Anda di halaman 1dari 98

AGENDA

BEDFORD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

County Administration Board Room


122 E. Main Street, Bedford, VA
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
7:00 p.m. – Regular meeting

1. Approval of Agenda

2. Approval of Minutes

3. Citizen Comment Period

4. Public Hearings:

a) Comprehensive Plan Text and Future Land Use Map Amendment for Forest and
New London Urban Development Areas

b) Rezoning Application Jefferson Meadows Subdivision


RZ180007 AR to R1

5. Old Business

6. New Business

7. Adjourn
PLANNING
COMMISSION
MINUTES
DRAFT

1 BEDFORD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES


2 April 17, 2018
3
4 The Planning Commission held a regular meeting Tuesday, April 17, 2018 in the Bedford
5 County Administration Building Boardroom with all Commissioners present. County staff
6 present was Mr. Patrick Skelley, County Attorney, Mr. Gregg Zody, Director of Community
7 Development, Mr. Jordan Mitchell, County Planner and Mrs. Patricia Robinson, Administrative
8 Manager.
9
10 Mr. Woodford called the meeting to order and determined a quorum was present to conduct
11 business. He moved to Item 1 Approval of Agenda and asked if there were any changes. Mr.
12 Zody stated Item 6a Subdivision Waiver request SD180110 under New Business is to be
13 removed. There being no additional changes Mr. Huff moved to approve the agenda as
14 amended. Mr. Steele seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 7-0.
15
16 Mr. Woodford moved to Item 2 Approval of Minutes and asked if there were any changes to the
17 minutes of March 20, 2018. There being none Mr. Huff made a motion to adopt the minutes as
18 presented. Mr. Tillett seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 7-0.
19
20 Mr. Woodford moved to Item 3 Citizen Comment Period and asked if there were any citizens to
21 speak regarding items not on the agenda. There being none Mr. Woodford closed the Citizen
22 Comment Period.
23
24 Mr. Woodford moved to Item 4a under Public Hearings regarding Rezoning Application
25 RZ180005 and asked for the staff presentation. Mr. Mitchell stated the property owner of both
26 parcels is Michael T. Seckman, Trustee, and Vicki Y. Seckman, Trustee, 1102 Clover Hill
27 Boulevard, Forest, VA. 24551. This request by Hanwah Azdel, Inc., C/O Christina Kim, Esq.,
28 2000 Enterprise Drive Forest, VA 24551 is to reclassify the zoning designation of a 2.762-acre
29 portion of a 12.001-acre parcel, Tax Map Number 118-A-14B, and a 1.651-acre portion of an
30 11.600- acre parcel, Tax Map Number 118-A-8A from R-3 (Medium Density Multi-Family
31 Residential) to I-2 (Higher Intensity Industrial District). The future land use designation for both
32 parcels is Mixed Use in the 2030 Bedford County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map.
33 The purpose of the R-3, Medium density multifamily residential district is to provide areas in the
34 county within the urban service area where existing middle-high density residential development
35 (typically four (4) to twelve (12) units per acre) has been established and land areas which
36 generally appear to be appropriate for such development. The R-3 is designated based on access
37 to major streets, sewer and water, and schools with suitable capacity to accommodate
38 development at the stated density, and where parcel sizes allow for well-planned residential
39 development. R-3 areas designated in this district are also intended to serve as a buffer between
40 less intensive residential areas and more intensive office, commercial and industrial areas and
41 districts. A variety of housing densities and styles is encouraged in order to permit a diversity
42 and flexibility in design and layout. Additional standards are established to provide for amenities
43 in higher density developments. The purpose of the I-2, Industrial district is to provide areas
44 within the urban service area which contain existing more intensive industrial uses or are suitable
45 for such activities. I-2 areas are designated based on the suitability of the land in terms of slope
46 and freedom from flooding and the relative remoteness and absence of substantial residential

Planning Commission Minutes 1 04/17/18


DRAFT

47 development which could be adversely affected by such development. In addition, the


48 availability of adequate sewer and water capacity, access to arterial road network, and proximity
49 to rail and airport facilities or the interstate highway system are major considerations.
50 Distributing these areas throughout the county in a planned manner to create employment centers
51 within close proximity to residential growth areas and reduce heavy traffic generation of
52 industrial uses is encouraged. The applicant has proposed to use the rezoned portion of the parcel
53 for an “Industry, Type II” use and a “Warehousing & Distribution” use. The subject property is
54 located at on the south side of Homestead Drive (Route 661) approximately 0.09 mile southwest
55 of the intersection of Homestead Drive and Enterprise Drive (Route 1415) in election district 4.
56 Voluntary proffers have not been offered by the applicant.
57
58 Questions/comments from the Planning Commission to Mr. Mitchell covered the following: (a)
59 impact on the Bedford County side of these properties is minimal (b) what is the prognosis on
60 the Lynchburg side regarding the zoning for the property, (c) only the rear portion of the
61 properties are requested to go to I-2 with the remaining portion being considered for rezoning to
62 C-2 under another rezoning application later in this meeting (d) could we have a barrier to block
63 the apartments view of the warehouse and (e) do we have any policies to prevent vegetation from
64 being disturbed when commercial or industrial projects abut residential areas. Mr. Mitchell
65 addressed the questions/comments from the Commissioners.
66
67 Mr. Woodford asked for the applicant’s presentation: Mr. George Boundarant, Chief
68 Manufacturing Office of Hanwah Azdel. He noted they have been planning for this expansion
69 for several years. They currently store their materials off site which is costly and this expansion
70 will reduce that cost in half. Mr. Boundarant stated they do not own the land and are therefore
71 requesting the rezoning of the property in Bedford County before going to the City of Lynchburg
72 for the expansion. If the land in Bedford County cannot be rezoned they cannot move forward.
73 The land in Lynchburg is not large enough for the proposed warehouse. He noted they employee
74 approximately 240 people of which 20% of those are Bedford County residents. The new
75 production line which is part of this expansion will create an additional 40 jobs in the next two to
76 three years. We do plan to install a vegetative buffer on both the Bedford County and City of
77 Lynchburg sides of the property.
78
79 One of Planning Commissions asked Mr. Boundarant what they manufacture. Mr. Boundarant
80 stated they manufacture thermoplastic composite sheets made in a small paper machine. The
81 sheets are consolidated into a board and then sold to molders who mold them into headliners for
82 use in automobiles headliners and sun visors. Approximately 75% of our business deals with the
83 automobile. Mr. Hank Creasy, Attorney for Hanwha Azdel stated there are no upgrades to
84 public infrastructure required for this project. Mr. Mitchell stated he had received quite a few
85 phone calls regarding the project. The individuals in the area did not have a problem with the
86 proposed rezoning. They were happy to hear that apartments were not being proposed. Mr.
87 Tillett asked if we had an owner authority letter from the current owner regarding the proposed
88 rezoning. Mr. Mitchell stated yes.
89
90 Mr. Woodford asked if there were any citizens to speak regarding the proposed application.
91 There being none Mr. Woodford closed the public hearing for RZ180005 and asked for
92 discussion and/or action by the Planning Commission.

Planning Commission Minutes 2 04/17/18


DRAFT

93
94 Mr. Tillett made a motion to recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of
95 Rezoning Application RZ180005 as presented. Mr. Dawson seconded the motion.
96 A roll call was taken. The motion carried with a vote of 7-0.
97
98 Mr. Woodford moved to Item 4b under Public Hearings Zoning Ordinance text amendment
99 regarding the Master Plan Safety Valve and asked for the staff presentation. Mr. Zody stated the
100 proposed zoning ordinance text amendment is a response to a recent situation where a property
101 owner in a PD-1 development sought a Master Plan Amendment to change the use from
102 Commercial to Townhomes. In order for the developer to proceed, he is required to receive
103 permission from the owner of the Master Plan to get authorization to proceed with the Master
104 Plan Amendment. The owner of the Master Plan is not willing to give permission to the
105 developer, yet has said that it's the developer's property. This situation has made it difficult, to
106 say the least, to balance the property rights of the property owner and the owner of the Master
107 Plan, while still moving development applications forward in a timely manner.
108
109 Staff discussed several options to remedy this situation, and the proposed amendment addresses
110 any future conflicts between a property owner and the owner(s) of a Master Plan by setting a
111 time limit on how long a property owner should wait for permission from the Master Plan owner.
112 Staff initially discussed this matter with the membership at the March 20th, 2018 meeting, and
113 the membership recommended changing the original time limit proposed by staff from ninety
114 days to sixty days for all PUDs, PRD, PCD, PID, and PD-1 wherein a developer should wait for
115 the owner of the Master Plan to either affirm or deny the amendment request before staff deems
116 that permission has been granted by virtue of silence from the Master Plan owner. The proposed
117 text amendment amends Sections 30-47-6, 30-57-7, 30-63-7 & 30-67-6 of the Bedford County
118 Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Zody stated he had not received any calls or visitors regarding the
119 proposed text amendment.
120
121 Question/comments from the Planning Commission to Mr. Zody covered the following: (a) is
122 there a personality conflict between the two individuals in this instance and (b) will this
123 grandfather in or will the owner have to go through the process again. Mr. Zody addressed the
124 questions/comments from the Planning Commissioners. If the proposed amendment is approved
125 the 60 day period would begin following approval by the Board of Supervisors at their public
126 hearing.
127
128 Mr. Woodford asked if there were any citizens to speak regarding the proposed text amendment.
129 There being none Mr. Woodford closed the public hearing for the proposed text amendment
130 asked for discussion and/or action by the Planning Commission.
131
132 Mr. Burdett made a motion to recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of
133 the proposed text amendment for the Master Plan Safety Valve as presented. Mr.
134 Tillett seconded the motion. A roll call was taken. The motion carried with a vote
135 of 7-0.
136
137 Mr. Woodford moved to Item 4c under Public Hearings for rezoning of properties in the
138 Forest area and asked for the staff presentation. Mr. Mitchell stated the Board of

Planning Commission Minutes 3 04/17/18


DRAFT

139 Supervisor initiated the rezoning of the parcels proposed on March 26, 2018 by a vote of 7-
140 0. Previously, the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor discussed the rezoning
141 of the subject parcels during a work session on July 10, 2017 and agreed that moving
142 forward with a rezoning of the subject parcels was in the best interest of the County in
143 order to promote commercial growth in the Forest area on properties where the current
144 zoning is not consistent with development patterns in the area. Mr. Mitchell noted he had
145 received phone calls regarding the proposed rezoning with positive responses from those
146 who called.
147
148 A brief discussion followed with Mr. Mitchell addressing questions from the
149 Commissioners regarding individual parcels reflected on the maps shown in the slide
150 presentation.
151
152 Mr. Woodford asked if there were any citizens to speak regarding the proposed text amendment.
153 Mr. John Barrett 1198 Gumtree Rd Forest, Va. spoke. His questions covered the following: (a)
154 what does changing from C1 to C2 actually accomplish and (c) what is the affect of the changes
155 to adjacent properties.
156
157 Mr. Mitchell stated C1 is basically an office district. Currently the Forest area is running out of
158 parcels zoned C2 which allows for more commercial development. The C1 area proposed for
159 rezoning does not seem that it will develop with offices. If rezoned the willingness of a property
160 owner to sell and the desire of a developer to purchase the property for a commercial venture
161 will dictate whether or not the area will change. If rezoned to the C2 district there will be a
162 larger variety of commercial uses allowed as well as any of the uses currently allowed in the C1
163 district.
164
165 There being no additional speakers Mr. Woodford closed the public hearing for the proposed text
166 amendment asked for discussion and/or action by the Planning Commission.
167
168 Mr. Tillett made a motion to recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of
169 the proposed rezoning of select parcels in the Forest area as stated in the staff
170 report. This includes the partial rezoning of tax maps 117-A-97 which fronts on Rt.
171 221 and tax maps 118-A-8A and 118-A-14B which front on Homestead Drive. Mr.
172 Dawson seconded the motion. A roll call was taken. The motion carried with a
173 vote of 7-0.
174
175 Mr. Woodford moved to Item 5 Old Business. There was no Old Business.
176
177 Mr. Woodford moved to Item 6b under New Business. He requested the staff presentation
178 for the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment for the definition and permitted use
179 districts regarding Hotel, Motel, Lodge and Extended Stay. Mr. Zody noted the proposed
180 amendment resulted as part of the motion made at the March 20, 2018 public hearings for
181 “Hotel [etc]”, where staff was directed to draft language that would fill the gap between
182 short-term rental and rentals at hotels, motels, and lodges for longer than thirty days. Staff
183 recommends this use for every district where “Hotel [etc]” are permitted by right.
184

Planning Commission Minutes 4 04/17/18


DRAFT

185 Question/comments from the Planning Commission to Mr. Zody covered the following:
186 (a) does this deal with our condo-tels and the condominium ownership of a unit, (b)
187 worried about people who want to develop the condominiums and have them as rental as
188 well, (c) condominium is just a form of ownership with any type of structure, (d) intent of
189 the use seems to have been met, (e) what is driving this text amendment (e) don’t think this
190 includes everything we want to accommodate, (f) does it require individual heating and
191 cooling, (g) less about the amenities and more about the basis on which it is marketed, sold
192 and how it is defined, (h) can they do short-term or long term rentals under this definition
193 and (i) if the definition is silent they would be permitted to operate on whatever basis they
194 want as long as it is not prohibited.
195
196 Mr. Burdett requested the following additions to the proposed amendment. Change to the
197 last sentence to read “Each room shall contain at a minimum accommodations for sleeping,
198 bathroom and a kitchen equipped with a full-sized refrigerator, built-in cooking facilities,
199 microwave, sink, dishwasher, cooking utensils, dishes and cutlery”.
200
201 Mr. Zody stated the proposed text was presented because we did not have a definition for
202 this use. He noted staff has seen several petitions come up which blur the line between
203 transient and non-transient hotel in his opinion as Zoning Administrator. Mr. Zody asked if
204 the Commission chooses to move the proposed amendment to public hearing.
205
206 Mr. Burdett made a motion to recommend moving to public hearing the proposed
207 text amendment with the recommended changes made tonight for the Hotel, Motel,
208 Logde, Extended Stay definition and the associated use table. Mr. Mays seconded
209 the motion. A roll call was taken. The motion carried with a vote of 7-0.
210
211 Mr. Woodford moved to Item 6c under New Business and asked for the staff presentation. Mr.
212 Zody stated he encourages the use of Food Trucks however it is not defined in the Zoning
213 Ordinance. Technically they are not legal unless we have a definition in the Zoning Ordinance
214 as well as a listed by zoning districts in the Permitted Use Table. Currently we issue a temporary
215 use permits for Food Trucks. Mr. Zody noted over the past few years, Planning staff has
216 processed an increasing number of temporary use permits for Food Trucks located throughout
217 the County although primarily in Forest. The issue at hand is that Food Trucks in certain
218 locations are creating traffic issues due to large number of these trucks on a single parcel, as well
219 as skirting regulations requiring a zoning permit for a temporary use. And what inevitably
220 happens is that the temporary use soon becomes a permanent use without the regulatory burden
221 that standalone, permanent restaurants must bear. Additionally, the Food Trucks and associated
222 vehicular traffic are taking parking areas required for the principal use at the site, which has
223 caused traffic overflow onto public roads, notably, US 221 creating a safety issue. While staff
224 wholeheartedly supports the notion of food trucks not only as an incubator of sorts for new food
225 businesses, but as a matter of convenience for consumers - it is staff's position that such a use
226 should be held to certain development and siting standards which are required of fixed, sit-down
227 restaurants, such as parking, seating, setbacks, etc.
228
229 For your consideration, staff is proposing a definition for Food Trucks and allowing them as an
230 accessory use in the same districts where restaurants are allowed by right. And in some districts,

Planning Commission Minutes 5 04/17/18


DRAFT

231 allow them by-right where drive-in, fast food restaurants are permitted through a special use
232 permit (AV, C-1, NC). Staff is not proposing the Food Trucks as a use be subject to a public
233 hearing process, but rather viewed as a by-right, permitted accessory use to an existing business.
234 Additionally, staff recommends that out of a sense of public safety, that no more than two or
235 three Food Trucks would be permitted on any allowable site (i.e. zoning district) provided that
236 minimal development standards are followed. Mr. Zody noted the staff report includes zoning
237 guidelines from Raleigh, NC and Rocky Mount, VA regarding Food Trucks.
238
239 Questions/comments from the Planning Commission to Mr. Zody covered the following: (a)
240 does the use change if a deck/dance floor has been built at a food truck site (b) how often are the
241 trucks inspected, (c) too many regulations will over burden and discourage the food truck
242 owners, (d) are the owners of the brick and mortar stores being bothered by the food truck
243 parking on their sites, (e) check with the City of Lynchburg and Roanoke County regulations
244 regarding food trucks and (f) would rezoning some of the road frontage along Rt. 221 to C2
245 General Commercial alleviate some of these issues and offer these food truck owners an
246 incentive to consider opening a brick and mortar store.
247
248 Mr. Zody and Mr. Mitchell of staff addressed the questions/comments throughout the discussion.
249 Mr. Zody stated he would speak with the Building Official regarding the deck built. Not all of
250 the food trucks are mobile. Some of the food trucks are stationary and do not move on and off
251 the site. The type of food being offered dictates which government agency is responsible for the
252 inspection of the trucks. Mr. Zody offered to prepare some draft language if that is the pleasure
253 of the Commission at a future meeting. The Commission agreed.
254
255 Mr. Woodford asked if there was any additional business to come before the Planning
256 Commission. Mr. Zody stated the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors will meet
257 jointly for a work session on Monday, May 14, 2018 regarding future growth. Staff will advise
258 the Commissioners of the agenda and the time of the work session.
259
260 There being no additional business Mr. Woodford called for motion to adjourn. Mr.
261 Burdett made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Dawson seconded the motion. The motion carried
262 with a vote of 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:21 pm.
263
264 Respectfully submitted,
265
266
267 __________________________________
268 Gregg Zody, Secretary
269
270 Approved by:
271
272
273 Tom Woodford, Chairman

Planning Commission Minutes 6 04/17/18


DRAFT

1 BEDFORD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES


2 June 19, 2018
3
4 The Planning Commission held a regular meeting Tuesday, June 19, 2018 in the Bedford County
5 Administration Building Boardroom with all Commissioners present. County staff present was
6 Mr. Patrick Skelley, County Attorney, Mr. Gregg Zody, Director of Community Development
7 and Mr. Jordan Mitchell, Mrs. Mariel Fowler, Mr. Mark Jordan, County Planners.
8
9 Mr. Woodford called the meeting to order and determined a quorum was present to conduct
10 business. Mr. Zody stated staff recommends moving items 3a and 3b and have them follow item
11 3g under Public Hearings. There being no additional changes Mr. Burdett moved to approve the
12 agenda as amended. Mr. Dawson seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 7-0.
13
14 Mr. Woodford moved to Item 2 Citizen Comment Period and asked if there were any citizens to
15 speak regarding items not on the agenda. There being none Mr. Woodford closed the Citizen
16 Comment Period.
17
18 Mr. Woodford moved to Item 3c under Public Hearings regarding Rezoning Application
19 RZ180007. He opened the public hearing and asked for the staff presentation. Mr. Mitchell
20 stated the applicant Everett Road Investments, LLC P.O. Box 15151 Lynchburg, VA 24502 is
21 requesting to rezone a 92.28-acre portion of Tax Map Number 115-A-13 from AR
22 (Agricultural/Residential district) to R-1 (Low Density Residential district) for the purpose of
23 developing the property with 94-100 lots for the construction of single family homes. The
24 property is 100.73 acres in size is located at 2841 Everett Road in Election District #7. The
25 property owner of the subject parcel is Rita Creasy Moorefield & June Masencup, 1082
26 Cobblestone Lane, Forest, Virginia, 24551. The authorized agent for the applicant is Trent
27 Warner (Hurt and Proffitt), 2524 Langhorne Road, Lynchburg, Virginia 24501. Mr. Mitchell
28 stated a proffer was received from the applicant after the staff report was provided to the
29 Planning Commissioners. The proffer states “We will build the site in accordance with the plan
30 within this parcel and provide interconnectivity as shown. The connection at the end of the
31 project near Lot 30 will not be made due to the flood plain and terrain conditions. The
32 interconnection from this project will be extended near Lot 40 to serve TMP 134-A-1A”. Mr.
33 Mitchell offered to answer any questions from the Planning Commissioners. There were no
34 questions from the Planning Commissioners to Mr. Mitchell.
35
36 Mr. Woodford asked for the applicant’s presentation. Mr. Trent Warner spoke on behalf of the
37 applicant. Mr. Warner provided an overview of the project requesting 94-100 lots for single
38 family homes. He noted a traffic study had been conducted and submitted to Virginia
39 Department of Transportation (VDOT) for approval. He estimates approximately 1,000 more
40 vehicles out on Everett Road. This end of Everett Road does not see the traffic like the south end
41 of Everett Road. No turn lanes were required to come into the entrance. The improvement
42 necessary was to modify the radius where Everett Road comes into Gladden Circle. An
43 easement has been worked out with the original property owner to allow us to grade back for site
44 distance at the entrance from Everett Road. The development will be served by public water and
45 private drainfields. There is a potential stream crossing which we will need to delineate as we
46 develop. Other environmental issues will be mitigated with the applicable agency as the plans

Planning Commission Minutes 1 06/19/18


DRAFT

47 are further developed. Mr. Warner offered to answer questions from the Planning
48 Commissioners.
49
50 Questions from the Commissioners covered the following: (a) what is the price point of the
51 homes, (b) what school district will this affect, (c) has anyone had a conversation with the
52 Thomas Jefferson personnel as to the impact on the school district, (d) can the school handle the
53 proposed increase, (e) how will Jefferson Forest High School be affected in the future (e) do we
54 know if the Forest Middle School expansion has been approved and how much it will impact the
55 enrollment, (f) do we have a rough estimates of the number of students it will hold following the
56 expansion, (g) by 2021 what percent of the project will be complete, (h) concerned about the
57 narrowness of the road and (i) will the existing buildings on the property be remain.
58
59 Kevin Shotwell, the developer stated the homes would cost between $380,000 and $450,000.
60 Mr. Mitchell stated the property will affect the Thomas Jefferson school district. This is
61 probably the one school district that could handle the increase. Jefferson Forest High School will
62 see the increase as the public advance into high school. Mr. Boggess, County Administrator
63 stated the Forest Middle School expansion had just been discussed by the School Board. They
64 have now appointed an architect for the project. A rough timeline for the project completion
65 could be 2021. This is contingent upon approval of funding by the Board of Supervisors. Mr.
66 Boggess stated he could provide more information to the Commissioners regarding the middle
67 school as it was part of the scope of the RFP. Mr. Warner noted we are not doing a phasing
68 plan. The idea is to build the infrastructure at one time. Mr. Shotwell he anticipates building
69 approximately 30 lots a year. Mr. Warner addressed some information regarding the single lane
70 bridge proposed for improvements which could impact the developer’s schedule. The existing
71 structures on the property will be removed.
72
73 Mr. Woodford asked if there were any citizens to speak regarding the proposed application. The
74 following individuals spoke: Carmen P. Evans & Woody Edwards 3723 Everett Road, Melanie
75 Mott 302 Casaloma Dr, Jeffrey Mosher, Todd Winterfeldt 1415 High Grove Lane and Robert
76 Lucas 1484 Cedar Rock Dr all of Forest, Va. Mr. Woody Edwards read into the record a letter
77 he had sent to individuals at Mt. Haven and Kensington regarding the proposed application.
78
79 The concerns raised covered the following: (a) lot size should be 5 acre minimum on backside
80 of southern property line, (b) stormwater management plan, (c) lot size in front should be 1 acre,
81 (d) impact on Everett Road and wood like to see the traffic study, (e) traffic impact, (f) suburban
82 sprawl, (g) utility concerns, (h) properties contiguous to this proposal are a minimum of 5 acres,
83 (i) small area for the number of homes proposed, (j) tough economy, (k) be stewards of the land,
84 (l) 5 subdivision already in this area, (m) where is the need for these homes, (n) no proposed
85 sewer lines for this area, (o) very narrow road, (p) blind corners on road, (q) accidents waiting to
86 happen, (r) 100 lots with private septic systems, (s) justification for the rezoning is laughable, (t)
87 don’t want to become a Lynchburg city and (u) decrease the size of the lots.
88
89 Mr. Woodford asked if the applicant would like to offer any rebuttal. Mr. Warner noted the
90 request is to rezone from AR to R1. The property being rezoned adjoins existing R1 zoning.
91 The developer will be required to submit a stormwater management plan with the county.
92 Drainfields are not uncommon in subdivisions and could possibly decrease the number of lots we

Planning Commission Minutes 2 06/19/18


DRAFT

93 can develop. The developer will make the improvements at Gladden Circle as required by
94 VDOT.
95
96 There being no additional speakers Mr. Woodford closed the public hearing and asked for
97 discussion and/or action by the Planning Commission. Discussion by the Commission covered
98 the following: (a) what is the average lot size in Kensington and Cedar Rock, (b) shortage of lots
99 in the Lynchburg and Forest area, (c) concerned more individuals will travel toward Gladden
100 Circle where the roads are not the best with a one lane bridge, (d) development is appropriate (e)
101 additional traffic, (f) consider creating larger lots and (g) impacts on schools.
102
103 Mr. Tillett made a motion to recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of
104 Rezoning Application RZ180007 as presented with the voluntary proffer from the
105 developer. Mr. Burdett seconded the motion. Mr. Tillett offered several statements
106 in support of the application. A roll call was taken. Mr. Tillett, Mr. Burdett and
107 Mr. Steele voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Huff, Mr. Mays, Mr. Dawson and Mr.
108 Woodford voted against the motion. The motion failed with a vote of 3-4.
109
110 Mr. Tillett stated a motion to deny the application was needed since the motion to approve failed.
111 The County Attorney, parliamentarian for the Planning Commission, stated the failed motion is a
112 denial of the application. Mr. Tillett stated he disagreed.
113
114 Mr. Woodford moved to Item 3c under Public Hearings regarding Rezoning Application
115 RZ180007. He opened the public hearing and asked for the staff presentation. Mrs. Fowler
116 stated 460 West, LLC is requesting to rezone two parcels: 1) A 2.52-acre parcel (Tax Map
117 Number 152-A-37D); and 2) a 4.46-acre parcel (Tax Map Number 152-A-37E) from split-zoned
118 AV (Agricultural Village Center district) and R-1 (Low-Density Residential district) to I-1 (Low-
119 Intensity Industrial district) to allow "Retail Sales" and "Automobile Repair Services, Major"
120 uses in the existing facilities on the aforementioned parcels. The parcels are located at the
121 southeast intersection of East Lynchburg-Salem Turnpike (Route 460) and Blackwater Road
122 (Route 668) in Forest. Tax Map Number 152-A-37D is located at 9775 East Lynchburg-Salem
123 Turnpike (Route 460) and it is 2.52 acres in size. Tax Map Number 152-A-37E is located at 1092
124 Blackwater Road (Route 668) and it is 4.46 acres in size and in Election District #3. The owner
125 is represented by Mr. Terry Dobyns, 1888 Blackwater Road, Forest, Virginia, 24551. The
126 engineer and authorized agent is Doyle Allen of Hurt & Proffitt, Inc. 2524 Langhorne Road,
127 Lynchburg, Virginia 24501. Mrs. Fowler offered to answer questions from the Planning
128 Commission.
129
130 Questions/comments from the Commissioners to Mrs. Fowler covered the following: (a) is a
131 buffer required for the storage of the vehicles for repair.
132
133 Mrs. Fowler stated if the property is rezoned the use will be by right. The applicant would then
134 submit a site plan for review and will be required to meet any buffer requirements per the Zoning
135 Ordinance.
136
137 Mr. Doyle Allen of Hurt & Proffitt provided the applicant’s presentation. He stated the property
138 will be leased back to One Source Truck Center. This facility will be temporary storage of truck

Planning Commission Minutes 3 06/19/18


DRAFT

139 chassis of forestry maintenance trucks for detailing and possible minor tune ups. They hope to
140 rent the building on the front parcel along Rt. 460 for a commercial use. No buildings have been
141 added to the property instead repairs have been made to the existing buildings. We are not
142 proposing any screening along Blackwater Road or Rt. 460. Mr. Allen stated the developer will
143 comply with the screening requirements as per the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant currently
144 owns the adjoining property tax map 152-A-32 which contains approximately 30 acres. The
145 request does comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Allen offered to answer any questions
146 from the Planning Commissioners.
147
148 Mr. Woodford asked if there were any citizens to speak regarding the application. There being
149 none, Mr. Woodford closed the public hearing and asked for discussion and/or action by the
150 Planning Commission.
151
152 Mr. Steele made a motion to recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of
153 Rezoning Application RZ180009 as presented. Mr. Dawson seconded the motion.
154 A roll call was taken. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0.
155
156 Mr. Woodford moved to Item 3c under Public Hearings regarding Rezoning Application
157 RZ180010. He opened the public hearing and asked for the staff presentation. Mr. Burdett
158 asked the parliamentarian if the public hearings for the Rezoning and the Special Use Permit
159 could be combined into one but still taking separate votes for the two issues. Mr. Skelley stated
160 that would be fine.
161
162 Mr. Burdett made a motion to combine the public hearings for rezoning application
163 RZ180010 and Special Use application SU180004. The Commission will
164 deliberate and act on each application separately. Mr. Steele seconded the motion.
165 A roll call was taken. The motion carried with a vote of 7-0.
166
167 Mr. Mitchell stated Logan and Brandie Thomas are requesting to rezone a 50.498-acre portion of
168 Tax Map Number 134-A-11 from R-1 (Low Density Residential district) to AR
169 (Agricultural/Residential district) RZ180010. The applicants have not offered any proffers with
170 the rezoning application. Additionally the applicants are applying for a Special Use Permit
171 SU180004 for the purpose of establishing a “Conference Center” use. The applicants intend to
172 construct their residence, a guest cottage, and a barn structure to host weddings (indoor and
173 outdoor) on the parcel. The parcel 97.625 acres in size is located at the corner of Terrace View
174 Road (Route 705) and Bellevue Road (Route 643) in Election District #3. The property owner of
175 the subject parcel is Terrace View Farm and Land, LLC, 828 Main Street, 15th Floor, Lynchburg,
176 Virginia 24504. The authorized agent for the applicant is Doyle Allen (Hurt and Proffitt), 2524
177 Langhorne Road, Lynchburg, Virginia 24501. Mr. Mitchell stated a subdivision plat reflecting
178 the lots reflected on the concept plan is currently in the Division of Planning for review and will
179 need to be approved before this request goes before the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Mitchell
180 offered to answer questions from the Planning Commission.
181
182 Questions/comments from the Commission to Mr. Mitchell covered the following: (a) why the
183 condition regarding the parking area and barn,
184

Planning Commission Minutes 4 06/19/18


DRAFT

185 Mr. Mitchell noted the condition was due to the impact on the adjoining properties. The primary
186 location applied for is extremely close to the adjoining properties. A wedding venue near those
187 property lines staff thought could not be mitigated by a buffer.
188
189 Mr. Woodford asked for the applicant’s presentation. Mr. Doyle Allen stated the original request
190 was for a Special Use Permit in an R-1 district. However the applicants wanted to have an
191 outside venue as well. An outside venue is not allowed is not allowed in an R-1 district thus
192 resulting in the rezoning request of the property to an AR district. The rezoning is a down
193 zoning resulting in less density than in an R-1 district. An R-1 district could be 50 – 100 homes
194 on 50 acres. The applicants plan to live on the site and have a wedding venue with a barn style
195 structure for receptions. The traffic would not be a peak hours. Peak hours for the weddings
196 would be on weekends. Mr. Allen offered to answer any questions from the Planning
197 Commission.
198
199 Questions/comments from the Commissioners to Mr. Allen covered the following: (a) is this a
200 conference center or a wedding venue, (b) can the property be used for both a conference center
201 and wedding venue, (c) why show two locations on the concept plan for the barn and parking
202 spaces, (d) lots 2, 3 & 4 on the concept plan are currently undeveloped and (e) do we need to
203 concern ourselves with possible future development particularly on lot 4 regarding the location
204 of the alternate barn and parking location.
205
206 Mr. Allen noted the Conference Center is the Use classification a wedding venue falls under.
207 The primary use will be for an outdoor wedding venue although it could be used for a conference
208 center as well. Until we get to more detail planning these locations are conceptual. We needed
209 to see what reactions would be received regarding the proposed locations particularly the one
210 near the residential dwellings. The property has a beautiful view of the mountains so we are
211 trying to take advantage of that view. The view of the mountains cannot be seen from the
212 proposed alternate location in the middle of the concept plan. Would the Commission consider
213 designating a distance from the property line from which the original location of the barn and
214 parking lot must meet? Mr. Allen stated he could provide information he knows as of today
215 regarding lots 2, 3 & 4. The 41 acre tract (lot 4) is currently under contract. The proposed
216 owner has purchased the parcel 134-A-11A as well as the 41 acre parcel for his protection. Mr.
217 Allen stated he does not know what their plans are for the parcel.
218
219 Mr. Woodford asked if there were any citizens to speak regarding these applications. The
220 following individual spoke; Joyce Weldon, 2816 Terrace View Road Forest, Va. Her comments
221 covered the following: (a) live across Terrace View Road from the parcel for the rezoning and
222 special use request, (b) in support of both requests, (c) Joyce Preston stated her husband Weldon
223 Preston spoke with Carolyn Phelps who was in favor of both of the Thomas’s requests. There
224 being no additional speakers Mr. Woodford closed the public hearing and asked for discussion
225 and/or action by the Planning Commission.
226
227 Mr. Steele made a motion to recommend to the Board of Supervisor approval of
228 Rezoning application RZ180010 as presented. Mr. Tillett seconded the motion. A
229 roll call was taken. The motion carried with a vote of 7-0.
230

Planning Commission Minutes 5 06/19/18


DRAFT

231 Mr. Steele made a motion to recommend to the Board of Supervisor approval of
232 Special Use Permit SU180004 as presented. Mr. Dawson seconded the motion.
233
234 Mr. Tillett asked if we need to consider a change to condition # 4 in the staff report to give the
235 applicant’s a little more flexibility in the location of the barn and associated parking. Do we
236 need to remove the condition or possibly reword the condition? Mr. Burdett noted his concern
237 with site one is its vicinity to the adjoining residential property. My concern with outdoor
238 activities is the noise neighbors would have to contend with. Could the location of the building
239 and the parking lot locations be flipped? This would place the building is closer to the ingress
240 road. Mr. Allen stated he could work with the meeting hall facility 120’ from the property line.
241
242 Mr. Steele made a motion to amend his original motion of recommending to the
243 Board of Supervisors approval of Special Use permit SU180004 as presented. The
244 amendment to his motion was to remove staff condition # 4 and require location 1
245 for the barn (meeting hall) facility and associated parking be located 120 feet from
246 the property line. Mr. Tillett seconded the motion. A roll call was taken. The
247 motion carried with a vote of 7-0.
248
249 A roll call was taken on the original made by and amended by Mr. Steele. The
250 motion carried with a vote of 7-0.
251
252 Mr. Woodford moved to Item 3g under Public Hearings regarding Special Use Permit
253 SU180003. He opened the public hearing and asked for the staff presentation. Mr. Mitchell
254 stated Verizon Wireless is requesting a special use permit to construct a 150-foot tall monopole
255 tower with the purpose to expand and enhance Verizon cellular coverage and services in the area.
256 The proposed tower will be located on Tax Map #149-A-23 and is zoned AR (Agricultural
257 Residential district). The tower compound area (60’ x 60’) will be surrounded by an eight (8)
258 foot tall chain link fence with barbed wire (three strands) to prevent unauthorized entry into the
259 compound area. Verizon will place all ground equipment that will be utilized for the co-location
260 within the compound area with the rest of the compound area available for future co-locations on
261 the tower. Additional shelters and/or ground equipment will be added to the compound area
262 when wireless providers co-locate on the tower (capacity for three additional wireless providers
263 to co-locate on tower). The property is located at 1285 Flagstone Loop, a private road that is
264 accessible from E. Lynchburg Salem Turnpike (Route 460), approximately 1.72 miles east of the
265 Town of Bedford. The property is 75.74 acres in size and is in Election District 7. The property
266 owner is Christopher D. and Kristin N. Waskey, 1285 Flagstone Loop, Bedford, Virginia 25523.
267 The applicant is Verizon Wireless, C/o Stefanie Lewis, 1813 Rady Court, Richmond, Virginia
268 23222. The authorized agent for the applicant is Stephen Waller, AICP, 8159 Cancun Court,
269 Gainesville, Virginia 20155. The engineer for the applicant is Engineering Concepts Inc., C/o
270 Scott Caldwell, PE, 94 Greenfield Street, Daleville, Virginia 24083. Mr. Mitchell offered to
271 answer questions from the Planning Commission. There were no questions for Mr. Mitchell
272 from the Planning Commission.
273
274 Mr. Woodford asked for the applicant’s presentation. Mrs. Lori Schweller, Attorney with
275 LeClair Ryan 123 East Main Street Suite 100 Charlottesville, Va. spoke on behalf of the
276 applicant. Mrs. Schweller provided a review of the project to include access to the site location

Planning Commission Minutes 6 06/19/18


DRAFT

277 and a view of the monopole and the tower compound. She provided pictures of the site elevation
278 and antenna arrays. Mrs. Schweller showed a propagation map which reflected Verizon
279 coverage from other existing sites and where there is only marginal service. This proposed tower
280 site will provide more coverage where there is currently only marginal service. Mrs. Schweller
281 offered to answer questions from the Planning Commission. There were no questions for Mrs.
282 Schweller from the Commission.
283
284 Mr. Woodford asked if there were any citizens to speak regarding the application. The following
285 individuals spoke: Mike and Nancy Blatnik 1277 Flagstone Loop Bedford, Va.
286
287 Comments from the speakers covered the following: (a) we are the closest home to the tower
288 site, (b) tower will affect our view, (c) what kind of health concerns are there with towers, (d)
289 noise factor, (e) how visible will the lighting be at night, (f) can they add to the tower height
290 without any special permits, (g) how does a tower in your backyard affect property values, (h)
291 what type of screening around the compound, (i) applicant stated an easement on our property
292 will be used and (j) our understanding was there would be a separate road and not cross over our
293 property.
294
295 Mr. Woodford asked the applicant for any rebuttal. Mrs. Schweller noted the only noise would
296 be from a generator on site located 720’ from the Blatnik residence in the event of an electrical
297 outage. As a result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 there are federal standards for cell
298 towers and all providers must comply with these standards. Local governments are absolved
299 from the obligation to consider health standards as they are pre-empted by federal law. There
300 will not be any lighting on this facility at all since it is not within 500 miles of an airport. If any
301 lighting there may only be one light over the door by the equipment for a technician and there
302 may not even be that lighting. Verizon does not have any plans to ask for any additional height
303 for this tower. Commissioner Burdett noted if someone in the future were to request additional
304 height on this tower they would be required to come back thru the Special Use Permit process to
305 amend staff condition # 1. Mrs. Schweller stated on the studies she has read regarding property
306 values of parcels on which cell towers have been erected have not found negative impacts. We
307 have proposed planting trees along the access road between the access road and the site and the
308 Blatnik property. The easement is not on the Blatnik property. It is on the subject property and
309 the neighbor to the south. We have easements from the subject property owners and the
310 neighbors to the south. She noted she cannot address the view from the Blatnik’s deck would be.
311 We would have to have been there when the balloon test was conducted.
312
313 There being no additional speakers Mr. Woodford closed the public hearing and asked for
314 discussion and/or action among the Commission. Mr. Woodford turned the meeting over to Vice
315 Chairman Mays as this application is in Mr. Woodford’s district. Mr. Mays asked if there were
316 any comments. Mr. Steele noted a house with high tension wires by it just sold for $500,000. I
317 wouldn’t worry about the property value. Mr. Woodford agreed. He noted the county recently
318 had a meeting about broadband in the county. This tower will help the county in that effort. Mr.
319 Mays asked if there was a motion regarding this application.
320

Planning Commission Minutes 7 06/19/18


DRAFT

321 Mr. Woodford made a motion to recommend to the Board of Supervisor approval of
322 Special Use Permit SU180003 as presented. Mr. Tillett seconded the motion. A
323 roll call was taken. The motion carried with a vote of 7-0.
324
325 Mr. Mays turned the meeting back over to Mr. Woodford. Mr. Woodford moved to item 3a and
326 opened the public hearing for Special Review Project SRP180001 and asked for the staff
327 presentation. Mr. Zody noted the Code of Virginia § 15.2-2232 and Section 30-23 of the
328 Bedford County zoning ordinance require localities to confirm that proposed public projects not
329 shown in the adopted Comprehensive Plan be reviewed by the Planning Commission to
330 determine if the facility is in conformance with the Plan. Bedford County [Department of Public
331 Works] has requested a determination for whether the construction of a convenience center is
332 “substantially in accord with the adopted Comprehensive Plan” of Bedford County. The
333 proposed site is adjacent to the former Thaxton Elementary property to the east. Bedford County
334 is seeking a determination of substantial conformance with the Comprehensive Plan (the Plan)
335 for the construction of a new solid waste and recycling convenience center to replace the existing
336 center currently located behind Thaxton Market. The applicants' reason for the relocation of a
337 convenience center is because the current facility lacks recycling services and is difficult for
338 citizens to ingress/egress given its location. The parcel (Tax Map 107-A-101A) associated with
339 is request is zoned Agricultural Village Center (AV) and in Election District 6. Mr. Zody offered
340 to answer questions from the Commission. Additionally Mr. Sheldon Cash, Director of Public
341 Works offered to answer any questions.
342
343 Questions/Comments from the Planning Commission to Mr. Zody covered the following: (a)
344 visited the site and did not see signage for the public hearing. Mr. Zody noted signage for the
345 public hearing is not required; however the public hearing was advertised in two newspapers.
346
347 Mr. Woodford asked if there were any individuals to speak regarding the application. Mr.
348 Jimmy Cundiff 2054 Wheatland Rd Bedford, Va. spoke. He stated this application is a great
349 idea and he supports the application. There being no additional speakers Mr. Woodford closed
350 the public hearing and asked for discussion and/or action by the Planning Commission.
351
352 Mr. Mays made a motion to recommend to the Board of Supervisor approval of
353 Special Review Project SRP180001 as presented as it is in compliance with the
354 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Huff seconded the motion. A roll call was taken.
355 The motion carried with a vote of 7-0.
356
357 Mr. Woodford moved to item 3b and opened the public hearing for the Zoning Ordinance text
358 amendment regarding Extended Stay and asked for the staff presentation. Mr. Zody noted as
359 discussed at the April 17th, 2018 Planning Commission meeting, staff drafted a proposed
360 ordinance to address "extended stay" lodging as part of the motion made at the March 20th,
361 2018 public hearing for the "Hotel [etc.]" definition (passed by the BOS at their April 23rd, 2018
362 meeting). After discussion at the April [17th] Planning Commission meeting, the Membership
363 suggested two additions, which staff incorporated into this draft and double-underlined below.
364

Planning Commission Minutes 8 06/19/18


DRAFT

365 If approved, this use and subsequent definition is a separate use than the existing "Hotel,
366 motel, motor lodge" use, yet it would be permitted by right in the same districts as "Hotel,
367 motel, motor lodge":
368
A A R- R- R- R- PR RM C- PC I- I- PI E
USES AV C-2 NC
P R 1 2 3 4 D H 1 D 1 2 D P
Hotel/Motel/
Motor Lodge, R R R R R R R R
Extended Stay
369
370
371 Proposed Text Amendment:
372 "Hotel, motel, motor lodge, extended stay" means a building or buildings containing six
373 or more guest rooms or suites, offering temporary residence for compensation and
374 specifically constructed, licensed, and/or maintained, all or in part, for non-transient
375 extended stays and/or stays longer than 30 days, regardless of the presence of leases for
376 shorter periods of time for individuals who have their domicile established at another
377 permanent residence. Each room shall contain, at a minimum, accommodations for
378 sleeping, a bathroom, and a kitchen equipped with a full-sized refrigerator, built-in
379 cooking facilities, microwave, sink, dishwasher, cooking utensils, dishes and cutlery.
380
381 Mr. Zody offered to answer questions from the Planning Commission. Questions/comments
382 from the Commission to Mr. Zody covered the following: (a) remove the words “full-sized”
383 regarding refrigerator and (b) don’t think we need to mandate a dishwasher. There being no
384 citizens to speak Mr. Woodford closed the public hearing and asked for discussion and/or
385 action by the Commission.
386
387 Mr. Burdett made a motion to recommend to the Board of Supervisor approval of
388 Zoning Ordinance text amendment regarding Extended Stay with the removal of the
389 word “full-sized” in front of the word refrigerator and the word “dishwasher” in
390 front of the words cooking utensils. Mr. Dawson seconded the motion. A roll call
391 was taken. The motion carried with a vote of 7-0.
392
393 Mr. Woodford moved to item 4 Old Business. There was no Old Business.
394
395 Mr. Woodford moved to item 5 New Business regarding discussion of proposed zoning
396 ordinance text amendments and asked for the staff presentation on item 5a – Manufactured
397 Homes in R-1. County Administrator Carol Boggess stated this is technically Old Business since
398 the Commission has already discussed this issue in March 2018. The recommendation of the
399 Planning Commission has not been taken to the Board of Supervisors at this time. Mr. Boggess
400 noted his biggest concern of the action taken by the Planning Commission was the allowance of
401 Class A Manufactured Homes in R-1 districts especially in election district 4. In the last seven
402 years there have been six mobile homes in district 4. Forest is getting close to be developed.
403 There will be lots that haven’t been developed and individuals could look to infill these lots with
404 Class A manufactured housing. We have had patterns of development for over 20 years. A
405 major concern regarding the R-1 district could be the Chamblissburg area. If you are concerned

Planning Commission Minutes 9 06/19/18


DRAFT

406 about the R-1 district in this area you want to consider a down zone in that area. Mr. Boggess
407 stated he does not think it is wise practice to put Class A doublewide housing the R-1 districts in
408 Forest and north of the Town of Bedford especially those with a pattern of development. Mr.
409 Boggess stated the changes proposed by the Commission may result in some unintended
410 consequences.
411
412 Mr. Burdett stated there were other areas of District 2 zoned R-1 in addition to the
413 Chamblissburg area. He noted Hendricks Store Road area as an example. Mr. Woodford asked
414 Mr. Boggess do you not think private covenants won’t protect other homeowners. Mr. Boggess
415 suggested looking at this issue more broadly, determine what areas are appropriate for Class A
416 housing and determine what are other ways are there to address this other than putting these
417 homes in R-1 districts. Mr. Mays asked what areas are appropriate for Class A housing. Mr.
418 Boggess stated some of the Goodview area and Hendricks Store Road area and some of the R-1
419 area north of the Town of Bedford. Mr. Woodford noted some subdivisions don’t have a HOA
420 or POA but have private covenants. Who would enforce those if an individual goes against the
421 covenants? Mr. Boggess stated an individual homeowner(s), HOA or POA could take an
422 individual to court regarding the covenants.
423
424 Mr. Woodford noted the Commission has heard what Mr. Boggess has had to say. The
425 Commission already took a vote on the issue which was discussed in several meetings. Mr.
426 Dawson noted we dissected this issue line by line. Mr. Dawson asked what the holdup was of
427 the recommendation moving forward to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Boggess stated you
428 advertised one thing in January and acted on something different in March. The advertisement
429 may not have been appropriate. Mr. Skelley stated from a strictly legal perspective you voted on
430 something less restrictive than what was advertised. If it went to court it would probably hold,
431 but from the public’s perspective do they see that as we are approving doublewide homes in R-1.
432 As advertised you are probably more likely to draw a law suit. The more prudent thing would be
433 to re-advertise if you chose to and mention what is up for discussion. The Board is not sure that
434 the public was fully aware even though you went less restrictive that what was advertised of
435 what was be contemplated by the Commission. Mr. Dawson asked what made the Board
436 members think this. Did people call or come in? Mr. Tillett asked were Class A homes allowed
437 in R-1 previously as a use by right. Mr. Zody noted they were under strict conditions.
438 Discussion continued regarding the pros and cons of the Class A doublewide homes in R-1 with
439 varying opinions being offered. Mr. Woodford asked Mr. Skelley if the Commission was under
440 a time limit for resolving this issue. Mr. Skelley stated no.
441
442 Mr. Steele made a motion to table the issue of Class A Manufactured Home in R-1
443 district to a future meeting.
444
445 Mr. Tillett asked if the Board had concerns about this why did they not send it back to us. Mr.
446 Boggess stated he had major concerns about the advertisement. Mr. Tillett stated the impression
447 we were put under at the beginning of this conversation was that the Board had concerns. Mr.
448 Steele stated we have a motion on the floor. Mr. Boggess noted he had spoken with several
449 Board members but it is was more of the County Administrators concerns about putting it on the
450 Board’s agenda. He has not received a directive from the Board one way or the other. Mr.
451 Tillett stated the Planning Commission had voted on the issue and that is on the Boards table.

Planning Commission Minutes 10 06/19/18


DRAFT

452 Mr. Tillett asked Mr. Skelley asked the procedure the Commission would need to follow
453 regarding the possible re-discussion or not of this issue. Mr. Woodford stated this will not be
454 resolved tonight. We can wait and see what the Board does and determine our action.
455
456 Mr. Dawson seconded the motion. A roll call was taken. The motion carried with a
457 vote of 7-0.
458
459 Mr. Woodford moved to the discussion on a proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment regarding
460 Bed and Breakfast and asked for the staff presentation. Mr. Jordan stated the proposed text
461 amendment is to amend the definition of a bed and breakfast to the language in the state code.
462 The definition for a Bed and Breakfast would read “Any establishment (i) having no more than
463 15 bedrooms; (ii) offering to the public, for compensation, transitory lodging or sleeping
464 accommodations; and (iii) offering at least one cooked meal per day, which may but need not be
465 breakfast, to each person to whom overnight lodging is provided. The facility shall have an on-
466 premises sign describing it as a Bed and Breakfast and shall clearly describe itself as a Bed and
467 Breakfast in all marketing materials”. Modifications if necessary to the Article IV Design
468 Standards will conducted at a later date. This amendment concerns only the definition. Mr.
469 Jordan offered to answer questions from the Planning Commission.
470
471 Mr. Burdett made a motion to move the proposed text amendment to public hearing.
472 Mr. Dawson seconded the motion. A roll call was taken. The motion carried with a
473 vote of 7-0.
474
475 Mr. Zody noted staff did not have any items to come before the Commission at the July 2018
476 meeting and suggested cancelling that meeting. The Commissioners agreed to cancel the July
477 17, 2018 meeting.
478
479 Mr. Tillett made a motion to move the text amendments for Food Trucks and Storage
480 Containers to Old Business to a subsequent meeting due to the late hour and anticipated
481 lengthy discussions of the subject matter. Mr. Steele seconded the motion. A voice vote
482 was taken. The motion carried with a vote of 7-0.
483
484 Mr. Woodford moved to the discussion on the proposed Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance text
485 amendments regarding Historic Overlay, Landscaping Bond and Immediate Family and asked
486 for the staff presentation. Mr. Mitchell reviewed the information provided in the meeting packet.
487 The change to Historic Overlay is to change the name “Board of Zoning Appeals” to “Board of
488 Supervisors”. The change to the Landscaping Bonds would be to no longer require a
489 maintenance bond be posted for landscaping estimates that are less than $2,000.00. Additionally
490 to amend the landscaping standards and specification chart to remove “Intermediate Evergreen
491 Tree” from the tree types listed in the char and replace it with “Small Evergreen Tree”. The
492 change to Immediate Family is to amend the definition to the language in the state code.
493
494 Mr. Burdett made a motion to move the proposed text amendment to public hearing.
495 Mr. Dawson seconded the motion. A voice vote was taken. The motion carried
496 with a vote of 7-0.
497

Planning Commission Minutes 11 06/19/18


DRAFT

498 Mr. Burdett made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Steele seconded the motion. The
499 meeting was adjourned at 10:06 pm.
500
501 There being no additional business Mr. Burdett made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Steele seconded
502 the motion. The motion carried with a vote of 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:06 pm.
503
504 Respectfully submitted,
505
506
507 __________________________________
508 Gregg Zody, Secretary
509
510 Approved by:
511
512
513 __________________________________
514 Tom Woodford, Chairman

Planning Commission Minutes 12 06/19/18


Proposed
Forest-NewLondon
UDA
Comprehensive Plan
Text Amendment

Presenter: Gregg Zody


540-586-7616 ext 1252
540-586-2059 (fax)
gzody@bedfordcountyva.gov
C
COOU
UNNTTY
YOOFF B
BEED
DFFO
ORRD
D,, V
VIIR
RGGIIN
NIIA
A
C OUNTY ADMINISTRATION B UILDING GREGG B. ZODY, AICP
DIRECTOR
122 E AST M AIN S TREET , S UITE G-03
B EDFORD , V IRGINIA 24523
_________________________________________

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT


DIVISION OF PLANNING

TO: Planning Commission

FROM: Gregg Zody, Director of Community Development GZ

DATE: August 9th, 2018

SUBJECT: Forest - New London UDA Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment

Staff has drafted text language to amend Chapter 14 of the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate two proposed
Urban Development Areas (UDAs) in Forest and New London, and to incorporate the two proposed UDA
boundaries into the future land use map.

The purpose of a UDA is to promote the concept known as smart growth through Traditional Neighborhood
Design (TND) concepts, which focuses on better transportation planning at the local level to avoid traffic
safety and congestion issues and flawed development design that created the current issues faced by
residents in those areas. Furthermore, the UDA designation improves a locality's score when applying for
transportation funding to improve existing road conditions through the Smartscale application process.

BACKGROUND
In early 2016, staff suggested studying the Forest Area to the Board of Supervisors due to concerns about
the impacts of growth on roads, schools, and other public services (fire and rescue, law enforcement, water
and sewer) in the Forest area, costs that are borne by all taxpayers in the County.

The County was awarded grant funding by the State (Office of Intermodal Planning Initiatives, OIPI) in late
2016 to study the Forest area in order to determine the appropriateness of a UDA to promote smart growth.
Work began in early 2017 to draft a report through a consultant working with staff and a Steering
Committee that involved two community public input meetings.

The first community meeting at the Forest Recreation Center in early 2017 had very little attendance; but in
October, 2017, the concept of UDA's for the two proposed areas in Forest and New London generated
controversy amongst residents of the area during a heavily attended community meeting held at the Forest
Library. The controversial nature of the second meeting was due to several factors, most notably was the
community perception that the County was going to bulldoze homes in cul-de-sacs in order to connect with
adjacent cul-de-sacs in adjacent developments.

In reality, interconnectivity between existing developments was merely a long-range concept proposed in the
Route 811 Corridor Study and incorporated into an initial draft presentation to the PC and BOS, which was
roundly rejected during a joint presentation to both bodies in September, 2017. After the second community
meeting, staff told the consultant to remove any reference to interconnectivity between existing
developments as that was not the intent of the UDA study.

A draft was delivered to staff in February 2018, and in the interim, staff has directed the consultant to make
minor amendments to the plan, which is in the final format before the Planning Commission.

_________________________________________

540-586-7616 -TELEPHONE 540-586-2059 -TELEFACSIMILE gzody@bedfordcountyva.gov - E-MAIL


www.bedfordcountyva.gov
CO
C UN
OU YO
NTTY BE
OFF B OR
DFFO
ED D,, V
RD RG
VIIR NIIA
GIIN A
________________________________________________________

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT


DIVISION OF PLANNING
Page 2

CONCLUSION
If a developer was interested in a mixed use development on property forty acres or greater in one of the
proposed UDAs, they would need to apply for a rezoning to Planned Development (PD-1) and incorporate
the principles of Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND), with emphasis on interconnectivity, sidewalks,
and accommodating alternative modes of transportation to reduce vehicular traffic on existing roads.

While there is undoubtedly concern in the community about burdening developers with additional
development regulations, sidewalks (Sec. 31-364) and interconnectivity (Sec. 31-264(f)) are already
required in the Subdivision Ordinance, and there is already an existing zoning district created solely for
UDAs, PD-1, as mentioned in the previous paragraph. In essence, there are no new regulations associated
with this Comprehensive Plan amendment, except for those developers wishing to develop a mixed use
project on forty acres or greater within the proposed UDA boundaries.

In sum, it is staff's professional opinion that adoption of the proposed UDA boundaries is one of the few
tools available to localities created by VDOT to enhance a community's score when applying for
transportation funding to improve existing roads through the Smartscale application process. It promotes
smart growth concepts through TND, which will help decrease traffic on already overburdened roads in the
area by encouraging village centers, interconnectivity, pedestrian-friendly design, and open space
preservation.

Most importantly, a UDA does not change the zoning nor directly impact property rights of existing
property owners.

Staff has attached the draft language to amend Chapter 14 of the Comprehensive Plan which reflects the
inclusion of the two areas contained in the [Draft Report February 2018] Bedford County Urban
Development Areas. Staff posted the attached study containing the boundaries on the County website on
July 2, 2018. As of this writing, no member of the public has contacted staff regarding the report.

Attachments: 1) Excerpted 2030 Comprehensive Plan - Chapter 14 – Urban Development Areas proposed
language amendment;
2) Proposed UDA boundaries for Forest and New London (2 pages);
3) [Draft Report February 2018] Bedford County Urban Development Areas

CC: G. Carl Boggess, County Administrator


Patrick J. Skelley, County Attorney
Board of Supervisors
CO
C UN
OU YO
NTTY BE
OFF B OR
DFFO
ED D,, V
RD RG
VIIR NIIA
GIIN A
________________________________________________________

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT


DIVISION OF PLANNING
Page 3

Attachment 1

Chapter 14, Page 161

Future Land Use Designation


Bedford County has identified 1,486 acres of vacant and underutilized land located on the outskirts of
the Town of Bedford and in the area of Moneta as ideal locations for urban development areas in
Bedford County. Additionally, emerging growth patterns in the Forest and New London areas of the
County have affected transportation and school capacities, raising issues about interconnectivity between
development, as well as water and sewer availability and the limits of development in these two areas
adjacent to the Lynchburg metropolitan area. The approximate size for each these two areas are 819 acres
in Forest, and 1,049 acres in New London, for a total area of 1,868 acres. 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.

As authorized by Section 15.2-2223.1 of the Code of Virginia, these areas are within the growth area
boundary and could 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
facilitated through the use of the corresponding TND zoning district (PD-1 Planned
Development District).
CO
C UN
OU YO
NTTY BE
OFF B OR
DFFO
ED D,, V
RD RG
VIIR NIIA
GIIN A
________________________________________________________

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT


DIVISION OF PLANNING
Page 4

Attachment 2- Proposed Forest UDA


CO
C UN
OU YO
NTTY BE
OFF B OR
DFFO
ED D,, V
RD RG
VIIR NIIA
GIIN A
________________________________________________________

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT


DIVISION OF PLANNING
Page 5

Attachment 2- New London UDA


DRAFT Report | February 2018

BEDFORD COUNTY
Urban Development Areas
Contents &
Acknowledgements

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Steering Committee:
Byan Key (Bedford Regional Water Authority)
Elmer Hodge (Bedford Regional Water Authority)
Brian Casella (Virginia Department of Transportation)
Todd Daniel (Virginia Department of Transportation)
Gary Case (Gary W Case and Company)
Fred Fralick
Doug John (Apocalypse Ale Works)
Jack Jones Jr. (Bedford County Fire & Rescue)
Mac Duis (Bedford County Schools)
Gary Hostutter (Bedford County Schools)
Mike Miller (Bedford County Sheriff Department)
Wyatt Woody (Bedford Couty Parks & Recreation Department)
Steve Wilkerson (Board of Supervisors)
Josiah Tillett (Planning Commission)

Bedford County Planning Staff:


Gregg Zody
Jordan Mitchell
CONTENTS

04
Introduction

06
Urban Development Areas (UDAs)
& Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND)

12
UDA Project Context
& Boundary Determination Process

20
Urban Design Framework for
Forest & New London UDAs
& Focus Areas


Introduction
-05

INTRODUCTION

In September 2016, the County of Bedford received approval By legislation, UDA areas strongly encourage new development
from the Virginia Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment to follow Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) design
(OIPI) for the provision of technical planning services focused on principles (see description of TND below) and promote increased
the designation of one or more Urban Development Areas (UDA). overall multimodal interconnectivity to create walkable, compact
Based on this award, Bedford County worked with a consultant communities.
team from the Virginia firm, Rhodeside & Harwell Inc., to analyze
existing conditions, host stakeholder interviews, site visits and Following the development and adoption of each UDA boundary,
public meetings to determine two UDA boundaries. Bedford County will have increased priority consideration
for funding of Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Supporting the goals of the Virginia UDA program, the County and transportation projects within the UDA boundaries.
consultant team worked collaboratively to devise a conceptual
framework aimed at accommodating at least 10 years of projected
growth within the Forest and New London areas of the County.


Urban Development
Areas (UDAs)
-07

WHAT IS AN URBAN DEVELOPMENT AREA (UDA)?

As defined by the UDA legislation (HR § 15.2-2223.1.), Urban and pedestrian networks, (iv) preservation of natural areas,
Development Areas: (1) Are areas that may be appropriate for (v) mixed-use neighborhoods, including mixed housing types,
development at the minimum per acre density ranges stated with affordable housing to meet the projected family income
in the legislation and specified in section 3 below. (2) May be distributions of future residential growth, (vi) reduction of front
sufficient to meet projected residential and commercial growth in and side yard building setbacks, and (vii) reduction of subdivision
the locality for an ensuing period of at least 10 but not more than street widths and turning radii at subdivision street intersections.
20 years, which may include phasing of development within these (5) The Virginia General Assembly has directed that transportation
areas. (3) Shall be reexamined and, if necessary, revised every improvements to support UDAs be considered in both the
five years in conjunction with the review of the comprehensive needs assessment contained in the Commonwealth’s long-
plan and in accordance with the most recent available population range plan (known as VTrans), as well as in the HB2 statewide
growth estimates and projections. (4) Shall incorporate principles prioritization process for project selection. VTrans focuses on
of Traditional Neighborhood Design (see description of TND below) a multifaceted strategy that recognizes the importance of the
which may include but need not be limited to: (i) pedestrian- Corridors of Statewide Significance, Regional Networks, and Urban
friendly road design, (ii) interconnection of new local streets Development Areas to help maximize the Commonwealth’s public
with existing local streets and roads, (iii) connectivity of road transportation investments.


Traditional
Neighborhood
Development (TND)

WHAT IS TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD


DEVELOPMENT (TND)?

All development within the overall UDA boundary must, as 3 A mix of uses within the context of a Traditional
a minimum, meet the overall Commonwealth’s mandated Neighborhood Design concept, to include:
requirements for Urban Development Areas. These include: (1) Road, street and building locations that create
walkable neighborhood centers
1 Densities per acre on the developable acreage of at least (2) Interconnected local streets and roads, both
four single-family residences, six townhouses, or 12 existing and new, in order to form a walkable/
apartment/condominium units per acre. bikeable street network
(3) A diversity of land uses as a mixed-use concept
(4) Facilities that allow for, and encourage,
2 A minimum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) that exceeds 0.4 per
multimodal access (public transit, biking, walking,
acre for commercial development.
jogging) to work, home, shops, and recreation
-09

PRECEDENT:
PROVIDENCE | HUNTSVILLE, AL

Situated on 275 acres, Providence, a master-planned development,


is a mixed use community that is situated near Huntsville’s growing
Cumming Research Park. The community is designed to respect the
landscape and is embedded between two active creeks. Anchoring
the community on one end is the town center, which contains
residential units and offices above retail shops. When complete,
its town center will host 80,000 sf of retail space, 180,000 sf of
office space, a hotel and cinema. At Providence’s other end is a
new K-8 public school. Outside of its town center, Providence hosts
of a series of neighbohood clusters containing a variety of housing
types. Each neighborhood is anchored by small parks, which are
connected via greenways and pedestrian-scaled streets.

Town Center (source: Village of Providence)

Apartments Over Retail (source: Providence Place)

Single Family Homes (source: @Homes Reality)

(source: DPZ Partners)




PRECEDENT:
PLEIN AIR | TAYLOR, MS

Located within several miles of the University of Mississippi’s main


campus in Oxford, Plein Air is a small-scale mixed-use community.
Its developer’s intention is to grow the community organically with
buildings that are designed to be different yet complimentary.
While there’s a range of housing types in Plein Air, its homes are
united by front porches, pedestrian-scaled streets, and public
open spaces. When complete, Plein Air’s village center will host
20-30 local businesses flanked by 200 residences. Mixed among
its new businesses, the village center will also house loft style
apartments, offices, and civic institutions. Plein Air is intended to
support social connectedness and maintain a small town feel.

Village Chapel (source: The Mill at Plein Air)

Village Center (source: Plein Air Taylor)

Single Family Homes (source: Plein Air Taylor)

(source: Google Maps)

FUTURE
NEIGHBORHOOD

VILLAGE
CHAPEL

VILLAGE
GREEN &
CENTER

FIRST FUTURE
NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPS/RESTAURANTS
-011

PRECEDENT:
HAMPSTEAD | MONTGOMERY, AL

Located eight miles southeast of Downtown Montgomery,


Hampstead is a phased mixed-use development established in
2008. Similar to other TND communities, Hampstead is anchored
by a mixed-use village center and green. While not yet fully built
out, the village center hosts numerous civic amenities such as a
YMCA, public library branch, and Montessori School, in addition
to a variety of shops, offices, and apartments. Surrounding the
village center are homes designed for a range of residents. The
community is already subdivided as of 2008, yet all new homes
are designed and built individually to provide building variation.
Following all other TND communities, Hampstead’s streets are
designed for pedestrians and encourage walking and biking.

Village Green (source: Hampstead Living)

Single Family Homes (source: Business Alabama) Town Homes (source: Hampstead Living)

(source: Google Maps)


HAMPSTEAD
LAKE
SINGLE
FAMILY
HOMES

TOWN
HOMES

VILLAGE
GREEN &
CENTER

FUTURE
NEIGHBORHOOD


UDA Project Context


-013

PROJECT CONTEXT

Bedford County is predominately rural and has extensive natural Several UDAs have already been designated within Bedford
beauty. The County is nestled southeast of the Blue Ridge County, but none of these UDA boundaries include the County’s
Mountains and has easy access to natural and heritage resources developing eastern edge. Bedford County’s proximity to Roanoke
such as the Blue Ridge Parkway, James River Face Wilderness and Lynchburg has increasingly spurred suburban growth,
Park, Smith Mountain Lake and Thomas Jefferson’s Poplar Forest especially near its eastern edges along Routes 221 and 460. Given
Estate. The County is strategically located between the Roanoke development pressure, the County is interested in designating
and Lynchburg metropolitan areas. Its County seat, the Town of one ore more additional UDA’s to balance the need for additional
Bedford, is centrally located and is equidistant between Roanoke high-quality development with strategically preserving natural
and Lynchburg along the County’s primary highway, Route 460. resources around the Forest and New London areas.

PUBLIC OUTREACH/ENGAGEMENT

The County hosted three Steering Committee meetings, two community meetings,
and two presentations to the Bedford County Board of Supervisors.

1 February 2nd, 2017 | Steering Committee Meeting - Scoping, Kickoff & Existing Conditions

2 February 2nd, 2017 | Public Meeting 1 - Kickoff & Existing Conditions

3 June 14th, 2017 | Steering Committee Meeting - Draft UDA Boundaries

4 September 25th, 2017 | County Board of Supervisors Presentation - Draft Focus Area Concepts

5 October 5th, 2017 | Steering Committee Meeting - Revised Boundaries and Focus Area Concepts

6 October 5th, 2017 | Public Meeting 2 - Revised Boundaries and Focus Area Concepts

7 August 2018 | County Planning Commission Public Hearing - UDA Comprehensive Plan Ammendment Adoption

8 September 2018 | County Board of Supervisors Presentation - UDA Comprehensive Plan Ammendment Adoption


UDA Boundary
Determination Process
-015

BOUNDARY DETERMINATION

Working with County staff and a 14-person Steering Committee, a During the UDA boundary designation process, County staff
series of UDA boundaries were developed and revised. Following and stakeholders mentioned the following themes: (1) future
discussions based on both site visits and existing conditions development should be focused along undeveloped areas along
analyses, it was determined that any new UDAs should focus Thomas Jefferson Road, (2) water/sewer infrastructure must
around Route 221 (Forest Road), Route 460 (Lynchburg Salem be considered when planning for new development, (3) where
Turnpike) and Route 811 (Thomas Jefferson Road). These were feasible, encourage more interconnected roadway and sidewalk
felt to be the areas under the greatest pressures for development, connections between Routes 221 and 460, (4) plan for additional
and are adjacent to crucial roadways for residents commuting school accommodations to address future growth per community
to Lynchburg. Following collaboration with County staff and request, and (5) maximize new publicly accessible park space
stakeholders, two finalized UDA boundaries were selected: Forest along Thomas Jefferson Road.
UDA and New London UDA (Figures 1). Figure 2 further illustrates
the rationale for selecting these UDAs.


UDA FINAL BOUNDARY MAP

FIGURE 1

FOREST UDA

NEW LONDON UDA


-017

UDA BOUNDARY RATIONALE MAP

FIGURE 2

FOREST UDA RATIONALE

The Forest UDA’s southern boundaries are


drawn to exclude pre-existing/established
residential communities and land preserves
like Thomas Jefferson’s Popular Forest. Its
northern boundaries are drawn to include
Forest’s existing village center while
excluding the agricultural preserve north of
Route 221.

NEW LONDON UDA RATIONALE

The New London’s boundaries are drawn to


include existing commerical areas along
Route 460 while excluding established
residential areas to the north and west, and
industrial areas to the east.


FOREST UDA ITERATION 1

FIGURE 3
-019

FOREST UDA ITERATION 2

FIGURE 4

BOUNDARY DETERMINATION (CONTINUED)

Figures 3 and 4 (above) represent UDA boundary iterations that (requires extensive parcel consolidation), (4) overly complex
were NOT selected. These boundaries were excluded based on the water/sewer jurisdiction with City of Lynchburg, (5) insufficient
following: contains (1) too few undeveloped parcels to allow for water/sewer infrastructure, (6) parts of an agricultural/forest
the desired minimum UDA densities within a scale appropriate for preserve, (7) the presence of stable residential neighborhoods,
the area, (2) overly complex property ownership (smaller parcels and/or (8) active industrial land.
shared by too many owners), (3) inadequately sized parcels


Urban Design Framework


-021

FOREST & NEW LONDON UDAs:


URBAN DESIGN FRAMEWORK

The urban design frameworks for the both Forest and New London 5 Protect existing green space and environmentally sensitive
UDAs include the following recommendations: land throughout the corridor. Where feasible and available,
include recreational trails along this network of green
1 Establish the Thomas Jefferson Road corridor (buffered) as space. These connections should, however, only be made
each UDA’s developmental spine. as part of an extensive community engagement process, to
allow for property rights concerns, environmental concerns,
2 Encourage the design and development of supporting, and any other issues to be openly discussed and resolved.
parallel multimodal routes along Thomas Jefferson Road to
connect existing and future development. 6 All existing and future roadways throughout the UDAs
should incorporate multimodal access for pedestrians
3 Consolidate future residential development to create a and cyclists and follow ‘Complete Streets’ guidelines as
cohesive network of clearly identifiable neighborhoods. applicable, and as these connect to existing public rights
of way.
4 Where feasible, reconfigure existing land parcels and
organize/cluster future subdivisions around common 7 Emphasize new development around the two designated
green spaces. When possible, these green spaces should be focus areas, centered at corridor gateways, major roadway
connected to an overall green network. intersections, regional parks or community supported
public institutions.


UDA Focus Areas


FOCUS AREAS OVERVIEW MAP While the Forest and New London UDAs establish very general

FIGURE 5 development standards for each area (described in section 3), the
UDA Focus Areas have been defined to provide precedent “models”
for the types of development feasible in each UDA using Traditional
Neighborhood Design (TND) Principles. As such, these Focus Area
examples offer more specific guidance for future growth within
specific areas in each UDA. Hypothetical land-use scenarios for
these two Focus Areas (Figure 5) are described below:

FOCUS AREA 1:
THOMAS JEFFERSON ROAD
This focus area (Figure 6) is located just south of Forest’s
historic Village and immediately adjacent to Thomas Jefferson
Elementary School. Working with two large parcels, a future,
clustered development could be established with townhouses
and single-family houses arranged along a linear park. This
development scenario would preserve existing forested areas as
a buffer between existing neighborhoods and roadways. Such
a development concept would promote active transportation,
especially for students who could walk to Thomas Jefferson
Elementary School, and would also provide additional usable
green space while preserving the scale of development prevalent
in the area.

FOCUS AREA 2:
ROUTE 460
This focus area (Figure 7) straddles Route 460 and is bordered on
the east by Thomas Jefferson Road and London Downs Golf Club.
This development scenario could allow for additional commercial
areas along Route 460 with consolidated and limited vehicular
access points to facilitate buffers from, and safe access by,
vehicular traffic along Route 460. Based on future treatments of
Route 460, new neighborhoods flanking 460 in this development
concept could function as one single development parcel or two
separate developments. In either scenario, this concept would
promote a mix of residential types and commercial uses, and allow
for easy and safe access to both new and existing green spaces.
-023

FOCUS AREA 1

FIGURE 6

BUILDING TYPE DEFINITIONS


These UDA Focus Areas do not explicitly prescribe land-use
or zoning recommendations, given the contantly changing
nature of development in Bedford County. Instead, these Focus
Areas provide “building type” recommendations that relate
to potential Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND)
building arrangements. “Village Center”, “Village General”, and
FOCUS AREA 2 “Village Edge” are the three categories used. “Village Center”
refers to a mix of building uses that might include stores, shops
FIGURE 7 or restaurants on the first level with residences or offices on
the floors above. “Village General” refers to buildings like town
homes or structures that contain more than one residence per
structure. “Village Edge” typically refers to buildings such as
single-family homes.
REZONING
APPLICATION
RZ180007

Reclassification of property
from AR to R-1

Presenter: Jordan Mitchell


540-586-7616 ext 1393
540-586-2059 (fax)
jmitchell@bedfordcountyva.gov
MEMORANDUM

TO: Planning Commission

FROM: Jordan Mitchell, Planner

DATE: July 27, 2018

SUBJECT: Rezoning Application #RZ180007: Everett Road Investments, LLC

SYNOPSIS
Everett Road Investments, LLC are requesting to rezone a 52.4-acre portion of Tax Map Number 115-A-
13 from AR (Agricultural/Residential district) to R-1 (Low Density Residential district) for the purpose of
developing the property with 50+/- lots for the construction of single family homes. The property is
located in Election District #7.
BACKGROUND
Applicant/Property Owner
The applicant is Everett Road Investments, LLC, P.O. Box 15151, Lynchburg, Virginia 24502. The
property owner of the subject parcel is Rita Creasy Moorefield & June Masencup, 1082 Cobblestone
Lane, Forest, Virginia, 24551.

Authorized Agent/Engineer
The authorized agent for the applicant is Trent Warner (Hurt and Proffitt), 2524 Langhorne Road,
Lynchburg, Virginia 24501.

Location
Tax Map Number 115-A-13 is located on Everett Road, adjoining property addressed as 2841 Everett
Road to the north. The property is 85.2 acres in size according to the application.

Proposed Change
The applicant has requested a rezoning of a 52.4-acre portion of Tax Map Number 115-A-13 from AR to
R-1 for the purpose of establishing developing the property with 50+/- lots for single family homes
(“Detached, Single Family Dwelling” use).

ANALYSIS
Zoning/Land Use Compatibility
Tax Map Number 115--13 is zoned AR and is currently being used for agricultural purposes (enrolled in
County Land Use Taxation program). Properties in the surrounding area (within a 1 mile radius) are
zoned AR, R-1, PRD (Planned Residential Development district), and AV (Agricultural Village Center
district). The uses of neighboring properties include agricultural, residential, or remain undeveloped.

1
Zoning Ordinance
The purpose of the AR and R-1 zoning districts are as follows:
AR district
The purpose of the AR district is to maintain these areas essentially in their rural state,
consistent with the level of services anticipated by the county. These areas are generally
characterized by very low density residential and institutional uses mixed with smaller
parcels that have historically contained agricultural uses, forest land and open space
outside the urban service area. These areas provide an opportunity for rural living in
convenient proximity to urban services and employment. Agricultural uses should be
encouraged to be maintained however, over time these areas are expected to become
increasingly residential in character, with residential development becoming the dominant
use over agricultural and more rural type uses.
R-1 district
The R-1, Low density residential district is established for areas of the county within the urban
service area with existing low-middle density residential development, with an average density
of from one (1) to three (3) units per acre, and land which appears appropriate for such
development. The R-1 district is intended to provide the highest degree of protection from
potentially incompatible uses and residential development of a significantly different density,
size, or scale, in order to maintain the health, safety, appearance, and overall quality of life of
existing and future neighborhoods. In addition to single-family residences, only uses of a
community nature which are generally deemed compatible and permitted in the R-1 district.
This would include parks and playgrounds, schools, and other similar neighborhood activities.
The AR zoning district limits how many divisions of a parent parcel (parcel as it existed when Zoning
was adopted) are permitted, ranging from 9 to 13 divisions of the parent parcel (depending on which
options are chosen by the developer) in addition to 10 family divisions of a parent parcel. The R-1
zoning district will permit the parent parcel to be divided as many times as possible so long as the
proposed new lots meet the minimum lot standards of the R-1 zoning district.

Planning analyzed the average lot size of nearby subdivisions to subject property. Using Geographic
Information System (GIS), the following information is provided for comparison to the average lot size
for the proposed subdivision (average of 1.01 acres) shown on the concept plan:
• Kensington (Section 1-3, and 5) – 0.91 acres
• West Crossing (Sections 1-3) – 1.51 acres
• Lake Manor Estates – 0.93 acres
• Cedar Rock (Sections 1-4) – 0.86 acres

Comprehensive Plan
The Bedford County 2030 Comprehensive Plan contains goals and objectives that relate to this
rezoning request. They include:

Land Use:
2
An Orderly, efficient, and compatible growth and land use pattern that is sensitive to the natural
environment.
9.1 Future Development directed to areas already or proposed to be served with adequate public
facilities that is compatible with and sensitive to the natural environment

The Future Land Use map identifies the subject parcel as “Residential”, with the surrounding area
(within a 1 mile radius) also designated as “Residential”. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan Land Use
designation is excerpted below:
Residential
Residential areas located in close proximity to urban services and roads capable of handling higher
traffic volumes. These are areas for single-family detached and attached units and
apartments/condominiums. Small-scale neighborhood and/or lifestyle commercial (such as small
convenience markets and marinas) is allowed where appropriate in this zone. Clustering of housing
units is supported in this district.

Voluntary Proffers
The applicant has not submitted voluntary proffers for review with this rezoning request. Staff has
attached a permitted use table showing the uses that may be established on the property should the
property remain zoned AR or rezoned to R-1. The property could be used for any of the uses listed
should the applicant be able to meet all use general standards from Article IV of the zoning ordinance.

Project Impacts
While the rezoning itself will not have impacts, the proposed use of the properties will have impacts.
With 50+/- new single family homes being requested on a property that would have yielded a
maximum of 9-13 lots (not including family lots) with the existing zoning will certainly increase the
impacts on public schools, fire/rescue services, and nearby roadways.

According to information received from Mac Duis, Chief Operations Officer for Bedford County Public
Schools (“BCPS”), all schools in the Forest are zone are expected to be over, at, or near capacity with
the exception of Boonsboro Elementary School and Jefferson Forest High School for the 2019/2020
school year. Increases in enrollment would likely require the BCPS to redistrict students into other
zones or add classroom space through building additions. Currently, residents of the newly proposed
subdivision would attend Thomas Jefferson Elementary School, Forest Middle School, and Jefferson
Forest High School.

In order to estimate the amount of school age children (“SAC”) and public school children (“PSC”) that
this development would create, the following table created by County and BCPS staff was used to
determine the impact on the project area schools:

Housing Household School-Age Public School


Housing Type Size (bedrooms) size (HS) Children (SAC) Children (PSC)
Single-family detached 3 bedroom 2.75 0.60 0.50
4 bedroom 3.75 1.15 0.90
Single-family attached 2 bedroom 2.00 0.15 0.13
(Townhouse) 3 bedroom 2.75 0.45 0.40
3
Multifamily (5+ unit 0-1 bedroom 1.50 0.15 0.13
structures) 2 bedroom 1.75 0.13 0.10

Using the table above, the following SAC and PSC are estimated for 50+/- single family detached
homes:
• 3-bedroom
o Estimated 30 school age children
o Estimated 25 public school children (likely to attending public school)
• 4-bedroom
o Estimated 58 school age children
o Estimated 45 public school children (likely to attending public school)

Traffic Impact Analysis


The traffic impact analysis for this development came to the conclusion that the traffic impacts of the
development would be minimal at nearby intersections. The report concluded the following:

Existing and 2021 no build conditions:


• Improvements identified in the LTL farms traffic study will be implemented (full build-
out inclusive of VDOT projects as identified) this includes 200’ storage and 200’ taper at
westbound left turn lane at intersection #1 (Route 221/Gladden Circle (E))
• Existing Everett Road does not meet modern design standards in terms of width.
However, there is no evidence of crash or safety problems in the vicinity of the
proposed development (per the crash summary).

In the 2021 build conditions:


• Approximately 500 new daily trips, 40 new morning peak hour trips, and 52 new
afternoon peak hour trips will be generated by the proposed Jefferson Meadows
development.
• No turn lane or taper is warranted at the eastbound right turn at intersection #2
Gladden Circle/Everett Road under build conditions.

Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Zoning Map
3. Future Land Use Map
4. Aerial Photograph (VGIN 2015)
5. Rezoning Application
6. Applicant Comprehensive Plan Compliance (attachment to application)
7. Concept Plan
8. Section 30-34, Article III, AR Agricultural/Residential District
9. Section 30-41, Article III, R-1 Low Density Residential Development District
10. Section 30-79-2, Article III, Permitted Use Table (AR and R-1 columns highlighted)
11. Jefferson Meadows Traffic Impact Analysis Supplement (Pages 1-3)[Full Supplement is available to
view online]

4
Location Map

N
L
AY
AW
N
RU

M ELKTON FARM RD 666


ILK
YW
RD AY
RM R LN

OLD ELKTON DR
FA O RD
62 N AN
RD 7 T IO EM
TATIO
N
S TA LAK
DE S D
GOO OL

FUQ WE
UA R ST DEE
D C RO R HO L
S SI LOW
NG RD 1
E K LN DR 4 67
PINE CRE 132
9

ROCKY BRANCH DR 1507


BEL
L
EVU

0
48
ER

R1
D6

ND
FRIENDSHIP Q

43

BROO
AV
WATSON F
EV E

H
R ET

MT

KS
TR

TONE
AN D
D6

AR
UILT LN

22

M RD

ERS

D
R 151
TE

ON
LE
GR

LN

4
AP

BRA
32
N 13
H

VE L
LN

N
5

GRO

DO
70

WO
HIGH
RD

NC

OD
EW

T1

MO
VI

494

NT
E
AC

LN
RR
TE
Zoning Map
PINE CR
E EK LN

AR
R-1

SUMMER FIELD
S LN

EVE
RET
TR
D6
22
Future Land Use Map
PINE CR
E EK LN

RESIDENTIAL

SUMMER FIELD
S LN

EVE
RET
TR
D6
22
Aerial Photograph (2015)
PINE CR
E EK LN

SUMMER FIELD
S LN

EVE
RET
TR
D6
22
Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN)
Bedford County For staff use only
Department of Community Development Date received: Received by:
Division of Planning
122 E. Main Street, Suite G-03 Fee Paid: $ PC Date:
Bedford, VA 24523 Application No.: BOS Date:
(540) 586-7616 Ɣ Fax (540) 586-2059 Project No.:
www.bedfordcountyva.gov/planning

Rezoning Application
GENERAL INFORMATION:

Pursuant to Section 30-14 (A) of the Bedford County Zoning Ordinance, the Board of Supervisors may
amend, supplement or change the zoning regulations, district boundaries or classifications of property
whenever the public necessity, convenience, general welfare, or good zoning practice requires. A property
owner, or their duly designated agent, may petition the Board of Supervisors to change the zoning district
classification of their property. This zoning map amendment process, known as a rezoning request, can be
initiated by a property owner by completing and filing this application form, and required accompanying
information and application fees, with the Bedford County Department of Community Development.

APPLICATION PROCEDURE:

x Consultation with Planning Staff: You are required to meet with a planner to verify the current zoning
district classification of your property and to discuss the purpose and need for the proposed rezoning of
your property prior to application submission.
x Planning Commission: The Planning Commission will hold an advertised public hearing and review the
application in order to make and forward an advisory recommendation on the request to the Board of
Supervisors.
x Board of Supervisors: The Board of Supervisors will hold an advertised public hearing and review the
application in order to make a decision on the request.

Please make sure the following items are included BEFORE submitting:

Ƒ

Application Fee: $300.00 plus $5.00 per acre (checks made payable to Bedford County). Applicant is
also responsible for the costs of all public notifications including mailings and legal advertisements.

Ƒ

Concept Plan: A concept plan prepared by a professional engineer, architect or surveyor must be
submitted with the application in both hard copy and digital (.pdf format) versions. The plan shall
include at a minimum what is required of a site development plan in Article V of the Zoning Ordinance
and address any potential land use or design issues arising from the request.

Ƒ Proffers: The applicant may proffer in writing reasonable conditions in addition to the applicable
regulations of the requested zoning district. All proffered conditions must be in writing and signed by the
applicant. Proffered conditions should be present prior to the start of the Planning Commission public
hearing and must be presented prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing.

Ƒ Traffic Impact Analysis: If the proposed use meets VDOT’s requirements for a traffic impact analysis,
a VDOT rezoning package checklist must be completed for submission to VDOT.
Page 2 of 3
Bedford County
Rezoning Application
Please print in blue or black ink or typewrite. If not applicable, write N/A.

APPLICANT INFORMATION

Note: If applicant is not the property owner, an owner’s authority letter must be submitted with application.
Applicant Name: Everett Road Investments, LLC (Contract Purchaser)
Address: PO Box 15151, Lynchburg, VA 24502
Phone: Fax: Email:
Property Owner Name: MOOREFIELD, RITA CREASY & MASENCUP JU
Address: 1082 COBBLESTONE LANE FOREST , VA 24551
Phone: Fax: Email:
Authorized Agent/Contact Person: Trent J. Warner, PE
Address: 2524 Langhorne Drive, Lynchburg, VA 24501
Phone: 434 847-7796 Fax: 434 847-0047 Email: twarner@handp.com
Engineer: Hurt & Proffitt
Address: 2524 Langhorne Drive, Lynchburg, VA 24501
Phone: 434 847-7796 Fax: 434 847-0047 Email: twarner@handp.com

PROJECT INFORMATION

Location/Address of Property (directions from Bedford County Administration Building): 221 North towards Forest,
turn right onto Gladden Circle, turn right onto Everett Road, property is approx. 2 miles on right
Tax Map Number(s): 115 A 13
Magisterial District: 3 Jefferson Election District: 7
85.3 Acres (Note County GIS shows 92.3)
Size of Parcel(s): In acres In sq. ft.
Amount of area to be utilized 52.4 ac. (the remaining parcel after future subdivision)

Current Zoning District Classification of parcel(s): AR


Proposed Zoning District Reclassification of parcels(s): R-1 (for the 52.4 Acres); Remaining 32.9 to remain AR
Current Land Use: Agricultural
Proposed Land Use (identify by Permitted Use Table, Zoning Ordinance Sec. 30-79-2): Residential
Future Land Use Map Designation of parcel(s): Residential

Please describe the proposed use and development of the identified parcel(s) and/or purpose of the rezoning request.
We plan to develop single family residential lots serviced by BRWA water and individual septic tank drain field with
public streets.

Are Proffers proposed? ( )Yes ( ✔ ) No


If Yes, please obtain Proffer Statement from staff

Bedford County Department of Community Development


122 East Main Street, Suite G-03 Ɣ Bedford, VA 24523 Ɣ Phone (540) 586-7616 Ɣ Fax (540) 586-2059 4/8/15
Page 3 of 3
JUSTIFICATION FOR REZONING

The Planning Commission will study the rezoning request to determine the need and justification for the change in terms of
public health, safety and general welfare. Please answer the following questions as thoroughly as possible. Attach additional
paper if necessary.

Please explain how the request furthers the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Section 30-3) as well as the purpose
found at the beginning of the applicable zoning district classification in the Zoning Ordinance.

The Forest area has experienced growth with several large apartment complexes within the last ten years
and the need for Single Family lots for these mostly young adults living in these apartments is needed as they settle
down and expand for their growing family needs. The R-1 zoning with single family lots allows for these families to remain
in the Forest area. The size of the single family lots will maintain the rural beauty of the location and decrease
the development impacts to the site that would be associated with higher density rezoning.

Please explain how the project conforms to the general guidelines and policies contained in the Bedford County
Comprehensive Plan.

See attached.

Please describe the impact(s) of the request on the property itself, the adjoining properties, and the surrounding area as
well as the impacts on public services and facilities, including water/sewer, roads, schools, parks/recreation and
fire/rescue.

The proposed 50 +/- lots will increase the daily trip count to approximately an additional 500 trips per day on Everett Road.
(Based off of National average of 10 per household). The property is served with water from the Bedford Regional Water Authority.
The subdivision will extend water service from the BRWA. Proper hydrant spacing will be achieved for fire service.
Cul-de-sac dimensions and road widths will be designed appropriately for fire/rescue and school bus services.

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that this application is complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge, and I authorize County
Digitally signed by Trent J. Warner
representatives entry onto theTrent
property for purposes
J. Warner DN: C=US, ofE=twarner@handp.com,
reviewing this request.
CN=Trent J. Warner
Date: 2018.03.30 13:45:42-04'00'

Owner/Agent Signature: Date: 7/19/18

Print Name: Trent Warner

Bedford County Department of Community Development


122 East Main Street, Suite G-03 Ɣ Bedford, VA 24523 Ɣ Phone (540) 586-7616 Ɣ Fax (540) 586-2059 4/8/15
The following project information is in accordance with the general guidelines and
policies of the Bedford County 2030 Comprehensive Plan, specifically the “Goals,
Objectives and Strategies”:

Community Aesthetics (3.1)


• The layout of the roadway and home locations are strategically shown to
minimize the disturbance of the forested lands. The upper elevations of the site
are primarily pasture fields and the roadways will be built along these locations.
Most of the forested areas are in the lower elevations and will be primarily back
yards. There should be very little woodlands disturbed. The roadways are also at
locations that will promote the County’s desirable viewsheds.

Housing (4.1)
• The housing from this project allows for continued growth along Everett Road
and gives Bedford County a diverse mix of housing to select from, especially with
the recent growth of multifamily structures in the nearby Forest area. The growth
of apartment complexes has brought more people to Bedford County. This
project allows for those young families to stay in Bedford County as their families
grow.

Natural Environment (5.1)


• The site will control stormwater runoff through the use of interior ditches and
potential stormwater detention ponds. The ponds will handle the runoff by
providing for management of quantity and quality, (if required). Quality credits
may be obtained within the same watershed.

• The floodplains are in the low lying areas of the site and there should not be any
disturbance with this development.

• The upper elevations of the site are primarily pasture fields and the roadways will
be built along these locations. Most of the forested areas are in the lower
elevations and will be primarily back yards. There should be very little
woodlands disturbed.

Transportation (6.1)
• The site will be designed to have public secondary roads also known as rural
collector roads (minor). This will link traffic generators with the rural hinterland.
The roadways are not urban style roadways with curb and gutter, rather more rural
in nature with shoulders and roadside ditches.

• The location of the roadways and elevations will promote the County’s viewshed.
Utilities (7.1)
• The project will expand the Bedford Regional Water Authority’s water
distribution system and supply safe drinking water for the new residents.

• The project’s sewer service will be through the means of onsite private septic
systems that are approved by the State’s Health Department.

• Electricity, Cable, Telephone and Data Communications will be served via


underground extensions, preserving the viewsheds of the subdivision.

Economic Development (8.1)

• The new subdivision helps reinforce the County goals of supporting County
businesses with minimal travel by County residents.

Land Use (9.1)


• The location of the site perfectly fits the goals of having residential areas located
near urban services. The site is approximately 5-10 minutes from the commercial
services that have grown in the Forest region. The rezoning is not spot zoning as
the adjoining land to the south and east are already R-1.
115 A 13

GEOTECHNICAL • CONSTRUCTION TESTING & INSPECTION • CULTURAL RESOURCES


LYNCHBURG VA 24501

434.847.7796 MAIN
800.242.4906 TOLL FREE
2524 LANGHORNE ROAD
& PROFFITT
434.847.0047 FAX
MOOREFIELD RITA CREASY

ENGINEERING • SURVEYING • LAND DEVELOPMENT • ENVIRONMENTAL


& MASENCUP JU
AGRICULTURAL, AR
115 5 3
COCKE CHRISTOPHER
115 5 4
LEE & COCKE SARAH
VICKERS MICHAEL N &
115 A 12 JANET G 1185 PINE CREEK LANE
REMPFER LARRY THOMAS 1171 PINE CREEK LN SINGLE FAMILY, AR
& REMPFER ASHLE SINGLE FAMILY, AR
2428 EVERETT RD
114 A 111 AGRICULTURAL, AR
FALLS FRANCES E&
EDWARD LEWIS & ELLIO
13 12 11 10
9

HURT
5214 BELLEVUE RD
AGRICULTURAL, AR 8
7 6 5 4
39 3 2 1

49 LOT CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT


49 LOT DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY 14 115 A 14
(59) (84)
ALLEN DOYLE B &
15 38 40 41 ALLEN SONJA F

NORTH
(83)
32.9AC. RESIDUE
(60) (85) 42 1056 SUMMER FIELDS LN
16 37
(86)
(87) 43 SINGLE FAMILY, R-1
(88)
(61) (82)

JEFFERSON MEADOWS
17 36 49
(62) (81) 48 (94)
44 46 47 (93)
18 45 (92)
(89) (91)
(63) 35 (90)
(80)
134 A 1A
19

BEDFORD COUNTY, VA
NUNN LEWIS D & PHYLLIS S
(64) 34
(79)
4860 BELLEVUE RD 20
(65) 33
AGRICULTURAL, AR (78)
21

EV
(66) 32
22

ER
(77)
(67) 31

ET
23 (76) 134 A 24
(68)

T
EVANS CARMEN P
30

RO
24 (75) 3723 EVERETT RD

AD
(69)
29 AGRICULTURAL, AR
25 (74)

(622
(70) 28
26 (73)

)
(71) 27
(72)

134 A 23
134 A 3 EVANS CARMEN P
DWYER WILLIAM T 3723 EVERETT RD
& NANCY A AGRICULTURAL, AR 20180360
PROJECT NO.
PO BOX 176
G.L. NO.
AGRICULTURAL, AR
FILE NO.
DATE: 06/27/2018
DRAWN BY: ELC
CHECKED BY: TJW
R-1 ZONING WITH PUBLIC WATER: PROPERTY SUMMARY:
MIN. LOT SIZE: 20,000SF (AVG. SHOWN = 1.01AC.) ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT = 85.3AC.
MIN. FRONTAGE WIDTH: 70' (AVG. SHOWN = 90'), 49 LOT DEVELOPMENT = 52.4AC.
30' @ CUL DE SAC RESIDUE = 32.9AC.
300 150 0 300 600
MIN. FRONT SETBACK: 30'
GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET SHEET NO.
NOTE: THIS PLAN IS CONCEPTUAL AND SUBJECT TO REVISION. ( ) DENOTES STAKED LOT NUMBER IN THE FIELD. 1" = 300' 1 OF 1
Sec. 30-34. - AR Agricultural/residential district.

Sec. 30-34-1. Purpose.

These areas are generally characterized by very low density residential and institutional uses mixed
with smaller parcels that have historically contained agricultural uses, forest land and open space outside
the urban service area. These areas provide an opportunity for rural living in convenient proximity to
urban services and employment. Agricultural uses should be encouraged to be maintained however, over
time these areas are expected to become increasingly residential in character, with residential
development becoming the dominant use over agricultural and more rural type uses.
The purpose of the AR district is to maintain these areas essentially in their rural state, consistent
with the level of services anticipated by the county. These areas are generally suitable for low density
residential development and other compatible land uses.
Sec. 30-34-2. Permitted uses.

Permitted uses shall be as listed in section 30-79.


Sec. 30-34-3. Site development regulations.

General standards. For additional, modified, or more stringent standards for specific uses, see article
IV, Use and Design Standards.
(a) Minimum lot requirements:
(1) All lots, regardless of sewer and water provisions:
a. Area: One (1) acre (forty-three thousand five hundred sixty (43,560) square feet).
b. Frontage: One hundred (100) feet on a publicly owned and maintained street.
(b) Minimum setback requirements:
(1) Front yard:
a. Principal structures: Thirty-five (35) feet.
b. Accessory structures: Thirty-five (35) feet or behind the front building line, whichever
distance is less.
(2) Side yard:
a. Principal structures: Ten (10) feet.
b. Accessory structures: Ten (10) feet when between the front and rear building lines
and three (3) feet when behind the rear building line and ten (10) feet when in front of
the front building line.
(3) Rear yard:
a. Principal structures: Twenty-five (25) feet.
b. Accessory structures: Three (3) feet.
(4) Where a lot fronts on more than one (1) street, the front yard setbacks shall apply to all
streets.
(c) Maximum height of structures:
All structures: Forty-five (45) feet.

(d) Maximum subdivisions of a single tract allowed:


(1) Traditional lot subdivision. Up to ten (10) separate lots, provided each lot meets the
requirements of this section. This ten (10) lot maximum shall exclude a maximum of ten
(10) family subdivision lots and shall exclude agricultural subdivision lots as both defined
and regulated by this ordinance and the provisions of the Bedford County Subdivision
Ordinance. The maximum of ten (10) lots shall include any further subdivision of these
newly subdivided lots. The subdivision of more than ten (10) lots may be permitted
pursuant to the cluster development option as provided for in this subsection, or shall
otherwise require a rezoning as set forth in article I.
(2) Cluster development option.
The purpose of the cluster development option is to provide flexibility in site design in order
to encourage natural resource and open space preservation, preservation of agriculturally
zoned land for agricultural purposes, the cost efficient provision of infrastructure, and allow
appropriate design solutions for unique site conditions. Use of the cluster development
option is voluntary.

The cluster development option permits additional lots in return for providing permanent
open space within the development, and a more compact, cost-effective network of streets
and utilities. Except for modifications to the lot and building requirements defined below, all
other provisions of the AR district pertain to the cluster development option.

The cluster development option may be used on any legally divisible parcel in the AR
district. All cluster developments must legally and permanently subdivide all lots at the time
of initial development application.

a. Maximum number of residential lots: Fourteen (14) lots.


b. Minimum residential lot size: One (1) acre.
c. Maximum residential lot size: Two (2) acres.
d. Open space provisions: A minimum area of twenty (20) contiguous acres within the
development shall be provided as permanent open space. Open space may include
active or passive recreational uses, agricultural and silviculture uses, and may be held
in either public or private ownership. Such dedication and ownership of the open
space must be submitted to and approved by the zoning administrator.
Open space established for purposes of meeting the requirements of this cluster
development provision shall not be included as part of any residential lot, and shall be
restricted from any future development by the establishment of permanent
conservation easements held in perpetuity by a public or private entity acceptable to
the county. Accessory structures such as picnic shelters, ball fields, nature trails and
other similar recreational amenities shall be permitted within the open space.
However, other impervious surfaces and non-agricultural buildings, exclusive of those
listed above, are prohibited on the open space.

e. Maximum number of clusters: One (1) per parcel.


f. Clustering of permitted lots between parent parcels: A landowner with multiple
contiguous parent parcels may cluster the number of permitted lots from any one (1)
parent parcel to any other contiguous parent parcel provided the landowner merges
the two (2) contiguous parent parcels into one (1) parcel by vacating the boundary line
and all other lot requirements under this subsection are met.
g. Minimum road frontage width: Seventy-five (75) feet at the edge of the right-of-way.
h. Cluster design standards:
1. The purpose of the cluster development option is to minimize the loss of
productive agricultural land; and maintain the visual quality of the county's
agricultural landscape.
2. All plans shall minimize the use of tillable soils for development and maximize the
use of sloped and forested areas, which are otherwise less productive for
agricultural uses.
3. The design and location of the cluster shall minimize the impacts to neighboring
agricultural operations and hunting so as not to restrict the rights of adjacent
landowners.
4. The applicant shall show that the agricultural land remaining after subdivision is
suitable for a commercially viable agricultural enterprise.
5. Clusters shall be located so as to leave large blocks of open agricultural land
throughout the agricultural zoning district.
6. Access to the cluster shall be from a single internal road.
7. The appearance of a cluster from an external public road shall be that of a
grouping of farm buildings in that they are clustered together and obviously a use
subsidiary to the prime use of the land - agriculture.
8. Landscaping that defines the access road along its entire length shall be
provided.
9. The cluster shall be planned and designed as a single unit with careful
consideration given to the relationship of structures to one another, landscaping,
buffering, screening, views, light and air, and internal circulation.
10. Strong provision should be made for walking as opposed to vehicular
connections within the cluster.
11. Street widths, alignments, and parking shall be scaled to the size of the cluster.
12. The streetscape of the cluster shall be designed in detail to avoid repetitious
setbacks, driveways, elevations, and landscaping.
13. Where a cluster incorporates an existing historic building, building heights,
exterior features, and building arrangement shall be harmonious with the historic
structure. Street widths, alignments, and parking shall be scaled to the size of the
cluster.
14. Any deed restrictions shall include language recognizing that the lots are in an
agricultural area and refer to the right to farm law.
(Ord. of 2-26-2001, App. A; Ord. of 9-8-2003; Ord. of 6-10-2013, pt. V; Ord No. O-071116-09, 7-11-
2016, pt. I)
Sec. 30-41. - R-1 Low density residential district.

Sec. 30-41-1. Purpose.

The R-1, Low density residential district is established for areas of the county within the urban
service area with existing low-middle density residential development, with an average density of from
one (1) to three (3) units per acre, and land which appears appropriate for such development. The R-1
district is intended to provide the highest degree of protection from potentially incompatible uses and
residential development of a significantly different density, size, or scale, in order to maintain the health,
safety, appearance, and overall quality of life of existing and future neighborhoods.
In addition to single-family residences, only uses of a community nature which are generally deemed
compatible and permitted in the R-1 district. This would include parks and playgrounds, schools, and
other similar neighborhood activities.
Sec. 30-41-2. Permitted uses.

Permitted uses shall be as listed in section 30-79.


Sec. 30-41-3. Site development regulations.

General standards. For additional, modified, or more stringent standards for specific uses, see article
IV, Use and Design Standards.
(a) Minimum lot requirements:
(1) All lots served by private well and sewage disposal systems:
a. Area: One (1) acre (forty-three thousand five hundred sixty (43,560) square feet).
b. Frontage: One hundred (100) feet on a publicly owned and maintained street.
c. Lot Width: One hundred (100) feet.
(2) Lots served by either public sewer or water:
a. Area: Twenty thousand (20,000) square feet.
b. Frontage: Seventy-five (75) feet on a publicly owned and maintained street.
c. Lot width: Seventy-five (75) feet.
(3) All lots served by both public sewer and water:
a. Area: Ten thousand (10,000) square feet.
b. Frontage: Sixty (60) feet on a publicly owned and maintained street.
c. Lot Width: Sixty (60) feet.
(b) Minimum setback requirements:
(1) Front yard:
a. Principal structures: Thirty (30) feet.
b. Accessory structures: Thirty (30) feet or behind the front building line, whichever
distance is less.
(2) Side yard:
a. Principal structures: Ten (10) feet.
b. Accessory structures: Ten (10) feet when between front and rear building lines and
three (3) feet when behind the rear building line and ten (10) feet when in front of the
front building line.
(3) Rear yard:
a. Principal structures: Twenty-five (25) feet.
b. Accessory structures: Three (3) feet.
(4) Where a lot fronts on more than one (1) street, front yard setbacks shall apply to all streets.
(5) The expansion of a legally established nonconforming structure into the required side or
rear yard shall be permitted provided the expansion does not encroach into the required
yard any greater than the existing encroachment.
(c) Maximum height of structures:
(1) Height limitations:
a. Principal structures: Thirty-five (35) feet.
b. Accessory structures: Thirty-five (35) feet.

(Ord. of 2-26-2001, App. A; Ord. of 6-10-2013, pt. II; Ord No. O-071116-09, 7-11-2016, pt. I)
Sec. 30-79. - Permitted uses by district.

Sec. 30-79-1. Purpose.

The purpose of this table is to show the uses permitted in each of the zoning districts. Specific
requirements for districts and uses are found in article III and article IV herein.
Sec. 30-79-2. Permitted use table.

Permitted uses by district shall be as shown in the following table where:


"R" Indicates a use by right

"S" Indicates a special use

"*" Indicates more stringent standards as specified in article IV

A A R- R- R- R- PR RM C- C- N PC I- I- PI
USES AV EP
P R 1 2 3 4 D H 1 2 C D 1 2 D

Agricultural and Forestry Uses

Agriculture R R R R

Agritourism R R R

Commercial
R* R* S*
Feedlots

Farm Employee
R* R*
Housing

R R R R R R
Farmers Market R R R R* R R* R*
* * * * * *

Forestry
R* R*
Operations

Livestock Market S* S* S* S*

Sawmill S S

Sewage Sludge
S
Storage
A A R- R- R- R- PR RM C- C- N PC I- I- PI
USES AV EP
P R 1 2 3 4 D H 1 2 C D 1 2 D

Stable, R
R* R* R* S* S* R* S* S*
Commercial *

R R
Stable, Private R* R* R* S* S* S*
* *

R R
Wayside Stand R* R* R* R* R*
* *

Residential Uses

Accessory R R R R R R
R* R* R* R* S* S*
Apartment * * * * * *

Domestic R R R R
R*
Chickens * * * *

Home
R R R R R R
Beauty/Barber R* R* R* R* R* R* R*
* * * * * *
Salon

Home Occupation, R R R R R R
R* R* R* R*
Type I * * * * * *

Home Occupation,
R* R* R*
Type II

R R
Kennel, Private R* R* R* R* R* R*
* *

Manufactured R R
R* R* R* R*
Home * *

Manufactured R R R R
R* R* R* R* R* R* R*
Home, Class A * * * *

Manufactured R* R* R*
A A R- R- R- R- PR RM C- C- N PC I- I- PI
USES AV EP
P R 1 2 3 4 D H 1 2 C D 1 2 D

Home, Accessory

Manufactured R R R R R R R R
R* R* R* R* R* R* R* R*
Home, Emergency * * * * * * * *

Manufactured
S* R* S* S*
Home Park

Multifamily R R R
S* S* R* S* S*
Dwelling * * *

Residential
Human Care R R R R R R R R
Facility

Single-Family
R R R R
Dwelling, R* R* R* R*
* * * *
Attached

Single-Family
Dwelling, R R R R R R R R R R
Detached

Single-Family
Dwelling, R R R R
R* R* R*
Detached (Zero * * * *
Lot Line Option)

Temporary Family
R R R R
Health Care R* R* R* R* R* R*
* * * *
Structure

R R
Townhouse S* S* R* S* S*
* *

Two-Family R R R R R
R* R* R* R*
Dwelling (Duplex) * * * * *
A A R- R- R- R- PR RM C- C- N PC I- I- PI
USES AV EP
P R 1 2 3 4 D H 1 2 C D 1 2 D

Civic Uses

Administrative
R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R
Services

Animal Shelter S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S*

R
Camps S* S* S*
*

Cemetery S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S*

R R
Civic Clubs R* R* R* R* R*
* *

Community Dock S* S* S* S* S* S*

Community R R R R
R* R* R* R* R* R* R* R*
Recreation * * * *

Correctional
S
Facilities

Crisis Center R R R R R R R R R R R R R

Cultural Services S S R S S S S S R R R R R R R R

R R R R
Day Care Center S* S* R* S* S* S* S* R* R* R* R*
* * * *

Educational
R R
Facilities, R* R* R* R* R*
* *
College/University

Educational R R R R
Facilities, S* S* R* S* S* S* S* R* R* R* R*
* * * *
Primary/Secondar
A A R- R- R- R- PR RM C- C- N PC I- I- PI
USES AV EP
P R 1 2 3 4 D H 1 2 C D 1 2 D

Family Day Care R R R R R R R R


R* R* R* R* R* R* R*
Home * * * * * * * *

Guidance Services R R R R R R

Halfway House S S S S

Home for Adults S S S S S S S S

Life Care Facility S S S S S S

Nursing Home S S S S S S

Park and Ride R R R R R R R R


R* R* R* R* R* R* R*
Facility * * * * * * * *

Post Office R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R

Public Assembly S S S S R S S S R

Public
R
Maintenance and R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R
*
Service Facility

Public Parks and R R R R R R R R R


R* R* R* R* R* R* R*
Recreational Areas * * * * * * * * *

Religious R R R R R R
S* S* R* S* R* R* R* S* S* S* S*
Assembly * * * * * *

Safety Services, R R R R R
S* S* R* S* S* S* S* R* R* S* S*
Private * * * * *

Safety Services, R R R R R R R R R
R* R* R* R* R* R* R* R*
Public * * * * * * * * *
A A R- R- R- R- PR RM C- C- N PC I- I- PI
USES AV EP
P R 1 2 3 4 D H 1 2 C D 1 2 D

Utility Services, R R
S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S*
Major * *

Utility Services,
R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R R
Minor

Office Uses

R R
Clinic S* S* S* R* R* R* R*
* *

Financial R R R R R
R* R* R* R* R*
Institutions * * * * *

R R R R R
General Office R* R* R* R* R*
* * * * *

Laboratories S S S R S S R R R

R R R R
Medical Office S* S* R* R* R* R* R*
* * * *

Commercial Uses

Adult
S*
Entertainment

Agricultural R R
R* R* R* S* S* R* R*
Services * *

R R
Antique Shops S* R* R* R* R*
* *

Auction House R R R R R

Automobile R
R* R*
Dealership *
A A R- R- R- R- PR RM C- C- N PC I- I- PI
USES AV EP
P R 1 2 3 4 D H 1 2 C D 1 2 D

Automobile
S
Graveyard

Automobile
R
Parts/Supply, S* S* R* R*
*
Retail

Automobile Repair R R
S* S* S* S*
Services, Major * *

Automobile Repair R R R R
S* R* R*
Services, Minor * * * *

Automobile
S R R R S
Rental/Leasing

R
Bed and Breakfast R* R* R* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S*
*

Boarding House S S R R S R S S

Business or Trade
R R R R R R R R
Schools

Business Support R
R R R R R R R R
Services *

R
Campgrounds S* S* S* S* S* S* S*
*

R
Carwash S* S* R* R* S*
*

Commercial
Indoor S S R S R S S R R
Amusement
A A R- R- R- R- PR RM C- C- N PC I- I- PI
USES AV EP
P R 1 2 3 4 D H 1 2 C D 1 2 D

Commercial
Indoor S S R S R R R R R
Entertainment

Commercial
Indoor Sports and S S S R S S S S S R
Recreation

Commercial
Outdoor S S R S S S S R
Entertainment

Commercial
Outdoor Sports S S S S S S S S R
and Recreation

Communications
S R R R R R R R
Services

Conference R R
S* S* R*
Center * *

Construction Sales R R R
S* S* R* R*
and Services * * *

Consumer Repair
R R R R R R R R
Services

R R R R
Convenience Store S* R* R* R* R*
* * * *

Dance Hall S S S S S

Equipment Sales R
S* S* S* R* S*
and Rental *

Flea Market S R R R R
A A R- R- R- R- PR RM C- C- N PC I- I- PI
USES AV EP
P R 1 2 3 4 D H 1 2 C D 1 2 D

Funeral Service R R R R R R

R R R
Garden Center R* R* R* S* R* R*
* * *

R R R R
Gasoline Station S* R* S* S* S*
* * * *

General Store R* R*

General Store with


S S
Fuel Sales

R
Golf Course S* S* S* S* S* R* R* R*
*

Hospital R R R R R

Hotel/Motel/
R R R R R R R R
Motor Lodge

Kennel, R R R
R* S* S* S* S* R* R*
Commercial * * *

Landscaping and
R R R
Lawn Care S* S* R* R*
* * *
Services

Laundry R R R R R

Manufactured R R R
S* S* R*
Home Sales * * *

Marina S S S S R R

R R
Meeting Hall S* S* R* S* S* S* R*
* *
A A R- R- R- R- PR RM C- C- N PC I- I- PI
USES AV EP
P R 1 2 3 4 D H 1 2 C D 1 2 D

Microbrewery R R R R R

R R R
Mini-warehouse R* R*
* * *

Pawn Shop S R S R R R R

Personal
Improvement R R R R R R R R
Services

Personal
R R R R R R R R R
Services

Recreational
R R R
Vehicle Sales and S* R* R*
* * *
Services

Restaurant, Drive- R R R R
S* R* S* S* R* R*
in and Fast-Food * * * *

R R
Restaurant, Family R* R* R* R* R*
* *

Restaurant, R
R* R* R* R* R
General *

R
Retail Sales R R S R R R R R R
*

Studio, Fine Arts R R R R R R R R R R

Surplus Sales R S R R S

Tattoo Parlor R R

Truck Stop S* S* S* S* S* S*
A A R- R- R- R- PR RM C- C- N PC I- I- PI
USES AV EP
P R 1 2 3 4 D H 1 2 C D 1 2 D

Veterinary
R R R R R R R R R R R
Hospital/Clinic

Industrial Uses

Asphalt Plant S* S*

R R
Composting R* R* R*
* *

Construction R R R
S* S* R* R* R*
Yards * * *

Custom R R R R
R* S* R* S* S* R* R*
Manufacturing * * * *

Industry,
R S S S R R R
Type I

Industry,
S R S
Type II

Industry,
S S
Type III

Landfill,
S S S S
Sanitary

Meat Packing and


S S
Related Industries

Railroad
R R
Facilities

Recycling Centers R
S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S*
and Stations *
A A R- R- R- R- PR RM C- C- N PC I- I- PI
USES AV EP
P R 1 2 3 4 D H 1 2 C D 1 2 D

Resource
S* S* S* S* S*
Extraction

Scrap and Salvage


S* S*
Yards

Transfer Stations S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S*

Transportation
S S S R R S
Terminal

Truck Terminal R R R

Warehouse and
R R R R
Distribution

R R
Winery S* S* S* R* R*
* *

Miscellaneous Uses

Amateur Radio R R R R R R R R
R* R* R* R* R* R* R* R*
Tower * * * * * * * *

Archery Range,
R* R* R*
outdoor

Aviation Facilities,
S S S S
General

Aviation Facilities,
S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S*
Private

Broadcasting
S* S* S* S* S*
Tower, Radio

Outdoor S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S*
A A R- R- R- R- PR RM C- C- N PC I- I- PI
USES AV EP
P R 1 2 3 4 D H 1 2 C D 1 2 D

Gatherings

R R R R
Parking Facility S* S* R* R*
* * * *

Shooting Range,
S* S* S*
Outdoor

Transportation R
Terminal *

Wind Energy R R R R R R R R R
R* R* R* R* R* R* R* R*
System, Small * * * * * * * * *

Wireless
R R R R R R R R R
Communication R* R* R* R* R* R* R* R*
* * * * * * * * *
Facility, Class 1

Wireless
R R R R
Communication R* R* R* S* S* S* S* S* S* R* R* R*
* * * *
Facility, Class 2

Wireless
Communication S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S*
Facility, Class 3

Wireless
Communication S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S* S*
Facility, Class 4
EPR, P,C. “ E N G I NEE RI N G & P L A N NI N G R ES O U R CE S ”
902 E J EFFERSON S T . U NIT 101, C HARLOTTESVILLE , VA 22902

MEMORANDUM

TO: TRENT WARNER, P.E. FROM: BILL WUENSCH, P.E., PTOE

ORGANIZATION: HURT & PROFFITT DATE: JULY 25, 2018

PHONE NUMBER: SENDER’S REFERENCE NUMBER:

RE: JEFFERSON MEADOWS TIA ADDENDUM YOUR REFERENCE NUMBER:

 Urgent X For your use  Please Comment  Please Reply  Please Recycle

Background

EPR prepared the Jefferson Meadows Traffic Impact Analysis (the TIA) on April 24th, 2018. The
TIA examined the impact of the proposed Jefferson Meadows development (consisting of 100
single family detached houses) on the nearby intersections in Bedford County, Virginia and
recommended a 200’ taper for the eastbound right turn at intersection #2 Gladden Circle/Everett
Road per the increase in traffic from the proposed development.

A new development plan has been generated that reflects a change in single family dwelling density
from the original 100 down to 50. The purpose of this supplemental memorandum is to re-examine
if, given the decrease in residential density, the eastbound right turn at intersection #2 Gladden
Circle/Everett Road will still be warranted.

Figure 1 and Figure 2 illustrate the vicinity and the location of the proposed Jefferson Meadows
development.

Existing and 2021 No Build Traffic Volumes

Existing and 2021 no build traffic volumes were obtained from the original TIA and were illustrated
in Figure 3 and Figure 4.

Trip Generation, Distribution, and Assignment

In this supplement memorandum, the proposed Jefferson Meadows development is assumed as a


one phase build-out development to be completed in year 2021 including 50 single family detached
houses.

A combination of Bedford County Transportation Impact Study (TIS) guidelines and rates
published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual 10th Edition
were used to estimate the trips generated by the proposed Jefferson Meadows development. Table 1

1
EPR, P,C. “ E N G I NEE RI N G & P L A N NI N G R ES O U R CE S ”
902 E J EFFERSON S T . U NIT 101, C HARLOTTESVILLE , VA 22902
summarizes the land use descriptions, ITE land use code, size and anticipated trips. Per VDOT
traffic study guidelines, no internal capture or pass-by rate was assumed.

Table 1 Trip Generation


AM** PM**
Land Use LU Code Unit Daily*
IN OUT TOTAL IN OUT TOTAL
Single-family Detached Housing 210 50 500 10 30 40 33 19 52
*Per Bedford County TIS Guidelines (10 trips per unit, per day).
**Fitted curve used for rate determination due to a high R² (>.75).

As indicated in Table 1, approximately 500 new daily trips, 40 new morning peak hour trips, and 52
new afternoon peak hour trips will be generated by the proposed Jefferson Meadows development.

Per the plan of the Jefferson Meadows development, only one site entrance is provided on Everett
Road. At the entrance on Everett Road, 67% of the site trips were distributed to the north while
33% of the site trips were distributed to the south. North of the entrance, trips were distributed per
the existing traffic patterns on the roadway network at the study intersection. Trips to the south are
assumed to disbursed along the surrounding transportation network. The inbound and outbound
site trip distribution percentages are illustrated in Figure 5 and Figure 6.

The estimated site trips shown above were assigned to the roadway network based on the
percentages. Inbound and outbound site trip assignments are as illustrated in Figure 7 and Figure
8.

Figure 9 summarizes and illustrates the total site trip assignments.

2021 Build Traffic Volumes

The site trips as illustrated in Figure 9 were added to the 2021 no build traffic volumes as illustrated
in Figure 4 resulting in the 2021 build traffic volumes. Figure 10 illustrates the 2021 build traffic
volumes.

Turn Lane Warrants

VDOT turn lane warrants were evaluated for the eastbound right turn at intersection #2 Gladden
Circle/Everett Road under build conditions. The turn lane warrant forms are attached at the end of
the memorandum and the results are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2 2021 Build Turn Lane Warrant Summary


2021 Build
AM PM
Intersection Movement
Turn Lane Turn Lane
Taper Required Taper Required
Required Required
2. Gladden
EBR Not Warranted Not Warranted Not Warranted Not Warranted
Circle/Everett Road

The results in Table 2 indicate that no turn lane or taper is warranted at the eastbound right turn at
intersection #2 Gladden Circle/Everette Road under build conditions.

2
EPR, P,C. “ E N G I NEE RI N G & P L A N NI N G R ES O U R CE S ”
902 E J EFFERSON S T . U NIT 101, C HARLOTTESVILLE , VA 22902

Findings and Conclusions,

Based on this supplemental analysis, the principal findings and conclusions are as follows:

• In the case the proposed Jefferson Meadows development consists of 50 single family
detached houses, approximately 500 new daily trips, 40 new morning peak hour trips, and 52
new afternoon peak hour trips will be generated by the proposed Jefferson Meadows
development.

• No turn lane or taper is warranted at the eastbound right turn at intersection #2 Gladden
Circle/Everette Road under build conditions.

End of Memorandum

Attachments –
Figures

Figure 1 Site Vicinity


Figure 2 Site Location
Figure 3 Existing Traffic Volumes
Figure 4 2021 No Build Traffic Volumes
Figure 5 Distribution Percentage - Inbound Site Trips
Figure 6 Distribution Percentage - Outbound Site Trips
Figure 7 Inbound Site Trips
Figure 8 Outbound Site Trips
Figure 9 Site Trips
Figure 10 2021 Build Traffic Volumes

Appendix

Appendix Turn Lane Warrant Forms

3
Figure 1 Site Vicinity

N
Gl
ad
de
nC Route
ir 221

d
tR
re
er
Ev

Site

Rd
e r ret
Ev
Figure 2 Site Location

Ev
er
re
tR
d

Site
Eve
rre
tR
d
Figure 3 Existing Traffic Volumes

N
Gl
ad
de 1
nC Route
ir 22 1
2

d
tR
XX/XX AM/PM
re
er
Ev

260/558
20/36
221
1
556/336

0/0
58/31
2/0

Gladden

3/5
19/31
Gladden
2
5/7

17/17
58/31
4/16

Everett

Everett

23/47
N/A

3
Site Entrance

N/A

N/A
75/48
N/A
3
Site

Rd
e r ret
Ev
Figure 4 2021 No Build Traffic Volumes

N
Gl
ad
de 1
nC Route
ir 22 1
2

d
tR
XX/XX AM/PM
re
er
Ev

275/627
32/107
221
1
626/366

0/0
132/59
2/0

Gladden

3/5
31/102
Gladden
2
5/7

47/51
132/59
23/54

Everett

Everett

50/136
N/A

3
Site Entrance

N/A

N/A
158/103
N/A
3
Site

Rd
e r ret
Ev
Figure 5 Distribution Percentage - Inbound Site Trips

N
Gl
ad
de 1
nC Route
ir 22 1
2

d
tR
XX/XX AM/PM
re
er
Ev

0/0
55%/44%
221
1
0/0

0/0
0/0
0/0

Gladden

0/0
55%/44%
Gladden
2
0/0

0/0
0/0
12%/23%

Everett

Everett

67%/67%

0/0

3
Site Entrance

0/0

33%/33%
0/0
0/0
3
Site

Rd
e r ret
Ev
Figure 6 Distribution Percentage - Outbound Site Trips

N
Gl
ad
de 1
nC Route
ir 22 1
2

d
tR
XX/XX AM/PM
re
er
Ev

0/0
0/0
221
1
0/0

0/0
52%/43%
0/0

Gladden

0/0
0/0
Gladden
2
0/0

15%/24%
52%/43%
0/0

Everett

0/0
0/0

3
Site Entrance

67%/67%

0/0
0/0
33%/33%
3
Site

Rd
e r ret
Ev
Figure 7 Inbound Site Trips

N
Gl
ad
de 1
nC Route
ir 22 1
2

d
tR
XX/XX AM/PM
re
er
Ev

0/0
6/14
221
1
0/0

0/0
0/0
0/0

Gladden

0/0
6/14
Gladden
2
0/0

0/0
0/0
1/8

Everett

Everett

7/22

0/0

3
Site Entrance

0/0

3/11
0/0
0/0
3
Site

Rd
e r ret
Ev
Figure 8 Outbound Site Trips

N
Gl
ad
de 1
nC Route
ir 22 1
2

d
tR
XX/XX AM/PM
re
er
Ev

0/0
0/0
221
1
0/0

0/0
16/8
0/0

Gladden

0/0
0/0
Gladden
2
0/0

4/5
16/8
0/0

Everett

0/0
0/0

3
Site Entrance

20/13

0/0
0/0
10/6
3
Site

Rd
e r ret
Ev
Figure 9 Site Trips

N
Gl
ad
de 1
nC Route
ir 22 1
2

d
tR
XX/XX AM/PM
re
er
Ev

0/0
6/14
221
1
0/0

0/0
16/8
0/0

Gladden

0/0
6/14
Gladden
2
0/0

4/5
16/8
1/8

Everett

Everett

7/22

0/0

3
Site Entrance

20/13

3/11
0/0
10/6
3
Site

Rd
e r ret
Ev
Figure 10 2021 Build Traffic Volumes

N
Gl
ad
de 1
nC Route
ir 22 1
2

d
tR
XX/XX AM/PM
re
er
Ev

275/627
38/121
221
1
626/366

0/0
148/67
2/0

Gladden

3/5
37/116
Gladden
2
5/7

51/56
148/67
24/62

Everett

Everett

50/136
7/22

3
Site Entrance

20/13

3/11
158/103
10/6
3
Site

Rd
e r ret
Ev
Warrant for Right-Turn Storage Lanes on Two-Lane Highway

Project: Jefferson Meadows


Scenario: 2021 Build
Intersection: 2. Gladden Circle/Everett Road

Approach Direction: Eastbound


Peak Hour: AM

PHV Right Turns: 24 vph


PHV Approach Total: 29 vph

Conclusion: No Turn Lane or Taper Required

F-74

NO TURN LANES
OR TAPERS REQUIRED

Appropriate Radius required at all Intersections and Entrances (Commercial or Private).


Warrant for Right-Turn Storage Lanes on Two-Lane Highway

Project: Jefferson Meadows


Scenario: 2021 Build
Intersection: 2. Gladden Circle/Everett Road

Approach Direction: Eastbound


Peak Hour: PM

PHV Right Turns: 62 vph


PHV Approach Total: 69 vph

Conclusion: No Turn Lane or Taper Required

F-74

NO TURN LANES
OR TAPERS REQUIRED

Appropriate Radius required at all Intersections and Entrances (Commercial or Private).