Loading...
PC_10-06-93_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 October 6, 1993. PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman; John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; Manuel C. DeHaven, Stonewall District; Ronald W. Carper, Gainesboro District; Robert Morris, Shawnee District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Todd D. Shenk, Gainesboro District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Beverly Sherwood, Board Liaison; and James Barnett, Winchester City Liaison. Planning Staff present were: Robert W. Watkins, Director /Secretary; W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator; Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II; Ronald A. Lilley, Planner II; and Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director CALL TO ORDER Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES - AUGUST 16 1993 Upon motion made by Mr. DeHaven and seconded by Mr. Wilson, the minutes of August 16, 1993 were unanimously approved as presented. MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 1 1993 Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Carper, the minutes of September 1, 1993 were unanimously approved as presented. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman Golladay accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. 3708 2 COMMITTEE REPORTS Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CP &PS) Mrs. Copenhaver said that two public meetings were held on the Comprehensive Plan. She reported that attendance by the citizenry was very poor at both meetings. Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DR &RS) Mr. Thomas reported that the Subcommittee watched a slide presentation on corridor appearance given by the Planning Department. He said that the committee discussed options that could be considered for zoning ordinance changes to improve the appearance of the county's corridors. Transportation Meeting Mr. Thomas reported that the Transportation Committee held a public hearing on the six -year secondary road plan. He said that the plan was approved, with some minor changes, for passing to the Board of Supervisors. SUBDIVISIONS BDIVISIONS Subdivision Application #005 -93 of Lake Holiday, Section 113 to subdivide 28 lots, zoned R5 (Residential Recreational) for single- family detached homes. This property is located one mile southeast of Redland Road (Route 701) and is identified with PIN N18 -A -28A in the Gainesboro District_ Action - Denied Commissioner Carper said that he would abstain from discussion and vote because of a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Miller read the background information and staff report. The staff report indicated that the open space in this development was a major issue and the staff believed it should be resolved. The staff report stated that the zoning ordinance required 35% open space and no more than 50% of that space is allowed in environmental areas or steep slopes. It was 3709 3 noted that the accounting of open space submitted by the applicant did not identify open space that met the definition in the zoning ordinance; and, to the best of the staff's knowledge, none of the open space was ever dedicated for the sole use of the property owners. The land indicated by the applicant as open space was not freely accessible to the residents of the Summit and may in fact be developable property. The sewer and water issue was also a major concern by the staff. The staff report indicated that the DEQ (Dept. of Environmental Quality) approved the proposed subdivision for additional hookups to the water system based on the fact that the application stated there were 325 homes hooked to the water system. Staff reported that county records clearly show there are 477 houses in this development. Staff explained that DEQ reports using a figure of 400 gpd (gallons per day) for each residence and the system has the capability to provide 217,000 gpd. 325 houses would use 130,000 gpd and using the 400 gpd per household, that would be about 60% of the available capacity used. Based on the 477 figure, the use would be 190,800 gpd or 87.6% of the available capacity, which appears to the staff to be well past the point where additional capacity should have been identified and plans submitted for upgrade. The staff also reported that, based on information received from DEQ, the sewer system has exceeded its design capacity on more than one occasion over the last year and a half. Mr. Miller said that the staff was recommending denial of the subdivision due to the potential problems with water availability and the uncertainties surrounding the open space issues. Mr. John Lewis of Lewis & Associates came forward as the representative for this subdivision. Mr. Lewis stated that with regard to water availability, the Office of Water Programs determined in May of 1993 that the capacity of the water system at the Summit was adequate for the proposed 28 lots. With regards to open space, Mr. Lewis said that the Summit was laid out in the early 70's and at that time, there were no requirements for master plans. He said that he has attempted to satisfy R5 open space requirements with this design, but it is very difficult. Mr. Jim Elster, a Summit property owner and President of the Friends of the Summit, said that the Friends of the Summit were not opposed to Mr. Bayliss's subdivision. Mr. Elster said that excluding the golf course, the Summit does indeed have a deficit of open space by the 35% rule, but Mr. Bayliss's project would not close that deficit if it were denied. Mr. Elster felt there was not a lot of concern about the lack of open space at the Summit by the Board of Directors, the Homeowners Association, or the Friends of the Summit. He personally felt there was a lot of open space at the Summit because there were a lot of empty lots. Mr. Elster said that he would lean towards support of Mr. Bayliss's project. Mr. Elster added that he was not familiar with the water and sewer issues and would not comment on that issue. 3710 4 There were no other public comments. Chairman Golladay said that he received a letter from Lauwna and Linden Bohrer, homeowners living approximately one half mile from the entrance to the Summit, who felt that their well water supply was being affected by water use at the Summit. A motion was made by Mr. DeHaven, seconded by Mr. Marker, and unanimously passed to make the letter a part of the official record. (Attached at end of minutes.) Mr. Watkins felt the issue of open space was one of inadequate plan information. He said that the applicant needed to show how the ordinance requirements were being met either in terms of the current requirements or by being grandfathered. Several issues were raised by the Commissioners. One issue of concern was that of vested rights. It was stated that the R5 zoning category survived the comprehensive downzoning and the change to the RP zoning category. The Commissioners felt that the R5 category was left intact for a reason and it may have been determined that downzoning of the R5 category would not hold up in court because there were vested rights. It was also brought out that pumping 150,000- 200,000 gallons of water per day from a concentrated area could tend to draw the aquifer down somewhat and impact surrounding wells. The question was raised as to who was responsible for the protection of surrounding landowners with water wells. The ownership of the golf course was also mentioned. It was stated that the golf course was a separate corporation owned by a group of stockholders. The staff had determined that this could not be considered open space because the residents did not have free access to this area. It was generally agreed that it would be in the best interest of future developers, the residents of the Summit, and the county to have a master development plan for the Summit in order to put this development into the proper perspective. Mr. DeHaven made a motion to deny the subdivision application until a master development plan for the entire Summit development was submitted and until water availability for the entire development was proven. This motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously passed. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend denial of Subdivision Application #005 -93 of Lake Holiday, Section 1B to subdivide 28 lots for single - family homes until a master development plan for the entire Summit development is submitted and until proof is submitted that water will be available for the entire Summit development. (Mr. Carper abstained.) 3711 F7 Subdivision Application #008 -93 of Fredericktowne Estates. Sections 8 & 9 to subdivide 36 lots for single family detached homes. This property is identified as PIN 75E- 1 -3 -51, part of PIN 75 -A -72, and part of 75 -A -67. The property is located east of Stephens City in the Opequon District. Action - Approved The staff noted that the proposed subdivision of Sections 8 & 9 of Phase IV of this project was in conformance with the approved MDP. Detailed site plans for Lots 156, 157, 160, 165, 166, 172, 173, 184, 186, 187, and 188 were requested by the County Engineer and the staff was in support of this requirement because of the potential drainage problems in this area. Staff stated that past erosion and sedimentation control problems have been alluded to by the County Engineer and the Soil & Water Conservation Technician. The staff felt that the developer needed to pay close attention to this area and insure that proper E &S controls were established and maintained. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., P.E., with G.W. Clifford & Associates, Inc., was the design engineer for this project. Mr. Maddox said that this is the section where a second connection will be made into the road system to provide two ways in and out of the Fredericktowne development. The Commissioners had concerns with the developer continuing with roadside ditches into the new sections when the revised ordinance called for curb & gutter. They felt that a transition section was challenging, but certainly could be done in the remainder of the undeveloped area. Mr. Maddox felt it was not appropriate to change the existing neighborhood pattern, such as in this case, because the design pattern was successful and there was homeowner acceptance of the situation. He felt that the Commission should implement the curb & gutter in a new, separate area either by a major drainage course or a road. Mr. Maddox added that because of the considerable design work and agency review already completed on this section, this project would be set back many months. After some further discussion of the matter, the Commission decided to allow this section without the curb and gutter, but put the applicant on notice that future sections would have to meet current ordinance requirements. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Carper, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby approve Subdivision Application #008 -93 of Fredericktowne Estates, Sections 8 & 9, as presented, by the following majority vote: 3712 11 YES (TO APPROVE): Morris, Shenk, Romine, Wilson, DeHaven, Golladay, Marker, Copenhaver, Carper, Light, NO: Thomas PUBLIC HEARINGS Conditional Use Permit #009 -93 of Marshall A. Ritenour for a cottage occupation to operate a fencing contracting business. This property is identified as PIN 86 -A -167 and is located on the north side of Fairfax Pike (Route 277), east of Stephens City, in the Shawnee District. Action - Approved Mr. Ron Lilley stated that this CUP was tabled from the Planning Commission's September 1, 1993 meeting to allow the Commissioners time to visit the site. Mr. Lilley said that concerns were raised about this business being able to operate within the necessary limits, including the proposed limits on the hours of operation. Mr. Marshal A. Ritenour, the applicant, said that he has erected a 56' solid privacy fence along his property line from the garage to the front of the property. Mr. Ritenour said that he would have no problems meeting the Commission's recommended hours of operation. Mr. Jerry Bowen, adjoining property owner, was satisfied with the privacy fence that Mr. Ritenour installed. Mr. Bowen asked if the storage building in the rear of the property, owned by Mr. Wise, was also a business establishment because there was a business sign displayed on it. Mr. Alfred Wise, the property owner, said that he uses the building at the rear of the property for storage only and does not operate a business from that location. Mr. Bob Morris said that the property under consideration was in his district (Shawnee) and he felt that the privacy fence was an improvement to the appearance of the property. Mr. Morris also said that he had not seen any vehicles, other than what he perceived to be family vehicles, in front of the property. Upon motion made by Mr. Morris and seconded by Mrs. Copenhaver, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Department does hereby unanimously approve Conditional Use Permit #009 -93 of Marshall A. Ritenour for a cottage occupation to operate a fencing contracting business with the following conditions: 3713 7 1. Hours of operation shall be restricted to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. 2. All cutting and assembly of materials shall be done within the completely enclosed building. 3. Any materials stored outdoors shall be completely screened from view with a solid fence. Outdoor storage shall be limited to 120 square feet. 4. Parking for off -site employees shall be limited to three vehicles, which must be kept behind the residence. Rezoning Application #003 -93 of Woodside Estates to rezone 28± acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) for single - family detached homes. This property is identified as PIN 86 -A -20 and is located west of and adjacent to Double Church Road (Route 641) in the Opequon District. Action - Denied Mr. Tierney said that the applicant submitted a revised proffer statement after the staff s original review of the application. The revised proffer statement increased the amount of money to be provided for schools and parks & recreation and slightly reduced the amount for fire protection so that the amounts now proffered in the revised statement matched the Planning Department's impact model projections in terms of cost. Mr. Tierney said that the only outstanding issue remaining at this point was traffic. Mr. Bill Tisinger, attorney, was representing Mr. James L. Bowman and Mr. Fred L. Glaize, the applicants and contract owners of the property. He said that the property is owned by Mrs. Shirley G. Ritenour, who was present. Mr. Tisinger stated that this property was located in the Urban Development Area (UDA) and since the parcel of land was adjacent to other commercial and residential areas, it was appropriate to be rezoned at this time. Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., with G. W. Clifford & Associates, the design engineers for this project, gave a brief slide presentation of the site. With regards to the traffic issue, Mr. Tisinger said that the proposed development would increase the number of trips on Route 641 by 30 %. He said that since Route 641 is not a heavily traveled road at this point, a 30% increase will not create a severe or major traffic problem there. It was also noted that the traffic light at the intersection of Route 277 and Route 641 would be operating at "above- average" efficiency. Chairman Golladay called for anyone in the audience wishing to speak and the 3714 N following people came forward to speak in opposition Mr. Lawrence Fagg, resident of the Opequon District, was opposed to the continual creeping development down Route 641. He felt there was already a tremendous amount of development along Route 277 and he also felt that the traffic in the area was a serious one. Mr. Fagg was concerned about pollution from the increased automobile traffic and he also questioned the impact on the stand of existing trees on the property in question. Mr. John Stezell, resident on Route 641, felt that the rural people were caught up in urban sprawl. He said that the traffic in this area was busy and a 30% increase in traffic would create a dangerous situation. Mr. Stezell said that the proposal would create a negative visual impact on the area. He concluded by saying that Frederick County's identity was agriculture and the agricultural /open land needed to be protected. Mr. Herbert Painter, resident on Route 641, said that if the County approved this rezoning, it would set a precedent for rezoning the adjacent parcels owned by Joel Stowe, Jim Bowman, and Fred Glaize. He said that if all these parcels were rezoned, it would turn their agricultural community into a "Fairfax- type" community and the citizens would have to pay for additional community facilities such as roads, schools, fire & rescue, etc. Mrs. Shirley G. Ritenour, the owner of the property, said that during the last reassessment of Frederick County property, her land was increased in assessed value by $173,700. Mrs. Ritenour said that she was a widow and lived on the property in a 33 -year old house. She said that both she and her late husband were upset by the large increase because of their age and because they had lived in Frederick County all their lives. She said that they went to the reassessment board and were told that they owned a valuable piece of property. Mrs. Ritenour wondered who the property was valuable to. She asked that if she could not get this parcel rezoned, will she have to continue living there and pay the high taxes? Mrs. Caroline Bowman, a Lakeside property owner, said that the roads were not being upgraded as fast as the area was being developed and also, the drainage problem had not been addressed. She stated that before more agricultural land is rezoned, the county needs to address both of these existing problems. Mr. Bev Teets, adjoining property owner in the Meadows subdivision, said that as a volunteer fire and rescue member, he felt that the increased traffic would be felt. He said that the intersection at Route 636 and 277 was very serious and there has been about three accidents in the last ten days at the entrance to the Meadows. He said that entering and exiting either Ridgefield or the Meadows was a problem. Mr. Teets felt that the intersection at Jamesway needed to be addressed. Regarding run -off, he said that Route 641 occasionally floods. Mr. Teets said that residents behind Woodfield Avenue, on Jason Drive and Sherando Lane, will feel an impact from the increased stormwater run -off. Mrs. Lois White, property owner on Route 641, said that if development 3715 01 continued down her road, people would be forced off their land just like Mrs. Ritenour. She said that the tax rates will increase and those that own substantial acreage, which is often elderly people, will be forced to sell their land. Mrs. White said that the property owners are being exploited by the developers, the assessors, and the contractors. Mrs. White said that continued tax increases present an ever increasing woe to the elderly people Mr. Tisinger's rebuttal centered around the fact this property was located in an area designated for urban development by the Comprehensive Plan. The Commissioners were divided in their opinions about the rezoning of this property. Some of the points made in favor of the rezoning were: The property was located in the UDA of the Comprehensive Plan; it was adjacent to commercial and residential areas; public facilities were in place to handle the development; and the property was being assessed by Frederick County as developable property. Some of the Commissioners felt that rezoning was not appropriate at this time because it would set a precedent for the rezoning of several large adjacent tracts also located in the UDA; the traffic was already congested on Route 277 and various intersections in the area; and the citizens in the area did not want to see more rural land rezoned. There was debate among the Commissioners about whether the timing was right for rezoning of this parcel at this time. Therefore, upon motion made by Mr. Morris and seconded by Mr. Carper, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby recommend denial of Rezoning Application #003 -93 of Woodside Estates to rezone 28± acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) for single- family detached homes by the following majority vote: YES (TO DENYI: Morris, Marker, Copenhaver, Carper, Light, Golladay NO. Shenk, Thomas, Romme, Wilson, DeHaven An amendment to Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, Article VI, RP (Residential Performance), Section 165 -58, Intent, and Section 165 -62.1, Gross Density. Action - Approved Mr. Wyatt said that the staff had received a response concerning the proposed amendment from the Top of Virginia Builders Association (TOV) and they have agreed with the overall principle, but have expressed specific concerns about the requirements specified in the residential separation buffer. He said that they feel that if mixed -use housing is to be encouraged, different standards are needed for that type of buffer. Mr. Wyatt said that they also suggested having a 20 -acre area, instead of a 10 -acre area, as the largest sized lot that can have 3716 10 more than 50% multi - family. Finally, they expressed concerns regarding homeowners associations. Mr. Wyatt said that the Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee felt that they could work with the TOV and address their concerns separately from this actual amendment. There were no public comments. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Light, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Department does hereby unanimously approve the amendment to Chapter 165 of the Frederick County Code, Zoning, Article VI, RP (Residential Performance) District, Section 165 -58, Intent, and Section 165 -62.1 Gross Density, as follows: 165 -58 Intent C. It is the intent of this Article to allow a mixture of housing types on the land within an approved master development plan. Within this Article, the permitted multifamily development percentages are identified. Multifamily housing types are allowed only when they adjoin similar uses or are properly separated from different uses. The preliminary master development plan shall specify the amount and percentages of all proposed housing types. The preliminary master development plan requires specific approval of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. 165 -62.1 Multifamily Housing A. The permitted gross density of developments that are ten (10) acres or less in size may include more than fifty percent (50 %) multifamily housing types. B. The permitted gross density of developments that are more than ten (10) acres and less than fifty (50) acres in size shall be permitted to contain up to fifty percent (50 %) multifamily housing types. C. The permitted gross density of developments that are over fifty (50) acres in size shall be permitted to contain to forty percent (40 %) multifamily housing types. An amendment to the Development Review Fee Schedule for Conditional Use Permits (CUPS) and Variance and Appeals Applications, and to establish a fee schedule for Minor Site Plan Revisions. 3717 11 Action - Approved Mr. Miller said that the staff presented a proposal to increase various application fees at the Commission's September 1, 1993 meeting. After discussion of those fee amendments, the Commission instructed the staff to bring the proposal back for public hearing. Those fee amendments were: Board of Zoning Appeals Applications $250; Conditional Use Permits $500; Minor Site Plans $500. Some members of the Commission felt that the proposed $500 for CUPS was too high because profit margins on most CUP operations was not that high. It was suggested that the requirements for CUPS may need reviewed. Some members felt it was hard to _justify having other tax payers foot the bill for someone's permit application. Mr. Marker moved to amend the fee for CUPS to $250. This motion was seconded by Mr. Light and was approved by the following vote: YES (TO APPROVE): Morris, Shenk, Thomas, Wilson, DeHaven, Golladay, Marker, Copenhaver, Carper, Light NO: Romine Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Light, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby approve an amendment to the Development Review Fee Schedule for Conditional Use Permits and Variance and Appeal Applications, and to establish a fee schedule for Minor Site Plan Revisions, as follows: 1. Board of Zoning Appeals Applications (Variance or Appeal) - $250 2. Conditional Use Permits - $250 3. Minor Site Plans - $500 The vote was as follows: YES (TO APPROVE): Morris, Shenk, Thomas, Wilson, Romine, Golladay, Marker, Copenhaver, Carper, Light NO: DeHaven 3718 12 INFORMATION BROCHURES The staff presented a series of informational brochures that were created to aid the general public in understanding regulations enforced by Frederick County and the options they may have where these regulations are concerned. The brochures covered such topics as how to go about obtaining a building permit, how to subdivide RA land, the procedures involved in rezoning land, the procedures involved in applying for a variance or seeking an appeal, how to develop land in the suburban zoning districts, and how to obtain a conditional use permit. The staff asked the Commission to contact them with any comments or suggestions. No action was needed by the Commission. ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Watkins, Secretary ✓Y'k Ja es W. Golladay, Jr., C ay an 3719 October 2, 1993 3ob Watkins Planning Department 9 Court Square Wincnester, Va. 226U1 Dear 3ob, Uur home was builu in 1976 -1977 on 495 Red Oak Road (old 522N now Rt. 771) 1.1 mile nort'n oc Cross Junction in Frederick County, iirglnia. At that time Soirley's Weil Drilling dug our weii with an exceilant water supply. During January of 1993, we lost use of our water, needless to say, this was upsetting and quit an adjustment to make. The old saying, I'You don't miss the water 'till the well runs dry,' is more than true. R & R Pum Specialist pulled our well pump and what a discovery they made. Previcusly our well of 140' contained lU6• of water, now only 26' remained. Tne water nad dropped 8u' as shown on the pipe tnat was pulled. They added 2j' of pipe, leaving 1' off bottom. In September of 1993, our water flow stopped aga_n. yt preser, tuna Caere is some c_oudy .eater. Just enough tc wash dishes by hand in.a dish pan - -no more water, sdut pump oft anc wait for more to accumulate or flusn tae toilet and same procedure. de are getting drinxing water from a neighbor and buying bcttiea water. There had always been enough water for ail normal household. - use. in past years, during dry times, T had watered 2 -3 hours at a time, a productive garden and -Large yard w_tn lots of flowers. None of that tois past summer, the garden dried up and some flowers were lost- -not enough water for us and them. We nave obtained a well permit to get the present well dug deeper for a clear constant flow of water. The driler will get to us in a :Veek t,� 10 days. the a prcxi:ilate cost for addit-onal feet to be dug will be severer_ thousand dollars. As a Homeowner and Tax Payer of Frederick County, this is certainly not an item that we had in budget. We are tcid by the kerns Brothers of R & R Pump Spec alist that the last two deep wells wits extra horse power pumps (dug and installed last fall in the Summit) will pull under- ground water from 3 to 5 miles around the Summit area. We are located. about one half mile from the entrance to toe Summit. Ours is not an isolated case. Sooner or later this will affect all 'nomeowners and businesses in an-extensive area of nor' Frederick County and even into an area of West Vlrg_n1a, west of the Summit. 3720, Upon asking people, living closer to the Summit tnan we do, about their well and water supply, I found six (b) homeowners who had recently dug their well deeper (at great expense to them, not a 'budget item for them either); with one (1) homeowner who dug a completely new weli (at even greater expense to him). Even with new or deeper dug wells, it is no guarantee our wells want go dry again when the Summit has both large pumps fully operational. .or. .as more building is done at the Summit, demand for water being greater, more wells dug with large pumps.. existing wells of homeowners outside the Summit will go dry again. When people sell property, homes are built, wells dug, no one is telling this problem of water, they find this out the hard way. Sa:ae for the buyer of existing homes with a well, buyer finds this problem out later, at much additinal expense to tnea Questions: Can building be slowed down or stopped in develop- ments like the Summit? Can compensation to homeowners for redigging or digging wells be required of these developers? Are there iocai and /or state regulations to help in cases like this? If so, are they enforced? if not, can some be put in place to help or protect homeowners now and in tae future? There are over 400 homes in tae Summit with more being built every year. Can a water treatment plant be built there using water from lake Holiday, tnere'by relinguishi,ng some of tae ground water td homeowners outside the Summit? Sincerely, lauwana & Linden Bodrer 3721