PC_12-01-93_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
December 1, 1993.
PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman; John
R. Marker, Vice Chairman /Back Creek District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon
District; Manuel C. DeHaven, Stonewall District; Robert Morris, Shawnee
District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Todd D. Shenk,
Gainesboro District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Ronald W. Carper,
Gainesboro District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; and George L. Romine,
Citizen at Large.
ABSENT: Beverly Sherwood, Board Liaison
Planning Staff present were: Robert W. Watkins, Director /Secretary; W. Wayne
Miller, Zoning Administrator; Ronald Lilley, Planner I1; Kris C. Tierney, Deputy
Planning Director
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEETING MINUTES -- OCTOBER 6 & OCTOBER 20. 1993
Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Carper, the minutes of
October 6 were unanimously approved as presented.
Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Carper, the minutes of
October 20 were unanimously approved as presented.
BIMONTHLY REPORT
3736
2
Chairman Golladay accepted the Monthly and Bimonthly Reports for the
Commission's information.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Comprehensive Plans & Programs Subcommittee (CP &PS)
Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the CP &PS is working on the CIP requests for
1994. She said that CP &PS met with the County Administrator, representatives of the School
Board, the Parks & Recreation Department, and the library on November 23 for further
explanation of their requests.
Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee DR &RS
Mr. Thomas reported that the DR &RS had a joint meeting with the Top of
Virginia Building Association (TOPVA) on November 30 to discuss the DR &RS's intent to
modify the RP (Residential Performance) section of the zoning ordinance to require a mixture
of housing types on certain size tracts of land. Mr. Thomas said that DR &RS had sent a
proposal to the Board, through the Planning Commission, and the Board asked that the DR &RS
review the proposal again with the TOPVA. Instead of the previous proposal's three categories,
the TOPVA's suggestion of using areas of 10 acres or less, areas between 10 -25 acres, areas of
25 -50 acres, and areas 50 acres and greater was agreed upon. Mr. Thomas said that the group
also discussed revising the internal buffering zones on a planned, mixed development area. He
said that current buffer requirements make some of the developments cumbersome and removes
some of the innovative designs that could be accomplished by a developer.
Sanitation Authority (SA)
Mrs. Copenhaver reported that the Route 522/50 line, connecting the airport, is
scheduled to be put into service today. She reported that the James H. Diehl Water Filtration
Plant will be dedicated at a ceremony on December 17 at 4:00 p.m; and when this system goes
on line, the Authority will have the capability of pumping water from Stephens City to
Clearbrook. Mrs. Copenhaver also reported that the Virginia Resources Authority is reviewing
the financial feasibility of the Route 522 South Sewer Project.
3737
3
Economic Development Commission (EDC)
Mr. Routine reported that EDC is in the final stages of their recertification
process. Mr. Routine said that this will be our community's third recertification.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Rezoning Application #004 -93 of Hunts Cycle Shack to rezone 1.05 acres from RA (Rural
Areas) to B2 (Business General) for the sales and service of motor cycles and the sales
of used motor vehicles. This property is identified as PIN #28 -A -133 and is located eight
miles west of Winchester on Northwestern Pike (Route 50 West) in the Back Creek
District.
Action - Approved with Proffers
Mr. Tierney said that this item was tabled at the Commission's November 3
meeting. He said that the staffs recommendation at that time was for denial of the application
based on concerns about location and the potential of setting a precedent of business zoning in
rural areas of the county. He said that there was also some concern over the potential
appearance of future uses of the property under B2 zoning, which was in part fueled by the
vagueness of the proffers submitted by the applicant. He added that the Commission tabled the
rezoning so that the applicant could fine tune the proffers.
Mr. Tierney stated that the revised proffers clarify that the use of the property
would be limited to motor cycle sales and service; a used car lot with no more than 12 vehicles
for sale at any given time; and a residence. He further stated that the proffers also preclude the
use of streamers, etc., to attract attention to the property, and limit any sign(s) to those permitted
by the RA regulations in place at the time.
Mr. Tierney added that the concerns about visual impacts have been addressed in
light of the revised proffers, however, the staff still has concerns about precedent setting.
Mr. Jessie Richardson, Jr., legal counsel representing Mr. and Mrs. Hunt, said
that several persons were present to speak in support of the rezoning. Mr. Richardson said that
the applicant feels that he has done everything within his power to make this a palatable
proposal.,
Chairman Golladay called for citizen comments and the following persons came
forward:
Mr. Robert Shean, area business owner, came forward to speak in favor of the
rezoning. Mr. Shean said that he remembers this property when it was in a run -down state. He
3738
El
said that since Mr. Hunt purchased the property, the parking lot has been paved, the building
resided, and the overall appearance of the property has improved. Mr. Shean felt that Mr. Hunt
was an honorable person and would carry through on his promises.
Mr. Sam Hunt, brother and business partner of Gary Hunt, came forward and said
that he and his brother were anxious to get the property rezoned because without it, they can not
accept a used car or truck on trade for a motorcycle. Mr. Hunt said that the number of vehicles
they have is limited by the size of their lot and he didn't think they would be able to fit more
than 12 vehicles on the lot. Mr. Hunt added that used car sales would be a supplementary use
to their motorcycle sales. He said that motorcycle sales was seasonal and they felt that used car
sales would help to pull them through the winter until sales start again in spring.
The Commissioners felt that the revised proffers addressed all of their concerns
and upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Marker,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of Rezoning Application #004 -93 of Hunts Cycle Shack to rezone 1.05
acres from RA (Rural Areas) to B2 (Business General) for the sales and service of motor cycles
and the sales of used motor vehicles as described by the application and plat submitted, subject
to the following conditions voluntarily proffered in writing by the applicant and property owner
as follows:
1. Uses of the property shall be limited to the following: (a) motorcycle sales and repair;
(b) automobile sales; and/or (c) residential.
2. No more than twelve automobiles shall be kept for sale on the premises and not under
roof at any one time.
3. No flags, streamers or similar items designed to call attention to the property shall be
posted on the premises.
4. Any sign(s) added to the premises shall comply with the RA zoning rules for sign(s) at
the time of the addition.
Conditional Use Permit #011 -93 of White Properties for an off - premise business sign_
The sign will be situated on property identified as PIN #85 -A -148 and located at the
intersection of Fairfax Pike (Route 277) and Stickley Drive in the Opequon District.
Action - Approval
Mr. Miller said that an on -site inspection of the proposed sign location and review
3739
5
of the proposed drawing location seemed to indicate that this location and placement would not
impact sight visibility of traffic exiting Stickley Drive onto Fairfax Pike (Rt. 277) and the staff
would, therefore, recommend approval.
Mr. Willis White, the applicant, said that this will be a five foot wide painted
wood sign constructed onto seven foot high redwood posts, with lettering on both sides.
There were no public comments.
The Commissioners felt that the sign would meet required setbacks and distances
from other existing business signs if installed in accordance with the submitted plan and upon
motion made by Mr. Shenk and seconded by Mr. Thomas,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #011 -93 of White Properties for an off- premise
business sign with the following condition:
The sign must meet all the requirements of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance and
the Code of Virginia.
1994 FREDERICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE POLICY PLAN
Action - Approved
Mr. Tierney presented the 1994 Update to the Comprehensive Policy Plan and he
reviewed the sections of the document that were updated by the Comprehensive Plans &
Programs Subcommittee.
The Commission felt that the Comprehensive Policy Plan did an excellent job of
presenting the current state of affairs in the county. They also felt that the plan would become
an increasingly important tool for the Commission in deciding on actions they take in the future
and, in light of that, a suggestion was made that some added emphasis be included regarding the
intent for future development in the county. Concern was also expressed that the public may not
be fully aware of the document and they felt that more effort should be made to educate the
public and to involve them in the updating process.
There were no citizen comments about the plan.
Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Wilson,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously
3740
M
recommend approval of the 1994 Comprehensive Policy Plan as presented.
DISCUSSION REGARDING OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS IN THE SUMMIT
SUBDIVISION
Mr. Carper said that he would abstain from discussion, due to a possible conflict
of interest.
Mr. Ronald Lilley said that his presentation was a follow -up to the subdivision
application of Donald L. Bayliss for 28 lots on 10.7 acres at The Summit, which the Commission
considered at their October 6 meeting.
Mr. Lilley said that Mr. Bayliss's application included a request for exemption
from the normal R5 open space requirement and that the County Planning staff forwarded the
application to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for denial due to potential
problems with water availability and uncertainties about open space issues. Mr. Lilley noted that
the Planning Commission voted unanimously (with Carper abstaining) to recommend denial of
the application to the Board of Supervisors until an acceptable master plan was presented and the
water system was proven to have adequate capacity.
Mr. Lilley stated that the application went to the Board of Supervisors on October
27 with a recommendation from the staff for tabling to allow time for the staff to complete
research on the history of The Summit, the existing open space, the degree of vesting involved,
and the water situation. He stated that the Board voted to table the application until their
December 8 meeting, at which time they must act on the application.
Mr. Lilley further stated that the staff has done considerable research and
organization of the files on The Summit, along with a technical review of the applicant's request
for exception from the normal open space requirements. He said that the water situation is being
addressed separately through the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Office
of Water Programs.
Some of the highlights of Mr. Lilley's presentation were:
The first section of The Summit was approved in 1970. It was zoned R2
(Residential General) which did not require a master plan or open space. The Summit property
was rezoned to R5 effective November 1, 1973, which required developments to be done in
accordance with a master plan to include 35% dedicated open space. This R5 zoning applied to
all 1,936.4 acres of The Summit property.
After November 1973, it appears to have been understood that the then - current
3741
7
zoning requirements would apply to new sections. In the June 1974 rezoning application that
clarified that all 1,936.4 acres would be zoned R5, the applicant's Economic Impact Study
stated:
"All of these lands will simply be a continuation of the present concept of Lake
Holiday Estates, Inc. and will not materially change the ideas that have been put
forth and accepted to this time. They will continue to comply with all of the
zoning requirements designated by R5 with regard to densities open spaces land
uses, and physical configurations.
The total acreage of The Summit property is 1,936.4 acres (just over three square
miles). Not including the proposed subdivision, there are presently 2,667 lots platted on 1,044.1
acres. This accounts for about 54% of the entire Summit property. The lake, golf course,
beaches, and miscellaneous green areas account for about 27% of the entire development (or just
under 34% of the presently developed area). The unplatted areas shown as belonging to
Independent Mortgage Trust, now in the name of IFS Corp., account for about 14% of the entire
property. The remaining 5% is in the dam area, commercial area, and miscellaneous unplatted
areas.
There are no deed covenants which restrict the use of the golf course or other
"green areas" to open space. Therefore, if such areas are to be counted towards any open space
requirement, it should be made clear that they would remain as open space. The staff feels that
unplatted areas belonging to IFS Corp. should not be counted as open space since they are not
dedicated as open space, as the ordinance requires.
Mr. Lilley next presented three options for open space requirements for The
Summit:
Option 1: Since a case can be made that this development was expected to provide large
portions of open space from its very beginning and the lot purchasers presumably expected as
much, it could be argued that 35% of the entire development should be dedicated as open space.
That would translate to about 678 acres of open space when everything else was fully developed.
If the lake, golf course, two beaches, and miscellaneous green areas were all counted towards
the open space requirement, they would provide about 530 acres of open space, which leaves a
shortage of approximately 148 acres. The unplatted IFS property, along with the dam area and
a few smaller areas account for about 362 acres, so it is possible that 148 acres could be
provided out of those areas. To apply this option, a master plan for the entire development
would need to be submitted, designating the areas to count towards the 35% requirement.
tion 2. Since 764 acres were platted prior to November 1973, when R5 requirements came
into effect, the open space requirement should only be imposed on the remaining 1,172 acres that
had not yet been platted. That would translate to about 410 acres of open space. Again, if the
lake, golf course, beaches, etc. are counted towards the requirement, they would provide more
3742
E
than enough open space for the remainder of the development. Assurances about the golf course,
lake, etc. remaining as such would be needed and a determination would need to be made about
whether the existing open space located within the environmental areas would all be counted
toward the required total.
Option 3: A third approach would he a compromise between the previous two approaches. The
existing "green areas," along with the lake, beaches, etc., could be dedicated as open space and
the 35% open space requirement could be applied to the unplatted areas. Since the unplatted IFS
property, along with the dam area and a few smaller areas total about 362 acres, roughly 127
acres of this would need to remain as dedicated open space if the remainder was platted for
development. This would result in about 21 acres less open space than the first option would.
Commissioners asked about the ownership of the lake and golf course and access
to both.
Mr. Carl Simms, the president of the Board of Directors of the Lake Holiday
Country Club (LHCC) and president of the utility company, came forward to speak. Mr. Simms
said that the LHCC owns the utility company, the lake, the marina, the roads (the first eight
sections), the green areas, a couple hundred lots, and has control of the development. Mr.
Simms said that LHCC is able to dedicate the green areas and the lake as open space. He said
that he spoke with representatives of IFS Corporation and they are willing to give up some of
their area to make up the approximate 127 acres needed. He said that the golf course is the only
entity that is open to the public and all other entities are strictly limited for use by the residents
of the Summit.
Mr. Simms further explained that the LHCC is a non -stock corporation, consisting
of 1700 property owners, which owns the utility company, the lake, the marina, the roads, a
couple hundred lots and has control of the development. Mr. Simms said that IFS Corporation
is the bank that owns property located on the south side of the lake and one section along Rt.
703 that was left by the developer after foreclosure. He explained that the golf course is owned
by 30 property owners who are stock holders and have formed a corporation.
Commissioners discussed whether or not the golf course could be considered as
open space since the residents of the Summit could not freely access the area.
Mr. John Lewis, design engineer for the Bayliss project, felt that development
of a master plan for the Summit would be a long, arduous process. In regard to Mr. Bayliss
setting aside 35% open space, Mr. Lewis said that the Bayliss property consists of approximately
10 acres containing 28 lots. He said that if 35% of the ten acres, which amounts to 3 1/2 acres,
is used for open space, Mr. Bayliss would lose 11 lots and the project will no longer be viable.
Mr. Lewis said that it was possible that Mr. Bayliss could secure 3 1/2 acres at another location
within the Summit and Mr. Lewis asked the Commission to consider that as an option.
3743
9
The Planning Commission recognized that development of a master plan and
dedication of open space would take some time to accomplish, however, they felt it would not
be in the county's best interest to let it drag on. The general consensus of the Commission was
that Mr. Bayliss should be required to meet the 35% open space requirement.
Since the ordinance does not require open space land to be contiguous with the
land being subdivided, Commissioners felt that Mr. Lewis's suggestion would be a viable option;
however, the property must be clearly identified and dedicated.
Mr. Wilson stated for the record that this subject has been discussed at committee
meetings and committee members were opposed to the practice of purchasing property at another
location to meet open space requirements and felt it could set a dangerous precedent.
Mr. Light brought the Commission's attention to the fact that as of four o'clock
this day, the taxes on Mr. Bayliss's property were delinquent. Mr. Light said that he had a
problem with the Planning Commission and staff assisting someone to develop a property in
which the taxes have not been paid. He felt that the Commission's recommendations should be
made after the property taxes were paid.
The Commissioners felt that the two main issues that needed to be addressed were
the water issue and the open space issue.
Commissioners inquired if the entire acreage at the Summit could be served by
the one sewer plant. Mr. Simms replied no. He said that only half the plant is currently
operating and as development increases, they will have to bring the other half of the plant on
line. He said that if the land on the other side of the lake is developed, another sewer plant will
need to be built. Mr. Simms added that the State has approved water and sewer hookup for the
Bayliss subdivision.
Chairman Golladay called for citizen comments and the following person came
forward:
Mr. Fred Harper, resident at .The Summit, said that he did not object to Mr.
Bayliss's subdivision, however, he felt some consideration should be given to the study of the
sewer and water. Mr. Harper said that there were terrible problems. He said that the system
does not handle the sewerage between the houses and the processing plant. He said that the
pumps constantly overflow raw sewerage directly into the lake with a heavy rain or heavy
weekend use. He said that this problem has been occurring for the nine years that he has lived
at The Summit. Mr. Harper said that last Saturday, the pump behind his lot ran over for 10 -12
hours directly into the lake. He said that in the summer, he can not use his outdoor deck
because of the heavy stench. Mr. Harper felt that adding more hookups to the existing plant
would only increase problems.
Some of the Commissioners stated that they would not support a project with
3744
10
delinquent property taxes. The Commission wanted assurances that the property could be served
by public water and sewer without burdening other property owners. They also felt that the
additional land purchased to meet open space requirements should be one contiguous parcel.
Mr. Shenk moved to support all three of the staff's options and recommended that
these options be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. This motion was seconded by Mr.
Thomas and unanimously approved as follows:
YES: Light, Copenhaver, Marker, DeHaven, Wilson, Romine, Thomas, Shenk, Morris,
Golladay
ABSTAIN: Carper
Mr. Thomas next moved that the Commission place a moratorium on any future
development at The Summit at Lake Holiday until a master development plan for the entire
development is submitted and approved by the Planning Commission and the Board of
Supervisors. This motion was seconded by Mr. Shenk and unanimously approved. (Mr. Carper
abstained)
Chairman Golladay requested that the staff look into the issue of entertaining
subdivision and zoning matters on properties with delinquent taxes.
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE ROUTE 642 REALIGNMENT
PROJECT
Mr. Tierney said that the Route 642 Project was initiated in May of 1989 when
the Board of Supervisors approved a resolution for revenue sharing to straighten Route 642. He
said that ultimately, the intention is to improve Route 642 from the overpass with Interstate 81
to Route 522. Numerous public meetings where held and during a public hearing in 1992, the
Board endorsed one of many alternative routes for the realignment.
Mr. Tierney said that design plans were sent to VDOT about one year ago and
were tentatively approved. He said that subsequent to that, the County learned that if they
wanted VDOT to participate in the right -of -way acquisition, the project would have to comply
with certain VDOT requirements and would be required to meet new State stormwater
management requirements. This meant that the design had to be redone to meet those
stormwater requirements. Mr. Tierney said that redesign has now been accomplished, the plans
have been resubmitted to VDOT, and the County anticipates approval.
3745
Mr. Tierney explained that most of the properties that the redesigned Route 642
would traverse are large holdings owned by developers. He said that the County has agreements
from them that they will provide the necessary rights -of -way. There are three instances,
however, where the proposed route crosses land owned by smaller, individual property owners.
Mr. Tierney said that someone, either the county or the state, will have to purchase the rights -of-
way from these property owners. He said that verbal agreements have been reached in two of
these instances.
Mr. Tierney said that the County's portion of the revenue sharing funds for the
project were forwarded to VDOT in October of this year. The County is anticipating that actual
construction of the project will begin this spring or summer, however, this depends on how
quickly VDOT can acquire the necessary rights -of -way.
Commissioners asked if the old Route 642 would remain in tact. Mr. Tierney
replied that the old route would be cul -de- sacked, just east of its current intersection with Route
647. He said that this will allow those residents that live on 642 to continue to use the road.
The Commissioners also asked if Route 647 would eventually be straightened with
Oak Ridge Drive. Mr. Tierney replied that it would. He said that it will be a squared -off
intersection and the southern portion of the intersection will move to line up with Oak Ridge
Drive.
Since this was an informational discussion item, no action was needed by the
Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 9:05
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
,abtg
Robert W. Watkins, Secret ry
Ja es W. Golladay, Jr., 'h irman
3746