PC_03-20-96_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
March 20, 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; Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; S. Blaine
Wilson, Shawnee District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large: Robert M. Sager,
Board Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook,
Legal Counsel.
ABSENT: Jimmie K. Ellington, Gainesboro District
Staff present: Robert W. Watkins, Director and Secretary; W. Wayne Miller, Zoning
Administrator; Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II; and Renee S. Arlotta, Minutes Recorder.
Call To Order
Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Meeting Minutes of February 7, 1996 and February 21, 1996
Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Romine, the minutes of
the February 7, 1996 meeting were unanimously approved as presented.
Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Wilson, the minutes of
February 21, 1996 were unanimously approved as presented.
4165
Bimonthly Report
information.
Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's
Committee Reports
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Committee (CPPC) - 3/11/96 Mtg.
Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the CPPC discussed revisions to the Round Hill
Land Use Plan and reviewed a request to extend the Urban Development Area.
Battlefield Task Force (BTF) - 4111/96 Mtg.
Mr. Watkins reported that the BTF will meet on April 1, 1996. He said that they
will primarily be discussing fund raising efforts for Kernstown.
Economic Development Commission (EDC) - 9/20/95 Mtg.
Mr. Romine presented a summary of the EDCs activity for the year. Mr. Romine
said that industrial sites with access to water, highways, and rail sites are needed.
Winchester City Planning Commission - 3/19/96 Mtg.
Mr. Ours reported that the City Planning Commission has spent much of their time
on the rezoning of the Meadowbranch South development which will include the extension of
Juba] Early Drive from Valley Avenue north into the Meadowbranch subdivision. Mr. Ours said
the housing types, lower density housing, and office space were discussed. He said that at some
point, as plans develop, there is a potential for impact to the county because they are planning to
extend into Amherst or onto Rt. 37.
4166
3
Consideration of the establishment of a Vested Rights Policy Statement for Frederick
County. This policy statement will define development and design criteria that will maintain
a vested interest when delineated on approved master development plans, subdivision design
plans, subdivision plats, and site development plans.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Wyatt presented the Vested Rights Policy Statement for Frederick County for
the Commissions consideration. Mr. Wyatt said that the staff felt the proposed policy was an
excellent planning tool for approvals for the various development applications required by the
Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. He said that the staff does not view the policy statement as
enforceable; however, it would provide ground rules that the county could use, such as vesting
overall land use plans, residential densities, floor area ratios for commercial and industrial
developments, widths for required buffers, etc.,
Mr. Thomas asked when the design standards become vested. Mr. Wyatt said that
the "design standards" terminology was not used. He said the intent of the policy was not to vest
specific design standards because those are what change over time.
There were no public comments.
Members of the Commission were in favor of the policy statement and felt it would
be a great benefit to the staff, the Commission and Board, and the development community.
Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Marker,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby
unanimously approve the resolution supporting the adoption of a Vested Rights Policy
Statement for Frederick County as follows:
VESTED RIGHTS POLICY STATEMENT
RESOLUTION
At a regular meeting of the Frederick County Planning Commission, held on the 20th day of
March, 1996, in the Board Room of the Frederick County Court House on Loudoun Street in
Winchester, Virginia, it was duly moved and seconded that the following resolution be adopted:
Whereas, residential, commercial, and industrial development within Frederick County, Virginia
is continuing at a significant rate; and,
Whereas, the Frederick County Planning Commission continues to develop policies to address
4167
the management of growth in the community; and,
Whereas, the Frederick County Planning Commission believes that the establishment of a Vested
Rights Policy Statement will provide a valuable planning tool for County Officials and property
developers within Frederick County; and,
Whereas, the Frederick County Planning Commission believes that the establishment of a Vested
Rights Policy Statement will initiate a technique for consistent decision making regarding
development and design issues.
NOW, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the Frederick County Planning Commission supports the
adoption of a Vested Rights Policy Statement for Frederick County, Virginia.
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman Robert W. Watkins, Secretary
Frederick County Planning Commission Frederick County Planning Commission
VESTED RIGHTS POLICY STATEMENT
FOR FREDERICK COUNTY, VA
The information set forth in this document is intended to define the requirements of the Code of
Frederick County that maintain a vested right when provided on a legally approved development
plan, or a legally approved and recorded plat. It is envisioned that these requirements be vested
perpetually unless future legislative actions at the State or Federal levels mandate otherwise.
1) Master Development Plans:
a) Overall land use plans shall be vested when depicted on an approved master development
plan.
b) Proposed residential densities, the type of residential dwelling, the number of residential
dwellings within various development phases, and commercial or industrial floor to area
ratios (FAR) shall be vested if the appropriate terminology and numeric information is
clearly depicted on an approved master development plan.
C) Proposed widths for required buffers shall be vested if the appropriate terminology and
numeric information is clearly depicted on an approved master development plan.
However, requirements for screening shall be required as mandated by the current
ordinance.
4168
d) Percentages or acreage of required common open space and recreational areas shall be
vested if the appropriate terminology and numeric information is clearly depicted on an
approved master development plan.
e) The number of recreational areas designated on an approved master development plan shall
be vested. However, required recreational amenities and installation specifications shall
be mandated by current ordinance requirements.
2) Subdivision Design Plans:
a) The use of each parcel and the number of lots in each use shall be vested when depicted
on an approved subdivision plan.
b) The location and acreage of each parcel of land dedicated for common open space or for
public use shall be vested if the appropriate terminology and numeric information is clearly
depicted on the approved subdivision design plan.
C) The location and width of all road right -of -ways provided on an approved subdivision plan
shall be vested provided that the road classification and numeric information is clearly
depicted.
3) Subdivision Plats:
a) The location of setback lines shall be vested if the appropriate terminology and numeric
information is clearly depicted on a subdivision plat that is legally approved and recorded.
b) The location and design of proposed buffers and screening shall be vested if the
appropriate terminology and numeric information is clearly depicted on a subdivision plat
that is legally approved and recorded.
C) The location and acreage of each parcel of land dedicated for common open space or for
public use shall be vested if it is consistent with the approved subdivision plan, and if the
appropriate terminology and numeric information is clearly depicted on a subdivision plat
that is legally approved and recorded.
d) The location and width of all road right -of -ways shall be vested if the information is
consistent with the approved subdivision plan, and if the appropriate road classification and
numeric information is clearly depicted on a subdivision plat that is legally approved and
recorded.
4169
e) The allowable density which results from future subdivisions of a parent tract shall be
vested if the appropriate terminology and numeric information is clearly depicted on a
subdivision plat that is legally approved and recorded.
4) Site Development Plans:
a) All requirements provided on an approved site development plan shall be valid for five
years from the official approval date of the plan. The requirements provided on an
approved site development plan shall only be vested if building permits have been issued
prior to the date of site plan expiration.
b) Site plans shall be allowed to be approved for phased development. In the event that
outstanding phases are not developed when the expiration date of a site development plan
is realized, all requirements associated with the individual phases shall only be vested if
building permits have been issued for the individual phases by Frederick County.
C) Site development plans that have been submitted for review but have not received official
approval from Frederick County shall not be vested from new design requirements or from
new performance standards.
Subdivision Application #001 -96 of Fredericktowne Estates, Sections 12 and 13, for a request
to subdivide an 11.3496 -acre tract into 30 lots. This property is located east of Stephens
City, northeast of Fredericktowne Estates, Sections 5 through 8, and southeast of Section
11. This property is identified with P.I.N. 75 -A -72 in the Opequon Magisterial District.
Action - Approved
Mr. Miller gave the background information and review agency comments. Mr.
Miller said that the Inspections Department and the Engineering Department are requiring that site
plans be submitted for a number of lots showing grading, lowest floor elevations, and drainage
easements.
Mr. Sager said that within the last 30 days he has received over 100 phone calls
concerning the heavy truck traffic on Westmoreland Drive. Mr. Sager said that Westmoreland
Drive was never intended to be an expressway for trucks delivering supplies to build houses. Mr.
Sager said that summer is coming and there are many children in this residential neighborhood.
He said that both he and the residents in the area are concerned that someone may be injured
because of the heavy trucks traveling through this residential area at high speed. Mr. Sager
wanted to know if an alternate route could be worked out, even temporarily, to relieve the
4170
7
problem.
Mr. Ours said that he also received many phone calls and the problem is exactly
true as stated by Mr. Sager. Mr. Ours said that the noise is a big problem. He said that this was
an infrastructure issue and this development was not properly planned. Mr. Ours questioned
whether the Commission should continue approving more houses and adding more traffic back
into an area that does not have sufficient infrastructure to support it.
Another Commissioner asked who would pay for repair of the roads after they have
been damaged by all the truck traffic.
Mr. Miller replied that these were state maintained roads and VDOT would be
responsible for their maintenance. Mr. Miller said that Fairfax was opened up onto Wythe to
alleviate some of the traffic problem, however, until Fredericktowne was built out, truck traffic
would continue to be a problem.
Upon reviewing the overall road situation, Mr. Thomas inquired about the status
of discussion for connection of. Warrior Road through to Route 277. He also asked for
clarification about what was shown on the approved master development plan.
Mr. Watkins explained that a plan was developed and approved to move the section
of the road from within Fredericktowne east onto the western portion of Sherando Park. Mr.
Watkins said that the commitments have already been made for the land and land will not be an
issue. Mr. Watkins said that the important question that has not been resolved is who will build
the road across the park land. He said that it will obviously be built when the RP properties to
the north of the park are developed.
Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the
engineering firm representing this subdivision, said that they had originally planned a connection
from Rt. 277 into Sussex and Westmoreland, however, a large, vocal segment of the
neighborhood did not want that done and the decision was made not to complete that connection.
Mr. Maddox said that had that connection been made, there would have been three ways in and
out of Fredericktowne and significantly less trucks would be going through the residential
development to get back and forth to the project. Mr. Maddox said that the road through
Sherando Park needs to be constructed. He said that the developer of the Village at Sherando
agreed to bond an amount equivalent to what would have been spent to complete the connection
to Fredericktowne as it had been originally designed and this money can be used to design and /or
construct as much of the new alignment as can be accomplished for that amount through the park.
Mr. Maddox didnt think the master development plan was ever formally revised. He added that
the road connection to the stop light on Route 277 will be lined up and made this summer.
Chairman DeHaven called for public comments, but no one came forward to speak.
4171
E
Mr. Ours said he thought this situation was comparable to the same issues discussed
with Woodside. He said that the Commission voted that down because of traffic concerns. Mr.
Ours said that when the infrastructure is not present to support what is to be built, the Commission
has no obligation to allow building to continue. Other members of the Commission felt that
because a subdivision is at the administrative stage of development, it would be difficult to legally
justify denying this request.
Mr. Thomas moved to deny the subdivision until a connection was made between
Westmoreland Drive south to Route 277. This motion was seconded by Mr. Ours, however, it
was defeated by the following vote:
YES (TO DENY THE REQUEST) Thomas, Ours
NO: Stone, Light, Copenhaver, Marker, DeHaven, Wilson, Romine, Morris
Mr. Marker moved and Mr. Stone seconded to approve the subdivision with a
statement of concern, however, that the connection from Warrior Road to Route 277 needed to
be addressed. It was noted that within the next two months, Mr. Maddox will be bringing in two
more sections with 30 -40 . additional houses and the traffic is already overwhelming on
Westmoreland.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby approve
Subdivision Application X1001 -96 of Fredericktowne Estates, Sections 12 and 13, to subdivide
an 11.3496 acre tract into 30 residential lots by majority vote. A statement of concern was
included that the connection from Warrior Road to Route 277 was urgently needed to handle
increasing residential and construction traffic.
The subdivision was approved by the following majority vote:
YES (TO APPROVE) Stone, Light, Copenhaver, Marker, DeHaven, Wilson, Romine, Morris
NO: Thomas, Ours
Mr. Marker requested that at each Planning Commission meeting, starting in the
next two weeks and from then on, that the Commission receive a report regarding the status of
this. Mr. Marker requested that a report be made, not just at the next meeting, but at all future
meetings until this situation is worked out. Mr. Thomas said that he would also like to be assured
that this subdivision is consistent with the approved master development plan.
4172
0
Subdivision Application X1002 -96 of Premier Place for a request to subdivide a five -acre tract
into four lots. This property is located on the west side of U.S. Route 522 South, north and
west of the intersection of US. Route 522 and VA Route 645, and is identified as PIN 64-A-
10A in the Shawnee Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Miller gave the background information and review agency comments. He
said that the County Engineer indicates that the location of storm water management facilities and
storm water easements need to be designated. Mr. Miller stated that there was not an approved
master plan for this tract and waiver of master plan requirements was recommended. He
explained that the street to serve the property has already been constructed and leaves little
flexibility in how the property can be divided.
Mr. Stephen M. Gyurisin, with G. W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., the engineering
firm representing the owner /applicant, Glaize & Brothers, came forward to present the
subdivision. Mr. Gyurisin said that the existing street, built to state standards in 1988, was never
placed into the state's system because of the requirement for three businesses on a dedicated street.
Mr. Gyurisin said that due to a lack of maintenance over the years, some work will need to be
done to the road to bring it up to standards for inclusion in the state's system. He noted that this
is a commercial piece of property with two businesses in model homes and a third business will
be locating on the third lot.
The Commissioners had no outstanding concerns with the subdivision, but did
comment about the odd shape of the property.
Upon motion made by Mr. Morris and seconded by Mr. Romine,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of Subdivision Application #002 -96 of Premier Place for the subdivision of
a five -acre tract into four lots with the stipulation that all review agency comments be complied
with prior to final administrative approval. The Commission also waived the requirements for a
master development plan as permitted under Section 165 -123C of the Frederick County Code.
Draft of the Work Program for the Department of Planning & Development
Mr. Watkins presented a draft of the Work Program for the Department of Planning
and Development for 1996 -1997. Mr. Watkins said that any comments or suggestions for
inclusion in the work program would be welcomed.
4173
10
Adjournment
There being no further business to discuss, Chairman DeHaven adjourned the
meeting at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
��r
p r l�fnwi�a►,
Robert
L ,� a &
Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman
4174