Loading...
PC_08-21-02_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES • OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION field in the Board Room of the Frederick County Administration Building at 107 North Kent Street in Winchester, Virginia on August 21, 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; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Pat Gochenour, Red Bud District: Marie F. Straub, Red Bud District; Richard C. Ours, Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; William C. Rosenberry, Shawnee District; Gene E. Fisher, Citizen at Large; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Cordell Watt, Back Creek District; Robert Sager, Board of Supervisors' Liaison; and Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison. STAFF PRESENT: Eric R. Lawrence, Planning Director; Abbe Kennedy, Senior Planner; Jeremy F. Camp, Planner II; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Clerk. • CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEETING MINUTES -,JUNE 19, 2002 AND JULY 1, 2002 Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the minutes of June 19, 2002 were unanimously approved as presented. Upon motion made by Commissioner Kriz and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, the minutes of July 1, 2002 were unanimously approved as presented. C J Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 21, 2002 Page 911 -2- • COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CPPS) - 08/12/02 Mtg. Commissioner Light reported that the CPPS discussed the Northeast Corridor Study and the committee agreed to disagree on the issues. Commissioner Light said the CPPS will hopefully be receiving some new and fresh ideas at the upcoming meeting. Sanitation Authority (SA) - 08/20/02 Mtg. Commissioner Fisher stated that the SA's Director reported the following information: with the four inches of rain in July, our area's total rain deficit is reduced to 13.4 inches; the South Quarry is up 30 feet from its lowest level and basically, has recovered to where it was last July; slightly more than a million gallons perdayare being pumped Outofthe South Quarry; in planning for future water sources, some land has been ratified for exploration wells; a report was given on the study from Dr. Burbey, who was hired as an independent consultant to look at the previous study completed by another company; the report had some critical issues about some of the data needed to analyze the groundwater in our area, however, many of those questions will be answered with the U.S. Geological Study scheduled to be completed in April of 2004. • Winchester City Planning Commission (WPC) - 08/20/02 Mtg. Commissioner Ours reported that the W PC's discussion centered on the f e e increases that w i l l be going into affect. PUBLIC HEARING Rezoning #07 -02 of Doris F. Casey, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 30.31 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to (Residential Performance) District. This property is located approximately 800' north of the intersection of Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522) and Paper Mill Road (Rt. 644) and is identified with P.I.N. 64 -A -23 in the Shawnee Magisterial District. (This item was tabled from the Commission's 07/01/02 meeting.) Action - Tabled for 60 Days Planner Abbe S. Kennedy explained that in response to concerns raised during the Planning Commission's meeting on July I, 2002, the applicant has submitted a revised general development plan and • Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 21, 2002 Page 912 -3- proffer statement. Planner Kennedy said the revised proffer statement provides fora residential use restriction • for 70 single - family detached urban lots, no commercial rezoning request, and a 50' buffer along the entire southern property line against the Shenandoah Memorial Park with an earthen berm and evergreen screening. She noted that the revised general development plan is intended to delineate the road systems that serve the 70 single - family lots and the connection to Westwood Drive. Planner Kennedy added that revised monetary contributions to offset the impact of development to Frederick County have also been included. Planner Kennedy next read the revised proffers for the Commission. Planner Kennedy concluded by stating that the Plan ing Depart ment has received letters, telephone calls, and e-mail inquiries regarding the proposed rezoning; the issues ofconcern were for the residential growth, preservation ofthe quality of life in the Westwood Drive neighborhood, preservation ofthe integrity ofthe cemetery, surface water drainage problems existing on the site, as well as adjoining properties, and accommodating large volumes oftraffic on Westwood Drive that may be generated by the new development. Mr. Mark Smith of Greenway Engineering, representing the Doris Casey Rezoning application, pointed out that the buffer on the south side of the property is located on the outside ofthe lots for landscaping and a bicycle path and will promote pedestrian traffic and inter- parcel connection. Mr. Smith believed the issue atthis time was the compatibility ofthe proposed residential development with the existing residential neighborhood. He believed the Swisher property was integral to this development; he said the Swi slier property is partly platted, hal f rezoned, and contai its ri ght-of-way to Westwood. Regardingtheissue ofconnecting to Rt. 522 versus Papermill, Mr. Smith said that Papermill, a two -lane road, has about6,500 vehicle trips per day. He said that when a road approaches 7,000 vehicle trips per day, VDOT requires the road to become a "multi -lane" section. Ile stated that Rt. 522, is afive -lane road running about 10,000 vehicle trips per day and has available capacity. lie said that Paperntil I, on the other hand, has terrain problems and needs to be re- constructed; he said that a connection to Papermill would require left-turn lanes, verticle straightening, and right -of -way that would be difficult to acquire. Commissioner Unger inquired about access for the Swisher property, in the event it would develop, and Mr. Smith replied that ifthe Swisher property develops without the Casey property being an inter - parcel connection, all the traffic from Swisher would go out Westwood anyway. Mr. Smith added that V DOT will still require a standard road section and Westwood is about a foot - and -a -half short on either side. He pointed out that the ditches along Westwood need to be redone nonetheless because many are flat and driveway culverts are crushed. Commissioner Morris stated that more consideration needed to be given to Papermill as an alternative access, as opposed to Westwood, because he believed that half ofthe vehicular traffic goingout of thisarea, including the Swisher property. would be heading back into W inchesterand the retail establishments on Papermill. Commissioner Thomas asked the applicant to consider the installation ofa physical barrier, such as a picket or iron fence, on the side of the property facing the cemetery, in order to deter children from accessing the cemetery. Commissioner Thomas said he could not support the rezoning if there was only one access point, as he considered that to be poor planning. There was a discussion on the projection of the number of vehicles per day that may go from this property through the Swisher property and out Westwood. Chairman DeHaven next called for public comments. • Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 21, 2002 Page 913 4- Ms. Barbara L. Midkiff, resident at 179 Westwood Drive, presented a petition with 260 names of residents in neighboringdevelopments, residents along Rt. 522, and concernedcitizens of Frederick County, who were opposed to the Casey rezoning. Ms. Midkiff believed the applicant did not wantto access Papermill Road because it would be more costly than accessing Westwood Drive. Ms. Brenda S. Dodd, resident at 155 Westwood Drive, said that most of the residents along Westwood Drive are elderly people and the traffic and construction would disrupt the lives of the residents along Westwood. She also mentioned that the Swisher property contained a sprin pond and wetlands; she was concerned about the disturbance of wildlife habitat and the creation of drainage problems that could result in flooding of backyards and basements. Ms. Roxanne Wingfield, a 24 -year resident at 122 Westwood Drive, said that her house was the first house on Westwood off of Rt. 522. Ms. Wingfield described an on -going water run -off problem in heryard. She said after they hooked -up to the City's water and sewer, it helped the situation some, but she still gets water run -off from properties up in her subdivision. She also described an episode where there was a water back-up on the highway which caused water to go into herbasement. Ms. Wingfield was concerned that if Westwood was widened, it would take away her driveway. She also was concerned about increased traffic congestion. Ms. Judy Morrison, a resident at 117 Westwood Circle, stated that she also owns property along the proposed extension of Westwood Drive and this property contains a garage, a driveway, and a fence. Ms. Morrison said there was talk about her garage and fence being moved, however, she did not even receive a notification of the first meeting. She said that as long as she has lived in her subdivision, there has always been only one entrance /exit. She was concerned about the precedent for development that approval of this rezoning would set and there would probably be many more houses built thanjust the 70 homes on the Casey property. Ms. Morrison explained that there was considerable flooding when it rained and water runs through yards, garages, and basements. She was concerned about where all the water would go, if additional development takes place. She was concerned about increased traffic congestion and the problems they experience getting out of their subdivision. Overall, she was concerned about the way Frederick County was growing. Mr. Robert Van, a resident at 1 170 Front Royal Pike, stated that both he and his wife, Ann Cross, are adjoin i ng property owners. Mr. Van thanked the applicant for removing the business portion ofthe rezoning. Mr. Van had the following concerns: he said that due to the terrain, the Casey property is a natural drainage area and a corner of his property stays wet all the time; he believed that additional paving and development would increase the amount of water his yard receives and would make the situation worse. Regarding the entrance onto Rt. 522, he said a turn -lane was needed and he didn't believe there was enough room to accommodate a turn lane. Regarding the proposed 50' buffer area with pine trees, Mr. Van believed a chain -link or steel fence was needed to keep children in the subdivision and away from the cemetery. In conclusion, Mr. Van agreed with Ms. Midkiff that the applicant did not want to use Papermill as an access because it was more costly than using Westwood. Mr. Carl E. Bayliss, Sr., a resident at 125 Westwood Circle, stated that all the surface water from the proposed intersection comes across his backyard and across his septic field area. He said thatwhen the homes on Westwood Drive were first built, a drainage ditch was constructed to take care of the water runoff. however, over time the ditch has not been maintained and has become obstructed. Mr. Bayliss was concerned that his water problems will get worse, after the proposed intersection was constructed. C � J Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 21, 2002 Page 914 - 5 - Mr. Jeff Jerome, a resident of Southv iew, had concerns about sufficient water capacity to serve existing, as well as, future development. Mr. Jerome said that he has been experiencing water pressure problems at his home in Southview. He was concerned about the County's ability to supply infrastructure to accommodate all the new developments and he was concerned about the possible deterioration ofthe quality of life for County residents. Mr. Michael Brooks, a resident at 187 Westwood Drive, stated that when they received water and sewer hook -ups, they had great water pressure; however, after Fox Run subdivision was constructed, his water pressure went down to about half of what it was before. Mr. Brooks suggested that the Commissioners park at Joe's Ocean Cove and observe the traffic; he believed it was very dangerous. He said there are many trucks and they exceed the speed limit. Ms. Roxanne Wingfield of 122 Westwood Drive returned to the podium to speak about the drainage issue; she said that run -off doesn't flow towards Rt. 522 South as it should. Ms. Wingfield said that she attended numerous VDOT meetings and spoke with VDOT officials. She said they told her that when Westwood is widened, they would make sure the drainage on either side of the road flowed properly. Mr. Mark Smith returned to the podium stating that they are aware of the wetlands area on the Casey property and those areas will remain undisturbed; he said they will work with V DOT to improve the inlet. Regardingthe residents' floodingproblems,Mr. Smith again described the poor condition ofthe roadside ditches along Westwood. Commissioners inquired if there was any potential for a connection through the Breedlove property out to Papermill, however, Mr. Smith said that they did not approach the Breedloves. Commissioners next discussed with V DOT representative, Mr. Steve Melnikoff the feasibility of this development accessing Paperm ill and what improvements would berequired, Mr. Melnikoff stated that since the trips per day would be approaching 7,000, a multi -lane (four -lane) road would be needed. When asked about the possibility of using Papermill as a secondary access with Rt. 522 being the primary access, Mr. Melnikoff replied that VDOT would have to determine the traffic splits. He explained that Papermill is a busy road and extensive improvements would be needed, such as left and right turn lanes, transition lanes, right -of -way acquisition, and verticle alignment work for sight distance. Other issues discussed between the Commission and applicant were: verification that sufficient width was available to allow a right -turn lane to be installed at the Rt. 522 entrance; the possibility of accommodating the access to the Swisher property as "emergency use only ;" the applicant offering to amend his proffer to include installation of a fence as a physical barrier to the cemetery, along with trees, and permission to minimize the berm for support of the vegetative plantings only; verification that the Swisher property owns a 50' right -of -way extension to Westwood. Commissioners pointed out that this property is within the Urban Development Area with sewer and water, and has been designated to be developed in some way; they were seeking some way to make it compatible with the existing residents in the area. Several members of the Commission believed it was imperative and simply wise planning to design two access points for residential development. Chairman DeHaven suggested an emergency access, in addition to the two access points, Papermill and Rt. 522, with those three access points tied -in together eventually. He also believed the connection to Westwood should not be allowed until construction has been completed, to eliminate construction traffic on Westwood. U Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 21, 2002 Page 915 Me • At this point, Commissioner Morris moved to approve the rezoning with Westwood Drive being an emergency access only. This motion died due to a lack of a second to the motion. Commissioner Thomas pointed out that the rezoning as shown provides absolutely no connection to Westwood Drive; it stubs a road at the edge of the property. He said that it only provides a road to the property line where, once the Swisher property is developed, the interparcel connection could be made. He added that when the road is accepted into the State's System, if the Swisher property has not been rezoned, the applicant will have to install a cul -de -sac, which interferes with the Commission's transportation planning efforts. Commissioner Thomas believed that at the point of the Swisher rezoning, a transportation plan will need to be developed that will either continue the road or let it remain as it is. Mr. Smith suggested the elimination of Proffer #64 Westwood Drive. Planning Director Lawrence advised that road connection issues area MDP level discussion. He said the applicanthas proffered a conceptual street layout and, at this point for the rezoning, all that is being presented is a stub street. Commissioner Morris again moved to approve Rezoning Application #07 -02 with the removal of Proffer Statement B4, which relates to Westwood Drive, and the amendment of Proffer D 1, which relates to the Shenandoah Memorial Park Buffer, to include the installation of fence in lieu of an earth berm. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Unger. Commissioner Fisher commented about the impact of this rezoning on transportation. Commissioner Fisher believed the timing forthis rezoning was not good based on the County's Transportation Plan dealing with Rts. 522 and 50; he said that VDOT's traffic counts have more than doubled at this point on Rt. 522. Commissioner Fisher said that based on this information, the elimination of Rt. 37 from the Transportation Plan, and the by -right use of previously- approved rezonings, he could not support this rezoning. Commissioner Rosenberry stated for the record that the increased demand on the County's limited water supply persuades him to vote against this rezoning request. A Commissioner pointed out that the motion on the Floor would effectively allow a development with only one entrance /exit into a 70 -house development, which goes against the Commission's past planning efforts. Other Commissioners commented that they lived in a one- entrance development and they, as well as their neighbors, were satisfied with the arrangement. Commissioner GochenOUr stated that the impact of this project, and other similar projects in the County, would necessitate continued construction of new schools. Chairman DeHaven called for the vote and the motion was defeated by the followingvote: YES (TO APPROVE THE MOTION) Unger, Morris, Light NO: Straub, Gochenour, DeHaven, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Fisher, Triplett, Rosenberry At this point, Chairman DeHaven recognized Mrs. Doris Casey, the owner of the property, who had approached the podium. Mrs. Casey said that she and her deceased husband, Robert Casey, moved L� Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 21, 2002 Page 916 7- to the area in 1956 and they started the cemetery. She said they used the land adjoining the cemetery as • farmland. Mrs. Casey said she wanted to take care of this land and get it settled as she wanted it. She stated that it will be a nice residential development. Chairman DeHaven called for a new motion. A motion was made by Commissioner Thomas and seconded by Commissioner Unger for approval of the rezoning with the inclusion of Proffer B4, Westwood Drive, and the amendment of Proffer Dl, Shenandoah Memorial ParkBuffer, to include the installation of a fence in lieu of an earth berm, as offered by the applicant. Some members of the Commission wanted to express, in some fashion, thatwhen the master plan comes before the Commission, the effects on Westwood Drive will be mitigated to the farthest extent possible. They strongly believed that ifthis was not in some way dealt with through the proffers, then it would not be enforceable at the master plan stage. Mr. Smith volunteered to amend Proffer 134, Westwood Drive, to state that "A connection to Westwood Drive (Rt. 822) onto the Swisher property will be provided to the subject property with approval of the Planning Commission at the MDP stage." The motion failed due to the following tie vote: YES (TO APPROVE THE MOTION) Unger, Light, DeHaven, Thomas, Ours, Kriz NO: Straub, Gochenour, Morris, Fisher, Triplett, Rosenberry Commissioner Gochenour believed that some of the issues that need to be dealt with at the • rezoning stage have not been clearly discussed and addressed. Commissioner Straub moved and Commissioner Rosenberry seconded the motion to deny the rezoning. This motion was defeated by the following majority vote: YES (TO APPROVE THE MOTION) Rosenberry, Triplett, Fisher, Gochenour, Straub NO: Kriz, Ours, Thomas, DeHaven, Light, Morris, Unger Commissioner Thomas moved to approve Rezoning #07 -02 with the proffers as stated except forthe amendment of Proffer Dl, Shenandoah Memorial Park Buffer, to includethe installation of a fence in lieu of an earth berm, as offered by the applicant, and the requirement of the developer to provide at the MDP stage a phasing plan that will show the potential future connection, when it will occur, and a traffic analysis with potential impacts to Westwood Drive indicated. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Ours. The motion was defeated by the following tie vote: YES (TO APPROVE THE MOTION) Unger, Light, DeHaven, Thomas, Ours, Kriz NO: Straub, Gochenour, Morris, Fisher, Triplett, Rosenberry • Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 21, 2002 Page 917 The 'suggestion was made that the rezoning be tabled until all voting members of the Commission were present, in order to break a tie vote (Commissioner Watt was absent). A motion was made by Commissioner Gochenour and seconded by Commissioner Straub to table the rezoning application for 60 days. This motion was approved by a majority vote. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby table Rezoning #07- 02 ofDoris F. Casey, submitted by Greenway Engineering, to rezone 30.31 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to (Residential Performance) District for 60 days. The vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE THE MOTION) Straub, Gochenour, Unger, Light, DeHaven, Fisher, Rosenberry NO: Morris, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Triplett PUBLIC MEETING Master Development Plan #04 -02 for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, su bmitted by G reenway Engineering, for the development of commercial and industrial uses. This property is located on the • northeastern quadrant of Exit 317 on 1-81 and isidentitied with P.I.N.s43-A- 96,43 -A- 97,43 -A- 98,43 -A- 99, 43 -A -100, and 43 -A -111 in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Due to a possible con fl ict of interest, Chairman DeHaven said that he owned property adjacent to the property under consideration and, therefore, would abstain from all discussion and voting on this item. He then relinquished the chair over to Vice Chairman Thomas. Commissioner Light also said that he would abstain from all discussion and voting on this item due to a possible conflict of interest. Planner .Jeremy F. Camp gave the background information and review agency comments. Planner Camp said the property was rezoned by the Board of Supervisors on April 22, 2002; the property consists of 116.7 acres of Ml, 14.5 acres of B3, 23.2 acres of B2, and 3.7 acres of RA. He said all of the associated proffers ofthe rezoning have been provided on the masterdevelopment plan (MDP). Planner Camp proceeded to summarize the significant proffers that have been provided. He stated that staffs review ofthe MDP did not reveal any substantial problems, however, there were five issues that staff wanted to bring forward for discussion with the Planning Commission. The following issues were described by Planner Camp: Zoning District Buffers - the preliminary MDP does not take the buffer and screening requirements into consideration between the proposed commercial uses and the existing residential properties located across Rt. 11: a Category B buffer is required; • Frederick County Planning Commission - Minutes of August 21, 2002 Page 918 9- Preservation of Environmental Features -all ofthe protected environmental areas, woodlands, flood plains, and wetlands, should be identified on the MDP and preferably, placed in an environmental easement; Flood Plain Disturbance details of any approved disturbance of flood plains with a storm water management pond should be shown on the MDP; Sinkholes -the MDP should include sinkholes in its analysis of existing environmental features; however, if the intent is to provide a comprehensive soil analysis for each individual site plan, then the MDP should state this; and, Location of Proposed Collector Road - the location of the proposed major collector road has been modified from the conceptplan submitted durin rezoning process; the relocation of the road places the burden of constructing the road through the flood plain on the adjoining property. Planner Camp concluded by saying that overall, the preliminary MDP depicts appropriate land uses and is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Policy Plan. He said the preliminary MDP is also in accordance with the proffers of the rezoning; however, the applicant needs to address the concerns identified by the staff, as well as any concerns raised by the Commission. There next ensued a brief discussion between Commission members on procedural issues regarding what the Commission can require or expect of the applicant at the master development plan stage as compared to the rezoning stage. Commissioner Unger inquired about the requirement for easements, in the likelihood that proposed Rt. 37 would pass through the property. Planner Camp said the preliminary plans for Rt. 37 do not indicate that Rt. 37 would traverse this property, however, it is very close, to the north. Mr. Evan A. Wyatt, with Greenway Engineering, came forward as the representative for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park. Mr. Wyatt began by addressing the issues that the Planning Staff raised in their report. Regarding the Zoning District Buffer, he pointed out that the County permits the right -of -way distance to count towards the buffer distance, therefore, they have shown a 100' buffer with landscaped screen along the 132 -zoned properties to the major collector, and on the portion of the property across from the RP- zoned properties, they have chosen to use just the 200' distance separation. He also pointed out that no structures can be located closer than 50' from the arterial road and they will indicate that on the MDP. Mr. Wyattstated thathe would address the Environmental Features issueand the Flood Plain Disturbance issue together. He said they have shown the maximum extent of potential wood lands using aerial photography, they've shown the maximum extent of potential wetlands using the National Wetlands Inventory Map, and in citing the storm water managementfaci I ity within the floodplain, they consulted with the County's engineer. Mr. Wyatt said that they will need to identify the percentage of the flood plain area that would be d isturbed by this feature. Regarding the Woodlands issue, he stated that they've placed a narrative on the plan which states their commitment to amend the MDP, for administrative approval, to concur with the pending Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee's ordinance amendments, which are currently in progress. Regarding the location of the collector road, Mr. Wyatt explained that the Winchester and Western Railroad (W WR) will grant crossingof their rail line, which needs to be signaled for motorists, with the condition that adjacent MI land uses must have either shipping or receiving that is rail- served. He stated that because of W WR's condition, they needed to shift the road out towards 1 -81 in order to make use of the Ml property. He explained that the collector road begins at a point on Rt. 1 1, it will parallel 1 -81 as it traverses through the property, and will end at the Rutherford's farm property limits at the Carroll property. • Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 21, 2002 Page 919 -lo- Commissioner Straub recalled from the initial hearings that there was to be a connection or off -ramp from Rutherford's Farm onto 1-8 1. Mr. Wyatt replied that 1 -81 isalimited access road, which means that secondary roads cannot have direct points onto it. Regarding the sink hole issue, Mr. Wyatt introduced Mr. Garnet Williams, a geologist with Engineering Consulting Services (ECS), who Greenway Engineering contracted to conduct the sink hole delineation. Mr. Garnet Williams, an environmental geologist with ECS, stated that he was tasked with the responsibility to perform a geological reconnaissance of the Rutherford Farm, specifically looking for limestone solution-related features in the bedrock that are apparentas surface topographical impressions, Mr. W it I iams gave a brief presentation on the geology of the site. He then pointed out red and greens dots on a map which indicated actual open throats (red) and suspect depressions (green); he noted there were only a few situations where he observed large open throats, in excess of three feet in diameter, and most of those had been filled in. Mr. Williams stated that he would be very hesitant about calling these sink holes in the traditional sense; he believed they were simply collapsed features with large solution channels, which are typically located in areas where there is concentrated run -off. Mr. Williams recommended that the developer concentrate surface flows and storm water detention ponds away from these areas, to minimize future risks. Mr. Williams said that from an engineering standpoint, when it comes time for final construction of buildings and roadways, there have been a number of instances that he has observed and participated in where buildings and roadways have been engineered overtop of sinkholes, solution cavities, and other karst - related features. He said the solutions are relatively simple; the throats are cleaned out, defined, and filled in. He said that for roadways and low -rise commercial buildings, the engineering solutions in the field are relatively simple. Mr. Williams stated that from a planning standpoint, the most critical aspect of dealing with this type of environment, is intelligent planning of storm water control. He advised that water be conveyed away from these areas and ponding water overthem should be avoided, either permanently or during construction. Commissioner Gochenour stated that she attended a two -day seminar on karst topography at Lord Fairfax College last yearand one ofthe field trips included the Warren County Industrial Park which had numerous amenities, but also had a multitude of problems. Commissioner Gochenour proceeded to describe some ofthe problems. Commissioner Ours called for a point of order, as he did not believe these comments were relevant to the issue before the Commission. Vice Chairman Thomas pointed out that the time was fast approaching the 10:30 p.m. cut -off time mandated by the Commission's Bylaws and he requested that Commissioner Gochenour wrap -up her comments. Vice Chairman Thomas remarked that regard ing the sink- hole discussion, it was the Commission's responsibility to make sure the developer followed the County's ordinance and it was the developer's engineering responsibility to take care of the property development; he cautioned the Commission not to get so specific as to tell the applicant what to do. Commissioner Morris inquired ifthere was evidence of new topographic activity on this site or whether it was all aged. Mr. Williams replied that because this feature does not show up on historic aerial photographs, it would appear it has recently developed, possibly a result ofthe construction ofthe interchange. Commissioner Straub stated that she heard from several people that tractor tires, appliances, and other items have been thrown into the cavities; she wanted to know if those things get extracted. She also • Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 21, 2002 Page 920 inquired what types of building supports are used to make sure buildings do not collapse into a hole. Mr. Williams replied that these items would be removed as apart ofthe remedial engineering. Hethen proceeded to talk about a number of engineering methods used to prevent a building from collapsing into a hole. Mr. Wyatt stated that the applicant is committed to designingthe storm water features away from the identified areas by the field reconnaissance and also to place a narrative on the MDP stating that as individual site plans are submitted thatwill impactthese areas, a geo- technical analysis will be conducted and approved by the County's engineer, as a part of the site plan approval. Vice Chairman Thomas next called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Michael Weber, the owner of Weber's Nursery on Rt. 11, which is adjacent to the proposed development, expressed his concerns regarding water runoff and contamination of his well water supply. He noted that on a peak day, his business uses over 150,000 gallons of water per day and if he had to purchase his water from Frederick County, the cost would put him out of business. He said that he also owns another business two miles south on Rt. I I ; he said his well there was contaminated with benzene from gasoline and now he pays the City of Winchester approximately $10,000 per year for water. lie brought up the subject of a water study done by Virginia Tech that wasjust released to the public: he wondered whether the Board already knew the results ofthat water availability study at the time the property was rezoned. Mr. Weber was concerned about the traffic congestion on Rt. 11: he said the proposed traffic signal will help, but it will also slow traffic. It was his opinion that if Rt. 37 was still in the plans and if there was aback entrance to the proposed industrial park, it would alleviate the congestion on Rt. 11. Mr. Weber was also concerned that the proposed industrial park had onlyone entrance/exit. He expressed concern about the visibility of the site traveling north and screening forthe adjacent residences. He also expressed concern regarding the potential of light interference prohibiting his ability to produce a poinsettia crop. Mr. Thomas Rissler, a resident at 1937 Martinsburg Pike, said he was approximately 600' from the entrance to this industrial park. Mr. Rissler spoke about the existing traffic problems; he believed that Rt. 1 I would have to be widened fora turning lane going south on Rt. 11. Mr. Rissler inquired if the new property owners of Rutherford's Farm would follow through on all the proffers offered by the previous owners. Mr. Evan Wyatt returned to the podium to address some of the concerns raised by the public. Responding to Mr. Weber's concern, Mr. Wyatt said that the adjacent residences on Rt. I I will be protected with distance, a full six -foot opaque element, and full landscaping. RespondingtoMr .Rissler'sconcern,Mr. Wyatt said that the previously- approved proffers go with the land and are legally binding, even though the ownership of the property has changed. Mr. Wyatt added that a road improvement plan was proffered during rezoning which included a collector road, a new median crossing, and stacking lanes. Vice Chairman Thomas deferred the issue of possible well contamination to the Commission's legal counsel, Mr. Jay Cook, who believed any restitution would have to be addressed in civil court. Vice Chairman Thomas announced the time, 10:30 p.m., and the fact that the Commission's Bylaws prohibit engagement in discussion of any new action items after 10:30 p.m., due to the mandatory 11:00 p.m. adjournment time. n LJ Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 21, 2002 Page 921 _IZ_ Commission members believed the preliminary MDP depicted appropriate land uses and was consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Policy Plan and was in accordance with the proffers of the rezoning. Upon motion made by Commissioner Morris and seconded by Commissioner Kriz, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan 404 -02 for the Rutherford's Farm Industrial Park, submitted by Greenway Engineering, for the development of commercial and industrial uses with the stipulation that the applicant address the concerns identified by the Planning Staff as a condition of favorable recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROV E) : Straub, Goehenour, Unger, Morris, Thomas, Ours, Kriz, Fisher, Triplett, Rosenberry ABSTAIN DeHaven, Light (Note: Commissioner Watt was absent from the meeting.) Vice Chairman Thomas relinquished the conduction of the meeting back to Chairman DeHaven. Chairman DeHaven commented that unfortunately, the Commission would be unable to consider the last item on the agenda because of time restraints. Chairman DeHaven believed it reinforced the need to diligently adhere discussion topics to the items under consideration on the agenda. CITIZEN PETITION REGARDING DORIS F. CASEY REZONING #07 -02 Chairman DeHaven broughtthe Commission's attention to a petition submitted by a citizen regarding the Doris F. Casey property and the letters, e- mails, and faxes received by Planner Kennedy regardingthat same rezoning. Upon motion by Commissioner Ours, and seconded by Commissioner Thomas, these items were made a part of the official record by a unanimous vote. • Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 21, 2002 Page 922 - 13 - • ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. by a unanimous vote. submitted, R.�wrence, Secretary 0-- o 6, A 0� Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman • • Frederick County Planning Commission Minutes of August 21, 2002 Page 923