Loading...
PC_02-20-91_Meeting_MinutesI MEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on February 20, 1991. PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman; Beverly Sherwood, Vice - Chairman; Manual C. DeHaven, Stonewall District; Carl M. McDonald, Gainesboro District; John Marker, Back Creek District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Citizen at Large; Douglas Rinker, Citizen at Large; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Citizen at Large; and Kenneth Y. Stiles Board Liaison. Absent: S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District Winchester City Liaison: Joseph Kalbach Planning Staff taff present were: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary; W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator; Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Planning Director CALL TO ORDER Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEETING MINUTES - DECEMBER 5, 1991 Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. DeHaven, the minutes of January 16, 1991 were unanimously approved as presented. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman Golladay accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. COMMITTEE REPORTS Rural Issues Subcommittee - Mtg. of 2111191 3250 L I Mr. Rinker reported that the subcommittee discussed final conditions on rural issues and plans for presentation to the public. Ordinance Subcommittee - Mtg. of 2119/91 Mr. McDonald reported that the subcommittee reviewed final draft revisions to the Subdivision Ordinance and scheduled March 20 for a worksession. Capital Improvements Subcommittee - Mtg. of 2112191 Mr. Watkins reported that the subcommittee's proposed Capital Improvements Plan will be forwarded to the Commission on March 6. Economic Development Commission Mr. Romine reported that the new full -time economic development coordinator, Ms. June B. Wilmot, is now in place. Sanitation Authority - Mtg. of 2/11/91 Mrs. Copenhaver reported that seven people spoke in opposition to the proposed location of the Aylor water tower. The Sanitation Authority delayed consideration of a contract for the water tower and received a bid from engineers to evaluate some additional sites at the rate of $700 per site. The Stonewall tank is scheduled to be completed by April 15, 1991. The 277 water line connection fee was set. Historic Resources Advisory Board - Mtg. of 2/19191 Mr. Tierney reported that the HRAB is continuing work on regulations for the historic overlay zone. SUBDIVISIONS Subdivision Application of John G. Huber to subdivide two RP (Residential Performance) 3251 I 3 zoned lots. This property fronts on Stonebrook Road, approximately 660 feet southwest of its intersection with Virginia Route 621 in the Back Creek District. Action - Approved Staff noted that the parent parcel is nonconforming because it does not have the required road frontage. However, it is accessed by a 60' right -of -way which serves the swim and racquet club. Parcel B and the long existing residence will continue to be served by this right -of -way. Parcel A will have frontage on Stonebrook Road, which is state - maintained. Ms. Winifred Crew, property owner, said that the parcel in question was a part of the original farm site and does not fall within the covenants of Stonebrook. Mr. Marker asked if there was anything that prohibited division of this property when it was deeded off the Stonebrook property. Ms. Crew said that to her knowledge, nothing prohibited dividing this property. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and second by Mrs. Copenhaver, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve the subdivision application of John G. Huber and Winifred A. Crew for two lots (consisting of 5.2802 acres), zoned RP, in the Back Creek District. --------------- - - - - -- DISCUSSION OF WINCHESTER AREA TRANSPORTATION PLAN Staff presented some findings from the DeLeuw Cather study. The purpose of the study was to create a Winchester Area Transportation Plan involving the road network within the County and City. The study pointed out that a number of traffic observations and road sections /intersections with deficiencies have been identified. Their recommendations fall into three categories: short range (those that can be corrected for under $200,000), those addressed in the six-year plan, and those addressed under long - range plans. Staff said that the next phase of the study will involve land use data and projected traffic figures to operate a computerized traffic model. Chairman Golladay commented that the Commission will need to decide if there are additional roads that need to be added or reviewed. These additional roads would go to the Board, VDOT and then back to the consultant. DISCUSSION ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVISIONS Staff noted that the Comprehensive Plan is advertised for public hearing for the Commission's March 6, 1991 meeting. 3252 L I ------------ MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLANS Master Development Plan #006 -90 of Wheatlands for single - family and townhouse units, village centers, a school site and future development on 926.266 acres, zoned R5 (Residential Recreational). This property is located approximately 3.5 miles east of Stephens City and approximately one mile southwest of Double Tollgate in the Opequon District. Action - Tabled Mr. John Foote, attorney, was representing Mr. James Bowman and Mr. Fred Glaize, owners of the Wheatlands property. Also present were Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., Project Engineer, and Dr. Thomas Grizzard, P.E., Water Quality Expert. Highlights of Mr. Foote's presentation were: 1) A reduction in the density of the development from 1800 units to 1463 units resulting in 1.7 dwelling units per acre; 17 acres of commercial; 2) The density of the project within the "ring road" has been reduced resulting in an average lot size of one acre. 3) The owners have agreed to an additional 50' building restriction above the Commonwealth's 50' buffer zone around the lake -- creating a total 100' buffer area around the lake; 4) After completion of additional suggested improvements, VDOT now sees no design problems with the road network; all roads are public; 4) Plan shows owner dedicated sites for a school, fire and rescue station, a farmers' market and community center; 6) Public utilities are provided; sewage treatment facility to be located on site and built in two phases; first phase has been approved by the SWCB; 7) Provision for creation of a homeowners association; 8) No more than 15% of units permissible will be done in any one year; there will be a cap of two years accumulation (so there can be no more than 30% of the available units constructed in any one year); 9) Water Quality study conducted by Dr. Grizzard and reviewed by the County's Engineer; 10) No intermix of traffic between residential and recreational areas. Mr. Maddox next answered questions from the Commission on the effects of the sewage treatment plant discharge on water quality downstream. Specific "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) to reduce inflow pollution into the lake were also discussed. It was noted that BMPs would be maintained by the homeowners association and enforced by Frederick County. The Department of Game & Inland Fisheries (DGIF) would monitor water quality. Mr. Foote noted that there is an agreement in principle with the Sanitation Authority to take the sewage treatment plant into public ownership after construction of Phase I and II by the developer. 1 Mr. John Callow, President of Callow Associates in Reston, Virginia, the project transportation consultant, was present to answer questions on transportation issues. 3253 L I 5 Mr. Stiles inquired about additional access areas to the lake. Mr. Foote said that the developer would be willing to provide additional access, but their understanding is that the DGIF prefers that no additional access points be provided at this time so they can maintain better control over the lake. Mr. Stiles inquired about the developer's plans for the Clarke County portion of this development and if Clarke County land was calculated in the development's open space. Mr. Foote replied that Clarke County land was not calculated into the open space required by Frederick County. Mr. Foote said that the logical use for Clarke County land was commercial, but the owner has no active plans at this time. Mr. Tierney presented the planning staffs review and recommendations for the project. Staff noted that comments have not yet been received from DGIF for this latest review on the Wheatlands development and recommended that the application be tabled until such time that comments were received. Mr. Tierney added that prior to final approval, satisfactory comments will need to be received from VDOT and a formal written agreement between the applicant, the Sanitation Authority and the County will need to be provided regarding the wastewater treatment facility. Mr. Danish Tawari, Chief of Lands and Engineering for the Department of Game & Inland Fisheries, said that the developers have been providing them with information as it has become available; however, the final draft was actually provided to DGIF about ten days ago. Mr. Tawari felt that their comments could be provided in about 30 days. Chairman Golladay next called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak in opposition: Mr. Perry Crabill, resident of Shawnee District, was concerned about pollution of the lake by run -off from lawn fertilizers /chemicals from the residential areas. Dr. Thomas Grizzard, who prepared the water quality analysis, said that BMPs will reduce the transport of lawn fertilizers /chemicals to the water. Mrs. Claudia Bean, speaking as both the coordinator of the Wheatlands Task Force and as president of the Citizens for a Quality Community of Frederick County and the City of Winchester, said that members of both organizations are concerned that the current proposed density of the development will constitute a conversion of Lake Frederick from public use to private use. Mrs. Bean said that she had been in contact with the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service regarding the Wheatlands development and both departments recommended coordination between the Commission, the developer and the DGIF. Mrs. Bean said that if after the cooperative effort of DGIF, the Planning Commission and the developer, the density still remained at or near current levels, the Wheatlands Task Force would consider the submission of a second petition to the Department of the Interior. Mrs. Bean felt that errors and deceptions have taken place during the life of the project and she said that the Task Force will consider taking the issue to court to review the entire process. 3254 I 6 Mr. Mike Webber, resident of Stonewall District, was concerned about the economic impact that this development would have on Frederick County. He felt that the location (near Routes 66 & 340) of the development would lead to a "bedroom community" and encourage its residents to work and spend their money outside of Frederick County. Mr. Webber felt that county officials should not promote so much growth in Frederick County. Mr. Donald W. Luttrell was concerned about the water flow below the dam. Mr. Luttrell also had concerns about the oral and written agreements that were supposedly made when the lake was given to the state. Ms. Barbara Thomas inquired about how much it would cost the homeowners association to maintain the ponds and other BMPs and who would be responsible for making sure that BMPs were being maintained. She also felt that Route 636 was not adequate to handle the traffic for this development, even if it was paved. Mr. Jim Madden, representing approximately 700 local sportsmen and conservationists with the Winchester Chapter of the Isaac Walton League which owns property on Route 50, had the following concerns regarding this master plan: 1) Additional lake access points with parking are needed for bank fishing. Most users do not own boats and the portion of the lake that is now available is over - fished and cannot handle the bank pressure. 2) The 50' buffer provided by the developer was the League's recommendation and is appreciated. The plan states that nothing will be built on the buffer, but should include a statement that trees or brush will not be cut. 3) The developers have proposed a minimum 35 % of open space and it appears that streets have been included as part of the open space. 4) There are insufficiencies in the wording regarding cutting of trees on individual lots. 5) The 15 acres set aside for a school has a 12 year time limit and after that time, the property goes back to the owner. The time limit is not long enough and the acreage is not large enough. 6) More study suggested on the BMPs. 7) In the summer during the dry season, the stream flow is insufficient and in the past, the stream has been completely dry. The residents down stream will get close to 100% affluent from the sewage treatment plant. 8) Throughout the written document it states that "...the developer will cause" things to be done, which seems to mean that the developer will not pay; if the developer does not plan to pay for certain development, he should say so. Mr. Bob Derrickson, a Winchester resident, said that Lake Brittle, northeast of Warrenton, Virginia has deteriorated since a housing development was constructed around it. Ms. Lorretta Bailey, resident on Route 636, felt that too many homes were proposed for around a public lake and the economic impact was too much of a burden on the taxpayers. She also felt that Route 636 was inadequate. Mr. Pat Madigan, resident of Opequon District, questioned whether the developer was going to provide the school or only the land for the school. Mr. Madigan 3255 I 7 felt the developer should pay for the school and the fire house. Mr. Brad Ross said he came to the meeting hoping for a level of sensitivity which he had not seen. Mr. Ross felt that the Commission was putting the profitability of the developers ahead of the welfare and quality of life in the community. Mr. Ken Wingfield, resident of White Post, felt that homeowners associations were a way for developers to get out of responsibility. He felt that homeowners associations were weak and did not have the right to get the money they needed. Ms. Betty Meade Stuart, resident of White Post, was concerned about the quality of the groundwater in the White Post area. Mr. Stiles presented a cover letter addressed to Mr. John Foote from David Watts, the assistant solicitor of the Parks and Recreation Branch of the Department of the Interior and a letter from Manuel Lujan, Jr., Secretary of the Interior to Congressman Peter Kostmayer, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight. Mr. Stiles said that the cover letter does make the point that use of the road that was funded by grants would constitute a conversion and be against the law. In Secretary Lujan's letter, he stated, "...in summary, this paper finds that no conversion 1 has occurred at the grant assisted sights. The facility is open to the public for the purposes identified in the original application and agreement, public access is currently adequate, and no evidence exists of fraud, waste or abuse by the grantee at any stage." Upon motion made by Mr. DeHaven and seconded by Mr. Romine, the letter to Mr. Kostmayer from Mr. Lujan was made a part of the official record by unanimous vote. (letter at end of minutes) Mr. Jay Cook, the county's Assistant Commonwealth Attorney, commented on questions raised by the Commission on proffers. Mr. Cook said that proffers cannot be extracted from a developer and secondly, proffers need to be dealt with at the rezoning stage, not at the master development phase. Mr. Cook said that if the master plan complies with county ordinances for the R5 District, the Planning Commission does not have legal justification for denial. Mrs. Sherwood felt that the Commission needed to wait for comments from DGIF before a decision was made on the master plan. Mrs. Sherwood also had concerns about the homeowners association being responsible for maintenance of the BMPs. She requested that the sewer agreement be presented in writing to the Commission and that it address future expansion. Mr. Thomas felt it was possible to achieve a satisfactory development without degradation to the lake using good engineering practices and good construction. However, he felt that this development would increase the county's tax bill because of the schools and new services that would need to be provided. Mr. Thomas said that he was against anything that would increase the county's tax bill. He agreed that the 3256 I s Commission should wait for comments from the DGIF before voting. Mr. Romine felt that as far as the tax base was concerned, the Commission should consider that the county has a very active Economic Development Commission and new industry has and will continue to come into the community, which would have substantial influence on containing tax increases. Mr. Rinker also had concerns about the homeowners association maintaining BMPs. Mr. Rinker felt it was difficult to support this development when services were not readily available. Motion was made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. DeHaven for approval, but the motion was lost by the following vote: YES (TO APPROVES Romine, DeHaven, McDonald NO: Thomas, Rinker, Golladay, Sherwood, Copenhaver, Marker A motion was made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mrs. Sherwood to table the master plan for 60 days in order to receive comments from DGIF and also a copy of a written agreement between the Sanitation Authority and the developer regarding the sewer plant. This motion was passed by the following vote: YES (TO APPROVED ): Marker, Copenhaver, Sherwood, Golladay, Rinker, Thomas NO: McDonald, DeHaven, Romine ADJOURNMENT No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. by unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, Robert W. Watkins, Secretary 4A41. - / A d.- //� 6Lz&K' Ja s W. Gollafflay , Jr., hairman 3257 E °_ECF.ETARY OF THE INTERIOR WA$HINGT ON June 19, 1990 Honorable Peter H. Kostmayer Chairman, Subcommittee on Geaeral Oversight and Investigations Committee on interior and Insular Affairs House of Representatives Washington, U.C. 20515 Dear Mr. Chairman; Thank you for your letter of 'larch 29, 1990. I am pleas -ed tu: ss.aas a+ copy of a national Park Service (NPS) bau'.gruuud paper Nxrepar'A to amwter questions about the controversy surrounding the hheatla 's cal, t'. " ". , niter„ Land and Water Conservation Fund grant (L &WCF Project R.Y.: sll- @;G72Bt9i)?.: Please accept our apologies for the delay in responding to Y,f^mu,. 'de +<'u'ev,,.. but we needed to have the allegations regarding this maatex cara97,as reviewed by the. NPS Mid- Atlantic Regional Office. The regional office has been generally aware of issues =z's,ed;vn +than, Commonwealth Coalition's petition since Jyy 1989, and ha!sr'Se'em;mon;it;�omi1 ^g-; the situation in cooperation with the Virginia Uepartmewt. r?i C and Recreation since that :ime. However, a preliminarx p o,n al r o;n u`.Ae'. residential developer of the private land surrounding L1�al'a els T s; b's, not available for review until November. Initially, we believe it is important to understand the : c: -f NdPS; iin this matCer. Federal financial assistance was provides: to: t ":e. bmmcXUe.al!,zhi of Virginia under the provisions of the L &WCF Act purstaru', t3. a 3!rr2nc agreement. This agreement provided, among other things;,, ilia( . file ls�u' aenls Lake project would have to be managed and administered f!r p dlis ausdlora>a recreation use. Other uses, including private uses, cvucLJel mire: be, Pw mifte'lt unless NPS agreed to an amendment of that grant contraxt'.: - 'rmo;a.s, Vur discretion in allowing amendments to an agreement has !yrem ssgrr•iffclilalq.1�y proscribed by Con#,.ess in section 6(f) of the L &WCF Act,,, 11") lf�- 'S,-Z- S 4601 -8(f), and NPS regulations at 36 CFR Part 59. Vre: c'�uc'ris: have al-so addressed siailar'conversion issues. See Friends of Shasarr r_k v rR�r'k 774 E'.Zd 446 (1st Cir, 19fi5), and laryland Conservatio2 + =i.i mod' c TiSt' 808 F.2d 1039 (4th Cir. Mb). .p In su;nmary, Luis paper finds that no conversion has orcu.+s.t'z:i assisted site. The facility is open to the public for [.file, Erdzmsified in the original grant appl_ -ation and grant agreement, . prr6 :I are- nvs, is currently adequate, and no evidence exists of fraud, va'sa;a: ,.,i ai ©'w's '", ifrs grantee at any stage of the project. However, the ripo °rt- h'1$o) itdie"ridtd'es several serious concerns about possible future converi;tc *. as al r•.es:ck9.r. 'of the proposed use by the developer of the access road to ttel p!r :; ^`,dct'. 7 ,M',ough 'hest COIICtr'ns over use uf 0. ! aCCess road are still speculL"Zl v, Ch�e :?i 1 11':r7,e 'hYen called to the atte0ti!in of kldae'i County by ti{e (.0 _IlV3' :!;iW'ca' B.tP. U'l, 1f;1. y'g'iTdAS. Celebrant,¢ me United States Cons :itultOrl 3258 P J i Honorable Peter H. Kostmayer' VA The Virginia Department of Came and Inland Fisheries - the grant recipient - reviewed the developer's preliminary master plan in November and communi- cated these and a number of related concerns to the Frederick County Planning Commission, including the fact that portions of the proposed development would be prohibited by the L&WCF grant. The Planning Commission subsequently tabled action on the d plan and requested that they supply additional information about impact's on k'hearlands Take and related issues. The enclosed paper, which responds to all issues raised in the Commonwealth Coalition's petition, is being provided to the Commonwealth of Virginia. Mary of Lhe puLeutialproblems related to future private developments may be prevented through careful planning and coordination involving the Frederick County Planning Commission, the private developer and the grantee agency. Virginia's Department of Came and Inland Fisheries is also being encouraged to neet and negotiate with those parties on a mutually- acceptable master plan that conforms to the contours of the grant agreement and the 1, &WCF Act. We believe that the enclosed Background Paper answers most of the questions raised in your letter. Responses to three Q your questions not covered explicitly in the paper are also enclosed. The Mid - Atlantic Region of NPS will continue to monitor proposed developments at 1, ;heatlands Lake, and it will work with the State agencies involved to assure full compliance with anti- conversion and public access mandates of the LSWCF program. In rnis regard we would note that the Commonwealth is proceeding with phase II oc the project, as discussed in prior correspondence with the Service. ::e appreciate your continuing interest in the Department's recreation and conservation programs. Sincerely, y v Enclosures cc: Honorable Barbara Vucanovich Ranking !'.inority Member 'ubcomn on General Oversight and - investigations Committee on interior and Insular Affairs souse o` Representatives �ashingtan, D.C. 20515 RP "M