Loading...
PC_06-05-02_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES • OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION r 1 LJ Held in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on June 5, 2002. PRESENT: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman /Stonewall District; Roger L. Thomas, Vice Chairman/ Opequon District; Charles E. Triplett, Gainesboro District; George J. Kriz, Gainesboro District; Greg L. Unger, Back Creek District Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District; Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District: Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; and Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison. ABSENT: Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Abbe Kennedy, Senior Planner; Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II; Rebecca A. Ragsdale, Planner I; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. • MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 17, 2002 and May 1, 2002 Upon motion made by Commissioner Ours and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the minutes of April 17, 2002 were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made by Commissioner Ungerand seconded by Commissioner Light, the minutes of May 1, 2002 were unanimously approved as presented. Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 5, 2002 Page 871 -2- COMMITTEE REPORTS • Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 05/23/02 ordinance. Commissioner Thomas reported thatthe DRRS continued their discussions on thewoodlands Historic Resources Advisory Board (HRAB) - 05/21/02 Mtg. CommissionerGochenour reported that the HRAB reviewed and recommended approval of a proposal to rezone 15 acres of the Allan property, located on Cedar Creek Grade, from RA to RP. She reported that the site is located within core areas of the Second Battle of Kernstown and within the study area of the First Battle of Kernstown; however, it was pointed out that the historic integrity of the area had already been compromised with existing adjacent development and the site was located within the County's UDA with available City water and sewer. CommissionerGochenour reported thatthe other item of review was the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Grants, which the HRAB reviewed and supported. Sanitation Authority (SA) - 05/21/02 Mtg. Commissioner Fisher reported that theSA's Engineer /Director, Mr. Wellington Jones, stated that due to the Commonwealth's budget cut- backs, their expenses for testing would increase; the SA also received a presentation of their draft 2003 Fiscal Year budget. Winchester Planning Commission (WPC) - 05/02 Mtg. Commissioner Ours reported thatthe WPC discussed the renewal ofthe conditional use pennit for Camino Real's nightclub on Berryville Avenue and the recommendation was for denial. Commissioner Ours reported there was also an approval of a new subdivision. CITIZEN COMMENTS Mr. Doug Dolan, a resident of the Red Bud District, came forward to provide general comments on smart growth, housing costs, and home ownership. Mr. Dolan said that growth issues are not unique to Frederick County and localities across the nation are facing issues on how to deal with growth. He • Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 5, 2002 Page 872 gave the Commission statistics on future housing start estimates, the source of future home ownership, and the affects of restricting development on housing costs. Mr. Dolan encouraged the Commission to resist pressures to slow or no- growth stances. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #02 -02 of Sherwood Bryant, submitted by Painter - Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone 7.8691 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) District. This property is located approximately 200 feet east of the intersection of Gore Road (Rt. 751) and Northwestern Pike (Rt. 50), on the south side of Northwestern Pike (Rt. 50), and is identified with Property Identification Number28 -A -63C in the Back Creek District. Action - Tabled for 60 Days Ms. Abbe Kennedy, Senior Planner, read the background information and review agency comments. Planner Kennedy stated thatthe site contains approximately 86.4 feet of frontage along Rt. 50, and Rt. 50 atthis site is a four-laned, divided highway. She said there is an existing median break directly opposite the entrance for the site, which provides the site with good access and visibility from an arterial highway. Planner Kennedy pointed out that the recently- upgraded entrance to the new post office facility has access easements in placeto allow both the parcel containing the new post office and the subject parcel to utilize the same entrance. She stated that the parcel is located within the Gore Rural Community Center; she reported no negative agency review comments. She said a specific use has not been identified; the applicant recognizes that the lack ofavailable sewage treatment faci lities will restrict the amount of commercial development on the property. Planner Kennedy next reviewed the proffers submitted by the applicant. She advised that future development ofthe site should consider the predominantly residential and agricultural uses in the vicinity of tile subject site. She commented that this request for commercial zoning not only introduces an opportunity for service provisions tothe Gore rural community, but also introduces visual and vehicular impacts. Planner Kennedy stated that the applicant could address the concerns of staff by addressing the following issues: increased buildingand parking lot setbacks; landscape buffer and screeningtechniques; limiting site access via Route 50 West; establish height limits for structures erected on the site; establish maximum sign heights and square footage that would be appropriate for the rural community center; limiting outdoor lighting and redirecting glare from adjoining properties; and the identification of uses permitted on the site, not those prohibited. Mr. John Lewis of Painter - Lewis, P.L.C. was present to represent the owner and applicant, Mr. Sherwood Bryant. Mr. Lewis said the owner is sensitive to keeping the rural character of the parcel and the owner I ives adjacent to tile subject parcel. He n oted that because there is no pub) ic water and sewer service in the area, the types of businesses able to utilize the site are limited in size and use. He said the owner has identified and eliminated uses by proffer in the B2 zone that are inappropriate fertile rural community or wh ich can ' t be supported w ithout adequate sewer service. Mr. Lewis said they have also limited the total cumulative gross retail office floorarea on the site to 40,000 square feet, which results in a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.12; he said that by limiting the FAR on the property to 0.12, the owner has ensured a low- density, low- impact • Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 5, 2002 Page 873 -4- development similar to the adjacentcommercial uses and it Would be in keeping with the rural character of the community. Mr. Lewis commented that they have an NPDES Discharge Permit for 1,000 gallons per day; the existing post office uses 150 gallons, therefore, they have the capacity to place a use that would generate no more than 850 gallons per day. Mr. Lewis further commented that they do not plan to exceed the current design standards that fall in the B2 category of the zoning ordinance. Coin missionerMorris inquired iftheapplicant had considered applying for a conditional use permit (CUP) for the intended use, rather than rezoning the property. Mr. Lewis replied that some of the speculative uses are not permitted under a CUP, but would be allowed under a rezoning, for example, mini - warehouses. Chairman DeHaven commented thatthe sign heights and square footage requirements in the B2 Zone may be excessive for a rural community center and he suggested that the applicant take this into consideration. Chairman DeHaven also requested that the applicant consider limiting access to Rt. 50 only, which was reflected in the VDOT comment. Mr. Lewis replied that in his discussions with VDOT concerning the use of Rt. 750 for access, he explained that there may be some use that would be appropriate to have an entrance off of Rt. 750. Mr. Lewis inquired ifthis issue could be postponed until the site plan stage, when the actual use is known, before eliminating an access on Rt. 750. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, however, no one was present to speak. Commissioners asked if representatives from VDOT, who were present, could comment on the Rt. 750 access issue. Mr. Steve Melnikoff, VDOT representative, stated that it is V DOT's contention not to have excess traffic on Rt. 750. He said that depending on the use, VDOT would consider an emergency access -type arrangement only, so that fire fighting equipment or emergency vehicles could access the rear of thebuilding. Mr. Melnikoff stated that VDOT would prefer that access to Rt. 750 be proh ibited at the rezoning stage and would not want to wait until the site plan stage. Members of the Commission had hoped residents of the Gore community would be present to express their views on the proposal, however, no residents were present. Commission members expressed their opinion of not wanting to see such uses as mini - storage warehouses or used car lots, because it won Id not be visual ly attractive from Rt. 50; however, they did bel ieve some of the uses the app] icant proffered out won Id be okay in this area. They believed that some new service provisions, properly done, would benefit the community. The benefits of rezoning a "commercial core" in the community center, rather than spreading commercial uses throughoutthe community, was pointed out. Commissioners suggested that the applicant may want to consider proffering out some additional uses that would be objectionable. Although members of the Commission were generally in favor of the proposal, they believed the applicant's proffer statement needed some clarification, the possibility of limiting sign height needed to be examined, and the applicant needed to re- examine the list of uses that would be prohibited. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Light, BE IT RESOLV ED, Thatthe Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously table for 60 days Rezoning Application #02 -02 of Sherwood Bryant, submitted by Painter - Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone 7.8691 • Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 5, 2002 Page 874 5- acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) District, to allow the applicantto contact the residents of the area concerning their view of the proposal, to clarify the proffer statement, to examine the possibility of limiting sign height and size, and to re- examine the applicant's list of prohibited uses. Rezoning #03 -02 of Hazel Lambert, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone.73 acres from RP (Residential Performance) to B2 (Business General) District. This property is located at the southwestern corner of the intersection of Senseny Road (Rt. 657) and Greenwood Road (Rt. 656), and is identified with Property identification Numbers 65A -7 -8 and 65A -7 -9 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Proffers Mr. Jeremy F. Camp, Planner, read the background information and review agency comments. Planner Camp stated that the rezoning does not directly conflict with the land use goals identified in the Comprehensive Policy Plan, however, the staff believed the application could be substantially improvedto more effectively, mitigate potential negative impacts. Planner Camp identified the potential impacts and issues which included, the Frederick County Bicycle Plan: the possible designation of additional land for future road improvements and a bicycle lane along Senseny Road; the negative impact to Fire and Rescue Service: provision of efforts to mitigate the projected negative impacts which were projected by the County's Capital Facilities Fiscal Impact Model; the visual impacts resulting from large signs and parking: the consideration of the utilization of less intensive signage and limiting all future parking to the southern portion ofthe two parcels; the impact of future business uses on existing residential uses: consideration of the provision of additional landscaping, particularly along Senseny Road, and consideration in prohibiting other potentially inappropriate uses. Planner Camp next reviewed the applicant's proffer statement, pointing out several items that needed clarification and providing staff comments on several others. Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering was representing Hazel Lambert, the property owner. Mr. Smith explained that Mrs. Lambert, a widow, is seeking to increase the value of the property by rezoning it, in order to assist with her retirement. Mr. Sin ith said that they are aware of V DOT's right -of -way constraints and this issue is addressed in their proffer; he stated they will dedicate right -of -way on Senseny Road and Greenwood Road. Mr. Smith said that he met with the adjoining property owners in Saratoga Meadows and, in those discussions, noise and sound became the issue. He said they offered the sound wall concept, which was acceptable: however, the lot owner to the rear preferred to have landscaping rather than a sound wall. Mr. Smith said he was not aware of the intended bicycle path, but will provide an additional easement, up to Win width along Senseny Road, as directed and requested by VDOT. Regarding the proffer madeto Fireand Rescue Services, Mr. Smith said that overall, the fiscal impact analysis results were positive for their proposal. Mr. Smith added that he did not address signs or parking in the proffer because he wanted to give the potential future user the full flexibility the ordinance would allow; however, he would be willing to discuss height limitations for signs. . Commissioner Straub inquired ifthis project would still be viable in I ight of VDOT's intention of widening Greenwood Road and the right -of -way that would be needed. Mr. Smith pointed toa hatched area • Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 5, 2002 Page 875 -6- on a inap wh ich was land intended to be dedicated to V DOT for right -of -way, Commissioner Straub expressed concerns about the possibility of a two -story building that would hover over the adjoining property owner's swimming pool. Mr. Smith envisioned the future business structure having a residential flavor to its appearance; he believed a two -story structure was appropriate in this area, especially on this small -sized lot. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following person came forward to speak: Mr. Robert Stiff, adjoining property owner at 104 Stirrup Cup Circle, said that he did have concerns, although some of those concerns have been addressed. Mr. Stiff said he was concerned about the possibility ofa two -story structure overlooking his swimming pool and property. He told the Commission that he had erected a fence in his back yard, so some of the uses proposed will be okay with him. He commented on the possibility that the proposed use would improve the appearance ofthe corner property. Hebelievedthe sound wall was an appropriate measure; he believed lighting was still an issue; he was not in favor of filling station, car lot, or batting cages. Mr. Stiff said that after a user has been identified, he would still like to be included in the approval process. Mr. Stiffthanked the Planning Staffand Mr. Smith for involving him in the process. He believed that developing the property could improve its appearance, if it is done properly. Commissioner Thomas responded to concerns raised about traffic on Senseny Road. lie commented that the subject property is a three- quarter -acre commercial area on a corner that will be a neighborhood business and thathe believed would not draw traffic from outside ofthe Senseny Road corridor. He said the developer has shown thathe is willing to work with the neighbors; he suggested that the applicant review the proffer statement between now and the Board meeting and perhaps include a statement that the development would be aesthetically compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. Chairman DeHaven inquired ifthe bike path issue was a V DOT - constructed and maintained pathway; he asked if the easement offered by the applicant was a viable alternative to having it exist on dedicated right -of -way. Mr. Jerry Copp, VDOT's Resident Engineer, replied thathe knew of no design plans for any bike path; he believed this was a County- initiated concept. In regards to the issue of the design of Greenwood Road to the south raised by another member of the Commission, Mr. Copp stated that while the project is on the outlying years of the Secondary Construction Program, VDOT has not begun any design whatsoever. Mr. Copp explained that when they were approached by the applicant, V DOT used the criteria for the north side of Senseny Road for Greenwood and applied that same criteria to the South side. He commented thatthis was the best they could do to establish a long -range vision. Chairman DeHaven also commented to the applicant that he believed the sound wall and landscaping easement approach was good, however, he got the impression it was an "either -or" situation. Mr. Smith hoped that ifthe rezoning was granted bythe Planning Commission and the Board Of Supervisors, that the Board of Zoning Appeals would look favorably on al lowing them to construct the wall. He said he did not see a need to add landscaping along the wall, especially on the B2 side and since the wall is intended to be constructed on the property line, there would not be the ability to provide landscapingon the residential side. Mr. Smith added that he would revise the profferto eliminate the "adult retail" use and would • Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 5, 2002 Page 876 -7- also re- examine some of the other uses; he would revise the proffer to include the provision of a ten -foot easement; he will revise the proffer to state thatthere will be no windows on the side ofthe structure facing the swimming pool; and, he would contact they neighbors again before the Board meeting. Mr. Smith intended to keep his option open for permitting a two -story structure; if the rezoning was not approved, they had the option of placing two two -story residential structures on the property. The Planning Commission believed a neighborhood business at this intersection was appropriate; they did not believe a neighborhood business at this location would draw additional traffic from outside of the Senseny Road corridor; they believed that the neighborhood business area needed to be concentrated and notspread outdown Senseny Road; they believed the outstanding issues had been addressed by the applicant. Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, Thatthe Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning Application #03- 02ofHazel Lambert, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone .73 acres from RP (Residential Performance)to B2 (Business General) District with proffers submitted by the applicant to include: the provision of ten -foot easement fora future bicycle path as required by VDOT; the elimination of an "adult retail' use; and the elimination of windows on the west side of any structures. This recommendation was made by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE) Watt, Unger, Morris, Light, DeHaven, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Fisher, Triplett, Rosenberry 0 NO: Straub, Gochenour Rezoning 404 -02 of Kimerly G. Henry, submitted by Painter- Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone .557 acres from B2 (Business General) to B3 (Industrial Transition) District, and .765 acres from B3 (Industrial Transition) to B2 (Business General) District. The parcels are located on Fort Collier Road, between Baker Lane and Huntington Meadows subdivision, and are identified with Property Identification Numbers 54 -8 -41, 42 and 24, and 54 -A -97L and 97F in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director, described the proposed rezoning as an effort to clarify the location of some zoning district lines, utilizing Fort Collier Road as the zoning district boundary, which results in B2 on the south side of Fort Collier Road, and the B3 on the north side of Fort Collier Road. Director Lawrence said that in 1987, the property was rezoned from M 1 to a combination of B2 and B3. Since that rezoning occurred in 1987, Fort Collier Road was constructed at a slightly different location than when it was proposed as "Gordan Drive" and it actually severed some ofthe approved zoning. Director Lawrence stated that a subsequent relocation ofa proposed road intended to provide a zon ing district boundary does not allow the zoning district map to be redrawn when, or if, the proposed road is constructed on an alignment other • Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 5, 2002 Page 877 than what was proposed. He said the proper venue to correct the zoning district boundary is through an approved rezoning by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. John Lewis of Painter - Lewis, P.L.C. was presentto representthe applicant Mr. Kimerly G. Henry. Chairman DeFlaven called for public comment, however, no one came forward to speak. The Planning Commission had no concerns with the request and was not aware of any significant impacts that could result from the proposed rezoning. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Ours, BE IT RESOLVED, Thatthe Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Rezoning Application #04 -02 of Kimerly G. Henry, submitted by Painter- Lewis, P.L.C., to rezone .557 acres from B2 (Business General) to B3 (Industrial Transition) District, and .765 acres from B3 (Industrial Transition) to B2 (Business General) District. The parcels are located on Fort Collier Road, between Baker Lane and Huntington Meadows subdivision, and are identified with Property Identification Numbers 54 -8 -41, 42 and 24, and 54 -A -97L and 97F in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Rezoning Application 405 -02 ofRed Bud Run, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to rezone 157.01 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) District to enable the construction of 300 single - family homes. This property is located north and adjacent to Berryville Pike (Rt. 7), east and adjacent to Woods Mill Road (Rt. 660), directly between Red Bud Road and Berryville Pike (Rt. 7), and is identified with Property identification Numbers 55 -A -105, 106 and 107 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval with Proffers Mr. Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director, stated thatthe 157 -acre site proposed for residential land use is located within the County's Urban Development Area (UDA) and the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), it has significantfrontage along three state - maintained roads, and itcan be served with public water and sewer with adequate capacities. He said that the applicant has submitted a proffer statement to attempt to mitigate the impacts associated with the residential rezoning proposal, which includes a monetary offer to offset costs associated with the capital facilities needs of various County service providers, the offer to limit the number of residential units to 300 single - family lots, the offer to signalize and improve the intersection of Berryville Pike and Woods Mill Road, and plans to construct anew east- westcol lector road on the site. Director Lawrence pointed out that while the applicant has been working with V DOT over the last year, as of May 23, 2002, VDOT has not reviewed nor commented on the applicant's traffic impact analysis. Director Lawrence advised the Commission to consider tabling the application until a complete review and comment is provided by the Virginia Department of Transportation. Director Lawrence continued, pointing out several issues the applicant should address, as is Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 5, 2002 Page 878 a follows: 1) the applicant should consider strengtheningthe buffer along Berryville Pike in an effort to further preserve the historic viewshed, lessening the visual impact of the proposed development; 2) the applicant should consider the establishment of a buffer and landscape screen along Morgans Mill and Woods M ill Roads to lessen the visual impact of the development; consideration should be given to prohibiting private driveway entrances on Woods Mill Road and Morgans Mill Road; 3) theapplicant should provide clarification as to who will own the proffered stream preservation parcel, as well as how this parcel will be made available for public use; 4) the applicant should provide clarification as to why the traffic impact analysis does not include an information concerning the proposed cross roads on Woods Mill Road, justification as to why and how Morgans Mill Road should be cul- de- sac'd, illustrations as to what improvements to Woods Mill Road would be proposed to accommodate 100 percent increase in traffic, and the applicant should provide their proposed improvements to Morgans Mill Road to increase sight distance at the proposed collector road connection; and 5) the applicant is encouraged to provide for historical interpretation sites and the preservation of natural and historical viewsheds; it may also be appropriate to establish increased buffers along Berryville Pike, the route utilized for troop movement. Director Lawrence pointed out that this rezoning request was not supported by the HRAB. He noted, however, that the applicant has provided an open space plan, which will provide an environmental and historical preservation corridor along Red Bud Run and along Berryville Pike. Regarding the school system, Director Lawrence noted that the applicant has proffered to construct a minor collector road connecting Woods Mill Road with Morgan Mill Road, which will link the school property with Woods Mill Road, eliminating the need for school bus traffic on Rt. 7. Mr. Charles E. Maddox, Jr., P.E., Vice PresidentofG. W. Clifford &Associates was present to represent the applicants, Patrick A. McTiernan and Thomas M. McTiernan. Mr. Maddox discussed ownership of the proffered stream preservation parcel, pointing out that the open space requirements were calculated outside of the 28 -acre stream preservation tract. He stated there were no density issues associated with the proposal. Mr. Maddox also discussed protection of the viewshed along Rt. 7; proposed project phasing for the master plan stage; and he reviewed the planned transportation improvements, including an expansive i mprovement pl an for the Rt. 7 and Woods Mill Road Intersection. Mr. Maddox stated that V DOT has the commitment of the developer to improve Rt. 7 as described, to improve Woods Mill Road, and to provide a minor collector roadway. In answerto questions from the Commissioners, Mr. Maddox discussed the protection of Ash Hollow Run by use of stormwater detention ponds; the protection of Red Bud Run using bi- filtration instead of stormwater detention ponds; and he also spoke about how the integrity of the canyon wall along Rt. 7 had already been compromised by the construction of Rt. 7 and 1 -81. Commissioner Gochenour voiced herconcern aboutthe overcrowdingof schools, the County's inability to provide services for the new development, and the fact that the HRAB was not in favor of this proposal Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Charlie Boyd, a resident at the northwest corner of the intersection of Red Bud Road and Woods Mill Road, spoke about the heavily- traveled condition of Rt. 7 and he was concerned about the increased traffic impacts, especially atthe Morgans Mill intersection. Mr. Boyd was also concerned about the C J Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 5. 2002 Page 879 -10- environmental impacts to Red Bud Run and the destruction of wildlife habitat along Red Bud Run. • Mr. David Darsey, Stonewall District, commented that Rt. 7 was one of the most dangerous four -lane highways he had ever been on, especially because there were no shoulders along the road. He was concerned the addition oftraffic from the new high school and the traffic from the proposed development would create a dangerous situation. Mr. Darsey also expressed concerns that building lots were possibly being proposed for some of the steep slope areas; he bel ieved this would result in siltation problems to Red Bud Run. Mr. Jim Petry, Stonewall District, was in favor of the proposed project. He believed the improvement of the Rt. 7/ Woods Mill intersection depended on this development. Mr. Petry believed the proposed use was an excellent choice for this property; he also believed that people should have the right to use the land they own as they see fit. Mr. Petry stated thatthe County had the responsibility to provide housing and jobs for people within the community, especially for future generations. Mrs. Pam Kennedy, Gainesboro District, asked the following questions: who this proposal would benefit; what positive benefits will there be to the community; when will the impacts begin to be realized; is infrastructure in place; and, was this the best location. Mrs. Kennedy believed the proposal will negatively impact schools, increase population, increase road use, increase water consumption and sewerage, increase impacts on social services, decrease green area, decrease renewable groundwater, increase surrounding air temperature, increase vehicular traffic, and increase natural resource consumption. Ms. Kennedy said the costs to the community were higher than the benefits to the community; therefore, the proposal was not needed nor was it desirable. Mr. Doug Dolan, Red Bud District, said that from 1993 to 1995 he was co- chairman of the Winchester - Frederick County Battlefield Task Force in developing a comprehensive plan for Winchesterand Frederick County, which was eventually incorporated into the Shenandoah Valley Battlefield Network Plan. He named several of the expert historians who also served on the Board at the time. Mr. Dolan commented that the area experienced much activity during the Civil War, however, only a few areas are significant. He believed it was unreasonable to attempt to save it all and, thereby, prevent growth. Mr. Dolan believed impact fees and proffers were eventually paid by the home buyer, not the developer. Mr. Dolan believed increased costs were due to population growth and immigration issues and were not the direct result of provid ing housing. He wondered, if by denying housing proposals, we were implying that people should not come to Frederick County; if we were implying that newcomers shou Id move on. Mr. Dolan believed the proposed development will benefit those people who need housing. Mr. Mark Stivers, a resident of Stephenson, spoke about the ineffectiveness of the public advertisement placed in the newspaper for this proposal because it inadequately informed people whose property might be effected. Mr. Stivers mentioned that the National Park Service had at one time identified this property, along with some others, as a significant historical property. He said the Battlefield Network Plan, mentioned by Mr. Dolan, had left this property out. Mr. Stivers believed this was an oversight and resulted in this property being placed in the County's Urban Development Area (UDA). Mr. Stivers stated that he did not see the required public hearing sign posted on the property. He also noticed a discrepancy in the number of students projected by the school board, and the County. Mr. Stivers believed this discrepancy created differences in the economic projections of the County's Fiscal Impact Model and what was actually occurringwithin the County. He also agreed with others who spoke about the dangerous situation at the Woods Mill Road intersection; he asked why the improvement of this intersection depended upon the promotion of growth at the intersection. Mr. Stivers complimented the owner and engineer on their watershed protection • Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 5, 2002 Page 880 plans; however, he inquired if the public should be prepared to do more to substantiate the evaluations made in the applicant's watershed protection plans, since everyone acknowledges that Red Bud Run is an extremely valuable watershed. Mr. Kevin Kennedy, Gainesboro District, believed this development will take away and de the rural nature of the County. Mr. Kennedy was concerned about discrepancies in the traffic projections; he was concerned about the impact of increased vehicular traffic onto intersections that have already been declared to be dangerous; and he was concerned aboutthe costs to the County taxpayers created by this development. Mr. Howard Kittell, Executive Director ofthe Shenandoah Valley Battlefields Foundation, complimented Mr. Maddoxand Mr. McTiernan onthethoroughness ofthe Civil Warhistory included in their proposal, for the proposed environmental controls along Red Bud Run, and for their willingness to discuss proffers and concessions. Mr. Kittell said the Third Battle of Winchester is an extremely important site and is, in fact, equal to the Cedar Creek Battle. He said the only reason the Third Winchester Battle is not being considered as a unit of the National Park Service, even though it met all of the criteria, is because so much of its integrity has already been lost due to the construction of Rt. 7 and I -81. He said that in 1999, the Board of Supervisors passed a Preservation Plan for Third Winchester which called for the preservation ofthe slopes along this portion ofRt. 7/ Berryville Canyon. Mr. Kittell said the Battlefields Foundation would Tike the 1999 Preservation Plan to be implemented as a part of this development proposal to ensure those slopes are preserved. He explained thatthese slopes will be apart ofthe entrance into a larger Battlefield Driving Tour included in the Network Plan for Frederick County. He also pointed out that the 1999 Preservation Plan recommends that Historic Overlay Zones be incorporated into rural areas when a rezoning is proposed. He requested thatthe recommendations proposed in the plan betaken into consideration as this particular property is developed. At this point, Chairman DeHaven closed the public comments portion ofthe meeting. Commissioner Thomas said heappreciated all ofthe public comments and the comments made were issues the Commission has struggled with over the last ten years, such as the proffer system and development costs. He believed the overriding issue here was whether the County wanted 300 homes built "insidethe UDA" or"outside of theUDA." Commissioner Thomas disagreed with the summation that ifthis plan is disapproved, there will be 300 less homes built in Frederick County. He believed that ifthe homeswere not built on this property, within the U DA, they wou Id eventually be built further north on Woods Mill Road, Red Bud Road, or other areas around Stephenson. Commissioner commented that when this occurs, the impact to the County is that no proffers are received and the operational costs to existing infrastructure increase. Mr. Thomas believed the numberofrezonings that occur has no relation tothe amount of houses that are built; he believed the number of houses built have a relationship to the population in the County. Commissioner Thomas believed that if the County wanted to preserve rural areas, development needed to occur inside the UDA. Other Commission members commented that this was a very good plan, however, they believed a formal comment was needed from VDOT on the transportation issues before they could forward a recommendation to the Board. Other Commissioners believed there were Still unresolved problems with schools and parks and recreation, as well as VDOT. Upon motion made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, • Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 5. 2002 Page 881 -12- BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend approval of Rezoning Application 405 -02 of Red Bud Run, submitted by G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., to rezone 157.01 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) District to enable the construction of 300 single - family homes on property identified with P.I.N.s 55 -A -105, 106 and 107 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. The majority vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE) Watt, Unger, Morris, Light, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Fisher NO: Straub, Gochenour, Triplett, Rosenberry, DeHaven ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 1 1:00 p.m. by a unanimous vote. submitted, • Lawrence, Secretary Charles S. Del-laven, Jr., Chairman • Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of June 5, 2002 Page 882