PC_12-21-88_Meeting_Minutes- 1 -
MEETING MINUTES
of the
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
Held in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room in the Old
Frederick County Courthouse, Winchester, Virginia on December 21,
1988.
Present: Frank Brumback, Chairman; James W. Golladay, Jr., Vice
Chairman; Marjorie Copenhaver; Carl M. McDonald, Beverly
Sherwood; Manual DeHaven; S. Blaine Wilson; George L. Romine
Also present: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary; Kris C. Tierney,
Advisory
Chairman Brumback called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
The first order of business was the consideration of the
minutes of December 7, 1988. Upon motion made by Mr. Golladay
and seconded by Mr. Romine, the minutes of December 7, 1988 were
unanimously approved as presented.
The Commission and staff reviewed pending applications.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Economic Development Commission
Mr. Romine, Economic Development Coordinator, commented on
VDO- Yusaki's pending site plan. Mr. Romine felt this was an
important issue from the County's economic standpoint. He said
that this is a substantial expansion to the existing plant and
they will add about 200 new employees. Mr. Romine commented that
this expansion would make VDO- Yusaki the largest industrial
business in the County.
Mr. Romine said that a number of state marketing people
were in town to review the area's industrial sites. He said that
they were impressed with the quality of the sites and how we are
handling economic development in the area.
2806
- 2 -
Transportation Committee
Mr. Golladay presented the Transportation Committee Report.
The first item was a request by Mr. Eller and Mr. Shields for the
abandonment of Columbia Circle in the College Park Subdivision.
Mr. Golladay said that this road will not be used by Pembridge
Heights. He said that the Transportation Committee recommended
that the abandonment be approved. Upon motion made by Mr.
Golladay and seconded by Mr. DeHaven, the Planning Commission
voted unanimously in favor of the abandonment.
The second item of the Transportation Committee report was
the Six -Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan. Mr. Golladay said
that a public hearing was held, however, no new projects were
added to the plan. Upon motion made by Mr. Golladay and seconded
by Mr. DeHaven, the plan was unanimously approved by the Planning
Commission, as follows:
2807
-2A-
MAJOR PROJECTS NEW HARD SURFACE PROJECTS
BRIDGE & OTHER PROJECTS
1989 -1900
AS RECOMMENDED BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AND
ADOPTED BY THE FREDERICK COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FOR
THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.
DECEMBER 14, 1988
2B _
c1;
1989 -90 Improvement Plan
December 16, 1988
Page 1
MAJOR PROJECTS
Major projects are projects where reconstruction of hard surfaced (paved) roads is
needed for safety reasons. Road width, alignment, strength and gradient improvements
are considered for major projects.
I
RECOMMENDED SIR -YEAR MAJOR PROJECT ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN
Current
Rank Prior Rank Route From To ADT * * ** District
1. 3 600 widen & improve btwn 509 Gainesboro
Rt. 679 & 1 mi. north
672 663
631 732
657 659(incl.
intersect.) -
622 1120
widen & improve btwn
- Rt. 277 -& 642
50 616
-widen & improve btwn
bridge & Rt. 7
widen & improve btwn
Rt. 655 & 657
curb & gutter improvements
curb & gutter improvements
2.
4
661
3.
5
628
4.
6
656 **
5.
7
621 * **
6.
8
647
7.
9
608
8.
10
659
9.
11
656
10.
12
towns
11.
13
towns
808 Stonewall
1203 Back Creek
1380 Shawnee
1751 Back Creek
3925 Opequon
843 Back Creek
272 Shawnee
1401 Shawnee
Stephens City
Middletown
NOTES:
* *Route 656, Greenwood Road, is to include the intersection of Route 656 and Route 659
Valley Mill Road (including "S" curve leg of 659 from 656).
** *Route 621 is to include drainage improvements south of Route 622 and realignment of
"S" turn.
* ** *ADT - Average Daily Traffic
:1•
- 2C -
1989 -90 Improvement Plan December 16, 1988
Page 2
RECOMME SIX -YEAR MAJOR PROJECT ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN (Continued)
Current
Prior.
Rank
Rank;
Route
From
To
ADT * * **
District
12.
14
642
647
522 S
425 - 3231
Shawnee
13..
15
664
761
660
651
Stonewall
14.
16
660
664
7
1000
Stonewall
* * * **
15. 17 622 WCL 37 _ 8384 Back Creek
NOTES:
* * * ** Coordinate with City of Winchester Transportation Plans
07-
• F s - 2D SIX YEAR
SECONDARY ROAD
IMPROVEMENT PLAN
MAJOR
PROJECTS
J• "
l
1�' ` , • :n f � '� Yes _ Iii W s � • `L.
i o, a ,_. W
I d I ff
.._ � l � 7 my � � •' A \
_ \ f
2811
- 2E -
1989 -90 Improvement Plan
December 16, 1988
Page 4
RECOMMENDED SIR -YEAR
NEW HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN
New hardsurface
projects
are
road projects where reconstruction
of non - hardsurface
roads is
considered
primarily
with relation to
the amount of
traffic
served.
Current
Rank
Prior Rank
Route
From
To
ADT
District
1.
4
673
722
663
349
Stonewall
2.
3
681
end of H.S.
.2 mi. W.Bk.Ck.85
-187
Gainesboro
3.
6
635
627
634
79
Opequon
4.
7
809
817
end
229
Back Creek
5.
8
666
664
761
74
Stonewall
6.
9
695
522N
1 mi.
152
Gainesboro
N522
7.
10
734
522N
1 mi.
110
Gainesboro
5522
8.
11
649
648
625
44
Back Creek
9.
12
636
640
641
30 -96
Opequon
10.
13
636
641
641N
30
Opequon
11.
14
706
11
end
116
Back Creek
12.
15
702
703
W.VA.
116
Gainesboro
13.
16
701
703
W.VA.
91
Gainesboro
14.
17
695
1.09 mi.N.522
2.30 mi.N.522
152
Gainesboro
15.
17
695
2.30 mi.N.522
W.VA.
152
Gainesboro
16.
18
692
600
671
91
Gainesboro
17.
18
692
671
W.VA.
42
Gainesboro
2812
- 2F -
1989 -90 Improvement Plan
December 16, 1988
Page 5
RECOMMENDED SIX -YEAR NEW HARDSURFACE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CONTINUED)
Current
Prior
Rank
Rank
Route
From
To
ADT * **
District
18.
19
625
624
635
186
Opequon
19.
20
699
6.39 mi.S.694
.62 mi. 5.694
117
Gainesboro
20.
21
633
11
625
99
Opequon
21. **
22
696
522
694
117
Gainesboro
22. **
23
638
759
625
56
Opequon
23. **
24
629
622
608
112
Back Creek
* *Right -of -way not available.
** *ADT - 1985 Average Daily Traffic Count
2813
. ` s 2G - SIX YEAR
SECONDARY ROAD
' IMPROVEMENT PLAN
4f-
HARD-SURFACE
0 4 N PROJECTS
' a
/ � "" '� I '- -- '; � i}, •tea -
I - •� +• i Jca U 1
. • ; .I�� -T� I� .. u u 1 t
Y"' 2814
- 2H -
1989 -90 Improvement Plan December 16, 1988
Page 7
BRIDGE AND OTHER SECONDARY ROAD PROJECT RECOMMENDATIONS
BRIDGES:
1. Routes 622 and 620 - widen bridge (at Opequon); ADT -845 (Back Creek)
2. Route 659 - widen bridge (near Route 7), see major project #5; ADT -193 (Shawnee)
OTHER:
3. Routes 608 and 681, unpaved sections, need special attention for maintenance, spot
widened, and tree removal for improved site distance (Gainesboro).
4. Route 627, west of Middletown, requires special attention for maintenance to improve
site distances at curves ( Opequon).
5. Route 644 - provide improved maintenance and improve ford signage (Shawnee).
6. Route 522 North - improve intersection at Route 693 (Gainesboro).
7. Baker Lane - improve road alignments.
8. Sign improvement on Route 620 and 621.
C
TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ADDITION NEXT YEAR:
1. Route 636 between Route 277 and Route 642.
2. Hard surfacing Route 811.
2815
- 3 -
Sanitation Authority
The Sanitation Authority held a meeting on December 14,
1988 and Mrs. Copenhaver reported the following: The water line
contract with Wheatlands is almost complete. Wheatlands will pay
100% of running the line from the park to Wheatlands and 50% of
the line through Wheatlands. The state will pay the remainder.
A decision has still not been reached by the City and Clarke
County on running the line to Camp 7.
The City has offered to provide water and sewer to the
Windsor Hill Subdivision on Senseny Road, if the county would
allocate the sewerage against the county's allocated capacity.
The Sanitation Authority is reluctant to do this because they
would not be selling the sewerage, but would be charged for it in
capacity.
The Sanitation Authority voted to participate in the water
supply study in Stephens City regarding the feasibility of using
quarry water.
SUBDIVISIONS
Subdivision of Daniel S. Copenhaver and Rhonda K. Copenhaver for
the creation of two lots (Lot 1 - 20,552 sq. ft. and Lot 2 -
15,000 sq. ft.) from one 35,000 square foot lot in the Shawnee
District.
Action - Approved
Mr. Watkins said that road access is the main issue
regarding this subdivision. He said that at least one subdivided
lot would not technically front on a state - maintained road;
instead, it would front on a private right -of -way owned by the
City of Winchester. Mr. Watkins noted that the subdivision
ordinance states that lots be on a "dedicated" road, not a
"state- maintained" road.
Mr. Watkins read a letter from the City in which the City
indicated that they own and operate both a fire training center
and a public utilities maintenance facility accessed by private
right -of -way, continuing east from the termination of Route 744,
and passing in front of Mr. Copenhaver's property. The letter
indicated that a 20 foot wide access easement was granted to Mr.
Copenhaver on November 30, 1987, along the entire frontage of his
property, with the proviso that the City assume no obligation for
2816
- 4 -
maintenance. The City emphasized that it was their intention to
keep open and maintain the right -of -way for the indefinite
future, however, they did not assume any obligation for
maintenance.
Mrs. Marjorie Copenhaver noted for the record that she was
not related to the applicant.
Mr. Daniel Copenhaver was present to answer questions.
It was noted by the Commission that if the City decided to
abandon their facilities, Mr. Copenhaver would have to maintain
the right -of -way himself. It was also noted that since Mr.
Copenhaver was granted an access easement, he could not be denied
access.
Upon motion made by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Mr
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning
does hereby unanimously approve the subdivision of the
land, zoned RP, located on the south side of Woodstock
of Route 81, beyond the point of state maintenance.
PUBLIC MEETING
Romine,
Commission
Copenhaver
Lane, east
Revised Final Master Development Plan #005 -87 and Final
Subdivision Plat of Pembridge Heights (formerly Grove Heights),
zoned RP, for 76 single- family cluster lots in the Shawnee
District.
Action - Approved
Mr. Watkins said that at the request of property owners in
the College Park neighborhood, the applicant has revised the
plans to remove a direct road connection between Pembridge Drive
and Purdue Drive. He said that the applicant has also reduced
the number of lots and increased lot sizes immediately adjacent
to lots in College Park. He added that a connection with Route
781 has been provided with the first phase. Mr. Watkins noted
that although it was the Commission's intention for all
construction equipment to use 781, the Planning Department can
not regulate the use of a state - maintained road.
Mr. Wilson said that he had received a number of calls
regarding runoff and asked if this issue was addressed. Mr.
Watkins said that the runoff is not a problem with only this
property and it points out the need for an urban watershed
management plan for this whole area. He pointed out that water
2817
- 5 -
is also coming from the City and surrounding developments. Mr.
Watkins said that at this point, the applicant has complied with
all state regulations.
Mr. Mark Nelis with Brownell, Inc., said that the changes
to the master plan were made at the request of the Planning
Commission and citizens of College Park. Mr. Nelis introduced
their engineer, Mr. Jack Williams.
Mr. Jack Williams, engineer with Pacilli, Simmons &
Associates, came forward to explain their plan for water runoff.
Mr. Williams said that they have satisfied state law criteria for
Section 1 with adequate channel criteria. He noted that all of
Section 1 drains to the Sulphur Springs Run watershed, to the
south. He noted that Sections 2 and 3 drain toward Abrams Creek,
to the north. He said that they have not completed the detailed
engineering design for 2 and 3 yet, but are considering a
stormwater management facility in a deep ravine on the property.
Mr. Williams said that the drainage area for Phase 2 and 3
is about 1/2 of one percent of the total drainage shed of Abrams
Creek at this point. He felt that no matter what they did, it
would not make any consequential effect on flooding that may take
place at Abrams Creek because theirs was such a small percentage
of the total water coming from the town.
Chairman Brumback called for anyone in opposition and the
following people came forward:
Mr. Gary Pugh, 1189 Vassar Circle in College Park, was
concerned that all of the contingencies approved on the original
1987 master plan were adhered to. He was also concerned about
the number of lots that would use Purdue Drive and he felt a cul-
de -sac was needed. He added that the wooded area between I -81
and College Park was not to be disturbed in order to create a
buffer against traffic noise.
Mr. Wayne Nicholson, 1176 Princeton Drive in College Park,
felt that the intersection of Purdue Drive and Route 50 was
unsafe, especially if a left turn was anticipated. He was also
concerned about the increased traffic from Pembridge Heights that
would be going through his neighborhood to access Route 50.
Mr. Griff Davis, Lot 22 in College Park, felt that the lot
sizes adjacent to College Park were not compatible in size as
promised.
ME
- 6 -
Mr. Leonard Newcome, 1470 Yale Drive in College Park, felt
that steps have still not been made to take care of the traffic
problems. Mr. Newcome also felt a cul -de -sac was needed on
Purdue Drive.
Virginia Newcome, 1470 Yale Drive in College Park, was
cncerned about a cul -de -sac in Phase 2 that abutted a property
line.
Mr. Bill Karl, 1104 Harvard Drive in College Park, noted
that a cul -de -sac on Purdue Drive was promised on the original
plan.
A copy of the original approved Grove Heights master plan
was obtained by the staff and it was noted that on the cul -de -sac
at Purdue Drive, there was a connection that accessed the
remainder of the development.
Mr. Nelis said that the original Grove Heights plan showed
a cul -de -sac, but had a very direct connection to the remainder
of the development. He said that in their drawing, the
connection between Purdue and Pembridge was a circuitous 1/4
mile. He said that most people would probably choose a shorter
route in lieu of this one.
Another resident of College Park asked whether the
developer could work on Phase 2 before Phase 1 was complete. Mr.
Watkins explained that the developers have obtained a land
disturbance permit for the entire development and are permitted
to do grading and road construction.
Mr. Bruce Brownell, owner and developer, addressed some of
the concerns of the citizens. Mr. Brownell said that the
clearing activities are finished with regard to the buffer area.
He noted that they have not exceeded their 25% disturbance quota.
With regard to the cul -de -sac, Mr. Brownell said that the concern
was the direct connection from Purdue into the project. He said
that he felt that the easiest way to address this concern was to
remove that connection; unfortunately, that was incorrectly
interpreted that all of Purdue Drive would end in a cul -de -sac.
Mr. Brownell said that the third concern, regarding construction
traffic through Purdue Drive, has been handled by placing a
temporary earth berm across the road.
Upon motion made by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Mr. Romine,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission
does hereby unanimously approve the Revised Final Master
Development Plan #005 -87 and the Final Subdivision Plat of
Pembridge Heights (formerly Grove Heights) for 76 single - family
2819
- 7 -
cluster lots, located on the north side of Route 50, near Route
781, in the Shawnee District.
Preliminary Master Development Plan for Kerns Lots (Lockhart
Subdivision) Broad Avenue, Zoned RP, for the subdivision of three
lots (1.084 acres) for three duplex structures with six dwelling
units.
Action - Denied
Mr. Watkins said that this site was approved for duplex
units by the Board of Supervisors on February 11, 1987, Case
#002 -87, Request to Mix Housing Types. Mr. Watkins said that the
county has issued building permits for four duplex units. He
said that this was accomplished by Mr. Kerns not dividing the
land and, at the present time, the ordinance states that a site
plan is not required for duplexes.
Mr. Golladay moved for the Planning Commission to go into
executive session under Section 2.1- 344(a)(6) of the Code to
discuss legal matters. This motion was seconded by Mr. DeHaven
and unanimously approved.
Upon motion made by Mr. Golladay and seconded by Mr.
DeHaven, the Commission returned to regular session by unanimous
vote.
Mr. Butch Kerns, the applicant, said that he has contacted
the neighbors and they are satisfied with the existing buildings
and do not object to a third building.
No one else was present to speak regarding this
application.
Upon motion made by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Mr. Romine,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission
does hereby deny the Preliminary Master Development Plan request
of Kerns Lots (Lockhart Subdivision) Broad Avenue for the
subdivision of 1.084 acres into three lots for three duplex
structures with six dwelling units. This property is located on
Route 831 (Broad Avenue) in the Lockhart Subdivision, located on
the south side of Senseny Road, east of Winchester, in the
Shawnee District. This Preliminary Master Development Plan was
denied by unanimous vote.
9-M
The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:00 p.m. by unanimous vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert W. Watkins, Secretary
Frank Rrumback, Chairman
2821