Loading...
CPPC 06-12-95 Meeting AgendaCOUNTY of FREDERICK Department of Planning and Development 703/665-5651 FAX 703/678-0682 MEMORANDUM TO: Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee FROM: Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director `kT/fid RE: Meeting Date and Agenda DATE: June 5, 1995 There will be a meeting of the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee on June 12, 1995 at 7:30 p.m. in the Conference Room of the Old County Court House. Please let me know if you are unable to -attend. AGENDA 1) Discussion of input received at the Round Hill Community meeting and from comment sheets received. Staff has tabulated the results of the survey forms that have been returned and summarized comments received. The results are enclosed. 2) Discussion of some general development scenarios for the Round Hill Community Center. Staff will prepare some alternative development scenarios to be discussed at the meeting. 3) Other. 107 North Kent Street P.O. Box 601 Winchester, VA 22601 Winchester, VA 22604 Round Hill Community Meed ng May S, 1995 Round Hill Fire Hall. Back round On May 8, 1995 the Frederick County Comprehensive Plans and Programs Committee (a subcommittee of the County Planning Commission) and staff from the Department of Planning and Development, conducted a public meeting at the Round Hill Fire Hall. Estimates of the attehdance at the meeting ranged from 120 to 140 individuals. Given the size of the community, this was considered to be a excellent turn out. The high attendance was attributed to a variety of factors. The meeting had been advertised in both the Winchester Star and the Northern Virginia Daily. Flyers, which announced the time, location, and intention of the meeting, had been posted throughout the community and invitations had been sent to all 311 property owners within the established boundaries of the community. These invitations were in the form of a newsletter intended to educate the residents on the current status of their community with regard to county policies, and give them an idea of the purpose of the planned meeting. These notices also contained a one page comment sheet which recipients were urged to either mail in or bring to the public meeting. A large parcel of land located within the defined community, on the north side of Route 50, just west of the Route 37 intersection, had also been advertised for auction (C.L. Robinson tract). The entire Round Hill community contains approximately 1,100 acres. The parcel advertised for sale contained 243 acres. It is believed that curiosity and concern over the impact of this proposed land sale also contributed to the meeting attendance. The Round Hill community had been the focus of discussion on and off for a number of years. The primary issue addressed in these discussions being whether to provide sewer to the community, and the possible impacts this would have on the area. This discussion was fueled in part by the existence of a sewer line just to the east of Round Hill. A sewer line had been extended to the eastern edge of Route 37 by the City of Winchester, prior to the construction of the Winchester Medical Center. This line had been oversized as part of an agreement between the City and the County Sanitation Authority. The agreement required that the Sanitation Authority pay the cost difference of the oversized line, and the City agreed to allow use of the line to serve an estimated 1,100 acres of medium density development within the Round Hill Community. The County had also participated in a study which was conducted in 1993 to examine the feasibility of providing some alternative method of sewage treatment to the community. The study concluded that it would be possible to install a small diameter sewer collection system that would work in conjunction with individual residential septic tanks. This collection system would carry liquid waste to a treatment facility that would discharge into Abrams Creek. The estimated cost to construct such a system was 2.8 million dollars, double the estimated cost of tieing into the existing line east of Route 37. Meetin Summa The purpose for the public meeting was to give residents of the area a chance to voice their concerns and opinions regarding current and future status of Round Hill. The meeting began with a quick introduction and review of the proposed meeting agenda. This was followed by a brief slide presentation aimed at bringing everyone up to speed on the size, location, zoning and land use within the community. The meeting format then shifted to one of group discussions. Those in attendance were separated into three groups, each with a staff person acting as facilitator. The groups proceeded to the discuss whatever issues or questions were raised by the group members. This portion of the meeting lasted approximately one hour. Within the groups citizens were encouraged to openly express any opinions or concerns they had regarding the Round Hill Community. As expected, the primary topic of discussion was the provision of sewer to the community. Comments received at the meeting were mixed. Many individuals were concerned about what the availability of sewer would mean to the area in terms of growth. Most residents seemed opposed to large scale commercial or residential development. Those who voiced a desire to have the service provided seemed to be owners of land on Route 50 that would like to develop it, or residents who were concerned about failing septic systems. Even those who felt they might like sewer expressed some reservations based on not knowing what it would cost. There were a number of other issues raised during the group discussions. As of May 22, 1995, the Planning office had received 66 of the survey forms. Of these, 31 expressed opposition to sewer service, 30 were in favor of the service being provided, and 5 expressed no clear desire either way. What follows is a summary of the comments received during the discussions, as well as a tabular summary of the comments received from mail -in survey forms. Group I Facilitator: Jean Moore. This breakout sessions consisted of 25 to 30 citizens. The majority of the people in the group were over 50 years in age. Comments were made by at least 15 different people. In the beginning the group asked questions to help them understand the issues involved. Most asked questions about the cost of providing sewer to the area. Below are the same comments placed in subject groups. Providing Sewer to Round Mill • People need more information about where sewer would go and how much it would cost the Round Hill Citizens. • Want to know the cost! • Who will absorb the cost of a pumping station? • Not willing to pay for sewer and water. • Would be willing to meet again after costs are figured out. • How many residences would be necessary to pay for sewer and water? There is concern about fast growth. • Would like sewer if it didn't encourage growth. • Sewer and water should be planned together with new roads.. etc. • If your septic was failing, would you have to hook up to sewer? • What are the state/national regulations regarding septic systems? It was clear that all members of the group would not commit to stating a preference for sewer unless they knew what cost were involved They also wanted to know what the tradeoff would be to acquire sewer and water connections. Many were not willing to pay and they were not willing to sacrifice the rural setting in which they live. They were somewhat open to the idea of residential growth, but were afraid that the availability of sewer would bring uncontrollable growth. Most felt that roads should be planned before sewer connections are available. The group was also interested in other factors that would determine the necessity and likelihood of extending sewer to Round Hill. Mainly, they were curious about regulations that would obligate them to connect to sewer lines. If they did not need sewer, then they would rather leave Round Hill as it is. Growth • We need to control growth. • Would like to maintain the rural atmosphere. • Should concentrate on where we need sewer. • Growth should occur where sewer is needed. • Round Hill is not far from development. • Growth should occur near the Route 37 interchange. Residential Growth • Should keep development to single family houses. • Three houses per acre is too much. Too dense. • One house per acre is preferable. • Build 20 acre lots. (That will not be further subdivided.) • Possibly focus on open space ratios. • Where would open space be maintained if large development did occur? • Concerned about absorbing additional school population. Although the group preferred to leave Round Hill in its rural pristine state, they did say that they could tolerate some growth if it was well managed. They were quick to point out that they were not 'far out" from urban development and they are concerned that development occurring on the east side of Route 37 will, sooner or later, encroach upon them. Adding sewer would only act as a catalyst. Some of the group felt that the County should extend sewer only to places that absolutely needed it. If residential growth was to occur, the group consented that they would only like to see single family development. They are apprehensive about Residential Performance zoning which would allow higher density and multi family dwellings, especially since this would add to the school population. Most would like to see larger homes on large lots that would attract higher income families. A few were curious about Planned Unit Developments. It appeared that higher density development was acceptable if the County Planning Department could restrict the amount of dwellings and incorporate them in a way that it did not interfere with the rural setting or add traffic. Mostfelt that this could not be done. Commercial Growth • Businesses should be concentrated along the 50 / 37 interchange. • Would like to have commercial development on this side (west) of Route 3 7. • Would want to know what types of businesses would be allowed to develop. • Have to drive a ways to get to a hardware store. • Put a shopping/business area where stock exchange is located. • County stores. Tra tc • Intersections at Routes 803 and 50 are very busy with traffic. Dangerous. • Round Hill Road will not accommodate additional traffic. • Too many accidents on Route 50 near Round Hill now. • Someone should count the traffic during rush hour. Many, many cars from West Virginia, it's unbelievable. The group was less verbal about commercial development. Most welcomed some businesses, such as hardware and drug stores, which they currently have to drive across town for. They did not specify any concern about the types of businesses currently located on Route 50, but they did express concern about the traffic that it generates. They also expressed that with the exception of a handful of county stores (convenient stores), they would not like businesses to locate on Round Hill Road. Traffic was the main concern with commercial growth. The group feared that development (of any kind) would add to the traffic problems that they already have. Several stated that they wait as long as seven minutes to enter Roane 50 from Round Hill Road during the morning. Some talked about the need for a streetlight at the intersection, and others stated that this would only increase the occurrence of accidents on Route 50. Historical Properties • There are several historic properties that should be acknowledged and protected. • There are Civil War earthworks on Round Hill. Other Concerns • Very concerned about shale. • Should rename Round Hill to "Half Round Hill." Concerned about digging into the hill. • Concern about runoff from commercial development, especially the shale pit. • Concerned about the blasting that takes place at the quarry. Could be cracking the wells. Other Comments • Would like to have a park. • Next time, have a meeting in a place where it is easier to hear. Protecting the historic properties in Round Hill was a concern among the group. One member of the group pointed out that there are several earthworks on top of Round Hill. Several were also concerned about the digging that was occurring along the hill. All the members of the group were concerned about the shale pit on Round Hill. Residents of Sherwood Forest were especially concerned. Several stated that the digging is causing too much erosion and runoff. Other concerns included the blasting from Perry Quarry that at times, they say, is too intense for the wells in the area. Group H Facilitator: Eric Lawrence This session consisted of 38 people, entirely white, equal proportions of male/female Age: mid 30s to mid 60s Trak Concerns • Traffic problems currently exist on RT 803. • Traffic too fast, to many trucks on RT 803 • Any future development should not be in a manner which will increase commercial use of RT 803. • Lack of turning lanes cause occasional traffic back-ups; don't want more back-ups in the future. • Speed limits should be reduced on RT 803. Want it to be a community road with residences. Slow down the travel speeds. Slower speeds may discourage truck usage on RT 803. Implement occasional speed traps to discourage speeding. • Keep Trucks off RT 803. • Traffic studies should be conducted on RT 803 and RT 50. Would an increase in commercial activity along either road introduce more cars or trucks. Definitely don't want more trucks on RT 803. • If growth occurs, traffic will soon follow. Most of the discussion group agreed to this theory. Environmental Concerns • Environmental study of the area is necessary; this study could indicate where the failing wells are located and predict future failing wells. Sewer and Water Concerns • Want sewer hook-up if free. Overwhelmingly agree. • If 1 utility is brought to Round Hill, why not bring both? • Numbers (costs) for water/sewer is needed before anyone will commit to hook-ups. Possibly look at similar situations around the state. Bring these numbers to the next public hearing. May provide more 'commitments' from the residents. • Cost dependent. What will hook-up and service costs. If only one can be extended: Sewer: 25 residents say yes Water: 13 residents say yes Both: almost all participants, cost considering • How may well failures in community? How many failures are necessary before the County is required to install the sewer and water services? Doesn't DEQ have numbers available? Lot Sizes/ Housing Types • Want minimum lot size requirements. Feel that lots should not be smaller than 0.5 acre. Rather have the lots at 1 acre. And single-family houses. • Maintain the "community" spirit. Most participants enjoy the community of Round Hill. Strongly oppose suburbanization similar to that found around Stephen City, and Eastern Frederick County. • No Townhouses or apartments. • Small townhouse development may be necessary to provide affordable housing. • Affordable housing could be provided in the form of 1 acre lots. But not like Stephen City, or Greenbriar subdivision. • No trailer parks. Absolutely not. • No Fredericktown. Want to maintain the Round Hill rural character. • Moderate growth will be O.K. • Maintain "community" of Round Hill • Not growth like Eastern Frederick County Recreational Area Concerns • More recreation space will be necessary if growth occurs. Strong agreement that the park behind the firehouse is very important to the community. Would like to see a park similar to Clearbrook or Sherando. • Strong support for the County purchasing land north of RT 50 for use as a park. Currently, the land with pond are slated for auction. • Farms uses should be maintained within the Round Hill community. Orchards should be preserved. Commercialization Concerns • Keep development on RT 50. • Most businesses should be kept on RT 50. Small business, which cater to the Round Hill community would be OK on RT 803. Minimum traffic would result. • Light industrial development if located along RT 50 in planned industrial parks. • Mixed use development along RT 50 to blend uses within the community. Not like the development that has occurred in Eastern Frederick County., and Pleasant Valley Road. • VDOT District Headquarters. How will trucks enter/exit facility? Don't want more trucks on RT 803. Speed limit on RT 803 should be reduced to discourage trucks from using it. It is a neighborhood road, not a major truck thoroughfare. • Should not affect historic elements in community. Should not deface the viewshed. Don't Stephens City Round Hill. • Mixed use should be encouraged on RT 50. Group III Facilitator: Kris Tierney This group was made up of approximately 50 to 60 people, ages ranged from 30s to 70s. At first the group ask questions concerning what would he permitted under the axisting policiesfor Round Hill. The discussion then shifted toward the provision of sewer. The primary focus seemed to be one of cost to the residents. Many of the individuals in the group spoke. Sewer and Water • Numerous questions concerning sewer costs ranging from the cost to install a pump station to the cost per individual to hook-up. What about cost of growth, additional taxes, schools resulting from new residential development. What about fire protection for all the new housing? • Should have extended sewer along time ago. Should allow commercial growth on Route 50. • Residents wanted to know when we would tell them cost information, Some small scale commercial wanted us to do what it takes to get growth in Round Hill would be OK. this info • Route 50 is a business area. • Could water be run with sewer, wouldn't this be cheaper? We need Growth will come regardless of both. what we do, at least make it well planned growth. • What will the County do about failing septic systems? Tra ,c • What happened to the study that was done on sewer? Didn't that Too much traffic in area already, recommend extending the sewer don't need more. services? • Need traffic lights on Route 50, not safe. Growth • Restrict truck Traffic. • Majority of those voicing an opinion did not want growth in Round Hill. Other • Would accept limited residential growth. Stormwater run off is a problem west of the Fire Hall. • Don't want multi -family housing. • Want additional park space. 1995 Round Hill Community Survey Results 5/22/95 Features to Protect Commercial Growth Residential Growth Sewer Other Against O.K. Yes Not if unsightly Not if unsightly Yes Historical/School O.K. Well Planned Yes/$ Improve Traffic Fine Fine Yes Traffic Lights O.K. Yes Need water too Not appropriate Limited Yes O.K. O.K. Yes VDOT hurt prop. values Limited Limited Yes Need park & traffic light Yes Yes Yes Perry trucks are problem Trees Limited Limited Yes/$ IGIad to see McDonalds O.K. O.K. Yes/$ CountryAtmspher No No Yes Don't Change Community No Needed Some Yes Should've had ten yrs. ago Rural Look Don't want it Single Family Yes/$ ITraffic Problem No Great Great Yes No problem with growth Rural $ Ag. land limited/small scale Limited S.F. Yes Don't want VDOT Orchards/openspace Restrict to 50 Limited S.F. Yes/$ Already enough traffic Controlled Controlled Yes Stop rhetoric and do it Battle sites 50/50 No townhouses Yes/$ lKeep 803 rural Rural,Quiet scenery Limited Limited, no M.F. Yes Give citizens vote/voice Plenty O.K. O.K. O.K. Need desperately Some Yes Health problem/Septic A must Yes A must I desperately need w&s Rural Nature Well planned Clustered Yes Well planned growth good Neighborhood Controlled Single Family Yes/$ Fine Fine Yes/$ Rural Atmosphere Not in favor Yes Yes/$ Ag. Farms, Orchards Rt. 50 only 2or3 ac. limited Yes Need water and sewer No problem Would be nice Yes Traffic on 50 too fast Yes Features to Protect Commercial Growth Residential Growth Sewer Other Countryside No No No Keep western county rural Round Hill in general Should prevent Should be avoided No Don't want growth No Yes No Absolutely against No No Anti -growth Nice quiet place Small scale No No Like VDOT coming Rt. 50, farms/orchards No No No No Quiet Small amount No No ILike VDOT coming Rural character Not beneficial No No ILeave Round Hill alone Historic aspects Think it's awful No No Don't want VDOT Stream No more growth No No Too much truck traffic Open land No Small scale No Agriculture, orchards Small scale Single family No INo subdivisions Historic values No Absolutely not No/$ INeed traffic control Open land No No No Keep it rural No 2 acres O.K. No Remove junkyard,trailers Everything Don't need it No No Rural aspects Opposed 5 acres No Close shale pit on Rt. 50 Opposed Reasonable growth No/$ Agriculture No more than 2 Limited No None that harm existing bs. Orchards No No No Peaceful neighborhood Everything Don't need it No No Historical No Planned rural OK No Confine growth Rural atmosphere Small business Limited No Less interference the better No/$ Open space Very little Very little No Rural nature Very Opposed Absolutely not No Don't fix we're not broken Rural nature Against it Don't want to see No Keep Round Hill rural Yes Don't want it No No Leave Round Hill like it is Country Atmosphere No more please! 5 acre lots NO! Stop shale pit Features to Protect Commercial Growth Residential Growth Sewer Other Keep it rural No Very little ? Some may need it Good Good Agriculture Controlled Already getting it ? Need recreational facilities Earthworks $? Halt destruction Rnd Hill The community Wellplanned, small Planned S.F. $? Slow growth O.K. My House Keep it on 50 Not high density needed Quality housing