PC_07-20-05_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES
OF THE
._
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on July 20, 2005.
PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/
Opequon District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; June M. Wilmot,
Shawnee District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz,
Gainesboro District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Gary Dove,
Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and LawTence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: John H. Light, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris,
Shawnee District; and David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison.
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. LawTcnce, Planning Director; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision
Administrator; Candice E. Mills, Planner II; Bernard Suchicital, Planner I; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
• CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DcHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Triplett and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the
Planning Commission minutes of June 1, 2005 were unanimously approved as presented.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development Review & Reeulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 07/14/05 Mtg.
Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS has been meeting every other Thursday to talk
about the zoning changes needed for the potential rural development amendments. He said this work will be
ongoing for the next six to eight months.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1561
Minutes of July 20, 2005
-2-
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS)
Chairman DeHaven reported that the CPPS is continuing with their work on the UDA (Urban
Development Area) Study. He said the work group is continuing to meet every other Tuesday in the Planning
Department at 11:00 a.m. Chairman DeHaven said the group will be meeting with the Top of Virginia (TOV)
Building Association at the next meeting.
Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) – 07/19/05 Mtg.
Commissioner Gochenour reported that the HRAB discussed a new application for submission
requirements; the intent is to ensure the applicant is aware of the materials needed for a submission review by the
HRAB. She said the application will be discussed again at the next meeting and once adopted, it will be included
in the land use application.
Commissioner Gochenour stated that other topics discussed by the HRAB included: the
possibility of the HRAB becoming involved with other groups associated with historic preservation; the HRAB's
potential role in the RA (Rural Areas) Study, reviving the Plaque Program; and, initiating a historic -home driving
tour.
0
Winchester Planning Commission (WPCI – 07/19/05 Mtg.
Commissioner Ours reported that the WPC acted on the following items: Approval of a
conditional use permit (CUP) for the conversion of the first floor at 19 South Cameron Street from B1 to
Residential; denied a request for a CUP for an automobile sales business at 806 South Cameron Street, adjacent
to the Pizza Hut Take -Out —the WPC believed it was an inappropriate use on a corridor into the historic area of
Winchester; and, approved an ordinance to enact provisions for upper -story age - restricted multi - family housing in
the Highway - Commercial B2 District. In addition, Commissioner Ours said the WPC approved an ordinance to
enact new administrative authority powers to the Zoning Administrator; apparently, State Legislature recently
approved some provisions that allow for greater authority among Zoning Administrators.
PUBLIC HEARING ,
Rezoning #11 -05 of Carpers Valley, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, PC, to rezone 281.5
acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for Residential and
Commercial uses. The properties are located approximately one mile east of I -81, on the south side of
• Millwood Pike (Rt. 50E), across from Sulphur Springs Road (Rt. 655) and the Ravens subdivision, on the
north side of the Airport. This property is also identified with P.I.N.s 64 -A -82, 64 -A -83, 64- A -83A,
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1562
Minutes of duly 20, 2005
-3-
64 -A -86, 64 -A -87, 64 -A -87A in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers
Chairman DeHaven announced that he would be abstaining from discussion and voting on this
item due to a possible conflict of interest. He then turned over the conduction of the meeting to Vice- Chairman
Thomas.
Commissioner Wilmot announced that upon consultation with the County Attorney, she would
also be abstaining from discussion and voting on this item.
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, reported that the Carpers Valley Rezoning Application is a
request to rezone six parcels of land consisting of 281.5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to R4 (Residential Planned
Community) District for 785 residential units and a 143 -acre employment center. Mr. Lawrence noted that the
majority of the property is commonly referred to as the Carpers Valley Golf Course. He explained that the R4
District allows all of the permitted uses in the B 1 (Business Limited), B2 (Business General), B3 (Industrial
Transition), or M 1 (Industrial Limited). Mr. Lawrence pointed out the ten -acre location reserved specifically for
an armory site.
Mr. Lawrence stated that the Comprehensive Policy Plan specifically addresses the planned land
use of the subject parcels through the policies adopted with the Rt. 50 East Corridor Land Use Plan; these policies
recommend the establishment of business and office uses. Because of the subject parcels' proximity to the
airport, it is also located within the Airport Support Airport, a delineation in the Comprehensive Policy Plan to
help to protect influence on the airport.
Regarding the impacts, Mr. Lawrence stated that VDOT concurs with the applicant's
conclusions to the Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) that a Level of Service (LOS) "C" will be achieved with
the proffered improvements. Mr. Lawrence pointed out that the applicant has not secured all of the necessary
right -of -way to facilitate the TIA- identified road improvements; he noted that VDOT has expressed concern that
failure to secure the right -of -way will significantly impact the TIA results and LOS. Regarding capital facilities,
Mr. Lawrence said that a phasing plan has not been proffered for the non - residential portion of the project; he
said that if the non- residential component of the development does not materialize, the projected per unit capital
facilities fiscal impact would be $4,174.
Mr. Lawrence stated that the R4 District provides the opportunity for the applicant to request
modifications to the zoning ordinance and to introduce new housing design standards through the proffers. Mr.
Lawrence said the applicant has requested three modifications, as follows:
1) Modification 91: Submission of a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) at Rezoning, in lieu of the
Master Development Plan (MDP). (The MDP submission will follow rezoning approval, prior to
development of the property.)
2) Modification 42: Allowance of a Mixture of Housing Types; Single - family attached (towmouses) and
multi- family dwellings (apartments) would be predominant.
3) Modification #3: Allowance of a Maximum of 60% of Total Gross Area for Business and Commercial
Purposes.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1563
Minutes of July 20, 2005
Mr. Lawrence next reviewed the applicant's proffers with the Commission. He concluded his
presentation by stating that the Planning Commission should provide concurrence with VDOT that the
transportation proffers offered with the rezoning application are satisfactory, that all right -of -way is secured; and,
that the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the comments of the County Attorney.
Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr. with Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, Inc. (PHR&A) said he was
representing the Carpers Valley project, along with Mr. John Conrad of Miller & Smith and Mr. Jim Vickers of
Oakcrest, who are partners also representing the ownership of this project. In addition, he introduced Mr. Mike
Lickman with PHR &A's Transportation Plamting, and Patrick Sowers of PHR &A who have worked extensively
on this project. Mr. Maddox presented the project to the Commission and talked about some of the amenities
provided on the site, such as the provision of a 4,000 square -foot community center, two swinmting pools, pocket
parks, and inter -model transportation; he provided a description of the various housing types; he pointed out the
locations for the Armory site and the area to be possibly used as a federal government facility. He talked about
some of the airport- related issues, noting that the dwelling units will be 1,800 feetfrom the center of the airport's
runway; he pointed out the 15 -acre and two -acre set -aside areas to accommodate the airport's MDP, which would
be reserved for the airport for a period of eight years; and, he also pointed out the acreage requested from the
airport for easement or land acquisition to construct future roadways. Mr. Maddox next reviewed the
modification requests sought by the applicant. Mr. Maddox had no issues with the comments from the County
Attorney and he believed all the comments could be incorporated into the proffers.
Commissioner Ours asked Mr. Maddox about the potential connection of Coverstone to Prince
Frederick and if any preliminary discussions have taken place in making that connection. Mr. Maddox stated that
they met with the Airport Authority and presented proposals to acquire the 6,000 square feet needed from the
airport. Mr. Maddox said that until a land use decision is made by the County, he didn't think he had good
grounds to discuss the acquisition of property from the airport.
• Regarding the 15 -acre and two -acre set aside areas for the airport's T- hangers, Mr. Maddox said
that they are willing to hold the land for eight years for the airport. He said the airport was uncertain about their
ability to acquire the land under the prospect that there may not be a federal grant because of the inclusion of a
residential component in the project; he said the airport is also concerned about whether the residential component
would become politically involved in an attempt to limit airport operations in the future. Mr. Maddox stated that
the residential component of this project is what makes it feasible, he said the Airport Support Zone does not
preclude some residential.
Conmtissioner Kriz inquired about the possibility of the housing types changing from what was
currently depicted on the GDP. Mr. Maddox replied that no single - family homes would be used.
Commissioner Ours asked if the multi - family residential were designed to be rental units. Mr.
Maddox replied that the residential portion was designed for fancily homes. He said that although there could be
rentals, that was not their intent.
Commissioner Gochenour said it was her understanding there was insufficient data on water
quality and quantity for this project. Mr. Maddox gave his interpretation of the comments by the Service
Authority; he believed the comments indicated there should be no issue with the transmission capabilities of the
system and that the County Sanitation Authority had sufficient capacity. Vice - Chairman Thomas advised that
processing of this application does not guarantee connection pemtits.
• Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1564
Minutes of July 20, 2005
-5-
Commissioner Straub commented that she spoke with several representatives of the Service
Authority and they stated that because of the current DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality) regulations,
the Service Authority will be limited as to how much can be discharged into creeks and rivers that empty into the
Chesepeake Bay.
Vice - Chairman Thomas next invited representatives from the airport to come forward to speak
and the following persons came forward:
Mr. Mark K. Flynn, legal counsel for the .Airport Authority since 1987, introduced himself and
Delta Airport Consultant engineer, Mr. John Longnaker. Mr. Longnaker presented handouts and colored exhibits
of a layout plan which the Winchester Regional Airport has adopted to guide the airport for the next 20 years.
Mr. Longnaker described the airport's future growth plans to the Commission. He said that due to increased
demand, changes to fleet mix, and other issues, the airport is concerned it may be constrained to accommodate
future growth.
Referring to the airport's land acquisition plan, Commissioner Kriz asked Mr. Longnaker how
soon the 21 acres on the north side of the runway could be purchased. Commissioner Kriz remarked that the
applicant has agreed to hold the land for eight years. Mr. Longnaker replied that the priority for purchasing that
particular land would be low on the list within the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) funding system
because the FAA would be focusing on the south side taxi -way runway. He did not foresee being able to start on
the north side for 10 -15 years.
Mr. Flynn referred to the July 18, 2005 letter from the Winchester Regional Airport Authority to
Mr. C.E. Maddox, Jr., which stated that "... by a majority vote on July 14, 2005, the Airport Authority opposes
• the R4 Rezoning Plan as presented with 785 residential units and any rezoning request that would include dense
housing within the Airport Support Area." Mr. Flynn said that residents who live within the vicinity of an airport
tend to oppose airport activities and expansion of such activities because of concern for noise and flyovers. Mr.
Flynn was concerned that the residential element of the proposal may have a significant impact on the commercial
viability of the airport.
Ms. Serena R. Manuel, the Executive Director of the Winchester Regional Airport, stated that
the airport will not be able to purchase the applicant's reserved land on the north side of the runway within eight
years. Ms. Manuel said that development work needed on the south side of the runway is a priority and will need
a substantial amount of Federal and State dollars. She said that if the land on the north was purchased prior to
development on the south, it would require 100% local funding, which would need to come from the County of
Frederick and the City of Winchester. Ms. Manuel said the airport is open to compromises and is willing to work
with the applicant; she said they have reduced the airport's 50 -acre layout plan down to 20 acres and an easement
is planned to reduce the amount of property the airport would need to continue growth.
Regarding Coverstone Drive extended, Ms. Manuel stated that the potential Rt. 522 realignment
shown on the plans has not been approved and much is contingent upon surveys and elevations yet to be
conducted. She said the project is contingent upon not interfering with the approach surfaces of the Winchester
Airport and on approvals from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Virginia Department of Aviation
(VDOA). Secondly, she said the airport has not yet reviewed a site plan for the area referred to as the public
safety building area and a lease has not been negotiated. Ms. Manuel said the airport has earmarked about five
acres for a public safety center, but has not proceeded any further with Frederick County to finalize an agreement.
Ms. Manuel said the airport has concerns about a 60 -foot right -of -way through their property. She added that if
• the airport negotiates a lease with Frederick County, the airport would retain ownership of the land and it would
not convey to Frederick County.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1565
Minutes of July 20, 2005
In addition, Ms. Manuel was concerned about the large -lot landowners on the southern side of
the airport; she said she had already been approached by two landowners who have expressed interest in
constructing towmhouses within the Airport Support Area. She said the airport is concerned about the precedent
that may be set. Ms. Manuel also mentioned the applicant's comments that airport noise was not significant
along Rt. 50; she said they have received complaints from people who live on Rt. 50, in the City of Winchester,
and one recent complaint from a resident on Carpers Road (Old Rt. 50).
Commission members inquired about the percentage of aircraft activity between the hours of
10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Ms. Manuel replied that air ambulance and helicopter medi -vac activity takes place
24/7; and commercial activity has increased to about 30 %. Commission members spoke with Ms. Manuel about
the airport's future vision and the possibility of the airport developing partnerships with adjacent landowners to
accomplish the airport's vision for future growth. Ms. Manuel said that the airport does not want to be
landlocked by adjacent properties and they were concerned about their ability to purchase the reserved property
through local funding, whether it be eight, ten, or 15 years.
Mr. Joe Delia, the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) Project Engineer for Winchester
Regional Airport, said he participated in the initial development of the Airport Support Area procedures. Mr.
Delia said the intent was to clearly separate aviation activities from residential use. He said a condition of federal
funding is for the owner of the airport to do everything possible to ensure compatible land use and to maintain the
ability to accommodate revenue generation that makes the airport self - sustaining. Vice - Chairman Thomas
inquired if federal funding would stop if residential construction occurred within 1,000 feet of the runway and Mr.
Delia said the funding would not stop, but he was concerned it would impact the viability of the airport.
• Mr. Randall P. Burdette, the Director of the Virginia Department of Aviation (VDOA), said the
FAA and the VDOA determines where the money should go for the Commonwealth's airports by evaluating
which airports have the ability to grow and to support the overall network. He described Winchester Airport as
an economic engine for the County and a good monetary return on the County's investment. Mr. Burdette said
that the number one reason for airport closings today is incompatible land use encroachment. He cautioned that
adding insulation in a home, or having homeowners sign a waiver recognizing the adjacent airport, or the fact that
the airport was pre - existing, has never stopped a citizen from complaining. He stated that the community can
have an impact on the customers using an airport.
Vice - Chairman Thomas next called for public comments and the following persons came
forward to speak:
Mr. Paul Anderson was one of the Frederick County representatives on the Airport Authority and
he was opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Anderson said that he participated in the establishment of the airport
protection zone procedures, which were written to protect the airport from future residential encroachment and
were based on the traffic pattern of the airport. Mr. Anderson said he had a problem with the R4 Zoning because
it allowed residential and he did not believe residential use was compatible with the airport. He was concerned
that continued residential encroachment on the airport would eventually lead to its closing.
Mr. Ray Hoover, a resident at 1946 Airport Road and a user of the airport, talked about the
standard traffic pattern for Winchester Airport's runways, which is set up for safety purposes. He said it was not
only designed to separate aircraft, but to protect people on the ground by preventing mid -air collisions. Mr.
Hoover was opposed to placing high - density housing under an airport traffic area and he believed the applicant's
plan was unsafe.
•
Frederick Counh Planning Commission Page 1566
Minutes of July 20, 2005
-7-
Mr. Ernie Neff, a resident at 918 Airport Road, said that several years ago, the airport bought six
homes along Airport Road to make a safer airport. He said the airport also took a considerable portion of the
front of his property. Mr. Neff said he didn't think it was right for homes to be built adjacent to the airport, when
the airport was buying properties to move houses out.
Mr. John Goode, a resident of Stonewall District and a partner in Blue Ridge Industries, was in
favor of the rezoning and believed the applicants had done a tremendous job with their proposal. Mr. Goode said
he had concerns about the comments made by airport representatives. He said he had 80 employees working in
the Blue Ridge Industries building, which is adjacent to the airport, and if the users of airport facility were in such
a risk, then he might be considered negligent in allowing his employees to work in his Blue Ridge facility. Mr.
Goode questioned the statements made by airport representatives that they could not fund the purchase of the
property to the north of the runway. Mr. Goode said that the airport's executive director, Ms. Manuel, laid the
groundwork for an answer to their financial problem by noting that they lease the land under the hangers to
corporations. Mr. Goode said that a typical business practice is to take lease income payments and use them to
make debt service payments on land purchases. He said that if corporate America is not willing to come to the
table in eight years and sign leases to fund those payments to purchase the property, then the airport is not going
to need that land. Mr. Goode believed that the offer of the applicant to reserve the property was of tremendous
value to the airport. He said that typically, incorporate America, you would not get an option for eight years and
that was a very long time. Referring to the federal and state funding, he questioned why the private sector
couldn't come up with the remaining 2% funding, if it was unavailable through local funding; he commented that
if it was that important to the private sector, the private sector will find it somewhere. He also questioned why the
purchase of the land wasn't important enough for the FAA to provide funding. Mr. Goode said he was also
disappointed that the airport. Authority would hold 6,000 square feet hostage to the local land transportation
needs.
• There being no other citizen wishing to speak, Vice - Chairman Thomas closed the public
comment portion of the meeting.
Mr. Maddox returned to the podium to address the continents that were made. Mr. Maddox said
the County had an important and strategic goal for this land and he believed this proposal met that goal. He
appreciated the comments made by airport representatives and believed those comments were made to protect the
airport. Mr. Maddox said they would like to negotiate with the airport; however, he believed that until a decision
was made on the land use issue, negotiations between the applicant and the airport can not go forward.
The Planning Commissioners next provided their comments about the rezoning.
Vice - Chairman Thomas commented about the 750 units proposed. It was his opinion that it
gave the opportunity to have a growth area inside the Urban Development Area (UDA), as opposed to the Rural
Areas. He also commented that there did not seem to be a specific determination on how far the dwelling units
needed to be from the runway; he said that 1,000 feet was given as a minimum, but there was no determination of
what was sufficient.
Commissioner Ours ]roped that compromises could be reached so this plan would work forboth
sides and for Frederick County. He thought the best use for this area was commercial and he believed the
developers had a good plan. He believed the applicant had logically assumed they would need to have some
residential to be able to have the commercial development. Commissioner Ours said that if this proposal would
have been proposed for the UDA anywhere else in Frederick County, it would pass unequivocally because it was a
good plan.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1567
Minutes of July 20, 2005
Commissioner Straub believed the proposal could be better. She was not in favor of having
residential use near the airport because of its impact on the viability of the airport and for safety reasons. She
noted that although this plan has eliminated the school, she objected to the four -story dwelling units instead of the
previously proposed two -story units. Commissioner Straub said she would like to see this property used as a
business park with an adjacent regional park.
Commissioner Gochenour agreed with the continents made by Commissioner Straub. In
addition, Commissioner Gochenour wanted to see the UDA and the Rural Areas Studies completed before more
land is placed within the UDA. She was also concerned about the quality and quantity of available water.
Commissioner Gochenour believed more time was needed to gather data before this rezoning proposal was
supported.
Commissioner Watt thought the plan was good; however, he could not support 750 homes next
to the airport.
It was Commissioner Triplett's opinion that this was a good plan. Regarding the residential
units proposed, Commissioner Triplett pointed out all of the other residential subdivisions in the immediate
vicinity, such as RavenWing and Miller Heights.
Conunissioner Manuel believed this was a good plan as well and said he would support it.
Commissioner Manuel was pleased with the fact that it presented the opportunity for affordable housing. He
commented that affordable housing will have to be moderate to high density. He said that eight years ago,
affordable housing meant dwellings under $100,000, now we are looking for lots under $100.000.
Conunissioner Kriz said he was concerned about the residential, as well as land acquisition by
the airport. He suggested the possibility of the applicant reserving the property on the north side of the airport for
• a few more years so that the airport could acquire it. He looked forward to continued growth by the airport and
the airport's ability to purchase the property. He hoped some type of compromise could be reached on that issue.
He also believed this was a good plan.
Vice - Chairman Thomas believed this was the right time for this type of development in
Frederick County. He believed this type of housing, density, and community development was needed to get
people into houses they could afford. He believed it was unreasonable to expect the landowner to have 300 acres
of commercial property when, in that area, there is already a significant amount of vacant commercial property.
If for some reason, the commercial tenants would choose not to come in the second and third land bay areas, he
would not be in favor of placing housing in those two land bays. He said that 750 dwellings on the 300 -acre
property is as much as he would ever consider voting for. Vice - Chairman Thomas stated that a significant
amount of cooperation between the developer and the airport would be needed to make this project work.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Conunissioner Manuel,
BE IT RESOLVED, That by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
recommend approval of Rezoning # 11 -05 of Carpers Valley, submitted by Patton, Harris, Rust & Associates, PC,
to rezone 281.5 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for
Residential and Commercial uses with the proffers and conditions discussed, as well as the three proposed
modifications requested by the applicant, as follows:
1. Modification 41: Submission of a Generalized Development Plan (GDP) at Rezoning, in lieu of the
Master Development Plan (MDP). (The MDP submission will follow rezoning approval, prior to
• Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1568
Minutes of July 20, 2005
development of the property.)
2. Modification 42: Allowance of a Mixture of Housing Types; Single - family attached (townouses) and
multi- family dwellings (apartments) would be predominant.
3. Modification 43: Allowance of a Maximum of 60% of Total Gross Area for Business and Commercial
Purposes.
The majority vote was as follows:
YES (TO REC. APPROVAL)
NO: Watt, Gochenour, Straub
ABSTAIN DeHaven, Wilmot
Manuel, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas,
(Note: Commissioners Unger, Morris, and Light were absent from the meeting.)
An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Zoning, Article VI, RP (Residential
is Performance) District, Section 165 -64, Recreation Facilities. This is a request from Greenway
Engineering regarding waivers of recreational facilities for housing types with lot sizes less than 5,000
square feet.
Action — Recommended Approval
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, stated that this amendment would
enable the Board of Supervisors to waive the community center requirement specified in Section 165 -64(A) in
single - family, small -lot subdivisions containing less than 50 lots. Mr. Cheran explained that the waiver may be
requested by an applicant during the consideration of the subdivision design plan, if no master development plan
is required. He said the applicant will be required to demonstrate that an equivalent recreation value of three
recreational units for each 30 dwelling units, prorated, is being provided within the project, to the County, or a
combination of both as a condition requesting approval of a waiver by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, explained that when he represented the
Westbury Commons rezoning, which consisted of an 11 -lot subdivision, the question arose as to the ability of a
community of this size to maintain a community center building. Secondly, because of the dollar value
requirement, the question arose as to what kind of community building could be constructed for 11 lots. Mr.
Wyatt said the suggestion was not to do away with the requirement, but to provide an opportunity for applicants
to come in on a case -by -case basis and provide a better alternative for recreational amenities within the
community.
There were no public comments.
40 The Planning Commission had no problems with the provision of a waiver and believed the
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1569
Minutes of July 20, 2005
-10-
to amendment was appropriate.
Upon motion made by Cormissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of an ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 165, Article VI, RP (Residential
Performance) District, Section 165 -64, Recreation Facilities, allowing requests for waivers of recreational
facilities for housing types with lot sizes less than 5,000 square feet.
(Note: Commissioners Unger, Morris, and Light were absent from the meeting.)
An ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article V, Design
Standards, Section 24(C), Lot Requirements. This is a request from Greenway Engineering regarding
waivers of the public street requirement for age- restricted communities.
Action — Recommended Approval
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, stated that this amendment would
enable the Board of Supervisors to allow a waiver of the public street requirements as specified in Section 144 -
24(C) and to allow a complete system of private roads within a proffered age - restricted community. Mr. Cheran
explained that this waiver may be requested by the applicant during the consideration of a rezoning application or
• during consideration of the master development plan. He said the applicant is required to provide a conceptual
design which demonstrates the proposed private street system layout and provides for the cross section
dimensional base and pavement detail that meets or exceeds VDOT standards as a condition of requesting
approval of a waiver by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Cheran added that if private streets are allowed,
homeowners associations will be responsible for the maintenance.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, explained that the purpose behind this text
amendment request is the desire of age- restricted communities to have their developments gated for safety
reasons; he commented that communities can not be gated, if they have public street systems. Mr. Wyatt stated
that the R5 District of the County Code allows for private streets and age- restricted by right; however, age -
restricted communities usually fall within the RP District, where there is currently no provision. Mr. Wyatt
commented on the management structure of new subdivisions and stated that generally, there is a monthly
assessment for all of the residents in the subdivision and it covers maintenance to roads, lawns, etc. He said the
desire to have a gated community is going to out weigh the additional costs residents will pay in their monthly
dues.
Mr. Wyatt continued, stating that during the discussion with the Planning Commission in May,
the Commission had requested that the words, "cross- section dimensional base" be modified to include, "vertical
dimensional base and pavement section." He said the other comment was to make sure the waiver was only
applicable to "proffered" age - restricted communities.
Commissioner Thomas commented that it was intended that the structural or vertical section be
included in accordance with VDOT standards because both the horizontal and vertical sections are required for
VDOT to accept the road into the system.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1570
Minutes of iuly 20, 2005
-11-
There were no public comments.
The Planning Commission had no problems with the provision of a waiver and believed the
amendment was appropriate.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Ours
BE IT RESOLVED, that by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend
approval of the ordinance to amend the Frederick County Code, Chapter 144, Subdivision of Land, Article V,
Design Standards, Section 24(C), Lot Requirements, to allow waivers of the public street requirement for age -
restricted communities, with a minor change to the wording specifying that the private street system layout
provides for both the cross section and vertical (horizontal) section dimensional base and pavement detail that
meets or exceeds VDOT standards.
The majority vote was as follows:
YES (TO REC. APPROVAL) Wilmot, Manuel, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Watt, Straub
NO: Gochenour, DeHaven
(Note: Commissioners Unger, Morris, and Light were absent from the meeting.)
• PUBLIC MEETING
Master Development Plan 908 -05 for Carroll Industrial Park, submitted by Painter- Lewis, LC, for
industrial uses. The properties are located on Ebert Road (Rt. 837) and are identified with P.I.N.s 43 -A-
83, 43 -A -84, 43- A -84A, and 43 -A -85 in the Stonewall Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval
Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that the preliminary master development plan (MDP) for the
Carroll Industrial Park is a proposal to develop approximately 107.8 acres of M2 (Industrial General) Zoned
property. She said the property was depicted as M2 on the original County zoning maps and, therefore, does not
have proffers associated with the plan. Ms Perkins next talked about the site history for this property. She said
that the original Frederick County Zoning Map depicts the zoning for a majority of the subject parcel as M2
(Industrial General) District with a small portion being RA (Rural Areas). She said based'on research, it is
believed the entire parcel is zoned M2 and that the details of the original zoning maps were unclear. She
explained that this property has not been subdivided and properties zoned in the 1960s were generally included in
their entirety within the new land use designation. It was the staff's belief that this entire site was meant to be
M2.
Ms. Perkins continued, stating that the Rt. 37 extension covers a part of the southern portion of
this property. She said the applicant has reserved this area with a "limits of use ' designation and has provided a
statement on the MDP that any uses on the property that must be removed due to the construction of Rt. 37 will
not be compensated or relocated by VDOT.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1571
Minutes of Julv 20, 2005
-12-
Ms. Perkins stated that the planned road network for this area consists of a major collector road
that goes through the Rutherford Farm Industrial Park, through the Carroll Industrial Park, through some
additional properties, and then to an intersection at Old Charlestown Road. While all of the planned roads on the
property have been shown on the MDP, the applicant is proposing to turn Ebert Road into the new major collector
road instead of the major collector road location which aligns with Old Charlestown Road.
Mr. Tim Painter, with Painter - Lewis, P.L.C., stated that this project is merely an extension of the
industrial use taking place on this property since the mid 60's. Mr. Painter said they are seeking further
subdivision for additional industrial use and to enhance the property with two railroad spurs and two regional
storm water facilities. Mr. Painter talked about the preliminary site work that has been conducted. He said a
traffic study was conducted to address impacts that would be needed along Ebert Road at the intersection of Rt.
1 I and the Level of Service (LOS) would be "C" or better with the improvements proposed. He described the
road plan for the site.
Commissioner Thomas inquired if the applicant planned to build an industrial -type intersection
for truck traffic with Ebert Road and Rt. 11. Mr. Painter replied yes, he said it will be signalized at full build -out.
There were no public comments.
Commissioner Wilmot stated that in her experience, it had been apparent in the economic life of
Frederick County that a well -done, M2 industrial park would be an asset. She could think of no better place for
this to happen than at this location.
Mr. Lloyd Ingram with VDOT was called forward to address the proposed elimination of the
planned road and the use of Ebert Road as the new major collector road. Mr. Ingram stated that he did not have a
problem with the change at this time.
Some members of the Commission commented that they preferred the use of Ebert Road in lieu
of the original planned loop, which would bring the road close to the quarry.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Gochenour,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Master Development Plan #08 -05 for Carroll Industrial Park, submitted by Painter - Lewis, LC, for
industrial uses, with the understanding that entire property was always meant to be zoned M2 and with
endorsement of making Ebert Road the new major collector road with upgrades as opposed to the planned road
which would connect with Old Charlestown Road.
(Commissioners Unger, Morris, and Light were absent from the meeting.)
F_ 1
LJ
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1572
Minutes of July 20, 2005
-13-
Master Development Plan #07 -05 for Stephenson Village, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for R4
• (Residential Planned Community) use. The properties are located on the south side of Old Charlestown
Road (Rt. 761) and Jordan Springs Road (Rt. 664), east of Milburn Road (Rt. 662). The properties are
further identified with P.I.N.s 44-A-292,44-A-293, and 44 -A -31A in the Stonewall District.
Action — Continued to Next Meeting Due to PC By -Laws of Mandatory 11:00 P.M. Adjournment
Plainer Bernard Suchicital reported that the rezoning for the 794 -acre Stephenson Village
project was approved with proffers on September 24, 2003. Mr. Suchicital said this master development plan
(MDP) is for Phase 1 of Stephenson Village and will include 460 single - family units, 110 townhouses, and 360
multi - family units on 285 acres. He pointed out the area for the age - restricted community and stated that there
are no commercial uses planned for Phase I.
Mr. Suchicital next identified the staff's outstanding issues concerning this MDP. First, he
pointed out that the applicant has failed to show the Rt. 37 corridor on their MDP; he said the Comprehensive
Policy Plan (Northeast Land Use Plan and the Eastern Road Plan) and the Winchester Area Transportation Study
(WATS) clearly shows the Rt. 37 corridor running through the Stephenson Village property. He also noted that
the road design for Cross Cannon Boulevard, from Old Charlestown Road through the project to Rt. 11, does not
provide for a raised landscaped median, curb and gutter, and a bike path. In addition, Mr. Suchicital
recommended the following: the continuation of the bike path and sidewalks along Old Charlestown Road to link
the Stephensons Village project with the existing residences in Stephenson; the enhanced pedestrian access from
Milburn Road to Cross Cannon Blvd; and, the phasing and clarification of the completion of sections of the major
collector road. He further recommended that the applicant identify the proffered school and parks sites
throughout the MDP, the subdivision, and the platting processes. This would include provisions for vehicular and
pedestrian access to the public facilities, as well as provisions for water and sewer.
• Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, the design - engineering firm representing
Brookfield Homes and Stephenson Associates in this MDP, came forward to address the issues raised by the
staff. Mr. Wyatt believed they had addressed all of the issues raised by the staff, with the exception of the Rt. 37
right -of -way.
Mr. Wyatt said that when the rezoning was approved, there was no commitment for a Rt. 37
right -of -way provision in the text proffered or on the proffered GDP. Mr. Wyatt referred to alignment studies
done by Baker & Associates in 1992 and described the Alternative D and Alternative C routes; he said the Board
of Supervisors recormnended the Alternative C alignment. Mr. Wyatt stated that the Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) has recommended that Rt. 37, between Rt. 7 and 1 -81, be developed as a four -lane divided
and controlled managed access highway. He commented that one of the things Brookfield and Stephenson
Associates tasked Greenway with was to come up with a conceptual design that would meet the intent of keeping
the integrity of Rt. 37 between Rt. 7 and the new I -81 interchange, but that would continue to meet the
recommendations of the MPO. Mr. Wyatt said their resulting concept, which preserves the location of Rt. 7 and
preserves the new interchange at I -81, utilizes the existing alignment shown for Alternative D, and he described
that route to the Commission, Mr. Wyatt asked the Commission to consider this alternative, he said they were
convinced that the Alternative C alignment, primarily because of the existing eased areas, is not going to be the
alignment that will be successful to link Rt. 37, between Rt. 7 and I -81. In addition, Mr. Wyatt believed they had
addressed all the issues identified by the staff, with the exception of providing the Rt. 37 right -of -way.
In conclusion, Mr. Wyatt stated the applicant is committed to making sure that water and sewer
is available to the public school site and to the public park site.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1573
Minutes of July 20, 2005
-14-
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak:
!.Mr. Gary Oates, a resident of the Stonewall District, said that in the early 1990s, he postponed
the construction of his home until the Board of Supervisors voted on Alternative C for Rt. 37. Mr. Oates said that
this new proposed route, Alternative D, goes directly through his new home. He said that several ofhis neighbors
are in the same situation.
Commissioner Straub asked the applicant if the proposed route could be modified. Mr. Wyatt
replied that the conceptual alignment shown could be modified; He commented that this is strictly a conceptual
design produced at the request of the property owners to implement a proposal everyone could work with to build
that section of Rt. 37. He said the proposal was in no way, shape, or form a final alignment. Mr. Wyatt was
convinced, however, that considering the events that have transpired since 1992, Route 37 would not work where
it is designated in the Comprehensive Policy Plan.
Mr. Wyatt believed the proffer that was approved when the R4 Zoning was adopted did not
require them to show Rt. 37; however, instead of simply taking the stance that they were not required to get
involved, they attempted a more proactive approach and tried to find a solution. Mr. Wyatt suggested that there
may be a better alignment to connect Rt. 7 with I -81. He said they were not in a position to provide the right -of-
way for Rt. 37 for Alternative C and he hoped that additional dialogue could occur.
In light of what had been proposed, Commissioner Gochenour moved that the MDP be tabled.
This motion was seconded by Commissioner Straub.
Chairman DeHaven announced that it was now 11:00 p.m. and the Planning Commission's By-
Laws require adjournment at 11:00 p.m. Chairman DeHaven apologized to Mr. Wyatt and announced that
continuation of the consideration of this MDP will be rescheduled.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. due to the Planning Commission's By -Laws requirement.
submitted,
S. DeHaven, Jr.,
Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planing Commission Page 1374
Minutes of July 20, 2005