PC_05-16-07_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES
OF THE
• FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Frederick Comity Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in
Winchester, Virginia on May 16, 2007.
PRESENT: June M. Wilmot, Chairman/Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/Opequon
District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro
District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Gregory S. Kerr, Red Bud District; Christopher M. Mohn, Red Bud
District; Gary R. Oates, Stonewall District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District; Philip E. Lemieux, Board of
Supervisors Liaison; and Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: John H. Light, Stonewall District; Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; H. Paige Manuel, Member -
At- Large; and the City of Winchester Liaison.
STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Michael T. Ruddy, Deputy Planning Director; Susan
K. Eddy, Principal Planner; Mark R. Cheran, Zoning & Subdivision Administrator; John A. Bishop,
Transportation Planner; Bernard Suchicital, Planner I; 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 by
Commissioner Kriz, seconded by Commissioner Triplett, and unanimously passed to adopt the Planning
Commission's agenda for this evening's meeting.
MINUTES
Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commission Ir Ours, dre minutes of
the April 4, 2007 Planning Commission meeting were unanimously approved as presented.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Historic Resources Advisory Board (CPPS) — 5/15/07 Mtg.
Commissioner Oates reported that the HRAB discussed the following three items: 1) A potential
rezoning of 58 acres to B3 on Shady Elm Road; concerns from the April meeting were addressed by the applicant;
the HRAB requested the applicant conduct a Phase 1 archeological survey of the property and to document the
® house and outbuildings prior to demolition. 2) The HRAB recommended that the name provided for the Adams
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2048
Draft Minutes of May 16, 2007
-z-
property application, "Village at Opequon," be changed due to the confusion with historic, " Opequon Village."
The HRAB also recommended documentation of the house and outbuildings before demolition; and the HRAB
requested the installation of an evergreen buffer along the common boundary line with Valley Mill Farm,
particularly for screening during the Fall and winter months. 3) A discussion to update the historical section of
the Comprehensive Policy Plan; members of the HRAB will bring ideas to the neat meeting in June to start the
process.
Economic Development Commission (EDC) — 05/11107 Mtg.
Commissioner Kerr reported that 19 applications were received for a scholarship award; an
appointment was made to the Annual Review Committee for the County's Development Impact Model; and VIP
tours were discussed, along with an Apple Blossom Festival recap.
Sanitation Authority (SA) — 5/15/07 Mtg.
Commissioner Unger reported that the SA held a re- election of officers; Robert Malery will
continue as Chairman, John Stevens will be Vice Chairman, and Richard Ruckman will continue as Treasurer and
Secretary. Commissioner Unger said rainfall for the Spring months has been fairly normal; plants are working
® satisfactorily; the SA is extracting about 3% mgd from Stephens City and 2.2 mgd from Clearbrook, usage for the
previous month was about 5.9 mgd. A landowner addressed the SA about the County going across part of his
land; he would like to have the route modified, to minimize the impact to his trees. The SA is having some
difficulties with DEQ issuing permits for active springs; the SA will be having a meeting to decide whether to
continue pursuing permits for Vaucluse Springs, Blue Springs, and Simple Springs
Winchester Plannine Commission (WPC) — 5/15/07 Mtg.
Commissioner Triplett reported that WPC discussed several conditional use permits. The first
was a neighborhood convenience establishment at 1501 North Loudoun Street; the second was for a multi - fancily
dwelling at 200 North Cameron Street; and there was discussion concerning the establishment of multi- family
dwelling at Winchester Towers.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Chairman Wilmot called for citizen comments on any item that was not on this evening's agenda
and the following person canoe forward to speak:
• Mr. Clay Athey came forward to address the Commission. Mr. Athey stated what a privilege and
honor it has been to work with Mr. LaNATence Ambrogi, Commonwealth Attorney, over the last decades. Mr.
Athey said that Mr. Ambrogi has been a fantastic public servant and he noted that Mr. Ambrogi was he attendance
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2049
Draft Minutes of May 16, 2007
-3-
of the Planning Commission meeting again this evening. Mr. Athey stated that for those of us who have had the
honor and privilege of working with Mr. Ambrogi, he's been an example for all of us and certainly, all of us who
are in the legal community, with the way he carries himself and the fine way in which he has represented the
citizens of Frederick County.
PUBLIC HEARING
Rezoning 912 -06 of Carriage Park, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to'rezone 30.26 acres from
RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, and 15.18 acres from MH1 (Mobile
Home Community) District to RP District, totaling 45.44 acres, with proffers, for up to 249 single family
attached homes (townhouses). The properties are located south of and adjacent to Route 7, and east of and
adjacent to Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park. The properties are further identified with Property Identification
Numbers 55 -A -161, 55-A-1 65A, 55 -A -166,55-A-1 67, 55-A-1 67A, 55 -A -168, 55-A-1 7 55-A-1 74B, and 55-
A-174D in the Red Bud Magisterial District. (This item was tabled from the April 18, 2007 meeting.)
Action — Recommended Denial
Commissioner Kerr said that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this item, due to
the appearance of a possible conflict of interest.
Deputy Director, Michael T. Ruddy, reported that this rezoning application was tabled by the
® Planning Commission on November 1, 2006; it was tabled at the applicant's request on March 21, 2007; and it
was tabled again by the Planning Commission on April 18, 2007. Mr. Ruddy said he would review the
application enclosed within the Commission's agenda package; however, he wanted to point out that the applicant
has provided the Commission with a revised set of proffers this evening, dated May 14, 2007. He also pointed
out a couple of handouts, consisting of a letter from an adjacent property owner, Valley View Fanns, and
correspondence between Mr. Lloyd Ingram of VDOT and the applicant with regards to the revised proffer
statement. Mr. Ruddy added that Mr. John Bishop, the County's Transportation Planner, would assist him with
the staff's presentation to the Commission.
Mr. Ruddy noted several issues from the March 2007 rezoning request as follows: the
preservation of existing tree lines and wooded areas as a desirable buffer, along with the location of new buffer
areas has not been adequately addressed; there is limited protection of the existing pond, environmental open
spaces, and riparian areas along Abrams Creek and Ash Hollow Run; comments relating to the public schools
remain as a significant consideration, and comments relating to the Parks and Recreation Department with regard
to trails have not been adequately addressed. Mr. Ruddy said that because this project is located within the UDA,
the roads should be built with the appropriate urban typical section; inter- parcel connectivity of the public street
system is a requirement of the zoning ordinance and consideration should be given to enabling a public road
connection to the Blue Ridge Mobile Home Park. In addition, issues identified by the staff and VDOT remain
regarding the relocated alignment for the future Route 37 on/off ramp proposed by the revised proffer statement
and GDP.
Mr. Ruddy stated that if the transportation approach proposed by the applicant is acceptable to
the County, then the applicant should guarantee that the intersection improvements to the site driveway and Route
7 occur in a manner which fully enables the implementation of any future signalization with the Route 37 ramp;
® he said the road should also be completed to existing Valley Mill Road with an acceptable typical section.
Furthermore, all efforts should be made to implement the Comprehensive Policy Plan to make a safe and efficient
use of Valley Mill Road as a primary access route to this development.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2050
Draft Minutes of May 16, 2007
• Mr. Ruddy next reviewed some of the significant changes in the revised proffer statement, dated
May 14, 2007. He noted a reduction in the dollar contribution to schools; the elimination of both a signal on
Route 7 and any accommodation for Route 37 ramps; no guaranteed connection to Valley Mill Road; and no
protection provided to the adjacent property owner.
The County's Transportation Planner, John A. Bishop, came forward to address some of the key
transportation issues, particularly in relation to the proposed entrance on Route 7 and "relocated Valley Mill
Road." Mr. Bishop said the proposed Route 7 entrance is approximately 700 feet from the existing Valley Mill
crossover, which is tight spacing for an arterial roadway. The applicant has proffered to close existing Valley
Mill entrance within 180 days; however, they have no authority to do so and the applicant has no access to
property to the south or any indication of future access to the south. Without the development of a road system
that should come with the Haggerty property, neighborhood traffic would be forced to golover the existing old
bridge on old Valley Mill Road. The applicant is proposing an entrance in an area which the developer believes
the Route 37 ramp should be; however, there continues to be no VDOT confirmation of that claim. Mr. Bishop
expressed concern about who would bear the cost of moving the road system, if it does not align properly with
future Route 37. 1
Mr. Bishop next talked about the relocation of Valley Mill Road. Mr. Bishop said the applicant
is proposing that from the Route 7 entrance, relocated Valley Mill would come south across their property and
across the Valley Mill Farm property, to meet existing Valley Mill Road. The applicant has continued to present
this as an alternative to the Eastern Road Plan. He said the staff would prefer that Valley Mill Road be the access
point for this development; however, as the Valley Mill property owners and the communication before the
Commission indicates, the likelihood of that happening in the foreseeable future is extremely small. Money has
® been proffered to complete the connection, but it is tied to this specific improvement. Therefore, if that right -of-
way does not become available, money does not come to the County, and the applicant is inia situation where they
have not addressed any of their network transportation impacts beyond their own entrance. In addition, the
monetary proffer has no escalator that recognizes the declining dollar value over time tied to transportation.
Furthermore, the Eastern Road Plan designates relocated Valley Mill Road across the Haggerty property as a
major collector road; the applicant is proposing an R2 section and right -of -way sufficient for only a minor
collector roadway.
Commission members had several questions on access points. Mr. Bishop believed it was
preferable for the applicant to use their original proposal, coming across the floodplain area and accessing old
Valley Mill Road, rather than using Route 7. Mr. Bishop was concerned about the possibility the County would
be forced to either redesign the Route 37 ramps to meet the applicant's signaler there would be no choice but to
have two signals within a spacing which was extremely undesirable.
Commissioner Kriz commented that the adjoining property, Valley Mill Farms, was on the
Virginia Landmarks Register and the National Register of Historic Places. He asked about buffering for the
property.
Commissioner Unger requested clarification on the monetary contribution for schools. Mr.
Ruddy stated that the most recent proffers, dated May 14, 2007, identified $12,192 per dwelling unit for school
purposes; however, the original proffer identified $14,618 per dwelling unit for schools. Mr. Ruddy noted that
the revised figure reflects the changes that have occurred in the development impact model over time.
Chairman Wilmot next called for the applicants to make their presentations.
•
Frederick County Planning Commission
Draft Minutes of May 16, 2007
Page 2051
-5-
Mr. Clay Athey, representing the applicant, Carriage Place, L.L.C., came forward to introduce
himself, along with Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., consultant, and Mr. Patrick Sowers with PHR&A. in response to
a Commissioner's question on the monetary proffers to schools, Mr. Athey stated that when the applicant realized
they would have to build additional off -site improvements, they chose to use the revised impact model dollar
amount for schools, plus an additional $3,000 per unit. Mr. Athey gave a brief history of how the plan evolved to
this point. He talked about the applicant's discussions with Mr. Stafford, the adjoining property owner, and the
progress they've made with respect to acquiring off -site right -o[ -way. Mr. Athey said the applicant has agreed to
construct a signalized intersection on Route 7 with a crossover. In addition, they have proposed the roadway
through their property and will plan the improvement across Mr. Stafford's property and out to Charming Drive.
Mr. Athey also described their alternate provisions for access on existing Valley Mill Road for the Route 37 off
ramps. He said that if it was the staff s desire to use existing Valley Mill Road, then Valley Mill Road would
have to be widened inconsistent with what Mr. Stafford would like to see happen, along with widening aone -lane
bridge through property on the national historic register.
Mr. Patrick Sowers, with PHR &A, came forward with a presentation on the technical aspects of
the plan. Mr. Sowers said that correspondence was received from VDOT regarding the intersection on Route 7.
He said this was actually the only location where the eastbound and westbound lanes of Route 37 are close
enough to accommodate a full crossover. He said an addendum was provided to the original TIA which addresses
the location of the proposed entrance and shows a full signalized entrance with a crossover.
Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., the project consultant, said the applicant has agreed to close the
crossover at Valley Mill Road_ He said VDOT's primary issue is the alignment with Route 37; he said the
proffer allows VDOT to use any land between the two intersections in order to properly meet the Route 7
connection.
® Mr. Lloyd Ingram, VDOT representative, did not think the location for the intersection onto
Route 7 would place VDOT in an untenable situation with the off -ramp from Route 37, however, the design could
be considerably different. He said it could influence some other property owners that were not part of the original
plan.
Commissioner Oates questioned where the traffic from Eddy's Lane would go, if old Valley Mill
Road is closed. Mr. Ingram said that connection would still need to be maintained to Route 7, until such time as
Haggerty pulls through; he said the amount of traffic utilizing the entrance onto Route 7 would be reduced and it
would basically only be traffic from Eddy's Lane. Commissioner Oates said another rezoning would have to pick
it up; he was concerned about timing and how it would all work out.
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments; however, no one came forward to speak.
Chairman Wilmot then closed the public comment portion of the meeting.
Chairman Wilmot advised that the Commission will need to take action this evening because of
the time restraints created by the previous times this application was tabled.
Significant issues for members of the Commission involved transportation. In particular,
concern was raised about Paragraph 12.2 of the applicant's proffer under Transportation regarding the timing for
the signalized intersection on Route 7 and the desire to have relocated Valley Mill Road paved the entire way to
existing Valley Mill Road. Commissioners preferred to have commitments by the applicant for the construction
of the road and the intersection at the onset of the project and much earlier than the 125`" building permit. They
believed Paragraph 12.2 as written could leave the County exposed to a much worse situation, particularly for the
® residents in that area
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2052
Draft Minutes of May 16, 2007
® Commission members questioned why the applicant was not constructing relocated Valley Mill
Road as a major collector road, as called for in the Eastern Road Plan; they preferred to have the applicant
commit to an 80 -foot right -of -way and not have individual lot access on the road. They wanted to make sure that
as this road comes to fruition; it is developed as a major collector road and ultimately provides that function.
Other Commissioners wanted to see the connection to the mobile home park done in Phase I. In
addition, they commented that if the adjoining property owner to the south was not willing to provide essential
right -of -way, then the road would have to be moved further south, affecting the future ramp location for Route 37.
This in turn would affect property owners in the area who were not previously affected by the path of Route 37.
Conmrission members thought the proposal did have potential and the location of the intersection
on Route 7 could possibly be an improvement; however, they believed there were a considerable number of loose
ends to the proposal, particularly with the transportation phasing program. They encouraged the applicant to
make changes to their proffers so the Board of Supervisors could review a refinement in the application.
Conunissioner Mohn made a motion to recommend denial of the rezoning application. This
motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and was passed by a majority vote.
BE IT RESOLVED, That by a majority vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
recommend denial of Rezoning 412 -06 of Carriage Park, submitted by Patton Harris Rust & Associates, to
rezone 30.26 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District, and 15.18 acres
from MHl (Mobile Home Community) District to RP District, totaling 45.44 acres, with proffers, for up to 249
single family attached homes (townhouses).
• The majority vote was as follows:
YES (TO REC. DENIAL) Morris, Oates, Wilmot, Ours, Kriz, Mohn
NO: Unger, Thomas, Triplett
ABSTAIN Kerr
(Note: Commissioners Watt, Manuel, and Light were absent from the meeting.)
PUBLIC MEETING
Request by The View Subdivision, submitted by Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, for a waiver of the
Frederick County Code, Subdivision of Land, Chapter 144, Article V Design Standards, §144 -17 Streets,
(G)(1), Cul -de -sac, to allow a cul -de -sac length of approximately 1,650 feet, or 650 feet more than the
allowed length of 1,000 feet, and to allow a right -of -way radius of 55 feet, or five feet more than the
allowed 50 feet. This property is located on the western side of McDonald Road (Route 616),
approximately 0.8 miles southwest of the intersection of McDonald Road and Wardensville Grade (Route
608). The property is further identified by Property Identification Number 51 -A -116 in the Back Creek
Magisterial District.
• Action — Recommended Approval
Zoning and Subdivision Administrator, Mark R. Cheran, stated that the proposed roadway,
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2053
Draft Minutes of May 16, 2007
-7-
Pennyroyal Lane, would have a total length of 1,600 feet, which exceeds the cul -de -sac length requirement of
• 1,000 feet, as allowed by the Frederick Comity Code. Mr. Cheran stated that one possible solution to alleviate the
need for a waiver would be the construction of a loop road from Hinterland Drive to Pennyroyal Lane. He said
the applicant has stated that a deep ravine providing drainage in a northerly direction through the site prohibits
construction of any proposed intersecting roadways. i
Mr. Scott Marsh, of Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, was representing The View Subdivision
and the property owner, Valley Vision, LLC. Mr. Marsh explained that this is a by- right, rural area subdivision
with a five -acre lot density. He said 12 lots are proposed on the cul -de -sac, excluding the two lots at the
intersection which, theoretically, could have driveways placed on the main road entering the subdivision. He said
most of their lots exceed the minimum road frontage of 200 feet. Mr. Marsh explained, ' that this applicant is
trying to meet the intent of the ordinance for the protection of environmental issues an they have provided
individual drainfield sites on the lots, thereby eliminating the need for drainfield easements. In addition, the
applicant has minimized the environmental impacts, such as soil erosion, by reducing the amount of clearing, by
providing diversity in lot layout, and preserving the drainage way by utilizing the preservation lot. Mr. Marsh
believed a loop road would be an invasive approach to this plan; he said the plan proposed1has a more attractive
and environmentally -sound design and created an economically - viable development.
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak
Mr. Randy Tenant, a resident on McDonald Road, had concerns about increasing traffic
congestion and impacts to the aquifer. Mr. Tenant thought the extension of the cul -de -sac would allow for more
lots, which would result in additional traffic. He said that when he drives down McDonalds Road to get onto
Route 50, the traffic is consistently backed up by about 12 to 14 vehicles. In addition, he said the road is served
® by a one -lane bridge. Mr. Tenant was also concerned about drilling 12 additional wells in this area and the affect
on the aquifer.
Mr. William Campbell, a nearby resident, was also concerned about the addition of more traffic
in this area. He said it took years for the residents to get VDOT to construct a dirt birn along McDonalds Road
on Armels Hill, which was in dangerous condition. He also was concerned about the impact of additional homes
on the local water table.
No one else came forward to speak and Chairman Wilmot closed the public comment portion of
the meeting. I
Commissioner Oates asked Mr. Marsh if the number of lots lie was able to create would be
reduced, if the waiver for the cul -de -sac was denied. Mr. Marsh replied that it would not change the density; they
would still create the same number of lots. He said they would shorten the road and make the existing lots smaller
with less road frontage and, possibly, place a drainfield easement on the rear lots and onto the preservation lot.
Conunissioners said they were more opposed to cul -de -sac extensions in the Urban Development
Areas (UDA) and those done simply for economy purposes. They believed this was probably the best layout for
this specific site. One Commissioner suggested that the applicant consider making a contribution to the
improvement of McDonalds Road because of the traffic congestion.
Upon motion made by Commissioner Unger and seconded by Commissioner Kriz,
BE IT RESOLVED, THAT by a unanimous vote, the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
• approve the request by The View Subdivision, submitted by Marsh & Legge Land Surveyors, for a waiver of the
Frederick County Code, Subdivision of Land, Chapter 144, Article V Design Standards, § 144 -17 Streets, (G)(1),
Cul -de -sac, to allow a cul -de -sac length of approximately 1,650 feet, or 650 feet more than the allowed length of
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2054
Draft Minutes of May 16, 2007
WE
1,000 feet, and to allow a right -of -way radius of 55 feet, or five feet more than the allowed 50 feet.
Waiver Requests and Subdivision #08 -06 for Fairway Court, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for seven
single - family detached dwellings, as well as waiver requests from Chapter 165, Zoning, Article IV
Supplementary Use Regulations, 165 -37 Buffer and Screening Requirements, and from Chapter 144,
Subdivision of Land, Article III General Provisions, 144 -5 Interpretations and Appeals. The property is
located on Oakridge Lane (Route 1201), at the intersection of Senseny Road and Oakridge Lane, and is
identified with Property Identification Number 54 -A -136, in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action — Approved Road Efficiency Buffer Waiver
Action — Recommended Approval of Curb, Gutter, & Sidewalks Waiver for Oakridge Ln. & Senseny Rd.
Action - Recommended Denial of Curb, Gutter, & Sidewalks Waiver for Bogey Way
Action — Recommended Approval to Grant Administrative Approval Authority
I
Planner Bernard Suchicital reported that Fairway Court subdivision request is for the subdivision
of a 4.94 -acre parcel into seven single - family detached urban lots with a density of 1.41 units per acre. Mr.
Suchicital said the applicant will be requesting two waivers from the Planning Commission. The first waiver is an
exemption from the zoning ordinance regarding the required road efficiency buffer. The applicant wishes to
implement an existing 50 -foot woodland strip, instead of the required screening. Should this waiverbe approved,
staff would recommend additional plantings to further enhance elements of the ordinance. The second waiver
® requires approval by the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation from the Planning Commission. The
applicant is requesting exemption from the subdivision ordinance regarding curb and gutter, and sidewalks.
Referring to the subdivision design plan (SDP), Mr. Suchicital pointed out that the applicant only shows curb,
gutter, and sidewalk along the new road, Bogey Way, and does not show any curb, gutter, or sidewalk along Oak
Ridge Lane or Senseny Road. Mr. Suchicital said it is a requirement of the County code that curb, gutter, and
sidewalk be installed along Senseny Road, Oakridge Lane, and Bogey Way. He noted that should this waiver be
approved, the applicant intends to remove the sidewalk shown along Bogey Way and no curb, gutter, or sidewalk
would be installed within the entire project. In lieu of these improvements, the applicant is proposing to provide a
cash contribution to the public schools equivalent to the value of installing curb, gutter, and sidewalks. He said
this equates to roughly $150,000.
Mr. Suchcital said not only are these improvements required, but the property is frilly capable of
being developed with the requirements specified by the Code; therefore, staff feels they should be incorporated
into the proposed design plan. He said that if the Commission believes these waivers are appropriate, the
following actions will be needed: 1) road efficiency buffer waiver (Planning Conunission waiver); 2) curb, gutter,
and sidewalks waiver (Board of Supervisors' waiver with a recommendation from the Planning Commission),
and, 3) a recommendation granting staff administrative approval authority (Board of Supervisors' action with a
recommendation from the Planning Commission),
Commissioner Unger asked for clarification on the monetary substitution for the curb, gutter, and
sidewalk. Mr. Suchicital said the staffs calculation of $150,000 was based on Senseny Road, Oakridge, and
Bogey Way. He said the applicant's figure was considerably lower because it only figured Bogey Way.
Mr. Stephen McVeigh with Greenway Engineering came forward to represent the owners, Dr.
• and Mrs. John Neumann, and the Fairway Court Subdivision. Mr. McVeigh said they are dedicating ten feet of
right -of -way along Senseny Road to VDOT for the future widening of Senseny Road. He said the tree line comes
to approximately where the new property line would be after the right -of -way dedication to VDOT. Mr. McVeigh
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2055
Draft Minutes of May 16, 2007
presented some photographs to the Commission and it was his opinion that the existing vegetation would be
• appropriate to act as the road efficiency buffer; he did not think the existing vegetation was sparse. He said if
there are any areas that seem bare, the owner has agreed to plant additional evergreens in those areas. Regarding
the second waiver, the curb and gutter along Oakridge Lane, he said there is a steep 2:1 slope, especially to the
southwest portion of the site, and they would have difficulty in catching the grade. He said there was also a
concern with the creek at the bottom of the slope. They were hesitant to place a sidewalk along Senseny Road,
due to the uncertainty of the future widening plans and the possibility the newly installed sidewalk would be torn
up and replaced. Mr. McVeigh said the owner is willing to make a cash contribution to public schools for the
portion of sidewalk within Bogey Way, which is calculated to be about $18,000.
Commissioner Oates asked if everything outside the limits of clearing and grading would be
placed into an casement. Mr. McVeigh replied they could do that. Commissioner Oates asked if school buses
would be going into the development and turning around in the cul -de -sac, or if the children would walk down to
Oakridge to be picked up. Mr. McVeigh believed they would walk down to Oakridge to be picked up.
Commissioner Oates said that if that was the case, it would be better to keep the sidewalk along there in the plan.
Mr. McVeigh replied that the existing subdivision, Fairway Estates, is completely ditch section. He said this
proposal was the last piece of land within that existing subdivision; he said the surrounding developments of
Windsor Hill Estates, Rolling Fields, and Pembridge Heights, are all ditch section roads. I He said the owner's
concern is that putting a sidewalk along this road would look out of place.
Chairman Wilmot called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak:
Ms. Dorothy Nicholas, a resident of Fairway Estates on Armstrong Place, said there was a
tremendous amount of run -off water on this property; she wanted to know what was going to happen with that
drainage. She said this parcel was a sanctuary for birds and there were some lovely dogwood, pine, and redbud
• trees; she wondered how much of this could be saved. In addition, she asked if the applicant would be saving the
trees at the entrance to the development on the left -hand side, along Oakridge. Ms. Nicholas wanted to know the
type of housing and prince range for the proposed subdivision. She questioned how the entrance road could go
into the property because there was a large gulley; she asked if there would be a bridge construction or if it would
be filled in. Furthermore, she thought the proposed entrance road was too close to Senseny Road. She
recommended that the entrance be placed further south, to line up with the Armstrong Circle entrance, so there
would not be an entranceway behind any of the homes in Fairway Estates. I .
Mr. McVeigh came forward to respond to the questions raised by Ms. Nicholas. Mr. McVeigh
said all of the proposed lots were larger than those in the Fairway Estates subdivision; the estimated price was
upwards of $600,000 with up -scale housing; and the owner is committed to saving as many, trees as possible. He
described the storm water management plan for the site. He said there will be approximately 15 feet of fill for the
entrance; he said an entrance directly across Armstrong Circle would require approximately 30 -35 feet of fill.
Mr. McVeigh said that VDOT has acknowledged they had sufficient distance from Senseny Road to the
intersection of Bogey Way.
Commissioner Morris said he understood the applicant's issue regarding compatibility with
existing subdivisions. He said sidewalks along Senseny Road at this time seem to be premature, due to the
proposed future widening of Senseny Road; however, at the same time, he believed the cul -de -sac would be
accommodating for sidewalks.
Cotmmissioner Thomas said he would be agreeable to waiving the sidewalk requirement on
Senseny and Oakridge Lane, but he thought Bogey Way should have the sidewalks. He also liked the idea of a
• tree -save area, if the buffer is waived.
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2056
Draft Minutes of May 16, 2007
-10-
Road Efficiency Buffer Waiver - Approved
• Commissioner Morris made a motion to grant the waiver for the road efficiency buffer,
contingent on receiving the tree -save easement. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and was
unanimously passed.
Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalks Waiver
— Recommended Approval of Waiver for Oakridge Lane and Senseny Road
Recommended Denial of Waiver for Bogey Way
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the curb,
gutter, and sidewalk requirement for Oakridge Lane and Senseny Road be waived; however, the cost associated
with construction of that improvement should be contributed to capital improvements in the county. This motion
was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and unanimously passed
Commissioner Morris made a motion to recommend denial to the Boa Id of Supervisors for
waiving the curb, gutter, and sidewalk requirement on Bogey Way. This motion was seconded by Commissioner
Oates and unanimously passed.
Administrative Approval Authority — Recommended Approval
Conunissioner Morris made a motion to grant the staff administrative approval authority. This
motion was seconded by Commissioner Kriz and unanimously passed.
• BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously grant a waiver to
the road efficiency buffer, contingent on receiving a tree -save easement, for Subdivision 908 -06 of Fairway Court,
submitted by Greemvay Engineering, for seven single - family detached dwellings, located on Oakridge Lane
(Route 1201). In addition, the Planning Commission does hereby unanimously reconnnend approval of waiver
from the curb, gutter, and sidewalk requirement for Oakridge Lane and Senseny Road with the stipulation that the
cost associated with construction of that improvement be contributed towards capital improvements in the county,
and, the Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend denial of a waiver from the curb, gutter, and
sidewalk requirement for Bogey Way. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Frederick County Planning
Commission does hereby unanimously recommend that administrative approval authority be granted to the staff
for the above - referenced subdivision application.
(Note: Commissioners Watt, Manuel, and Light were absent from the meeting.)
DISCUSSION
2007 COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN UPDATE
Deputy Planning Director, Michael T. Ruddy, stated that the staff was seeking additional input
and endorsement from the Planning Commission on a compilation of the Comprehensive Policy Plan for 2007.
Mr. Ruddy explained that the scope of the Planning Department's preparation of the 2007 update was limited to
include a compilation of all of the Comprehensive Policy Plan Amendments that have occurred since the adoption
•
of the 2003 Comprehensive Policy Plan by the Board of Supervisors; he noted that a summary of the amendments
was included in the Commission's agenda packet. The effort also included several reformatted maps and an
Frederick County Planning Commission Page
Draft Minutes of May 16, 2007
-11-
update to the Community Facilities and Services and Parks and Recreation chapters of the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Ruddy said the Comprehensive Plans and Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) had recommended that the Parks
and Recreation chapter be merged into the Community Facilities and Services Chapter of the plan. In addition, he
said the CPPS recommended that the language describing the Tuscarora Trail be included within this section.
The consensus of the Commission was that they were very much in favor of the plan and
believed it was very workable. No other action was needed at this time.
DISTRICT
Principal Planner, Susan K. Eddy, presented a proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance,
which she described as the first draft ordinance to begin implementation of the Urban Development Area (UDA)
Study, adopted on February 28, 2007. Ms. Eddy said the proposal is for an overlay district which could be
applied to B 1 (Neighborhood Business) or B2 (Business General) District properties. She explained that existing
B I and B2 -zoned properties could seek this overlay through a rezoning; other properties could seek the overlay at
the same time they sought a B I or B2 rezoning. Ms. Eddy said the ordinance is intended for those locations that
have been designated as potential neighborhood villages and urban centers as part of the UDA Study, particularly
those sites of 20 acres or less in size. She stated the intent is to allow Neo- Traditional development; she
proceeded to review the features of a Neo - Traditional development.
® Ms. Eddy said the Development Review and Regulations Subcwmrnittee (DRRS) considered this
ordinance at their meeting on April 26, 2007 and were supportive of the ordinance. She said that a number of
changes were recommended by the DRRS and these changes have been included within the document Ms. Eddy
next proceeded to review the amendment with the Commission and more specifically, what made the proposal
different from the existing B 1 and B2. `
A member of the Commission referred to the general area where urban centers are defined and
noted that those areas would not obviously be a specifically- defined geographical area. The question was raised
about whether the new design concept could be accommodated if there was a B 1 or B2 area somewhere within the
close proximity of that circle. Ms. Eddy replied that the ultimate goal is to have small- arealland use plans for all
of these areas and then the centers will be very and defined. She said there would be a little bit of a
judgment call when the rezoning came in, but once the small -area land use plans are in place, it would no longer
be a judgment call.
The Planning Commission believed the amendment was appropriate in relation to the UDA
Study; they believed it was important to provide this development opportunity. No other action was needed at
this time.
OTHER
Request Regarding The View Subdivision Waiver Request
4 Commissioner Kriz requested that the Zoning and Subdivision Administrator send a letter of
explanation to the citizens who were present for the waiver request for The View Subdivision. Commissioner
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2058
Draft Minutes of May 16, 2007
-12-
C
•
Kriz said he did not believe those citizens understood the density would not change with the increase in cul -de -sac
length.
Actions of the General Assembly
Chairman Wilmot said she attended the CPEAV's (Citizens Planning Education Association of
Virginia, Inc.) 2007 Planning and Zoning Legal Seminar on May 7, 2007, in Charlottesville, Virginia. She
provided the Planning Commissioners with a copy of a document discussed at the seminar entitled, "How to
Legally Deny a Rezoning." Chairman Wilmot believed there were a number of items within the document that
will require discussion by the Commission. She requested that Commission members review the document, she
said ideas or comments would be appreciated.
Presentation by Michael Chandler, CPEAV
Chairman Wilmot announced that arrangements are being made to have Mr. Michael Chandler,
with the CPEAV (Citizens Planning Education Association of Virginia, Inc.) speak with the Planning
Commission and the Board of Supervisors to discuss the relationship and roles between the Planning Commission
and the Board of Supervisors.
ADJOURNMENT
vote.
There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 1
Respectfully submitted,
by a unanimous
June M. Wilmot, Chairman
Eric R. Lawrence, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission Page 2059
Draft Minutes of May 16, 2007