PC_02-21-96_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on
February 21, 1996.
PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr.,
Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District;
Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Richard C.
Ours, Opequon District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Roger L.
Thomas, Opequon District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Robert M. Sager,
Board Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal
Counsel.
ABSENT: Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; Jimmie K. Ellington, Gainesboro District; and S.
Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District.
Staff present: Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II; Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Director; and Renee' S. Arlotta,
Minutes Recorder.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
BIMONTHLY REPORT
Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information.
4143
2
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS)
Mr. Thomas reported that the DRRS discussed vested rights at their last meeting and
the staff will present those at tonight's meeting.
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC) - 2/12/96
Mr. Tierney reported that the CPPC reviewed changes to the Round Hill Plan in
response to comments made at the Planning Commission's retreat. Mr. Tierney said those have been
mailed to Board members and they will let us know if the changes are adequate.
Transportation Committee - 2/6/96 Mtg.
Mr. Thomas reported that the Transportation Committee discussed the Primary Road
Improvement Plan, which will be presented to the Commission at tonight's meeting.
Sanitation Authority - 2/15/96 .
Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the Sanitation Authority is having problems with the
contractor on the Parkins Mill addition regarding finishing the job done by the agreed upon
completion date. Mrs. Copenhaver said the contractor is estimating completion on April 14, which
is about six months late.
Mrs. Copenhaver also reported that the lagoon at Echo Village needs to be abandoned
by October of 1996. Mrs. Copenhaver said that the Sanitation Authority has approved the City
supplying them with public sewer and water.
In addition, she reported that the Sanitation Authority awarded a contract for a water
main on the northern part of the Route 50/Victory Lane Water Loop Project.
4144
Winchester City Planning Commission
Mr. DiBenedetto reported that the City Planning Conunission's last two meetings have
been devoted to developing an ordinance change to decrease the density of residential housing in the
central business district downtown.
Revised Master Development Plan Application #002 -96 of Preston Place Apartments, Phase
II, to change the housing type from townhouses to 44 garden apartment units within four
buildings on 14.59 acres. The property is located on the north side of Airport Road (Rt. 645),
approximately 300' east of Front Royal Pike (Rt. 522) and is identified with P.I.N. 64 -A -45C
in the Shawnee District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Arthur Woods, with Bengtson, DeBell & Elkin, Ltd., the firm representing the
developer, Castle Development Corporation, said that the apartment units proposed are very similar
to the apartments built in Phase I and no substantial changes are planned. Mr. Woods said that his
client has agreed to include a disclosure clause in the lease agreements about the proximity of the
airport and the noise factor, so that potential renters will be aware of the situation. He said that
concerns have been raised about the parking lot and security lighting on the site and he pointed out
that no free - standing lights are proposed. Mr. Woods explained that the recreational facilities have
been changed from the approved MDP; they are proposing a swimming pool facility in lieu of a
multi - purpose basketball court. He said that buffers and landscaping have been provided.
Mr. Wyatt said that the Board of Supervisors has consistently granted approval of
previously revised MDPs to change the housing type as long as it was consistent with adjoining
property uses. Mr. Wyatt said that the revision does not change the density of the project and the
development of this phase will complete the build out of the Preston Place project. He added that
the primary concern of the staff involves the delineation of the required residential separation buffer
areas. He said that the applicant needs to better define the location for this buffer area and provide
information that describes how this buffer will be developed.
Chairman DeHaven called for anyone wishing to speak regarding this application and
the following persons came forward:
Mr. Paul Davis, adjoining property owner, requested that a solid fence be placed
around the perimeter of the property. He wanted to prevent intruders from trespassing and littering
on his private road that runs from the apartments down to Route 522.
Mrs, Hope Reagan, adjoining property owner, asked the Commission to consider the
following: 1) the existing lighting infringes on her property and requested that `site light engineering'
4145
0
be used; 2) the existing fencing is staggered and non - connecting and requested connected six foot
fencing to eliminate pedestrian traffic down the private lane; 3) regarding the existing garden
easement associated with her property, she is discussing with Mr. McNamara the possibility of
moving the tree buffer to the other side of the fence to protect the garden easement; and 4) regarding
use of the new swimming pool facility by the residents across Airport Road, requested that use of the
pool by people on the south side of Airport Road be denied because it would increase the amount of
pedestrian traffic into the neighborhood.
Mrs. Katie Wisecarver came forward and stated that her husband, Jimmie Wisecarver,
is the property owner of record at 202 Bufllick Road. Mrs. Wisecarver had numerous concerns about
the Preston Place development. She said that the original owner had promised them a "Stonebrook-
type" quality community; however, the existing HUD housing is for a low- income, high- density
transient population. Mrs. Wisecarver said that in 1989, the Board of Supervisors approved a 64
high child - proof, animal- resistant continuous physical barrier; however, other than screening, a fence
has yet to be erected. She had concerns about some of the activities that take place at Preston Place
and described a domestic incident her husband had witnessed involving a firearm. She also had
concerns about increased capital facilities costs generated from the community, especially for fire and
rescue, police protection, and schools; the effects on surrounding residential property values; the
inadequacy of existing roads to handle increased traffic; stray animals roaming the neighborhood; and
residents on the south side of Airport Road crossing over to the north side to use the proposed pool
facilities.
Mr. Woods came back to the podium and stated that they will install a fence if it is
required by the County Code. He said that even if it is not a requirement, the developer wishes to
be a good neighbor and would consider connecting the disjointed sections of fencing in Phase I and
placing a solid fence around the remainder of the property. Mr. Woods said that they would
investigate the site lighting and would also work with Mrs. Reagan on relocating the buffer for the
garden easement.
Mr. Wyatt noted for the Commission's information that the pool facilities on the south
side of Airport Road are operational and will remain open for use. He said that the pool on the north
side is being built for those residents on the north side of Airport Road to mitigate children crossing
the highway.
Members of the Commission felt there was a need for this type of housing in Frederick
County and it was consistent with previous development phases. They felt that adequate area existed
to create appropriate buffers and screening to protect adjoining properties and that fencing
requirements would also greatly assist in assuring that the two different properties could be
accommodated and work together. Members of the Commission were in favor of requiring the solid
fence and having the staff work with the applicant on the site lighting and garden easement.
Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Romine,
4146
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of Master Development Plan #002 -96 of Preston Place Apartments, Phase II,
with assurances that all staff comments, review agency comments, and Planning Commission
comments are adequately addressed.
Preliminary Master Development Plan #003 -96 of Whitehall Business Park for the
establishment of a business and industrial park containing 52.04 acres. This property is
located in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of I -81 and Rest Church Road (Rt. 669)
and is identified with P.LN.s 33-A -3 through 10 and 33-9 -1 through 8 in the Stonewall District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. T. Merchant McDonald, with the engineering firm of Harris, Smariga &
Associates, along with Mr. Leif Feller, architect, were representing the applicant, Flying J. Inc. Mr.
McDonald said that the front portion of the development, Phase I, is for the Flying J Truck Plaza and
no plans have yet been established for the rear portion, Phase II. He next explained the proposed
layout for the site.
Commission members wanted to know if the 60' access road to the west of the
property would be constructed as part of Phase I in order to accommodate emergency vehicles. Mr.
Feller said that the road, at the onset, will not have a sufficient surface to accommodate emergency
vehicle use. Mr. Feller said that in the interim, there is a portion of the property where automobile
parking abuts truck parking and they could provide grass -crete there which is sufficient to hold
vehicles if the other two accesses were obstructed. He said that Flying J does not own the 60' right -
of -way on the west and he understood that it will not be developed until a later date.
Commission members also had questions regarding the wastewater treatment facility,
the storm water retention ponds, and containment of fuel oil spills from the fueling area.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came
forward to speak:
Mr. Doug Cochran, property owner approximately 1' /z miles west of the proposed
development, was concerned about water usage by the Flying J operation and the possibility of
depleting adjoining residential wells of their water supply, particularly during dry summers. Mr.
Cochran cited the 200 seat restaurant, showers, bathroom facilities, holding ponds and tanks. He
expressed concern that no hydrologic studies had been conducted to determine if the available
aquifers could support a use of this magnitude.
Mr. Manuel DeHaven, adjoining property owner, came forward to speak in favor of
4147
[el
the master development plan. Mr. DeHaven felt that the entire strip of property was suited only for
commercial use and would be a good economic benefit to the county.
William H. Bushman, VDOT's resident engineer, stated that if the truck stop is
successful, there could be considerable loss of level of service on Rest Church Road and the I -81
bridge crossing at Exit 323. Mr. Bushman said that a contract is in place with an engineering firm
to begin planning for the widening of I -81 and all the attendant interchanges.
Members of the Commission felt that all VDOT comments needed to be addressed.
They were primarily concerned with the decreased level of service to the I -81 Exit 323 ramp/bridge;
and they felt that the northbound interstate traffic leaving the site would create a bottleneck on the
bridge, causing traffic to back up onto the ramps. Members of the Commission felt the applicant
should provide an all- weatheraurface on the 60' access road, and also to any proposed pond, for fire
and rescue service during -Phase I development. It was also stated that dedication of the right -of -way
for the 60' access road for future dedication to VDOT for access to the properties within Phase II
needed to be accomplished. The Commission directed the staff to ensure that these items were
addressed on the MDP prior to final administrative approval.
Upon motion made by.Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Romine,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of MDP #003 -96 of. Whitehall Business Park provided that all staff
recommendations, review agency comments, and Planning Commission items discussed were
addressed. The Commission also provided the Zoning Administrator with the authority to allow a
small disturbance of the Duncan Run floodplain for the purpose of providing the 60' access road as
required by Section 165- 31B(1) of the Zoning Ordinance.
1996 Primary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Wyatt said that each year, the Board of Supervisors adopt an official plan to
prioritize primary road improvements within Frederick County and this plan is presented during the
annual pre - allocation hearing for the Staunton District, which will be held this year on April 4, 1996
in Augusta County. Mr. Wyatt said that the Transportation Committee considered and approved this
plan at their regular meeting in February. He said that two other items of importance were discussed
and those items were two areas recommended by VDOT for improvement - -one is at the intersection
of North Frederick Pike (Rt. 522) and Bloomery Pike (Rt. 127) where difficulties occur with truck
traffic negotiating the curve in that area. VDOT has allocated money to reduce the curve and are
simply asking for an endorsement from the Board of Supervisors. The second area is an ongoing
4148
7
project that VDOT would like continued endorsement of and those are the improvements taking place
at the Rt. 11N/Rt. 37 area: 1) the crossover which will align Amoco Lane with the new development
on the opposite side of the road; 2) in conjunction with that there are several small industrial uses
whose connections will be severed from Rt. 37 and added to Amoco Lane to provide better access;
and 3) sever the turn- around and cross -over in front of Crown, Cork, and Seal.
Regarding the Primary Road Plan itself, Mr. Wyatt said that the Commonwealth
Transportation Board has approved an eastern bypass loop (Rt. 37) which will begin at the end of
Macedonia Church Road and will continue to the north (Alternative Q. He said that the route north
of Route 7 could vary somewhat from what the Board approved and he continued, explaining the
status of the project to date. Mr. Wyatt also brought the Commission's attention to the Route 277
Corridor. He said that the Edinburg residency is going to propose that Route 277 become a potential
candidate for an un- allocated project in the hope that it could be improved in conjunction with the
design and construction of Route 37. He said that work is ongoing with the I -81 improvements, with
the City of Winchester on the Route 11 corridor, as it enters the County, and with the LFPDC on
sites for commuter park and ride lots.
Mr. Sager said that VDOT's resident engineer, Mr. Bushman, alluded to the fact that
it could be as much as six years before Rt. 277 was improved. Mr. Sager said that the Rt. 277
improvements were needed so badly now that he didn't see how the county could wait six years.
There were no citizen comments.
Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Romine,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
unanimously recommend approval of the 1996 Primary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick
County as presented by the staff and Transportation Committee and does hereby endorse the Rt.
522/Rt. 127 and Amoco Lane projects.
Informal Discussion on a Vested Rights Policy Statement for Frederick County
No Action
Mr. Wyatt said that the Development Review and Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS)
has been asked to consider development issues and opportunities where vested rights may be claimed.
Mr. Wyatt explained that a vested right allows a landowner to proceed with a development proposal
which is not permitted by existing regulations. He said that when a governing body allows a
developer to proceed with a project in which vested rights are a factor, the governing body has
permitted a design concept that is legally non - conforming. Mr. Wyatt said that the DRRS's proposal
4149
is strictly a policy statement and not a new article for the zoning ordinance. He said that it is designed
to be a tool for staff use.
Mr. Morris said that as a member of the DRRS, he was in favor of the proposed policy
and the DRRS felt this would result in a win -win situation for all parties; however, he felt two points
needed to be raised. He said that one point was that he knows of no other community in the State
of Virginia that has defined vested rights, nor did he know of any ordinances in the State of Virginia
that addressed this issue. Mr. Morris commented that if this is such a good idea, why haven't other
communities addressed this? Secondly, Mr. Morris asked about the differences between an ordinance
and a policy, from a legal perspective.
Mr. Wyatt explained that a policy statement is the way the county does business and
an ordinance is an actual enforceable portion of a county code. Mr. Wyatt said that the staff could
set a track record, once this is enacted, to determine how the staff has consistently acted in these
situations. He said that the proposed policy will aid in decision- making.
Mr. Thomas asked about time limits for MDPs. Mr. Wyatt said that a death clause
on MDPs would need to be part of the master plan article of the zoning ordinance. He said that the
State Code already provides for time limits on site development plans and platting
Planning Commissioners felt this was a good policy statement and was needed in
Frederick County. The Planning Commission endorsed the proposal by the DRRS and instructed the
staff to proceed with legal advertisement for a public hearing.
Other
Mr. Light wanted to relay his feelings to the Commission about two similar incidences
that came before the Planning Commission in the last six months that were a little uncomfortable and
may possibly have been helped. He said that both occasions involved local businessmen who had
been doing business in Frederick County for the past 15 -20 years, Mr. James Wilson and Mr. Donald
Merritt. Mr. Light felt that the County's local businessmen need help getting through application
processes in a more positive manner than what has currently been done. He said that when a big
company comes in for a request, they have numerous people working on their side to help guide them
through the process; however, when a private individual comes in and is not so familiar with the
process, it sometimes results in an uneasy situation. Mr. Light said that local businessmen may not
know the ropes and the staff is trying to do their job and there tends to be some tension there. Mr.
Light suggested that when a local businessman, who has been in our county for a number of years,
is involved in an application process and there is a staff recommendation of denial, it should be a red
flag to Commission members. He said that the individual on the Commission who is representing that
district may be able to neutralize the situation or establish some type of dialogue and should become
4150
W
involved to see if complications can be worked out and compromises reached. He felt that the
individual may need a little more representation and maybe need some help going through a process
that staff and Commission members were used to, but the applicant may not. Mr. Light felt that local
people should be helped in the best way possible.
Mr. Thomas said that during the Planning Commission's retreat, the subject of staff
recommendations was discussed. Mr. Thomas recalled that it was suggested that instead of using
the terms "approval" or "denial," it might be better to use the phrase, "meets all the criteria" or
"doesn't meet the criteria in areas A, B, C, etc." He said this may eliminate giving the applicant or
someone else the wrong impression or putting the applicant in a defensive posture at the onset.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to discuss, Chairman DeHaven adjourned the meeting
at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert W. atkins' Secretary
OLi� �f - O-C, I
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
4151