use the property for something that those living around the property can deal with. With there being no additional speakers, Mr. Craig closed the public hearing and asked for discussion among the Commissioners. Questions and comments from the Commissioners covered the following: (a) does the AV district allow subdivisions, (b) does AV allow race tracks, (c) there is no AV zoning

Planning Commission Minutes 6 04/15/14

DRAFT

Planning Commission Minutes 7 04/15/14

287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334

in the surrounding area, (d) AR zoning district surrounds the property, (e) Little Otter Industrial Park contains 80 acres and has only three businesses, (f) there is enough industrial land in the area, (g) AV uses could still work with town when property becomes part of the town, (h) land will be stagnant if remains zoned I-2, (i) if not zoned AV then to what?(j) think this is the best avenue with the access easement proffer, (k) in favor to approve, (l) too close to town for AR zoning, and (m) AV zoning best option we have and think we need to be flexible. Mr. Craig made a motion to recommend approval of Rezoning Application RZ140005 to the Board of Supervisors with the language that the County Attorney will offer for the proffer which will be limited access to the back easement. Mr. Tillett seconded the motion. Voting yes: Mr. Brown, Mr. Burdett, Mr. Huff, Mr. Noell, Mr. Scott, Mr. Tillett and Mr. Craig Voting no: Mr. Burdett Motion passed 6 – 1 Mr. Burdett stated he voted against because he does not think the request is in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Craig moved to item 5 – Old Business. Mr. Burdett asked Mr. Wilson if a response had been received from the Board of Supervisors regarding the Planning Commissions request for a joint public on the proposed ordinance changes to Commercial Feedlots. Mr. Boggess stated he addressed the issue with the Board on April 4, 2014. He stated the Board has agreed to a joint public hearing but the date is still to be determined. Possible dates are for the Board’s second meeting in May or first meeting in June. Mr. Wilson stated the Planning Commission’s formal action was to request a joint public hearing in June which he communicated to the County Administrator. A consensus was to hold the joint public hearing with the Board of Supervisors on June 9, 2014. Mr. Craig moved to item 6 – New Business. There was no New Business. There being no additional business, Mr. Scott made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Brown seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned by consensus at 8:54 pm. Respectfully submitted, _______________________________ Timothy L. Wilson, Secretary Approved by: ________________________________ Jerry Craig, Chairman

Comprehensive Plan

2025 Update

Chapter 14 Urban Development Areas

(UDAs) (re-review of preliminary

draft)

Presenter: Jordan Mitchell 540-586-7616 ext 1393

540-586-2059 (fax) jmitchell@bedfordcountyva.gov

MM EE MM OO RR AA NN DD UU MM

TO: Bedford County Planning Commission

FROM: Jordan Mitchell, CZO, Planner DATE: May 7, 2014 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan 2025 Update – Re-review of Chapter 14 Preliminary Draft

Staff has attached the Preliminary Draft of Chapter 14 Urban Development Areas (with track changes) for re-review. This chapter was previously reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission at their July 2, 2013 meeting. Should the Planning Commission have further revisions or recommendations on the preliminary draft, staff will make the changes administratively. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the attachment, please contact me at (540) 586-7616 ext. 1393. Attachments:

1) Preliminary Draft – Chapter 14 Urban Development Areas (with track changes)

1

Chapter Fourteen Urban Development Areas

Concentrate housing, commerce and public facilities in a mixed-use pattern within designated urban development areas (UDA).

Goal and Intent

As noted throughout this Comprehensive Plan, when a community decides to reduce the amount of development that can occur in areas that are desired to remain rural, it is prudent to balance that with areas intended to accept development. In 2007 Tthe Virginia General Assembly embraced this philosophy by adding Section 15.2-2223.1 to the Code of Virginia to enable localities with the option to amend their Comprehensive Plan for the purposes of incorporating one or more requiring high growth counties (localities with a population at least 20,000 and a growth rate of 5 percent or more between the most recent decennial censuses), including Bedford County, to designate Urban Development Areas (UDAs). in their comprehensive plans by July 1, 2011. Bedford County added a number of designated UDAs in the area around the Town of Bedford and in the Moneta vicinity in 2011 and amended the zoning ordinance to further reflect the concepts. As defined by the Code of Virginia, the term ‘urban development area’ means an area designated by a county that is (i) appropriate for higher density development due to its proximity to transportation facilities, the availability of a public or community water and sewer system, or a developed area and (ii) to the extent feasible, to be used for redevelopment or infill development. In compliance with the statute, BedfordSince Bedford County must designatehas designated one or more an urban development areas, the following must be provided that provides for the following:

1. Development of at least four single-family residences, six townhouses, or 12 apartments, condominium units, or cooperative units per developable acre, and an authorized floor area of at least 0.4 per acre for commercial development, or any proportional combination of residential and commercial.

2. An area that may be sufficient in size to meet projected residential and commercial growth for at least 10 but not more than 20 years; development may be phased over the 20 year period.

3. Development that promotes the principles of traditional neighborhood design (TND) principles, including but not limited to (i) pedestrian-friendly road design, (ii) interconnection of new local streets with existing local streets and roads, (iii) connectivity of road and pedestrian networks, (iv) preservation of natural areas, (v) mixed-use neighborhoods, including mixed housing types, with affordable housing to meet projected family income distributions of future residential growth, (iv) reduction

Formatted: Space After: 16 pt

2

of front and side yard building setbacks, and (vii) reduction of subdivision street widths and turning radii at subdivision street intersections.

4. Financial and other incentives for development within the UDA as outlined in the Plan and provided as part of Bedford County’s timely review of development applications within the Urban Service Area.

5. Continued cooperation and consultation between Bedford County and Region 2000 partner localities to promote orderly and efficient development within the region.

6. Direction of federal, state and local transportation, housing, water and sewer facility, economic development, and other public infrastructure funding for new and expanded facilities to the UDA, to the extent possible.

7. Reexamination and, if necessary, revision of the size and boundaries of the UDA every five years, in conjunction with the review of this Comprehensive Plan, and in accordance with the most recent available population growth estimates and projections.

One legacy of the planning and zoning practice across much of the United States post World War II has been the promotion of the segregation of land uses into discrete and uniform residential, commercial, and industrial categories. The initial intent, to protect public health and welfare by removing noxious influences from residential areas, was valid. However, the result has been to segregate uses in suburban areas to such an extent as to create a total reliance on automobile travel for activities which formerly were located within convenient walking distance in older, more mixed-use urban settings. Such settings remain in cities and towns across Virginia, including the City Town of Bedford, and their familiar development patterns should be encouraged in suburban areas as well, by promoting mixed use forms and walkable neighborhoods. As Bedford County moves into the 21st Century, four forms of mixed-use are encouraged and recommended as follows:

Background and Findings

• The first type includes single buildings, or clusters of connected buildings, which incorporate two or more complimentary uses, as in the placement of offices or apartments above ground-floor retail businesses, a pattern common in many Virginia downtowns.

• The second type comprises areas where one well established use predominates, but where well placed complementary uses are appropriate. Examples include residential areas within which neighborhoods churches, schools, and corner stores can all be accommodated.

• The third type consists of centers with mixes of uses and activities that act as multi-purpose destinations. These centers are characterized by shared parking and strong pedestrian linkages, where a variety of activities such as shopping, dining and entertainment can be accommodated by a single trip. The introduction of housing into such mixed use centers has become a common feature in many parts of Virginia.

• The fourth type comprises large scale planned developments designed to integrate a variety of complementary uses. Examples include traditional neighborhood

Formatted: Space After: 16 pt

3

developments which simulate urban settings with a compact, walkable mix of varied housing types, as well as neighborhood shops, services, and other amenities. Likewise, office parks and employment centers incorporating complementary activities such as restaurants, recreation, health clubs, day care and other services to meet daily needs of workers and visitors are included in the category of planned mixed-use developments.

All of these forms represent substantial opportunities to promote a more diversified, sustainable pattern of land uses and activities in Bedford County. They are suitable both in urban areas in need of reinvestment and in suburban or fringe areas, where they provide a sustainable alternative and antidote to sprawl. Mixed use development, when properly planned and located, can help reduce automobile-dependent trips, promote a more walkable environment, and help expand the supply of higher density, affordable housing near employment and activity centers.

As noted in Chapter 9 of the Bedford County Comprehensive Plan, the County’s citizens are strongly committed to maintaining agricultural areas and protecting the natural environment, while supporting the development of community centers in appropriate locations that provide housing, jobs and community services. As a result, the Plan identifies and designates several growth areas based upon the Urban Service Area identified in the Water and Sewer Master Plan. Within these designated growth areas, the County has identified certain areas that are most suitable for receiving the bulk of the growth expected to occur over the next 10 to 20 years. These areas have been designated as Urban Development Areas.

Determining Factors

Within the UDAs, it is anticipated that all public spaces will become increasingly pedestrian friendly through a variety of measures promoted by Bedford County and in collaboration with other governmental agencies and the private sector. These may include the construction, improvement and maintenance of public squares, parks and pedestrian connections, and the attention to street design details such as landscaping, lighting, and provision of attractive street furniture. Residential, office, civic and commercial areas in the UDAs should have convenient access by foot and bicycle. Within the County’s UDAs, every effort should be expended to ensure that mixed use development is featured as the preferred land use pattern.

Incentives are the primary mechanism for directing growth toward the UDAs. Incentives can include placemaking amenities such as street lighting, landscaping, street furniture, sidewalks and trails that are provided at public expense within these areas alone. Such amenities would be in addition to the provision of community facilities and services such as water and sewer, schools and libraries. In addition to the provision of placemaking amenities, Bedford County will continue to provide timely review of development applications within the designated UDA. Other incentives may include the following concepts:

• Fast track permitting and plan review • Reduced application fees • Density bonuses

4

Each of these potential initiatives can encourage private investment of the type and pattern of development called for in this Comprehensive Plan. By reducing review timelines and application fees, and increasing revenue potential through density bonuses for locating within target areas, incentives can help implement the County’s vision through the normal development process. By offering such incentives only within UDAs, the feasibility of these areas for attracting future growth is increased, thereby enabling the County to meet established goals of reducing public costs and service needs while accommodating future population growth in a planned manner within the UDAs. Other applicable policies within the UDA are as follows:

1. Development within the UDA should function as a mixed use activity center with medium scale office, retail, service and civic uses, with higher density housing in the core. Development within the UDA should consist of 2 to 3 story buildings with minimal views of parking areas from the street.

2. Overall densities in the UDA should be village-like in terms of scale and intensity, with a mixture of high density mixed use development ranging from 8.0-12.0 dwelling units/acre (du/ac) residential units and 0.4 commercial floor area ratio (FAR) at the core, or most intense portion of the development, and 4.0-8.0 du/ac and 0.25 commercial FAR at the edges. The sought-after effect being one of a “transect” as illustrated below, or a transition away from the taller, denser core area toward a lower density development pattern at the fringe that is compatible with surrounding development.

The Transect

Lower Density Higher Density

3. Development within the Urban Development Area is intended to be efficient, compact, mixed-use and pedestrian-oriented with a range of residential densities,

5

providing active, passive, and natural open space that is fully integrated into the County’s rural areas through a network of connected trails and walkways.

4. The Urban Development Area will provide for a mix of land uses including dwellings, commercial and office uses, personal and household service establishments, institutional uses, public facilities, parks, playgrounds and other similar uses meeting the needs of the adjoining neighborhoods.

6

5. The land mix (measured as a percentage of the land area) in the Urban Development Area generally will comply with the following ratios:

Land Use Type Minimum Required

Maximum Permitted

a. High Density Residential 25% 40% b. Commercial Retail & Services 20% 45% c. Office 10% 25% d. Civic Uses 10% No Maximum e. Public Parks & Open Spaces 10% No Maximum

6. The development of Urban Development Areas should be phased to achieve

acceptable levels of transportation service through the available mix of transportation modes. An overall concept plan should be developed so the interrelationship of its parts (residential, commercial, office, civic, public open space, and transportation network) can be evaluated.

Analysis performed in response to the UDA mandate resulted in theBedford County has identification identified of 1,486 acres of vacant and underutilized land located on the outskirts of the City Town of Bedford and in the area of Moneta as ideal locations for urban development areas in Bedford County. The physical characteristics of the potential UDAs were analyzed for development potential, suitability for a mix of uses and the application of traditional neighborhood design principles. In addition, the area’s economic development potential and desirability for higher densities was also considered. The location of these areas within the County’s Urban Service Area for public water and sewer and their proximity to major transportation corridors make them highly suitable for designation as the County’s Urban Development Areas.

Future Land Use Designation

As required authorized by Section 15.2-2223.1 of the Code of Virginia, these areas are within the growth area boundary and are intendedcould to serve as a focal point for growth over the next 10-20 years. In keeping with the principles of traditional neighborhood design, development within the UDA will be compact and designed to accommodate pedestrian and vehicular traffic. It is also anticipated that a full complement of services and amenities as well as provision for transit facilities or stops will also be featured as density increases. The UDA land use category is expected to accommodate the following densities: 4 single-family residences, 6 townhouses, or 12 apartments, condominium units, or cooperative units per developable acre, and a commercial floor area ratio of at least 0.40 per developable acre, or any proportional combination of residential and commercial development. Within the UDA, design standards incorporating the principles of new urbanism and traditional neighborhood development are required facilitated through the use of the corresponding TND zoning district (PD-1 Planned Development District).

7

14.1 Encourage higher density and alternative housing types that meet the requirements principles for urban development areas mandated enabled in the Code of Virginia (§15.2-2223.1).

Objectives and Strategies

14A. Urban Development Areas. Designate Urban Development Areas within the

County’s designated growth area as requiredenabled by by the §15.2-2223.1 of the Code of Virginia.

14B. Zoning Ordinance Revisions. Develop Keep one or more new zoning districts (PD-1) for the UDA featuring traditional neighborhood design principles that will allow:

a. Mixed-use neighborhoods including mixed housing types and values accommodating all income levels of residents and workers in the County;

b. Integration of residential, retail, office and commercial development with public spaces and open spaces;

c. A built environment that encourages and accommodates people living, shopping, visiting, and enjoying time in the UDA;

d. Development densities that improve rates of walking, bicycling and transit use;

e. Proximity to public infrastructure including utilities, services, parks and similar facilities;

f. Bicycle and pedestrian-friendly street and road design;

g. Interconnection of new streets with existing local streets and roads in a logical network;

h. Design features that accommodate and prepare for an aging population within the County;

i. Preservation of environmentally sensitive areas;

j. Opportunities to redevelop existing underutilized and previously developed land;

k. Satisfaction of requirements for stormwater management through the use of low impact techniques such as bioretention areas, rain gardens, gravel wetlands, and pervious pavements;

l. Vehicular parking accommodated without dominating the streetscape or landscape;

m. Reduced front and side yard building setbacks; and,

n. Narrowed street widths and shorter turning radii at street intersections, in accordance with VDOT Secondary Street Acceptance Requirements (SSAR) standards.

Formatted: Font: Bold

8

14.2 Encourage a mixture of uses within the UDA in a pedestrian-oriented and pedestrian-

friendly manner.

14C. Small Area Plans. Develop a small area plan for the UDA that focuses on design, arrangement, and infrastructure while maximizing flexibility of uses.

14D. Zoning Ordinance Revisions. Develop a mixed use zoning classification which incorporates flexible land use guidelines, allowing residential densities of 4 dwelling units per acre or greater and commercial floor area ratios of 0.4 per acre or greater, with specific performance standards in the areas of:

a. Access management

b. Shared parking

c. Landscaping

d. Architecture and Urban Design

e. Pedestrian and bicycle access

f. Low impact storm water management

14E. Ensure the UDA promotes pedestrian activity by:

a. Making automobile related uses compatible with pedestrian activity

b. Creating on-street parking

c. Placing structures such that parking areas are located to the rear of structures

d. Providing that the area between buildings and the street be used for outdoor dining and other, similar pedestrian and public oriented uses

14F. Consider the use of form-based codes within designated UDAs.

14G. Within all or along access ways of significance, allow any combination of residential, office, and retail structures and use within the same structure, provided the structure meets design and building code requirements.

14H. Consider adopting regulations requiring that sidewalks be kept clear of obstructions and be cleared of obstructions within a reasonable but relatively short period of time.

14.3 Arrange land use designations so that the UDA witnesses has distinct and

discernablediscernible boundaries and that creates a sense of place.

14I. Utilize the existing transportation network and landforms as the basis for developing the UDA boundary.

14J. Promote infill development, including higher density development, within the UDA.

9

14K. Encourage the reuse of existing structures where appropriate.

10

Master Plan

Revision

Thomas Jefferson Crossing RZ060004

Presenter: Jordan Mitchell 540-586-7616 ext 1393

540-586-2059 (fax) jmitchell@bedfordcountyva.gov

MM EE MM OO RR AA NN DD UU MM

TO: Bedford County Planning Commission

FROM: Jordan Mitchell, CZO, Planner DATE: May 6, 2014 SUBJECT: Thomas Jefferson Crossing Master Plan Revision - VC Enterprises, LLC

VC Enterprises, LLC has proposed a revision to the master plan for Thomas Jefferson Crossings. This property was rezoned to PD-1 in November 2005 (RZ060004). The portion of the property in question is shown as “Commercial Area Five” in the Concept Plan approved in the rezoning. This area is indicated as being general office. The proposed amendment requests that the permitted use “Residence above 1st Floor Retail” in Commercial Areas One through Nine, be amended to allow for a residence above 1st

Floor Office. While such a change would allow for a residence above an office use in all Commercial Areas One through Nine, the applicant intends to utilize the amended use on Tax Map # 117-A-129D.

Section 30-67-6 of the Zoning Ordinance for the PD-1 zoning district requires “all revisions to a final master plan shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission”. The Planning Commission will need to determine if the proposed revision to the final master plan is major or minor. Major revisions shall be reviewed and approved following the procedure outline in Section 30-67-5 (Application Process for PD-1 District). Staff has attached Section 30-67-6 from the Zoning Ordinance which includes examples of what changes would be deemed a major revision. Minor revisions to the master plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission without the necessity of a public hearing. If you have any questions or concerns about this request, please contact me at (540) 586-7616, ext. 1393, or jmitchell@bedfordcountyva.gov. Attachments: Location Map Amendment Request – April 17, 2014 Section 30-67-6, PD-1 Planned Development District, Revisions to the Final Master Plan

HOMESTEAD DR

BRIDGER LN

FOREST RD

JEFFERSON DR W

CLOVERHILL BLVD

REYN

ARD

RU

N

MONT VIEW LN

REGIS LN

CROSSINGS CENTRE DR

BATE

MAN

BRI

DGE RD

AM

BASS

AD

OR

DR

PRESIDENTIAL CIR

SWEEN

EY CIR

EAST LAWN DR

JEFFERSON

OAKS CT

GOVERNORS LN

NEW

COM

B BLVD

COLLIN

GSW

OO

D CT

FORESTON DR

TM # 117-A-129D

Location Map - Tax Map Number 117-A-129D

Sec. 30-67. PD-1 Planned development district.

Sec. 30-67-6. Revisions to final master plan.

All revisions to the final master plan shall be reviewed by the planning commission. The planning commission shall determine if the revisions to the final master plan are major or minor. Major revisions shall be reviewed and approved following the procedures and requirements of section 30-67-5. Minor revisions shall be reviewed and approved by the planning commission. Major revisions include, but are not limited to changes such as:

(1) Any increase in the density of the development;

(2) Substantial change in circulation or access;

(3) Substantial change in the mixture of dwelling unit types included in the project;

(4) Substantial changes in grading or utility provisions;

(5) Substantial changes in the mixture of land uses or an increase in lot coverage or the amount of land devoted to nonresidential purposes;

(6) Reduction in the approved open space, landscaping or buffering;

(7) Substantial change in architectural or site design features of the development;

(8) Any other change that the zoning administrator finds is a major divergence from the approved final master plan.