Loading...
PC_04-17-91_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 April 17, 1991. PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: James W. Golladay, Jr., Chairman; Beverly Sherwood, Vice - Chairman; John Marker, Back Creek District; Manuel C. DeHaven, Stonewall District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; Carl M. McDonald, Gainesboro District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Douglas Rinker, Citizen at Large; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Citizen at Large; Roger L. Thomas, Citizen at Large; Kenneth Y. Stiles, Board Liaison; James Barnett, City Liaison. Planning Staff present were: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary; Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Director; and W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator ABSENT: Kenneth Y. Stiles, Board Liaison CALL TO ORDER Chairman Golladay called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES - MARCH 6. 1991 & MARCH 20. 1991 Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mrs. Sherwood, the minutes of March 6, 1991 and March 20, 1991 were unanimously approved as presented. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman Golladay accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. - 1 COMMITTEE REPORTS Rural Issues Committee - 4/8/91 Mt2. 3317 I ' Mr. Wilson reported that the Rural Issues Subcommittee is refining their work accomplished over the past month. The Subcommittee plans to hold a worksession with the Planning Commission in May. Ordinance Subcommittee - 4/15/91 Mte. Mr. McDonald reported that the Ordinance Subcommittee discussed wastewater treatment plants in RA zones. The Subcommittee also reviewed the Top of Virginia's concerns on new building ordinances. Sanitation Authority Mrs. Copenhaver said that she did not attend the meeting, but understands that the agreement was approved between the Sanitation Authority and the Wheatlands developers on the sewage treatment plant to service that development. Transportation Committee - 4/1/91 Mtg. Mr. Tierney reported that the Committee reviewed the Secondary Road Improvement Plan - -no additions were made to the plan. Mr. Tierney said that the Primary Roads Preallocation Hearings were held on April 15, 1991 in Staunton and attended by Mr. Evan Wyatt and himself. He said that at the meeting, the staff reported on the status of Frederick County's Route 37 project and asked for VDOT's continued support in terms of staff time and supply of information. 1991 -1992 SIX YEAR SECONDARY ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN Mr. Tierney said that the Transportation Committee reviewed the 1991 -1992 Six Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan at their April 1 meeting and unanimously recommended approval. Mr. Tierney said that no new secondary road improvement projects were considered. Upon motion by Mr. McDonald and second by Mr. Marker, ' BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously endorse the 1991 -1992 Six Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan for Frederick County as 3318 r 1 presented by the Transportation Committee. 3 Revised Preliminary Master Development Plan #006 -89 of Wheatlands for 1,288 single - family dwellings and 175 townhouse units, village centers, a school site and future development on 926.266 acres, zoned R5, in the Opequon District. Action - Approved PRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANT: Mr. John Foote, the attorney representing the applicants Fred L. Glaize III & Jasbo, Inc., addressed four major areas of concern: Department of Game & Inland Fisheries (DGIF) comments, the agreement with the Sanitation Authority (SA), Best Management Practices (BMPs), and Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) compliance. Mr. Foote said that the applicant is in substantial agreement with all DGIF comments and has taken steps to address virtually all comments received by DGIF, as follows: The MDP states that 75 % of runoff from the site will be captured by holding ponds; lift stations will be constructed to SA requirements; the applicant is prepared to provide five public access points to the lake; the plan was modified to provide a 50' additional conservation easement in addition to the 50' easement owned by DGIF around the lake; DGIF has requested that the additional easement be identified as a "50' undisturbed conservation easement" and dedicated to DGIF; the dam can be upgraded from a Class 2 to a Class 1 and will be unimpaired by any additional runoff; the terminology of the agreement between the SA and the applicant has been approved; if expansions on the sewage treatment plant exceed those presently anticipated, they would need to be approved and be consistent with state standards; BMPs are to be constructed by the developer and managed by the homeowners association; in order to take care of BMPs financially, a fund of $300 per lot for the first 500 lots and $100 per lot on remaining lots will be required; traffic signalization will occur at the intersection of Routes 636 and 277 when traffic warrants; the future development areas are included in the calculations for open space, however, they can and will stand on their own with respect to future development of those properties. PLANNING STAFF COMMENTS: Mr. Tierney noted that staff comments and those of other review agencies have not been addressed in this revision and all revisions appear to pertain solely to DGIF review. Mr. Tierney further noted that the applicant has stated on the MDP that all means ' possible will be used to channel 75 of the drainage through the retention ponds; DGIF feels that a "typical lot" detail should be required on the MDP to control clearing; lift stations have been addressed; DGIF has requested input on the erosion and sedimentation plan and staff agrees 3319 I 4 this is appropriate; a verification of the open space calculations is needed- -the staff has concerns with the wording on the open space and future development areas and feels this needs to be worked out before any final approval; the request for a "conservation easement" on the 50' buffer has been agreed to by the applicant; DGIF has continually requested flood easements, but there has been no response by the applicant on this issue; additional public access points have been agreed to; there are no problems with the hydrants, although no formal agreement has been reached; impacts of increased stormwater runoff on the dam will be addressed by the applicant; monuments at 1,000' intervals will be provided along the property line as requested; a legally binding agreement still needs to be worked out on the maintenance of stormwater management; there are a number of comments from the staff and other review agencies that still remain to be addressed. It was the staff's opinion that the applicant had made a good faith effort to address DGIF comments in the time permitted; however, there were still some unresolved issues raised by DGIF and other agencies that needed to be addressed. It was the staffs recommendation that despite the numerous agreements that still remain to be negotiated, that the PMDP could be approved contingent on sufficient agreements and all staff, DGIF, and other review agency comments being met prior to FMDP approval. CONCERNS RAISED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: Concerns raised by the Planning Commission centered around preserving the integrity of the lake, drafting and executing of legal documents, and that concerns /comments be addressed at the subdivision stage, as follows: 1) Maintenance Fund - Upfront Money for Maintenance of BMPs - who will do maintenance, how often, what type, who makes sure work is done. Dr. Grizzard, the applicant's water quality expert, said that a maintenance program would consist of periodic inspections on an annual or "as- needed" basis. The dry ponds will need to be mowed and vegetation removed to insure proper functioning. On a five -year interval, the filler cloth on the restricted outlet would need replaced and accumulated spoils removed. 2) finalization of Route 636/277 - applicant had stated that this is not now in writing, but will be. 3) Clarification of Open Space - Charles W. Maddox, Jr. Project Engineer, responded that the plan will meet Frederick County's ordinance for open space on a section by section basis, ie. 35 % of the area reserved for future development is designated as open space and 65% of that area will be used for economic development purposes. Also, the sections designated for the wastewater treatment plant, the school and the fire and rescue station will each have 35 % area reserved as open space. 3320 r 5 4) Structural Adequacy & Maintainability of the Embankment of the Retention Ponds - Mr. Maddox responded that the developer will cause to have calculations on the construction drawings guaranting the structural adequacy of all retention ponds and if necessary, rip -rap will be provided. 5) 75% of Runoff Will be Captured by Retention Ponds (instead of 50 %) - Mr. Foote responded that a statement has been included on the MDP to this effect. 6) Flood Easement Calculated and Granted - Applicant responded that this has not yet been calculated, but will be calculated and granted. 7) All agency concerns and comments, including DGIF, need to be satisfied at the Subdivision Stage of development. - The applicant responded that they were willing to work with the staff, DGIF, and other agencies to accomplish these requirements at the subdivision stage. 8) Legal Documents Drafted and Executed regarding stormwater management, traffic, construction and maintenance of BMPs. 1 DGIF COMMENTS: Mr. Dinesh Tiwari, Chief of the Lands and Engineering Division of the DGIF, agreed with the Planning Staff that the applicant had made a good faith effort to resolve the concerns raised by DGIF. Mr. Tiwari said that DGIF was encouraged by the modifications proposed and the latest version of the MDP. Mr. Tiwari recommended that the following recommendations be indicated or stated on the MDP: 1) That Fairfax County's standards as related to BMP Water Quality Standards be utilized and clearly specified on the MDP; 2) A distinction between wet ponds and extended detention ponds be made; 3) strongly recommend "40- hour" detention ponds; 4) recommend that 75% of the land area drain to the detention ponds; 5) "typical wooded lot detail" be shown on the MDP with a notation that "no more than thirty percent (30 %) of any lot area be disturbed;" 6) that the wording be clarified on the MDP to state that lift stations for sanitary sewer lines should be designed to provide "maximum protection in the event of mechanical or electrical failures." 7) Open space is critical to water quality and DGIF suggests the calculations on open space be accurate; 8) tree cutting, clearing of undergrowth and disturbance of existing vegetation be prohibited in the 50' additional buffer zone (conservation easement) proposed; a statement should be included specifying that the proposed conservation easement will be granted to DGIF immediately following recordation of the subdivision plat; 9) flood easements should be delineated and designated for no development; 10) specify that a "minimum of three and a maximum of five" public access points be provided; 11) any use of DGIF property for vehicular and utility crossings will be subject to review and approval by 3321 I 6 DGIF; 12) a report has yet to be submitted to DGIF by the developer on the development's impact to DGIF's dam; 13) the legal and financial party responsible for developing and maintaining structures /measures needs to be clearly established and noted on the MDP. Mr. Tiwari said that if the Commission and the county elected to approve the MDP, he suggested that the approval be conditioned upon successful resolution of the concerns raised. Upon motion made by Mr. McDonald and seconded by Mr. Rinker, the comments by DGIF were made a part of the official record. (attachment at end of minutes) The Commission raised the following concerns regarding Mr. Tiwari's comments: 1) Who would be responsible for maintaining public access areas? Mr. Tiwari said that this issue has not yet been addressed. 2) Would DGIF play an active role in the enforcement of regulations in the conservation easement? Mr. Tiwari said that if DGIF holds the easement, they would have some legal responsibility for enforcement, but hope to work out a cooperative arrangement with Frederick County. CITIZEN COMMENTS: Chairman Golladay brought the Commission's attention to three letters received regarding the Wheatlands development from Mr. and Mrs. Robert S. French, Virgil H. and Della M. Bates, and from the Stephens City Extension Homemakers. The letters were made a part of the record by unanimous vote. (see end of minutes) Chairman Golladay called for public comments and the following people came forward: Mr. J. David Headley, who bought the Wheatlands homestead and 20 acres from the applicant in 1972, came forward to speak in favor of approving the Wheatlands MDP. Mr. Headley's comments concerned the public's reactions to the Planning Commission's previous public meeting on the Wheatlands project. Mr. Headley tried to dispel some of the concerns raised by the citizens at that time concerning the issue of the 200 home limit, conversion, runoff, rights of regress, growth in Frederick County, jobs and affordable housing created by the developer, and enforcement of regulations by the County, State and Federal agencies. Mr. Headley said that the citizens of Frederick County and the state received a lake which did not cost the taxpayer anything. He said that DGIF used the value of the land as the matching funds for the Federal grant. Mrs. Claudia Bean, Coordinator of the Wheatlands Task Force of the ' Commonwealth Coalition and President of the Citizens for a Quality Community of Frederick County and the City of Winchester, said that the membership of both groups are still concerned that the density of development around Lake Frederick will constitute a conversion 3322 I 7 of the lake to private use. She said that both groups recognize that the plan is basically in compliance with local ordinances and regulations. Mrs. Bean read a letter which the Commonwealth Coalition received written by Congressman Kostmayer to Thomas Lewis. Mrs. Bean said that in the letter, Mr. Kostmayer expressed his continuing concern about the implementation of the Wheatlands plan and the impact that this development would have on public recreation at Lake Frederick. Mrs. Bean recommended that the Commission deny the approval of the master development plan until Representative Kostmayer receives a response from Secretary Lujan. Upon motion made by Mrs. Sherwood and second by Mr. Marker, the letter was made a part of the minutes by unanimous vote. (attachment at end of minutes) Mr. James Madden, member of the Isaac Walton League, said that only one to four of the 12 comments he submitted on behalf of the Isaac Walton League, concerning maintaining a quality environment around the lake, were answered. Mr. Madden asked if these concerns would be considered and Chairman Golladay noted that the subdivision stage would be the proper time for those concerns to be addressed. Mr. Madden also was concerned that this development would cause the county to exceed its allotted water supply from the City; he had reservations about the Sanitation Authority taking over the wastewater treatment plant; concern for the quality of life for down stream landowners; and concerns that the Sanitation Authority's attorney was the owner of the law firm representing the developers. Mr. Donald W. Luttrell, Frederick County resident, said that in his opinion, the lake would not have been accepted by the state had it not been for the promise that only 200 homes would be constructed around the lake. Mr. Luttrell felt that the MDP should be denied for the following reasons: 1) the unanswered questions surrounding the promise of 200 lots; 2) the taxes produced by the development will not support the public services required; 3) will result in a bedroom community; 4) Frederick County will not benefit by development, only the developer will benefit; 5) financial responsibility for the sewage treatment plant. Mrs. Lorretta Bailey, adjoining property owner on Route 636, felt the density was too high for a public area and the cost too high for taxpayers. ADDITIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS Mr. Thomas raised concerns about the following issues: 1) the county's ability to provide operational system and infrastructure support, ie. who will pay for construction of the ' fire station and school, equipment purchases, salaries for fire fighters and teachers, recreational and transportation services, etc.; 2) the impact on residents downstream from the sewage treatment plant and the county's potential liability; 3) start -up costs and initial operational costs 3323 I 8 of the sewage treatment facility before it is taken over by the SA; 4) land proffers should be extended from 12 to 20 years and if not used, conveyed to property owners association, not the developer; 5) a significant amount of burden is being placed on the homeowners association as far as raising money, maintaining water quality, maintenance of BMPs; 6) felt that all associated costs of the development needed to be borne by the developer, not the taxpayer. Mr. Romine said that both the City and the County have made a conscious effort to expand their economic development and this will provide support for some of the taxes needed. Mr. Romine felt that our community was well - positioned for considerable growth. Mr. Rinker had concerns about the adequacy of the escrow account. Mr. Wilson did not want Frederick County to have the burden of policing easements. Mr. Thomas moved to deny the MDP and this was seconded by Mr. Rinker. The motion failed by the following vote: YES: (to deny the MDP) Thomas, Rinker NO: Marker, Copenhaver, McDonald, Sherwood, DeHaven, Wilson, Romine, Golladay Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and second by Mr. DeHaven, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously approve, by majority vote, Revised MDP #006 -89 of Wheatlands with the condition that all review agency comments, including those of DGIF and the Planning Staff, be satisfactorily addressed and that where appropriate, these agreements be reviewed and approved by the County Attorney prior to approval of the Final MDP and before the subdivision stage. This project is for 1,760 single - family dwellings and 40 townhouse units on 926.266 acres, zoned R5 (Residential Recreational) and is identified as parcels 87000 -A00- 0000 - 0000 - 0103 -0 and 87000 - A00- 0000 - 0000 - 0102 -0 in the Opequon District. The vote was as follows: YES (To approve the MDP) Romine, Wilson, DeHaven, Sherwood, McDonald, Copenhaver, Marker, Golladay NO: Thomas, Rinker I ADJOURNMENT 3324 I 9 '' No further business remained to be discussed and the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. by unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, A X44— Robert W. Watkins, Secretary &MAI- '4/wa/ Jars} s W. Golladay, Jr., Cdairdran u r 3325 10 l COMMONWEALTH of VIRC Department of Game and Inland Fisheries 4010 WEST BROAD STREET BOX 11104 RICHMOND, VA 23230 1- 800 -252 -7717 (V/TDD) (804) 367 -1000 (V/TDD) April 17, 1991 Mr. Robert N. Watkins Planning Director Department of Planning and Development County of Frederick 9 Court Square Winchester, VA. 22601 RE: PRELIMINARY MASTER SITE PLAN LAKE FREDERICK, FREDERICK COUNTY (WHEATLANDS) Dear Mr. Watkins: On April 10, 1991, we received the subject revised Preliminary Master Development Plan (MDP) including the Notes dated April 3, 1991. As such, we did not have the adequate opportunity to study the proposed revisions in detail. We are, however, encouraged by the Developer's desire and interest in mitigating the adverse impact of the proposed development on Lake Frederick. A quick review of the latest revised plan indicated that several important issues raised in our previous comments need further resolution: Water Quality and Aquatic Life in the Lake A. The MDP should clearly specify the design criteria and performance standards for the extended detention ponds from Page 30 of Dr. Grizzard's report. Dr. Grizzard referred to several different standards of practice. We suggest that Fairfax County's Standards as related to BMP Water Quality Standards be utilized. 3326 Equal Opportunity Employment, Programs and Facilities It Mr. Robert N. Watkins Page 2 April 17, 1991 B. The MDP does not distinguish between the wet ponds and the extended detention ponds. This distinction is important to review the effectiveness of the proposed storm water management system. C. The MDP shows a storm water detention time of "24 to 40 hours." We strongly suggest a 40 hour detention of the two -year flood as suggested on Page 32 of Dr. Grizzard's report. Dr. Grizzard's conclusion that only moderate increases in nutrient loading would occur was based on this performance standard. D. Our study of the MDP indicates that approximately sixty -five percent (65 %) of the land area actually drains to the proposed retention ponds. Based on our engineering review, we suggest that the MDP indicate that seventy -five percent (75 %) coverage will be provided (delete words "reasonably practicable" from Page 3, Item 9(b) of the notes). E. The MDP Notes do not clarify compliance with "typical wooded lot detail' as requested previously. We suggest that the MDP state that no more than thirty percent (30 %) of any lot area will be disturbed. F. The proposed lift stations for sanitary sewer lines should be designed to provide "maximum protection in the event of mechanical or electrical failures" (delete word "reasonable" from Page 2, item 5(1)). G. The MDP calculations show that the 17 acres of future commercial land are counted towards the thirty -five percent (35 %) open space requirement. Since open space is critical to the water quality issue, we suggest that the County review the open space calculations for strict compliance with the County's ordinance. H. The MDP states that "no building or other physical encroachment shall be permitted" in the 50 feet of additional buffer zone proposed by the Developer. In order for this buffer zone to be an effective filtering area for the surface runoffs, we suggest that tree cutting, clearing of undergrowth, and disturbance of existing vegetation be prohibited in this area, except for the disturbances that may be necessary to construct and maintain the BMP ponds. Also, the Notes should specify that the proposed conservation easement will be granted to the DGIF immediately following the recordation of the subdivision plat. 3327 12 _ Mr. Robert N. Watkins Page 3 April 17, 1991 2. Flooding Easements The MDP does not show the boundary of the land area that may be flooded due to high waters in the lake. These areas should be designated for no development, as requested previously. 3. Public Access To Lake The MDP states that "up to five public access areas" will be provided. We suggest that the notes should clarify that "minimum of three and a maximum of five" such public access areas will be provided. 4. Vehicular and Utility Crossings We suggest that the MDP note that the construction or use of the DGIF's property for such purposes shall be subject to necessary review and prior approval by the DGIF and by others, as required. 5. Impact on Dam We are still waiting to receive the Developer's report on the impact of the proposed development on our Dam, as previously requested. 6. Enforcement of Proposed Mitigation Measures The MDP proposes an escrow account for the maintenance of the storm water management structures. As previously stated, this issue is critical for protecting the future water quality of the Lake. We suggest that the County, in coordination with the DGIF, establish maintenance standards for these structures using the state's Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines, Fairfax County's Guidelines, and other sources that may be available. Based upon these Standards, the cost of maintaining the structures can be derived. At this time, we do not think that $100.00 per lot, as proposed in the MDP, would be sufficient for the needed maintenance purposes. In summary, the legal and financial responsibility for the maintenance of these structures needs to be clearly established and noted on the MDP. 3328 13 Mr. Robert N. Watkins Page 4 April 17, 1991 Finally, we remain available to work with the County, the Developer and others to protect a valuable public resource. It is absolutely critical that our concerns contained in my previous communication of March 20, 1991, along with the comments above, be addressed satisfactorily prior to the approval of the MDP for the proposed development. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, _:�)rliesk� Ii 6�Gty Dinesh V. Tiwari, CLP Chief Lands and Engineering Division DVT:ly cc: James Madden, Izaak Walton League, Winchester Chapter Billy Tisinger, Esq., Harrison and Johnston John H. Foote, Esq., Hazel & Thomas Art Buehler, Director, VA Division of Planning & Recreation Resources Robert Connelly, Erosion Control Specialist, Department of Conservation & Recreation - Staunton Bud Bristow, Director -DGIF Larry Hart, Assistant Director -DGIF David Whitehurst, Chief -Fish Division Jack Raybourne, Chief - Planning & Environmental Division t 3329 14 Ve) --- - — ------ ----------------- 4a Kfi, 6=s ranch Stephens City, VA 226 ----------- 3330 15 t White Post, Virginia April 12, 1991 Frederick County Planning Commission: we are farmers who live across the road from the Wheatlands Project. our property fronts on the east side of Route 522 with about 3/4 mile directly across from Wheatlands. There is a ridge which runs along the east side of the Bowman - Glaize property and we are concerned about the runoff which will drain into our cattle pond and onto the land where the cattle graze. The concerns which the Game and Wildlife Commission expressed about the danger to fish and wildlife also applies to our cattle. Catch basins are necesssary along the west side of Route 522 to mitigate this water pollution. Thank you for letting us bring this to your attention. We know you will include this in your planning. It will enable us to continue farming Jhere. 2 R�/� g5 ' e i ates Della M. Bates 3331 W. lllllllp��p p ji���Illlll s_ aAC.�cl - -._._ _ ...�• 3332 17 Ax- 30c) 33.33 PETER H. KOSTMAYER 18 8TH DISTRICT. PENNSYLVANIA Congrezz of the Entteb *tato Jbouge of Repregentatibeg Ulugbington, MC 20515 April 8, 1991 Mr. Thomas A Lewis The Commonwealth Coalition Post Office Box 866 Berrvville, Virginia 22611 Dear Mr. Lewis: My staff gave me a thorough briefing on the meeting my office hosted last Friday on the proposed Wheatlands Development at Lake Frederick. I am concerned that the answer given to one of your questions may have given you an incorrect impression of where I stand on this issue. In my capacity as chairman of the Interior Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, I have maintained an interest in both oversight and legislative matters related to administration of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I want to assure you of my continuing concern about the implementation of the Wheatlands subdivision plan and the impact that this development will have on public recreation at Lake Frederick. As this issue has unfolded over the last six months, some uncertainties with Secretary Lujan's June 19, 1990 response to my earlier questions regarding the use of LWCF funds in this project have surfaced. I will be contacting Secretary Lujan for further clarification of these points. I will continue my vigorous oversight over this and other issues related to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and look forward to working with you to achieve a fair and responsible resolution of this issue. Sincerely, Peter H. Kostmayer Member of Congress I cc: all other attendees 3334 THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE OF RECYCLED FIBERS