PC_03-07-07_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 March 7, 2007.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon
District; Robert A. Moms, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; Christopher M. Mohn,
Red Bud District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; John H. Light, Stonewall
District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District, H. Paige Manuel, Member -At -Large; Philip E. Lemieux, Board of
Supervisors Liaison; Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Cordell Watt, Back
Creek District; and the City of Winchester Liaison.
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director, Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision
Administrator; Candice Perkins, Planner Il, Kevin T. Henry, Planning Technician; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk.
• CALL TO ORDER & ADOPTION OF AGENDA
Chairman Wilmot called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. A motion was made, seconded, and
unanimously approved to adopt the Planning Commission's agenda for this evening's meeting,
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Oates and seconded by Commissioner Manuel, the
minutes of the January 17, 2007 Planning Commission meeting were unanimously approved as presented.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Manuel and seconded by Commissioner Triplett, the
staff briefing minutes of December 19, 2006 on Willow Run were unanimously approved as presented.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1994
Minutes of March 7, 2007
-2-
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) — 02/22/07 Mtg.
Commissioner Thomas reported that the DRRS discussed modifications to the ordinance for
age - restricted housing, height- restriction relaxations, and parking lot requirements. He said work on these
items will continue.
Transportation Committee — 02/26/07 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported that the Transportation Committee discussed two items: a review
of possible adjustments and revisions to the Rural Roadways Ranking System; and, endorsed several local
projects for grant applications to the Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Grants Program.
Sanitation Authority (SA) — 02/20/07 Mtg.
Commissioner Unger reported that rainfall for the month of January was down; the water flow
• was down because of less rain in January; and water usage was up about 5.3 mgd, which was contributed to
warmer January temperatures. Commissioner Unger said the SA is anticipating the bid for the pump station at
Stephens which will supply the new subdivision, Snowden Bridge; condemnation of some property is involved.
Economic Development Commission (EDC) — 03/02/07 Mtg.
Commissioner Kerr reported that the EDC received a presentation by Sherando High School's
Future Business Leaders of America on a project they did in conjunction with the EDC. Commissioner Kerr said
the results of surveys, which had been distributed to parents and students with questions dealing with students'
future plans after high school, were discussed.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any item that was not on this evening's agenda.
No one came forward to speak.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1995
Minutes of March 7, 2007
-3-
• PUBLIC HEARING
Conditional Use Permit 902 -07 for Keith Rogers and Sandra Rogers for a public garage without body
repair at 2204 Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277). The property is further identified with P.I.N. 87 -A -89 in the
Opequon Magisterial District.
Action — Recommended Approval with Conditions
Planning Technician, Kevin T. Henry, stated that the proposed public garage business will take
place in the RA (Rural Areas) Zoning District. The property has an existing entrance for residential use on
Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277), but this entrance will be closed prior to business activities taking place on site. Mr. Henry
said the application contains a letter of permission from the adjoining property owners, Mr. Gary McDonald and
Mrs. Sharon McDonald, granting their permission to use their commercial entrance at 2180 Fairfax Pike. Mr.
Henry noted that an engineered site plan will be required which will account for activities on the property such as,
structures, driveways, parking/storage areas, screening, and signage. He said the applicant is proposing to build a
60'X30' (1,800 square foot) garage with a 30'X40' (1,200 square foot) screened parking area behind the garage.
He added that all repair work shall take place entirely within an enclosed structure and storage of parts and
equipment shall be screened by an opaque fence. Mr. Henry next read a list of recommended conditions, should
the Commission find the use to be appropriate.
Commission members had questions concerning the location of drainfield and septic systems; the
basis for the building size restriction; who will inspect the oil interceptor, if installed; and if a license is required
for the disposal of oil and grease. A member of the Commission also questioned how this property would be
accessed, if the adjoining property would be sold.
• Mr. Henry reported that the inter -parcel connection will have to be platted and legally recorded
with the two lots before the site plan is approved. He said it could be conditioned, so that if the conditional use
permit (CUP) becomes void, the residential driveway could be utilized again.
Mr. Keith Rogers, the property owner and applicant, stated that a waste oil heater will be
installed to burn waste oil; disposal of old parts are sold for scrap metal or recycled; tires and anti -freeze will be
picked up by independents for a fee; and the septic fields are back along the fence line and will have to be marked
for building setbacks. Regarding the size of the structure, Mr. Rogers thought this was the largest building he
could construct considering building setbacks, the water main easement, parking, etc.
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak.
Commission members said they would like to modify recommended condition #6 by increasing
the number of vehicles being repaired from four to five, including storage. Commissioners also thought that if the
restriction on the size of the building, under recommended condition #9, was driven by limitations of the property
and the building size would not actually be known until site plan review, the size limitation should be increased so
the applicant could get a larger structure, if the property would accommodate it. A suggestion was made to
increase the maximum size to 2,700 square feet.
A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas to recommend approval of CUP #02 -07 of Keith
and Sandra Rogers with a modification to Condition #6, "The applicant will be limited to repairing only five
vehicles at a time, including storage," and, Condition 49, "All repair activities shall occur entirely within an
enclosed structure which shall not exceed 2,700 square feet." This motion was seconded by Commissioner
• Morris.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1996
Minutes of March 7, 2007
MIN
• BE IT RESOLVED, THAT the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #02 -07 for Keith Rogers and Sandra Rogers for a public garage without body
repair at 2204 Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277) with the following conditions:
All review agency comments and requirements shall be complied with at all times.
2. The property shall have no more than one (1) non - illuminated business sign, no larger than 25 square
feet in area, and no taller than 10 feet.
3. The existing commercial entrance on the parcel to the west, known as Tax Map Identification 87 -A -90,
will provide the driveway for ingress /egress onto the applicant's property, Tax Map Identification 87 -A-
89.
4. The existing residential driveway accessing from Fairfax Pike will be removed prior to business
activities.
5. An engineered site plan and implementation of identified improvements is required prior to any business
activities taking place on the site.
6. The applicant will be limited to repairing only five (5) vehicles at a time, including storage.
7. Vehicles for repair use shall be stored behind a board -on -board six foot tall fence, to shield from
adjoining properties. Any inoperable vehicles on the property shall adhere to Section 165 -47 of the
Frederick County Zoning Ordinance.
• 8. The auto repair business is permitted a maximum of four (4) employees.
9. All repair activities shall occur entirely within an enclosed structure which shall not exceed 2,700 square
feet.
10. Hours of operation shall be from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.
11. Any business uses outside the repair realm of the conditional use permit, are not permitted.
12. Any expansion or change of use shall require a new Conditional Use Permit.
(Please note: Commissioners Watt, Ours, and Kriz were absent from the meeting.)
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1997
Minutes of March 7, 2007
-5—
PUBLIC MEETING
r Master Development Plan #01 -07 Revised Sovereign Village, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for
216 single - family detached units and 116 multiplex units. The properties are located on SensenyRoad (Rt.
657), and are identified with P.I.N.s 65 -A -39 and 65 -A -39A in the Red Bud Magisterial District.
Action — Tabled for 45 Days
Planner Candice E. Perkins reported that the revised master development plan (MDP)
application is a proposal to revise the original MDP for the Sovereign Village development. Ms. Perkins said this
development was originally master planned with all three of the Charming Land Bays, which consisted of
Sovereign Village, Lynnhaven, and the Twin Lakes Overlook project, and were rezoned in 1999. Ms. Perkins
noted that the Sovereign Village plan consists of 156 acres, of which 144 acres are residential and 12 acres are
commercial.
Planner Perkins reported that the original MDP called for 362 single - family detached lots; the
revised plan calls for a total of 216 single - family detached units and 116 multiplex uits, which is a net loss of 30
units overall for the development. The revised MDP also shows the addition of two new cul -de -sacs. Ms. Perkins
proceeded to describe a multiplex unit, using the zoning ordinance. She said the proffers for the Channing Drive
rezoning only prohibited townhouses and garden apartments from the development, so a multiplex unit is a
permitted housing type within this area.
Ms. Perkins stated that in addition to the new housing type, the MDP provides a commitment for
the construction of Channing Drive from Farmington to Canyon Road within 12 months of the final approval of
• the MDP. The MDP also states that the portion of Charming Drive will be bonded prior to the MDP receiving
final signatures; and, the proffered community center will be constructed within 24 months of the final approval
of the revised MDP.
Ms. Perkins noted two outstanding issues: 1) the detail for the trail within the multiplex area
needs to be provided on the MDP; and, 2) the metes and bounds should be provided on the MDP around the
commercial portion of the property. Ms. Perkins said that since the agenda packets were mailed, staff has
received the details for the trail within the multiplex area. Ms. Perkins concluded her presentation by noting that
the revised MDP for Sovereign Village depicts appropriate land uses and appears to be consistent with the
requirements of Article XVII, MDP, of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the preliminary MDP is also in
accordance with the proffers for Rezoning #15-99. She noted that the MDP process is an administrative process,
not a legislative one; she said that once the MDP is in accordance with the county ordinances, it can be approved.
Mr. Thomas Moore (Ty) Lawson, P.C., of Lawson & Silek, P.L.C., was present on behalf of the
owners, Manning and Ross Developers, LLC, and the applicant, Greenway Engineering. Mr. Lawson believed
the purpose of the public meeting for this revised MDP was for the Commission to confirm that the proposed
revisions conform to the requirements of the Frederick County Code. Mr. Lawson stated that the proposal allows
for a new housing type, multiplex, in addition to the single - family residences, which is allowed in the RP Zone
and is consistent with the proffers. He stated that with this revision, there will be less total units than what was
approved with the original rezoning in 1999. This results in less impact, fewer vehicles, and fewer school
children. He said it also provides key timing for two proffered improvements, the completion of Channing Drive
within 12 months and the completion of the recreation center within 24 months.
Chairman Wilmot next called for citizen comments and the following persons came forward to
• speak:
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1998
Minutes of March 7, 2007
• Mr. Jack Lewis, a resident of Sovereign Village, spoke on behalf of the Sovereign Village
Homeowners Association. Mr. Lewis said the residents are concerned about the shrinking marketability and value
of their homes, the broken commitments and promises made to them when they purchased their homes, the
absence of promised recreational facilities, inadequate schools for their children, and the undesirable affects on
the living environment in Sovereign Village. Mr. Lewis commented that the promises made for a single - family
home community with a recreation center and a commercial area have not been kept. He said it's been more than
six years since the proffer and the recreational center has not yet been started and the applicant wants another two
years; he said the commercial acreage has been up for sale for the past year. Mr. Lewis said the residents are
interested in securing compliance with the original proffers. He said the State Code empowers the Zoning
Administrator to take action through building or occupancy permits, through court injunctions, or to impose a
bond equal to the cost of construction of the missing proffers.
Mr. Ken Jackson, a homeowner in Sovereign Village, said the developers marketed the homes
in Sovereign Village and commanded prices based on promises made with the original rezoning. He said many
residents paid more than $500,000 for their homes, which is comparable to the prices in Ravenwing and Oakdale
Crossing, and more than prices in Pembridge Heights, Pioneer, BTiarwood, and Senseny Glen. He said the
developer would not have gotten these prices if it weren't for the promises made. Mr. Jackson believed the
developers have defrauded the homeowners and if the revised plan is approved, the homeowners intend to take
legal action. Furthermore, Mr. Jackson was concerned that the Board of Supervisors would approve the MDP for
the purpose of getting Channing Drive completed.
Mr. Rick Churchill, a homeowner in Sovereign Village, said the promise of a recreational center
with a swimming pool was critical in his family's decision to purchase a home in Sovereign Village. Mr.
Churchill said it has been six years since that proffer was made and the builders have not yet started on the
• recreational center. He said his children continually ask when they will be able to swim in the community pool
and now the developer is asking for another two years.
Mr. Jerry Fiffield, a resident of Sovereign Village, said he has been a contractor in the State of
Virginia for 25 years. Mr. Fiffield said that in his business, when a contract agreement is made with a client, both
parties adhere to the contract. Prior to purchasing his home in Sovereign Village, he asked about the recreational
center, the swimming pool, and if there would be other housing types; he was told emphatically no other housing
types except single family. Mr. Fiffield was concerned that now, three years later, the developer is asking to
change something previously sold for a certain price; he commented that this was "bait and switch." Mr. Fiffeld
wanted the County to hold the developers to what they originally asked for and what was sold to the homeowners.
Mr. Roger Trowesdale, a resident in Sovereign Village, agreed with the previous speakers. Mr.
Trowesdale said he didn't think there was much difference between a multiplex unit and a townhouse unit; he
didn't understand how the multiplex was allowed, but not the townhouses. Mr. Trowesdale asked is any actions
have been taken by the zoning administrator to enforce the original proffers. He said the Code states that the
Commission has the power to take action to enforce the proffers and protect the value of homes in this
development.
Mr. Kirk Matthews, a resident of Sovereign Village, referenced sections of the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights which he believed empowered local government officials with providing protection and security
to its citizens. He also quoted sections of the Code which stated that garden apartments and multiplex structures
shall not be placed adjacent to other types of residential structures, such as detached, single- family dwellings. Mr.
Matthews also read from the Sovereign Village covenants which noted that a change could be made so long as the
same established scheme, that being a single - family residential lot, is maintained. He thought this change would
• cause residents to leave the area, which would create a domino reaction, affecting many others in the community.
Mr. Matthews asked the Commission to either table or reject this proposal.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 1999
Minutes of March 7, 2007
-7-
Ms. Michelle Jenkins, a homeowner in Sovereign Village, agreed with the comments made by
the previous residents; however, as a teacher, she wanted to make several points from an educational perspective.
• Ms. Jenkins was concerned about an increase in student population that multiplex housing would create which
will add to the problem of overcrowded schools, increased class size, and the quality of education. She said the
completion of Charming Drive will provide easier access for the developer to build multiplex housing and the
overcrowding will add to the existing transportation problems. She talked about the difficulty transporting
students in a timely manner; she noted there were children who spend 45 minutes on a school bus to get from
Sovereign Village to their school. Ms. Jenkins said there are two elementary schools within two miles of
Sovereign Village; however, the children in Sovereign Village are bused eight miles to an elementary school
which is already overcrowded. She did not believe the construction of new schools should come secondary to the
construction of the multiplexes.
Mr. Howard Kittel, a resident of Sovereign Village, shared the concerns of the previous
speakers; he said he was in opposition to the proposed MDP revisions for Sovereign Village. Mr. Kittel said
when changes are proposed, certain conditions need to be considered, for example: 1) does the proposed plan suit
the character of the land, in this case, more intense development on land with significant slopes and wetlands; 2)
would the proposed development be in harmony with the existing development, i.e. multiplex units surrounded by
detached single - family homes; 3) is it in the best interest of the public; the general consensus from the residents of
Sovereign Village and Lynnhaven is that the MDP change is not in their collective best interest. In addition, Mr.
Kittel said that much of the development in the proposed revision would be constructed on identified wetlands; he
asked if the developer had addressed the need for wetlands review or issuance of wetlands permits before
construction. Mr. Kittel believed there should be some assurance that permits would be granted before the MDP
is changed. He said the areas designated for the proposed multiplex units, especially those along Rossman
Boulevard and Farmington, are much closer to the wetland boundaries than was the site for the recreation center,
which was held up a number of months in 2003 to get its permit. Mr. Kittel said in 2003, his family made a
decision to build a home in Sovereign Village and move to Frederick County; a significant factor in his decision to
• select Sovereign Village was the assurance that they would be moving into a planned community of detached,
single - family homes. Mr. Kittel believed that to now alter the MDP in exchange for a quarter mile of road would
be a betrayal of trust by the developer, as well as the County.
Mr. Harry Mallette, a resident of Sovereign Village, said that when he moved to Sovereign
Village, he thought he was moving into a well planned and designed community with reasonably spacious lots,
each with a two -car garage with lengthy driveways that permitted additional parking. Mr. Mallette asked how
multiplex units would fit into that planned community design. He said when he bought his home, there was no
mention of townhouses or multiplexes. Mr. Mallette added that every homeowner in Sovereign Village also
bought a share in the community he just described of single - family, detached homes. He said that is what was
promised and that is what everyone bought. He said that such a drastic change without the consent of the majority
of homeowners is certainly not morally justifiable.
Ms. Joanne Leonardis said that she lived adjacent to Sovereign Village and Lynnhaven, which
is part of the large 1999 rezoning and also includes Twin Lakes. Ms. Leonardis said that everyday she sees the
dirt road, which is supposed to be Charming Drive, she sees a dirt pile that is supposed to be the recreation center,
and she also sees the woodchip trail that goes nowhere and has weeds growing from it. Ms. Leonardis said she
also sees broken promises to the residents of Sovereign Village and the County. She asked if the County will hold
the developers accountable to their original agreements or if the County will accept more promises.
Ms. Julie Wozniak, a resident of the Lynnhaven subdivision, agreed with the previous residents
who spoke. Ms. Wozniak inquired if there had been adequate consideration of the impact of the proposed
multiplexes on the roads with increased traffic. She was concerned about the possibility of increased traffic
• accidents, not only at the intersection of Charming Drive and Senseny Road, but also the intersection of Senseny
and Greenwood Roads. She was concerned about the safety of children who live in the development. Ms.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2000
Minutes of March 7, 2007
• Wozniak questioned whether there would be adequate parking for the residents of the multiplexes or would
parking spill over onto the road or in front of single - family dwellings. She said that with no real idea of what a
multiplex is going to look like, there was not enough information for anyone to make an informed decision on this
revision and its long -term affects on traffic congestion and road erosion. Ms. Wozniak pointed out that the 2003
Comprehensive Policy Plan states under Land Use that, ..... the intrusion of either non - residential or residential
uses of different types and densities can have a significant, negative impact on existing residential area; adequate
separation of uses is needed." In conclusion, Ms. Wozniak asked who would ultimately benefit from the creation
of high- density multiplexes and was it in the best interest of the general public.
Ms. Gionnie Estler, a resident of Sovereign Village, asked everyone in the audience who was
opposed to the MDP revisions to please stand and about 75 people stood up. Ms. Estler said it has come to her
attention that the developers have faced many challenges with this development from the beginning; she heard the
developers may be interested in just walking away from it. Ms. Estler said if the developers are interested in
selling, is this revision all about making that piece of land more valuable for another developer to buy. She said if
that is the case, then the existing single- family homes are going to lose some of their value. She felt the County
would be taking money from the existing homeowners and giving it to the developers. She hoped the
Commission would oppose the requested revisions.
Mr. Ted Burger, a resident of Sovereign Village, asked how a multiplex home differs from an
apartment complex, a townhouse, or a condominium.
Mr. Craig Sangri, a resident of Sovereign Village, agreed with the other residents who
previously spoke. Mr. Sangri said that he and his wife purchased their home based on agreements that were either
written down or told to them by Manning & Ross. He said that he works in Washington, D.C. as a federal law
• enforcement officer and he bought his home in Frederick County to be away from the density of Reston or
Arlington. He said statistically, there was a correlation between population densities and its associated crime.
Mr. Sangri disagreed with Mr. Lawson's statement that the revision was consistent with current proffers; he said
the multiplex units were not a part of the original proffers and he believed the density would increase.
Another resident of Sovereign Village, who did not provide his name, stated that he came to the
United States from Vietnam to pursue the American dream. He said he was a small business owner and works
very hard to be a good a neighbor. He said he moved here from California in 1998 because this was such a
beautiful area. Be asked the Commission to abide by the developers original promises; he said his home is his
investment and he is relying on that investment for retirement
Ms. Cindy Hughs, a resident of Sovereign Village, agreed with the previous speaker when he
said he bought into the American dream; she said all the residents bought into the American dream with the
promises of roads, the beauty, the recreational center, and places for the children to play. Ms. Hughs said
everyone worked hard and saved to become members of Sovereign Village and own property in Frederick County.
Ms. Christina King, a resident of Sovereign Village, said she and her husband both commute an
hour to and from work in order to afford a single- family home. She said that if she wanted to live in a town home,
she could have done so and saved a considerable amount of money in gasoline by not commuting. She raised the
issue of the promised swimming pool not yet been built; she questioned how safe Sovereign Village would
continue to be with an increase in density; and she questioned the impact on the value of the single - family homes.
Ms. King asked the Commission not to approve the proposed revisions with multiplex units.
Mr. Patrick Skorker, a resident of the Red Bud District, said he previously lived in a
• townhouse community in the State of New Jersey. Mr. Skorker was concerned about adequate parking for the
proposed multiplex units. He anticipated there would be considerable illegal parking and people treading across
other resident's properties. Mr. Skorker said when he first moved to this area, the woodlands and wildlife were
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2001
Minutes of March 7, 2007
-9-
abundant; he questioned what was happening to the ecology of this area. He asked the Commission not allow this
revision to go forward.
• Mr. Scott Bowman, a resident of Sovereign Village, said he purchased a home in Sovereign
Village for many of the same reasons his neighbors did, such as the promise of a pool and a single- family
neighborhood. He was opposed to the revision proposed by the applicant. Mr. Bowman asked if the 116 units
would have four multiplexes per unit, or if the 116 units represented a total of 29 buildings with four multiplexes
in each. He understood the County wanted Charming Drive completed, but hoped the County would not allow the
developers to make the revision solely to get Channing Drive finished. He said he also wanted Channing Drive to
be completed, as well as the promised swimming pool, but he was willing to wait as long as the multiplex units
were not approved for his neighborhood.
Mr. Mark Chase, a resident of Sovereign Village, said that when he purchased his home he
asked what was going to be built in the adjacent field and was told more of the same. Mr. Chase agreed with
statements made earlier that new construction should be consistent with the character of the adjoining areas,
whether it be for a rural garage, where someone wants to fix a few cars, or to residential subdivisions. Mr. Chase
said the deed to his property prohibits him from hanging hisjeans to dry in his back yard or leaving his boat in the
driveway because of the character of the neighborhood. He said he was okay with that because he knew about it
up front before he bought into the development. He said he couldn't think of a greater inconsistency with the
character of the surrounding development than this proposal.
Mr. Chris Collins, a resident of the Lyrmhaven subdivision, expressed concern that the
proposed multiplex units would negatively impact property values; he said it appears the residents are getting an
apartment complex in the middle of all their single - family homes. Mr. Collins pointed out that other
developments in the County with a mix of townhouses, apartments, and single - family homes, such as Preston
Place or Autumn Winds, have the various housing types distinctly separated. He said this developer is proposing
• to place the multiplex units along Rossman, an area with single - family homes. Mr. Collins said this is not what
he expected when he purchased his home.
Since everyone who wished to speak had been given the opportunity to do so, Chairman Wilmot
closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Chairman Wilmot next requested the staff to provide a definition and description of multiplex
units for those in attendance. Ms. Perkins displayed the definition of multiplex from die zoning ordinance and she
described the possible layouts.
Mr. Lawson returned to the podium to address some of the comments made by the residents who
spoke. Regarding parking for the multiplex units, Mr. Lawson said the County's ordinance requires more than
one parking space per residential unit. He said this proposal calls for four residences or less per multiplex unit for
a total of 116 residences. He said the density proposed is 2.3 units per acre; the original rezoning called for a
density of 2.4 units per acre. He explained that the original rezoning approved 362 residential units and this
revision will have a total of 332 residential units, which is a reduction of 30 units. In addition, the projected
number of school children is 73, as opposed to the original 85 school children; and, the number of vehicle trips is
reduced by 764 trips per day. Mr. Lawson said the developer was committed to the proffers and this submission
has gone one step further by imposing a time deadline on the completion of Charming Drive and completion of the
recreation center.
Commission members next called for Mr. Evan A. Wyatt of Greenway Engineering to come
forward to explain the design layout and to provide a description of a multiplex. Mr. Wyatt came forward and
• explained that the idea is to have three or four units collectively attached, mostly side -to -side and semi - attached,
with individual lots and individual access.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2002
Minutes of March 7, 2007
-10-
• Commissioner Moms asked if there was a projected date for the construction of the amenities so
the residents could have an idea of when to expect their recreational center or swimming pool, or if they should
assume it will be the last item constructed. Mr. Wyatt said the approval of the MDP would dictate the one -year
window and the two -year window Mr. Lawson described. Mr. Wyatt said the public improvement plan for
Channing Drive has been approved by VDOT; approval of the MDP and the delivery of the bond and deed of
dedication would allow the applicant to move on Charing Drive immediately. Regarding the construction of the
community center, he said the County would first have to approve a site plan for the pool, the multi- purpose area,
and the building itself.
Commissioner Light asked the Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, how much time the
applicant had to meet the conditions of the proffers set forth in the 1999 rezoning. Mr. Lawrence replied that the
applicant does not have a time restriction, but the proffer does contain a trigger mechanism based on when
building permits are pulled. Mr. Lawrence said the completion of Channing Drive, which includes Lynnhaven,
Sovereign Village, and Twin Lakes, is based on the number of building permits issued and before the County
could issue the 474" building permit, Charing Drive would have to be completed from Senseny Road through
Fieldstone. He said the County has issued approximately 390 -392 building permits to date, which means there is
about another 84 building permits that can be pulled prior to having the road built. Mr. Lawrence said that based
on the development's average growth rate, it will probably be 2' /z years and possibly 3 -4 years, if the economy is
slower. In terms of the recreational center, Mr. Lawrence said the proffer stated that the developer of Sovereign
Village would provide a 3,000 square -foot recreation center with an outdoor multipurpose playing court and a
swimming pool; however, there was not a trigger as to when that would be built. Mr. Lawrence stated that with
today's MDP revision, the proffer introduces a timing mechanism which previously did not exist which assures
construction within 24 months.
• Commissioner Light recalled numerous off -site traffic improvements with the 1999 rezoning; he
asked if any of those had taken place. Mr. Lawrence replied there have been contributions for signalization at
Senseny and Greenwood; and as improvements occur at Senseny and Greenwood with the Food Lion project,
turning lanes will be installed. Furthermore, Mr. Lawrence stated that while it is not within the proffer, a
signalization agreement has been signed with VDOT for a traffic signal at Rossman Boulevard and Senseny
Road. Commissioner Light inquired if there were any other incomplete proffers and Mr. Lawrence replied that at
this point, there are no violations on the property.
Mr. Lawrence next explained that the difference between multiplex and townhouse is with the
dimensional requirements. He said the minimum lot size for a two or three bedroom townhouse is just under
2,000 square feet and a multiplex is about 3,000 square feet; the lot size is 50% larger.
Commissioner Morris believed the County will be seeing more mixed -use developments, with a
variety of housing types in the same community, and the County's desire to accommodate them. Commissioner
Morris thought it was very important for purchasers to know up front what they were buying into.
Commissioner Thomas commented that it was not desirable to see a switch in the MDP from
what was promised to the homeowners who buy into an area.
Commissioner Mohn stated that the one issue that must be dealt with at all stages, and certainly
the MDP, is the issue of harmony and compatibility; however, he was not entirely convinced that some form of
multiplex unit couldn't be compatible in a higher end, single - family detached community. He said he could
understand the concern of the residents that without knowing what the multiplex units will look like, the units
• could take on a variety of forms. Mr. Mohn said that before he would be comfortable with this request, he would
have to know more about what is actually being proposed and be assured that it would be compatible with this
community.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2003
Minutes of March 7, 2007
-11-
• Commissioner Unger said he didn't get the impression that any of the residents who spoke were
dissatisfied with their homes. He recommended that the developer go back and put something on paper so the
homeowners could see what the multiplex units would look like. In addition, he recommended that the developer
place guidelines on when things are going to be constructed.
Commissioner Oates said he did not think it was beneficial to change the housing type in the
development solely for the benefit of a quarter mile of road; he said there will be other future developers coming
into the area who would be able to construct the road.
Commissioner Kerr said he would also like to see more details about the multiplex units.
Commissioner Kerr made a motion to table MDP 401 -07 of Sovereign Village for 60 days to
give the applicant time to come back with more information on what the multiplex units will look like. This
motion was seconded by Commissioner Mohn, but failed by the following tie vote:
YES (TO TABLE FOR 60 DAYS) Unger, Manuel, Triplett, Kerr, Mohn
NO: Morris, Oates, Light, Wilmot Thomas
(Note: Commissioners Watt, Ours, and Kriz were absent from the meeting.)
• A motion was made by Commissioner Light to deny MDP 401 -07 of Sovereign Village and this
motion was seconded by Commissioner Oates. This motion failed by the following majority vote:
YES (TO REC. DENIAL) Morris, Oates, Light, Thomas,
NO: Wilmot, Unger, Manuel, Triplett, Kerr, Mohn
(Note: Commissioners Watt, Ours, and Kriz were absent from the meeting.)
A motion was next made by Commissioner Oates to table MDP 901 -07 of Sovereign Village for
45 days. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kerr and passed by a majority vote.
(At this point some recommendations were made by the Commissioners about the elements they wanted to see
when the applicant came back to the Commission. Commissioners said they would like to see architectural and
elevation details of the multiplex housing type, buffering details, and triggers or any other concepts thedeveloper
is willing to provide to convince existing homeowners this is a better plan than the previous one.)
YES (TABLE FOR 45 DAYS) Moms, Oates, Light, Unger, Manuel, Triplett, Kerr, Mohn, Wilmot
NO: Thomas
(Note: Commissioners Watt, Ours, and Kriz were absent from the meeting.)
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2004
Minutes of March 7, 2007
-12-
• OTHER
PROFFERED CASH PAYMENTS
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, stated there were questions at a previous meeting regarding
how long the County could hold cash proffers before they had to be spent. Mr. Lawrence said the County
Attorney's office provided him with Code Section 15.2- 2303.2. Proffered Cash Payments and Expenditures and
the first sentence states that, "... within seven years of receiving full payment of all cash proffered..." He said the
interpretation is if a residential development proffers cash for schools, for example, then seven years alter the last
building permit is issued, the County will have had to initiate spending the money, whether through engineering or
actual construction. Mr. Lawrence answered questions from the Commission on the specifics of the Code section.
PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT RESULTS
Planning Director, Eric R. Lawrence, presented the top four long -range planning priorities and
the top four current planning priorities that came of the Planning Commission's Retreat:
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. by a unanimous
vote.
Respectfully submitted,
�v a JAr�
Wilmot, Chairman
Eric �,. Lawrence, Secretary
•
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2005
Minutes of March 7, 2007