PC_08-03-05_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 August 3, 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; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris,
Shawnee District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -At- Large; Barbara Van Osten, Board of Supervisors' Liaison;
David Shore, City of Winchester Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: John H. Light, Stonewall District
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Mark
R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; Candice E. Mills, Planner II; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the Planning
Commission minutes of June 15, 2005 were unanimously approved as presented.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 07/28/05 Mtg.
Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS has begun their review of the sign ordinance and
will probably be working on this section for the newt several months.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1575
Minutes of August 3, 2005
-z-
• CITIZEN COMMENTS
Ms. Diane Kearns with the Community Consensus Coalition (CCC) announced that the CCC is
going to be sponsoring an educational forum on regional transportation on Thursday, August 25, 2005, at 7:00
p.m. at the Our Health Conference Room. The jurisdictions of Berkeley County, Clarke County, the City of
Winchester, Frederick County, Jefferson County, Shenandoah County, Warren County, and the Metropolitan
Planning Organization (MPO) have been invited to engage in discussion regarding regional transportation issues
with the general public.
PUBLIC HEARING
Rezoning 404 -05 of Senseny Village, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 49.70 acres from RA
(Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District and 24.09 acres from RP (Residential
Performance) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with proffers. The 73.39 -acre site is
located on the south side of Rossum Lane (Rt. 736) and Twinbrook Circle (Rt. 867). This property is also
identified with P.I.N.s 65 -A -49B and 65 -A -55 in the Red Bud Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval with Proffers
• Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that this request proposes 285 residential
units consisting of 145 single - family homes and 140 townhomes on 73.79 acres at a density of 3.86 units per
acre. Mr. Ruddy explained that with the approval of the Glenmont Village, Section 6, on April 21, 1988, Lot 65-
A -49B, totaling 24.09 acres was created. He said this parcel has remained separate from the Glenmont Village
subdivision and is undeveloped until this time. Mr. Ruddy said the parcel was recently acquired by the applicant
of this rezoning and it is the intent of the applicant to incorporate this parcel into the acreage of the adjacent
Lambert parcel and create the development known as Senseny Village.
Mr. Ruddy continued, stating that the parcels are located within the County's Urban
Development Area (UDA) and Sewer and Water Service Area (S WSA), and the Eastern Frederick County Long
Range Land Use Plan designates this area for residential uses. He pointed out that Rt. 37 is identified in the
Eastern Road Plan and is a priority in the County's Primary Road Improvement Plan. He noted that
accommodation for this new major arterial road should be incorporated into the project; he said that Senseny
Road is also identified as an improved major collector road and is designated as a bicycle route on the County's
bicycle plan. Mr. Ruddy next spoke about the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the project which concluded
that the 2,668 vehicle trips per day associated with the Senseny Village application is acceptable and manageable.
Mr. Ruddy added that the applicant has proffered a monetary contribution in the amount of $5,000 per single -
family detached unit and $3,000 per single - family attached townhouse unit for transportation improvements to the
Senseny Road corridor and/or a proposed north -south connector between Senseny Road and Berryville Pike. In
addition, the applicant has proffered right -turn lanes on Senseny Road at the Rossum Lane and Twinbrook Drive
intersections; improvements to Rossum Lane to VDOT standards; and the dedication of right -of -way for the
future Rt. 37 Eastern Bypass.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt with Greenway Engineering, representing the property owners of Senseny
• Village, the Lamberts and Taylor Grace, LLC, stated that meetings were held with the Glenmont Village
Homeowners Association and design issues were discussed. Mr. Wyatt said that based on these discussions, a
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1576
Minutes of August 3, 2005
-3-
150' open space strip has been designated between the rear property line and the townhouse units, preserving the
' existing woodlands area adjacent to Glenmont Village; traffic calming measures have been incorporated at
Glenridge Drive, where Rossum Drive provides access to Senseny Road; the integrity of the un -named tributary
of the Opequon Creek has been protected by a no- disturbance open space designation; and right -of -way through
the lower portion of the property has been reserved for Route 37, Corridor C.
Mr. Wyatt discussed the monetary proffers, specifically, the $10,000 per single - family detached
unit and $8,000 per single- family attached unit for capital facilities impacts costs and, in addition, a monetary
contribution for off -site transportation improvements in the amount of $5,000 per single - family detached unit and
$3,000 per single - family attached unit. He said the proffered contribution for off -site transportation
improvements has the potential to generate up to $1,145,000 and may be used as matching funds by Frederick
County for up to $2.2 million in available funding. He said the proffer was written to allow off -site transportation
improvements; however, the applicant has specifically requested that the improvements occur either on the
Senseny Road corridor or to continue with Hagerty Road, which connects Rt. 7 to Senseny Road. He added that
the right -turn lanes on Senseny Road at the Rossum Lane and Twinbrook Drive intersections, the improvements
to Rossum Lane, and the internal street system, will all be accomplished by the developer.
Commission members inquired about the anticipated price range per unit and size of lots, they
had questions on the phasing plan, they asked for the applicant's comments on the possible view of the landfill
from the new homes, and they questioned the status for the existing pond. Mr. Wyatt responded that the
anticipated price range for single - family homes was $350,000 - $400,000 with a lot size of 10- 12,000 square feet
and towm homes would be $190,000. Mr. Wyatt agreed to modify the phasing plan by tying the first phase to the
year the MDP is approved and continuing with three additional phases. He commented that the man -made pond
will be drained and filled in. Regarding the proximity of the land fill, Mr. Wyatt said that due to a heavily -
wooded area and topography, landfill operations would not be visible. In addition, he noted that curb -side trash
• pick -up will be paid for by homeowners association fees.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to
speak:
Ms. Valerie Pullman, a resident of Glenmont Village, said she was representing the homeowners
association for Glenmont Village. Ms. Pullman said the homeowners have met and collectively determined the
following concerns: 1) clarification as to why both tracks of land are not considered proffered residential; 2)
preference for identical wording in Section A -2 as in Section A -1 prohibiting the development of garden
apartments; 3) concern about increased traffic through Glenmont Village without the benefit of sidewalks;
considering the majority of traffic will be traveling on Rossum Lane, the homeowners request sidewalk
installation on one side of Rossum for pedestrian safety; 4) the ten -foot non - disturbance easement is insufficient
to protect the existing trees in the green strip from utility installation or road alignment modifications and wording
should be specific to guarantee the preservation of the entire 50 feet of existing woodlands; 5) if approvals are not
obtained and road work is not completed before 2007, the applicant's document allows them to obtain up to 210
building permits, eliminating any phasing aspect of the plan; 6) the applicant's document does not restrict
grading and infrastructure installation prior to the road improvements; 7) concern for storm water drainage
impacts in Glenmont Village; and 8) identification of a new school location before new homes are occupied. Ms.
Pullman concluded by saying that the homeowners of Glenmont Village appreciated the outstanding cooperation
they have received from Greenway Engineering and, with the exception of the issues raised, support the proposal.
Ms. Diane Wolford, a 20 -year resident of Rossum Lane, was concerned that a 50 -foot right -of-
way improvement on Rossum Lane would take a considerable portion of her front yard and driveway.
• Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1577
Minutes of August 3, 2005
-4-
Mr. Keith Racer, a resident of Glenridge Drive, agreed with all of the comments made by Ms.
Pullman for the Glenmont Village Homeowners Association, but wanted to reiterate concems about the increased
traffic impacts, especially on Glenridge Drive. Mr. Racer described the existing lots and homes on Glenridge
which were built in the 1980's, noting that front yards are small with short driveways and back yards are sloped-
He speculated that the majority of people purchasing the future town houses will be commuting to northern
Virginia and will use Glenridge Drive to exit the development. Mr. Racer was concerned about safety for
neighborhood children and pedestrians; he suggested the possibility of changing the town houses to single - family
units and possibly conducting traffic counts on Glenridge Drive and Rossum Lane.
Ms. Connie Linaweaver, a resident on Rossum Lane, had the same concerns as Ms. Diane
Wolford about the possibility of losing a portion of her front yard with the improvements to Rossum Lane. She
said the residents do not want to have to park their vehicles on the street.
Since everyone who wanted to speak had the opportunity to do so, Chairman DeHaven closed the
public comment portion of the meeting.
Mr. Wyatt returned to the podium to address the comments made by the citizens. Regarding
wording within the proffer, Mr. Wyatt said they would be willing to modify the wording in the proffer to clarify
the issues raised by the homeowners association. In particular, he said they would be willing to reference the
property identification numbers consistently throughout the document, which would eliminate any potential for
apartments within this project; and, additional specificity will be included to guarantee a minimum 50' woodland
preservation strip between the property lines and the road right -of -way. Regarding the Rossum Lane issue, Mr.
• Wyatt said that Rossum Lane is a 50 -foot right -of -way and VDOT has expressed the need for a wider pavement
section because they believe there will be on -street parking. Mr. Wyatt said they would be willing to entertain a
sidewalk on one side, if space was available after pavement width, curb and gutter, and utilities. Mr. Wyatt
believed it was appropriate to implement the grading plan while the heavy equipment is on site conducting the
road work.
Mr. Lloyd Ingram with VDOT came forward to address the concerns raised from the residents
along Rossum Lane regarding the loss of their front yards to accommodate road improvements. Mr. Ingram
explained that all improvements would take place within VDOT's existing right -of -way. A comment was made
that residents may not have been aware of VDOT's 50 -foot right -of -way and may have been maintaining a
portion of VDOT's existing right -of -way.
Commissioner Gochenour stated that the overcrowding of Senseny Road School has an impact
on the school children and their education; and, in her opinion, was a primary issue in the consideration of this
proposal.
Commissioner Straub commended both Greenway Engineering, for working with the Glenmont
Village Homeowners Association, and the homeowners association for being so astute in studying the applicant's
proposal. Her primary issues in considering this proposal were the overcrowded schools in the Senseny Road
area, the proximity of the county's landfill to the proposed development, the potential regulations for limiting
sewage flows to the Opequon Water Reclamation Facility; and the transportation infrastructure.
Commissioner Straub made a motion to deny the rezoning and this motion was seconded by
Commissioner Gochenour. This motion was defeated, however, due to the following vote:
E
Frederick County Planning Commission Yage i � 16
Minutes of August 3, 2005
-5-
• YES (TO DENY THE REZONING) Straub, Gochenour
NO: Wilmot, Manuel, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Moms, Unger, Watt, DeHaven
Commissioner Thomas made a motion to approve the rezoning with all of the revisions to the
proffers, as stated and agreed to by the applicant, to be coordinated by the Planning Department before
consideration by the Board of Supervisors. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and passed by a
majority vote.
BE IT RESOLVED, That by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
recommend approval of Rezoning #04 -05 of Senseny Village, submitted by Green-way Engineering, to rezone
49.70 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District and 24.09 acres from RP
(Residential Performance) District to RP (Residential Performance) District with all of the revisions to the
proffers as stated and agreed to by the applicant to be coordinated by the Planning Department before
consideration by the Board of Supervisors.
The vote was as follows:
YES (TO REC. APPROVAL) Wilmot, Manuel, Triplett, Kriz, Ours, Thomas, Moms, Unger, Watt, DeHaven
NO: Straub, Gochenour
(Note: Commissioner Light was absent from the meeting.)
•
Rezoning 912 -05 for the Villages at Artrip and Master Development Plan #09 -05, submitted by Dewberry
& Davis, LLC, to rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned
Community) District for the proposed mixed -use development of 905 residential units and retail,
restaurant, and office uses. The property is located one mile west of I- 81,'/4 mile north of Tasker Road
(Rt. 649),150' north of Fair Lawn Court (Rt. 1176), and west of Canter Estates, Section 5. The property
is further identified with P.I.N. 75 -A -99A in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action — Tabled for 60 Days
Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that the Villages at Artrip is a request to
rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned Community) District for a
residential planned community with an arrangement of residential villages containing a mixture of housing types
which are focused around a neighborhood commercial center. Also proposed is the dedication of areas for public
use, including an 11 -acre site for a proposed elementary school. He said that the parcels comprising this
rezoning are located within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area
(SWSA), and are within the Southern Frederick Land Use Plan.
Mr. Ruddy said the construction of Warrior Drive as a major four -lane section through this
project has also been provided; this would link Warrior Drive with the Wakeland Manor project and the adjacent
• Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1579
Minutes of August 3, 2005
• Crosspointe development. Also identified are Parkins Mill Road and an extension of Lakeside Drive into the
project both are identified as collector roads with a two -lane section. Mr. Ruddy next discussed elements of the
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA); he said the projected mix of uses would ultimately generate approximately 15,623
vehicle trips per day with Warrior Drive as the primary access into the project. He said that the TIA concludes
that the traffic impacts associated with the Villages at Artrip are acceptable and manageable with implementation
of the identified improvements. Mr. Ruddy next described the three phases of the project as follows: Phase I
assumes 297 residential units along with the completion of Warrior Drive from south of Tasker Road to the
northern property extents of the Villages at Artrip; Phase 2 assumes 577 residential units and 10,000 square feet
of retail along with the completion of Warrior Drive from south of Tasker to the northern property extents of the
project; and Phase 3 assumes the build out of the entire Villages at Artrip development along with the completion
of Warrior Drive from south of Tasker Road to north of Crosspointe Boulevard, a future roadway within the
planned Crosspointe development. He added that a bicycle and pedestrian access has been provided throughout
the project.
Mr. Ruddy next reviewed the three modification requests sought by the applicant, as follows:
Modification 91, Section 165- 72.B.(2), Introduction of New Housing Types; Modification #2, Section 165 -71,
Request for greater than 40% of total residential land area to be used for multi - family housing; and Modification
43, Section 165 -62.1), Request for increase in the overall gross density of the project from four units per acre to
5.4 units per acre. Mr. Ruddy reviewed the key elements of the proffer statement with the Commission, noting
that the submittal of the master development plan is probably the most significant element of the proffer
statement.
There next ensued a discussion on whether the 11 -acres designated for the school site was
determined to be a little less than optimal in size and, in addition, if the five acres of open space to the south could
• be added to the school site. It was noted that the school board's preference was for a minimum of 15 acres; there
were also questions about the use of some of the land from the designated open space area for the school site
because of its trees and pristine quality. Mr. Ruddy replied that if it was the desire of the County and the
applicant to adjust the acreage, he suggested that the language on the MDP and the dedication be modified now to
avoid confusion.
Commissioner Kriz asked if comments were received from the County's attorney on the proffer
statement. Mr. Ruddy replied that Mr. Mitchell had no substantial comments and it was Mr. Mitchell's opinion
that the proffer was acceptable to meet the requirements of the ordinance and the Code of Virginia, and the
proffer was also sufficiently enforceable.
Chairman DeHaven next called for the applicant to come forward.
Mr. John Foote, attorney, was representing The Tower Companies, the developers of The
Villages at Artrip project. Mr. Foote introduced others present who are involved in the project, including The
Tower Company representatives, Mr. Brian Abramson, Mr. Stuart Margulies, Mr. Jonathan Gertz, and Mr.
Charles Segerman; representatives with Dewberry & Davis, LLC, the civil engineers, Mr. Jim Brown and Mr.
David Frank; and representatives from PHR &A, Mr. John Callow and Mr. Michael Glickman, traffic analysts.
Mr. Foote said this project will provide a major link for the completion of Warrior Drive and the applicant has
committed to the construction of Warrior Drive through the property, the construction of Parkins Mill Road, and
construction of the bridge across to Wakeland Manor. Mr. Foote described the details of the layout for the
proposed development for the Commission.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1580
Minutes of August 3, 2005
Regarding the transportation issues, Mr. Foote said the applicant performed a supplemental
• transportation impact analysis to address the scenario raised by the staff in which the Crosspointe development is
not built and The Villages at Artrip is at full build -out. Mr. Foote said this supplemental analysis concluded that
even in the circumstances described by the staff, the crucial intersection of Tasker Road and Warrior Drive would
continue to function at a LOS "C."
Mr. Foote next addressed the commercial development for the site. He stated that the applicant
can only commit to the initial construction of 10,000 square feet of commercial development. Mr. Foote said that
once Warrior Drive has been completed through the limits of this property to Wakeland Manor and Crosspointe,
it would allow the commercial center to be viable and they could complete the construction of the 118,500 square
feet of commercial area.
Regarding the Frederick County School Board's need for a 15 -acre school site and the
applicant's designated 11 -acre site reserved for a new school, Mr. Foote suggested that the County may want to
use the area designated for public use to supplement land needed by the school board and they were prepared to
modify the proffer to that effect. He also pointed out adjoining property to the south owned by the Frederick
County Sanitation Authority. He said that the Authority's Director, Mr. Wellington Jones, was approached by
representatives of Dewberry & Davis, LLC about the use of a portion of the Sanitation Authority's property for a
school and Mr. Jones was amenable to the suggestion.
Mr. Jim Brown, principal designer with Dewberry & Davis, LLC, described this project as a
walkable village and he described what living in the community would be like for its residents. He pointed out the
central green area with its pedestrian walkways, a pond, and village shops and restaurants. He described the
various housing types, the community center, and pool facilities. Mr. Brown described the commercial area as
predominantly retail, second -story office, and restaurants; he said it would not be a grocery store, strip -mall
• center.
Commissioner Ours believed that the majority of the residents would be wanting to get to Route
66 or I -81 and he had concerns about the transportation issues and especially Warrior Drive. Mr. Ours lilted Mr.
Foote's suggestion of possibly forming a CDA (community development authority) in order to guarantee the
completion of Warrior Drive. From a transportation aspect, he believed the completion of Warrior Drive was
critical for this project to work. Furthermore, Mr. Ours was not convinced that if this project was built out before
Crosspointe, that Tasker and Warrior Drive could still function at a LOS C.
Mr. John Callow, transportation analyst with PHR &A, said the supplemental study was done
with full build -out background traffic, which is a completed Wakeland Manor and Crosspointe, and with the frill
905 dwelling units and 10,000 square feet of commercial. He said the analysis resulted in an overall LOS C,
using the identical procedures as with the previously- approved TIA. He recognized that issues still exist, but he
pointed out all the other projects along Tasker Road that will be adding their share in improving Tasker Road
Commissioner Thomas had questions concerning the applicant's proffer on the creation of
homeowners' and property owners' associations. Commissioner Thomas asked for an explanation of how the
applicant was going to subdivide thejurisdiction and maintenance of the common areas, the central core area, and
the pond between the commercial and the residential HOAs and if there will be multiple residential HOAs for the
different housing types. Mr. Foote replied that since those restrictive covenants and conditions have not yet been
drafted, he could not answer in specific detail; however, as a general rule, they create multiple homeowners
associations for developments like this because each neighborhood has its own interest and responsibility. He
said that an umbrella HOA would be established and is specifically assigned responsibility for assuring
compliance with design guidelines and standards, and similar matters that affect the entire community.
• Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1581
Minutes of August 3, 2005
am
• Chairman DeHaven hoped to avoid situations where there are adjoining HOAs, but one HOA
does not have the basis to enforce the requirements of the neighboring HOA, even though that is their view. Mr.
Foote said this was the purpose of the umbrella HOA.
Commissioner Thomas pointed out that in sections of the transportation proffer, the wording
specifically states that roads will be "designed" to VDOT standards, while other sections state the roads shall be
"constructed" to VDOT standards. Commissioner Thomas asked if the applicant would state that roads will be
"designed and constructed" to VDOT standards throughout the document. Mr. Foote said they would be willing
to change the wording; he noted that this development will have both public and private streets. Mr. Brown came
forward and pointed out which roads are intended to be public and which would be private. He said the private
roads consist of the internal roads and alley -ways in the various village communities and will be the responsibility
of the HOAs for snow removal and maintenance. Mr. Brown added that this neo- traditional design for the public
street network is only possible with VDOT's new public street guidelines.
Commissioner Gochenour spoke with the applicant about the possible impacts to the permitted
waste water capabilities of Frederick County, if the evolving regulations regarding nutrient reduction regulations,
promulgated by Virginia's Bay Program, are put into effect. Also discussed was the upgrade needed for the
Parkins Mill treatment plant. Commissioner Gochenour also spoke with the applicant about the issues involving
a sustainable water source in Frederick County.
Mr. Charles Segerman, with the Tower Companies, spoke about the design concept used to make
this a live- work -play facility where residents could leave their cars parked. He said the density modification will
not only enable the affordable housing, but it will allow them to reduce the site footprint, thereby allowing the
provision of a school site, Warrior Drive, the tree -save area, and the other amenities of the development. He
speculated that the residential units would sell for $100,000 to $500,000.
• Commissioner Thomas pointed out that this is only a village concept if Warrior Drive is built
through and connects with Rt. 37, or eventually to I -81, the 118,500 square feet of commercial is built, and a
school site is provided. He said that if those things do not happen, this project is just another high- density housing
development. Commissioner Thomas recognized this was a three - phased development, but he said there was no
time -line associated with it and no commitment that until Warrior Drive is built through and the commercial is
built, that the developer will cap the number of houses.
Commissioner Ours believed timing was the issue here; he said the project would be much more
amenable if the timing could somehow be tied to the development of Warrior Drive. Commissioner Ours said
that the third phase should not be constructed until Warrior Drive is complete in its entirety to Rt. 37/1-8 1. Mr.
Foote said they would be willing to consider and work on these issues.
Board Liaison Barbara Van Osten inquired why the applicant considered it necessary to
construct 600 units of residential before initiating Warrior Drive and the commercial development. Mr. Segerman
replied that two- thirds of Warrior Drive will be built by the end of Phase 2 and it will be constructed in sections as
one moves into the development. Mr. Segerman said that their traffic needs are really for only one lane of
Warrior Drive in each direction; however, the staff has stated they wanted two lanes in each direction. Mr.
Segerman said there are economics associated with that request and, therefore, a critical mass of housing needs to
go along with the road improvements. He said that the number of houses and the length of Warrior Drive
constructed pretty much walk together.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1582
Minutes of August 3, 2005
• Chairman DeHaven next called for public comments and the following persons came forward to
speak:
Mr. Keith Wingfield, adjoining property owner at 103 Fairlawn Court in Lakewood Manor, was
pleased with the proposal presented by the applicants. Mr. Wingfield expressed a concern, however, about the
water and sewer and he pointed out the location of a pumping station for the Sanitation Authority. Mr. Wingfield
said that if Warrior Drive or Parkins Mill is not constructed, the floodgates will be open for traffic coming down
Lakeside Drive and through the access right -of -way, which was located only two lots away from him. He said
that Lakewood Manor was a quiet neighborhood and doesn't have a lot of through traffic. Mr. Wingfield thought
this would be a good development, if it materialized in the manner presented. Mr. Wingfield said the applicant has
provided land for a school, but the County still has to fund the school; he said the water and sewer still had to be
funded.
Mr. Tim Elliott, adjoining property owner at 105 Fairlawn Court, commented how beautiful the
property was and that it contained considerable wildlife. He mentioned a beautiful evergreen tree with a dual
trunk and said he would not be surprised if it was alive during Civil War times. Mr. Elliott said the tree was a
monument to the property and he hoped that somehow it could remain undisturbed.
Mr. Lloyd Ingram with VDOT came forward to answer questions from the Commission.
Commissioner Ours asked about the LOS that will exist at Warrior Drive and Tasker Road if this project turns
out to be a 900 -unit housing development and how soon during the process will it become necessary to signalize
the intersection. Mr. Ingram predicted a signal would be installed before the applicant begins Phase 3. Mr.
Ingram said that during the analysis of the initial plans of the cross section of Warrior Drive through there, a four-
lane paved section could not be justified with the business that was anticipated; but once the connection was made
into Crosspointe, the vehicle trips increased to 8,000 additional trips. Mr. Ingram said the applicant provided the
entire four -lane section because multiple lanes are needed over 8,000 trips. He said that basically, the commercial
could not be justified without those additional trips from Crosspointe.
Commission members wanted to provide the applicants with additional time to work out the
concerns the Planning Commission had raised.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Ours,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend the
tabling of Rezoning 412 -05 and Master Development Plan #09 -05 for the Villages at Artrip, submitted by
Dewberry & Davis, LLC, to rezone 169.924 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to R4 (Residential Planned
Community District) for a period of 60 days to allow the developer time to work out with the staff the comments
made by the Planning Commission.
PUBLIC MEETING
Master Development Plan 410 -05 of Stonewall Plaza, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for a shopping
center and retail uses along the Route 522 Corridor, next to the existing Trex Center and the Darville
subdivision in Sunnyside. This property is identified with P.I.N. 42- A -198H in the Stonewall District.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1583
Minutes of August 3, 2005
-10-
Action — Recommended Approval
• Plannner Candice E. Perkins reported that the preliminary master development plan (MDP) for
Stonewall Plaza is a proposal to develop approximately 21.9 acres of B2 (Business General) -zoned property with
a shopping center and retail land uses. Ms. Perkins noted that this property was depicted as being zoned B2 on
the original zoning maps for Frederick County and, therefore, does not have proffers associated with it. She said
that access to the site is proposed via one commercial entrance off North Frederick Pike, across from Westminster
Canterbury Drive, which is currently an unsignalized cross -over. She said the proposed development calls for the
installation of a new traffic signal at this entrance. Ms. Perkins recommended that a note be provided on the
MDP stating that signalization will be operational before the first Certificate of Occupancy is provided on the
site.
Mr. Evan A. Wyatt of Greenway Engineering, the representative for Stonewall Plaza, proceeded
to review the transportation improvements recommended in their traffic study in order to maintain a Level of
Service (LOS) "C" for this area. Those improvements included: a traffic signal that aligns with Westminster -
Canterbury Drive which will be fully funded and constructed by the developer; widening of the existing median
cross -over; a second left -turn lane to be constructed on Rt. 522 in conjunction with their crossover and expanding
the existing left-turn lane; providing a continuous right -turn lane for access into the site, plus a right -turn lane out
of the project, which ties into Exeter Drive.
Mr. Wyatt next described two opportunities for the applicant to provide and construct inter -
parcel connections. The first would be a vehicular connection between the proposed shopping center and the
existing office complex area without having to get out onto Rt. 522. The second was a pedestrian access between
the shopping center area and the adjacent residential subdivision on Clarke -Ville Road.
Commissioners asked about the possibility of providing a vehicular connection to the adjacent
residential subdivision, instead of simply a pedestrian connection, so those residents would not have to drive out
onto Route 522 to access a grocery store. Mr. Wyatt thought the grade differential between the two properties
would not allow for the vehicular connection.
Commissioners next discussed the storm water run -off with the applicant. It was noted by the
applicant that a 15 -acre drainage shed, originating on the other side of Rt. 37, flows through this site, accepts the
run -off, and eventually channels it to the storm system on Rt. 522. Chairman DeHaven suggested to the applicant
that, in addition to enlarging the culverts, the applicant might possibly assist with the on -going drainage problem
that occurs as runoff comes across the median and floods down through to the Strowbridge property.
Commissioner Straub suggested the applicant use an aesthetically - pleasing exterior design so the
structures don't resemble a strip mall.
Chaimran DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to
speak:
Ms. Nancy Crim, adjoining property owner and a resident of Darville Subdivision since 1966,
spoke about how this area has grown over the years; she was very concerned about the amount and speed of
traffic traveling on Route 522 and the problems she experiences associated with it. Ms. Crim thought the
vehicular access to the proposed site was a good idea because of the problems she experiences trying to get out
onto Rt. 522 during certain times of the day. She said she was not opposed to the development proposed, but she
thought the development's loop road was too close to her home as well as the other houses in her neighborhood.
Ms. Crim raised the issue of who would be responsible for the maintenance of the trees and fence in the buffer
is Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1584
Minutes of August 3, 2005
-11-
® area over time. In addition, she was concerned about the commercial lighting shining into her home.
Mr. Douglas Kramer, adjoining property owner, said his primary objection was the loop road
being so close to his property. In addition, he said the drainage in this area is terrible and storm water washes
down Clarke -Ville Road, creating a gulley. He preferred not to have the pedestrian/ vehicular inter -parcel access.
Ms. Ann Cunningham, adjoining property owner, was also opposed to an access road or
walkway adjacent to her property because of the possibility of strangers trespassing onto her property.
Ms. Sherella Kramer, adjoining property owner, was concerned about the how the commercial
lighting and noise would impact her quality of life. Ms. Kramer was not in favor of having an access to the
commercial property because of the possibility of outsiders coming into the neighborhood.
Since everyone who had wanted to speak had been given an opportunity to do so, Chairman
DeHaven closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Mr. Wyatt returned to the podium and stated that if the neighbors do not want the inter -parcel
connection, they will certainly eliminate it. Mr. Wyatt said that the county's lighting standards and buffering
requirements will be met.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Straub and seconded by Commissioner Wilmot,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Master Development Plan it 10-05 of Stonewall Plaza, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for a
shopping center and retail uses along the Route 522 Corridor, next to the existing Trex Center and the Darville
subdivision in Sunnyside.
(Note: Commissioner Light was absent from the meeting.)
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. due to the Planning Commission's By -Laws requirement.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1585
Minutes of August 3, 2005
Respectfully submitted,