[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6483265,"mediaKeyId","5545821-b8c464d8789b87c19a868a0d7b7dc078","parentId",5545821,"title","Planning staff propose batch zoning-text amendments covering M1 uses, ADA parking, cottage housing and short-term rentals","audioSeconds",446,"startMs",2546000,"endMs",2992000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5545821-b8c464d8789b87c19a868a0d7b7dc078&start=2546&end=2992","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5545821-b8c464d8789b87c19a868a0d7b7dc078/thumbnail_2546000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6483265/Winchester-City/Frederick-County/Virginia/Planning-staff-propose-batch-zoning-text-amendments-covering-M1-uses-ADA-parking-cottage-housing-and-short-term-rentals","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6483265-614c7c23203c5f8759a7e50739a1c7d4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771146308&Signature=HTfkbcIZJlFny-NxfOeZA3tZFnQU4hAGB9VJCyeyf1mdcbQEpzzi4hd-8T74Xs0weiSnp5D4W28v8xrZerZTuWHRO0vk4Jdjpe28UqFjnWJyLtEFawdcFcXD9asPIqr8q4CaETVxQllsmfbeBf-md~5fYrIc-B7xELNMZfWjTNXxNuFQWUBeF-0kf~opCPsHKlgUUK1y5Rw3uL3HpZhPdamh3hlLoR3AMaO3PYsuLVbel2Tvle-potK8rS4whJCAq3ClBnn16FGAOmtfrMSIhAE5kiCUf~CCGptVYRqapCZwnw88ovIk~jYdkb7~zcreurEfkOka82cqAtXs1GyLng__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Winchester","date","2025-08-05T00:00:00Z","article","City planning staff presented a batch zoning-text amendment labeled TA-25-4 that would bundle several relatively small amendments to the Winchester Zoning Ordinance and related sections for initiation and public hearing.

Staff described several components of the batch amendment. The M1 industrial permitted-uses section would be amended to explicitly prohibit asbestos manufacturing (staff said federal law effectively prohibits such activity and the local code should reflect that). Cottage housing language would be clarified to remove ambiguous cross-references and provide a clearer list of the ordinance’s requirements.

Staff also proposed removing local language that suggested the planning director could waive on-site ADA parking requirements if required ADA spaces existed in the public right-of-way; planners said ADA parking is governed by federal law and the city’s building official should coordinate on ADA issues rather than the zoning administrator unilaterally waiving requirements.

On short-term rentals, staff outlined changes to align local rules with recent state code updates. Virginia code now provides exemptions in some cases (for example, certain licensed real-estate professionals) from local registration/licensing requirements, but exempt units must still meet local zoning standards. Staff also noted a state change clarifying that subleasing for short-term rentals is permitted with explicit property-owner permission, and the city’s code will be updated to reflect that.

Staff characterized the batch amendment as procedural and mostly ministerial; several sections also include language cleanups to landscape-area provisions and other housekeeping matters. Planning staff said the commission will be asked to initiate the amendment at the commission’s next regular meeting and proceed through the normal resolution and public hearing process.

Commissioners had few substantive questions and were informed the neighborhood-design-district (NDD) ordinance changes will be handled separately and are expected back for additional minor adjustments later in the fall.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Winchester - Planning Commission Work Session - 3:00 PM - Aug 05 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Winchester planning staff presented TA-25-4, a batch zoning-text amendment proposing targeted changes to M1 permitted uses, cottage housing rules, ADA parking references, short-term rental provisions and landscape-area wording in the zoning ordinance.","taxTitle","Winchester City, Frederick County, Virginia","taxId",5107,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6483270,"Winchester staff outline subdivision and site-plan code updates after state law shortens review timelines",622,1616000,2238000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5545821-b8c464d8789b87c19a868a0d7b7dc078&start=1616&end=2238","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5545821-b8c464d8789b87c19a868a0d7b7dc078/thumbnail_1616000.jpg","/articles/6483270/Winchester-City/Frederick-County/Virginia/Winchester-staff-outline-subdivision-and-site-plan-code-updates-after-state-law-shortens-review-timelines","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6483270-1c0c63478b68a48d8f4d7a2406520c4a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771146308&Signature=S~vsrUSbmV97-hatPOyaT-Y9kn6dcwWBrLegeaMN9Rzk361wtaZcPS0Do8IzCU1EZfp9Sc37kmtwXi3y3GDvpnpdcUFC0lvgR9FBSBRLEersXRNxZzYu1N2RAbFSQ0Mu651oT49p7DsLNy0CumHnAf3DzsTAizxM6kMxZEP2Vc40G8u8R-EjTLIN~UCMANJ-wlvPTHi-uXWLyAKf3LlKR4dVFOdMBCU3LnKtT5~CRsTHeVmtJtmPnF4IzIu3pQ1AcDiSr5hTV5vyzNxkOyEPdBf45YtYlHGvKoMjG8sKpmf9hQMtneup5ohrO-U5C614YsXTSXSIcEp9Zv~qFcEs~g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Winchester City planning staff presented proposed amendments to the city’s land subdivision ordinance and zoning ordinance site-plan procedures to implement recent changes in Virginia law that shorten review timeframes and make administrative review the default in larger jurisdictions.

Planning staff said the state code change (referenced in the meeting as Senate Bill 974) takes effect July 1 and shortens approval timelines for subdivisions and site plans while allowing localities with adequate professional staff to shift approval authority away from the planning commission. “The state code was effective July 1,” a staff presenter said, and the proposed local ordinance updates remove the planning commission’s formal role in subdivision and site-plan approvals where state law permits.

Staff proposed a set of clarifications while updating the subdivision ordinance, including references to planned unit developments (PUDs), electronic submission processes (digital review in lieu of multiple paper copies), allowance for remnant parcels to remain in common ownership (for HOA/common amenity parcels), and clarifications on frontage-tree placement for urban developments where trees may need to be in the public right-of-way.

On the subdivision procedure, staff retained preliminary and final plat steps but moved the administrative authority to the planning director/administrator instead of the planning commission. Staff noted that PUDs that have completed entitlement review may not require a separate preliminary plat and could proceed directly to final plat under the clarified language. Staff also flagged potential redundancies and engineering language that may need additional refinement (for example, drainage language that presumes discharge to a natural drainage area while some sites discharge to existing storm pipes).

Commissioners and a consulting engineer raised questions about whether the city could require a concept plan or some higher-level public review for major subdivisions even though state law removes planning commission review, and suggested refining survey requirements for preliminary plats to avoid potential boundary disputes. Staff said some administrative processes already allow requests for additional documentation such as site plans or phasing information when necessary and said staff will review suggested wording to tighten engineering and survey requirements.

Staff asked commissioners to consider the draft amendments and indicated they will return with finalized language for initiation and formal hearings. No formal vote occurred in the work session.","City planners described proposed amendments to Winchester’s land subdivision and site-plan ordinances to reflect a recent state code change that shortens review timelines and removes planning commission review in larger jurisdictions; staff also proposed clarifying updates unrelated to the state change.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6483275,"Developer seeks conditional rezoning on Cedar Creek Grade, applicant proffers bank-only use",1003,739000,1742000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5545821-b8c464d8789b87c19a868a0d7b7dc078&start=739&end=1742","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5545821-b8c464d8789b87c19a868a0d7b7dc078/thumbnail_739000.jpg","/articles/6483275/Winchester-City/Frederick-County/Virginia/Developer-seeks-conditional-rezoning-on-Cedar-Creek-Grade-applicant-proffers-bank-only-use","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6483275-047897cc0dc1c9489924d90f864f465b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771146308&Signature=Lp~d1pWWXthMOd1zm-w~FkFEJEGFUUlaW7PAJ7yf9Mm1EC6OYRqQJuFQXq0YIZDNdwJZ3qdvNgBnrMfbE2~m~-sGUobkoY8hE5nTfGqhf9wQIcpxx9k-ivWdXEJy365cwmFpgTFK12OzfrNmG3-qJVVo0puS-o8LiCD7wMpM-elQYvluZ2A8D5mnHgOXcOIZzUeLvNX~Bvmd07hOK3~j98g6zHDUvzx8WZHdn2Nr8BNjnD5lS7FfHXnfd~bqt6GRkwTl2woCC1WNBv739eb7J4GzsoynfdE5iVcFMj-3mgeykO3s8n-KtlwdR5-0pP0euu-6TUxPLSH8HT2QkvzdCg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Planning staff presented RZ-25-3, a conditional rezoning application to rezone approximately 1.32 acres at 616 and 632 Cedar Creek Grade from RO-1 (residential office) with Corridor Enhancement (CE) overlay to B-2 (highway commercial) with proffers limiting future uses.

Mr. Stewart, planning staff, explained the application and the applicant’s proffers: the rezoning would be conditioned to allow a single, specified use — bank and financial institution — with the development to be built in conformity with the CE overlay standards and the applicant’s draft site plan and architectural renderings. The proffers would also limit the property to no more than two entrances onto Cedar Creek Grade, with a minimum spacing condition the applicant originally proposed at 300 feet apart.

Mr. Stewart noted staff concerns about the 300‑foot spacing because driveways directly opposite one another often improve safe vehicular movement. “If the two entrances were 300 feet apart, they wouldn’t line up” with existing entrances across the street, he said, and staff recommended aligning entrances where feasible.

Commissioners asked about long-term flexibility if a bank later vacates the site. Mr. Stewart said that changing the site’s use from the proffered bank/financial use would require a rezoning or an amendment to the proffers. An applicant representative said the developer reserved the right to build a second entrance and noted topographic constraints: the site drops roughly 30 feet in elevation from the rear property line toward Cedar Creek Grade and could require retaining walls depending on final grading.

Commissioners expressed concern the single-use proffer could lead to future underutilization if banks close, citing examples of vacant bank buildings elsewhere in the city. One commissioner suggested broadening or removing the single-use proffer and instead prohibiting specific unwanted uses (for example, gas stations and drive-through restaurants) while allowing other compatible commercial uses.

On stormwater, the applicant representative said the project anticipates underground stormwater management and identified an existing 60‑inch pipe under the Cedar Creek Grade sidewalk that will factor into on-site grading and stormwater location. The applicant said the eastern lot’s larger setback and a natural swale may reduce the need for expensive retaining walls and allow future development of the second lot if stormwater constraints permit.

Staff and the applicant agreed to revise proffer language to allow driveway alignment with opposite entrances across the street and to clarify whether a second main-use building could be constructed on the combined parcels. No formal vote occurred at the work session; staff and the applicant will return with revised proffers and site-plan details for formal consideration.","A conditional rezoning request would rezone about 1.32 acres at 616 and 632 Cedar Creek Grade from RO-1 with Corridor Enhancement (CE) overlay to B-2 highway commercial with conditions limiting uses to a single bank/financial-institution use and restricting driveway configuration.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6483280,"Winchester seeks conditional use permit for 8-foot screening fence, mural along North Kent Street",148,92000,240000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5545821-b8c464d8789b87c19a868a0d7b7dc078&start=92&end=240","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5545821-b8c464d8789b87c19a868a0d7b7dc078/thumbnail_92000.jpg","/articles/6483280/Winchester-City/Frederick-County/Virginia/Winchester-seeks-conditional-use-permit-for-8-foot-screening-fence-mural-along-North-Kent-Street","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6483280-eed071aa0b16fca93fe2e63a7c54326e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771146308&Signature=CyuBgDZEmbDWr0ikOPynyUWUVNiI~jAyBCbZEY5v~Sb1mvHbu60ye6jGvS9MIKzeB~OOHU43Ku5zofrSID5R3GwEwXtn8qYDVZ7ZxMvWGLKLbBDC5nAgC7xVviplOB8YMZknb3hVMX5oGCzGaLXRBynYhr8NNKLj~MmkG~sROmxW75tKT4KeZE7KoWTwXUC8v5OEQR12KG-MImo6VSee9KVCvX1bMJTaIuFF7CJFDDSdtf-xY-DAUIpdnjrfUFzx1D3CU3ZDqmsWcHW3lbQPlPSRlfMEU6Ad0t8jhePn3ldT7BisMd5btY21wnzApDTvad5ytBmWMqOdM~mm6EyVyg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Winchester City planning staff presented a request for Conditional Use Permit CUP-25-231 asking to allow an 8-foot screening fence along a CSX railroad storage yard on North Kent Street, with the City of Winchester acting as the applicant.

Planning staff said the city is building stormwater detention ponds near North Cameron and North Kent streets and intends the ponds and adjacent land to serve as a public green space. “The city is acting as the applicant,” said Mr. Benson, planning staff. He described the proposal as an 8-foot precast concrete panel fence by the Superior Company to screen the storage yard from the new public area.

The request seeks an exception to the zoning rule that limits front-yard fences to 4 feet and requires at least 25% openness. The CUP criteria presented to the commission allow a taller opaque fence only if the property cannot reasonably meet existing standards or if the taller design better fits the character of the area. Mr. Benson said the City is pursuing the CUP because the central parcel remains in private ownership by CSX and “we tried to buy that when we bought the other parcels. They refused to sell it to us.”

Commissioners and staff discussed design alternatives and public uses. Commissioner Bloom suggested varying the fence face and heights and adding niches or reveals to reduce visual monotony; Bloom said allowing some 6-foot sections alongside 8-foot sections could improve the mural canvas and overall appearance. “It would be nice if you could have some relief in the face of that fence … maybe some 6‑foot, maybe some 8‑foot sections would make it more visually interesting,” Bloom said.

Staff said the city’s public services and communications teams are coordinating with the North End community to paint a mural on the fence that “would go the length of North Kent Street” as shown in the presentation. Commissioners asked whether the CUP would also cover the mural; Mr. Benson indicated he did not believe the CUP application would need a separate mural CUP.

Safety and pedestrian access around the detention ponds were also raised. A city staff member said the ponds themselves will have a separate, lower decorative 4‑foot fence to restrict direct access, while the taller screen would be placed along the CSX property line. Commissioners asked about a pedestrian bridge over the tracks; staff replied the city previously received a $1 million federal grant for design work but said that funding was canceled by the federal administration and there is currently no funding for a bridge.

Commissioners signaled support for flexibility in final fence height and design and encouraged staff to allow design creativity to assist muralists while maintaining safety around the ponds. No formal action or vote was recorded in the work session; staff said the commission will consider the CUP more formally at a later meeting.

The planning staff presentation included images of the storage yard and the proposed fence alignment and noted the design intent to screen the CSX property where the railroad has not maintained the site. Staff also emphasized that the ponds and surrounding landscaping will be intended as a public green space when complete.","City staff presented a request for a conditional use permit allowing an 8-foot precast concrete fence to screen a CSX-owned railroad storage yard between new detention ponds on North Kent Street; staff and commissioners discussed fence height, design variations and a community mural.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning staff propose batch zoning-text amendments covering M1 uses, ADA parking, cottage housing and short-term rentals

Winchester staff outline subdivision and site-plan code updates after state law shortens review timelines

Developer seeks conditional rezoning on Cedar Creek Grade, applicant proffers bank-only use

Winchester seeks conditional use permit for 8-foot screening fence, mural along North Kent Street