Loading...
PC_08-19-87_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES Co _j IV , FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room in the Old Frederick County Court House, 9 Court Square, Winchester, Virginia, on August 19, 1987. PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: Frank H. Brumback, Chairman; James W. Golladay, Jr., Vice-Chairman; Marjorie H. Copenhaver; Kenneth Y. Stiles; A. Lynn Myers; S. Blaine Wilson; George L. Romine; Manuel C. DeHaven; and Carl M. McDonald. Also present were: Robert W. Watkins, Secretary; Stephen M. Gyurisin, Advisory; and A. Bray Cockerill, Advisory. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Brumback called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. MINUTES The first order of business was the consideration of the minutes of August 5, 1987. Upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Golladay, the minutes of August 5, 1987 were unanimously approved as presented. BIMONTHLY REPORT The staff and Commission discussed pending applications. COMMITTEE REPORTS Transportation Committee Mr. Golladay reported that the Transportation Committee will meet on Monday, August 24, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. to review secondary road needs. Mr. Stiles noted that on August 18, 1987 the Highway Department conducted a public meeting at Reynolds Store dealing with the upgrading of Route 522 North. He said that the upgrading will be done in three sections with the first section work beginning in late spring or early summer, the second section advertising scheduled for 1989, and the third section scheduled for 1990 to 1991 for the remainder of upgrading all the way to the West Virginia line. 2490 - 2r CITIZEN COMMENTS Mrs. Jacob Moreland felt that nothing was being done by the County on the Bowen - Mathison condition in her neighborhood. Mr. Stiles responded that the staff had just received a response from the Commonwealth's Attorney that there were not sufficient sited violations to issue a warrant. He said that this is being pursued to determine if anything additional can be done. Preliminary Master Development Plan of Grove Heights for the development of 76.779 acres for approximately 210 single-family cluster lots in the Shawnee District. (This item was tabled from the August 5, 1987 meeting.) Action - Tabled Mr. Golladay said that he would not take part in any discussions or voting on this request due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Watkins noted that the Planning Commissioners walked over the site and have defined a number of critical issues. Those issues were: 1) traffic and access; 2) impacts on existing College Park Subdivision; 3) sewer service. He said that the applicant is currently proposing an additional entrance using Route 781 to Route 50, which will not go through the College Park development, and Mr. Watkins felt this would lessen the traffic impact on College Park. He said that reducing the density next to College Park will also lessen the impact. Regarding sewer and water, Mr. Watkins said that there are existing sewer lines and the best solution may be a combination of City and County service. Col. Myers inquired about the status of improvements to Route 50. Mr. Watkins said that the Highway Department has proposed an improvement program for Route 50 which includes ways to better facilitate left hand turning and signalization. Chairman Brumback asked how the Commission's decision on the road network would impact other remaining RP land. Mr. Watkins felt it was critical to view this potential new intersection as one that will be used to serve the whole area. In response to Mr. Wilson's question on road frontage, Mr. Watkins said that the Grove Heights property does not have frontage on any state road except Purdue Drive in the College Park Subdivision. He said that an agreement with adjoining property owners would be required to access 781. Mr. Bruce Edens, with Greenway Engineering and Surveying, was the representative for this master plan. Mr. Edens said he would not have any problem redesigning the roads as discussed, however, legal issues would need to be addressed in order to acquire access. Using a site plan of the property, Mr. Edens next reviewed the proposed road network with the Commission. 2491 - 3 r Mr. Wilson said that he had received a number of calls and individual letters of opposition to the proposal. He said that he also received a letter of opposition from Marshal Crisman, representing Fairway Estates, and Mr. Wilson moved to snake that letter a part of the official record. This motion was seconded by Mr. DeHaven and passed unanimously. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby incorporate the letter from Marshall Crisman, representing the Fairway Estates Group, in the official minutes as follows: August 18, 1987 Mr. Plane Wilson Planning Commissioner Shawnee District, Frederick County Dear Mr. Wilson: Through Mr. and Mrs. Marshall Crisman you indicated an interest in the concern among a group in Fairway Estates regarding land devel— opment. That concern is exemplified by the proposed plan under consideration for College Park II otherwise known as Grove Estates. The attached area layout shows four long established tax supporting residential areas, of moderate density, within a large area planned for development. Article (6) porn (6.1) of the MDP - - -* "Statement of Intent" states in part, "to insure that such development occurs in a manner that is har— monious with adjoining property ". The Grove Estates plan would seem to run counter to Article (6) par (6.1) by nearly surrounding the existing Moderate Density established area with such High Density land development. ** Additionally, approval of this plan would establish a precedent for the remaining undeveloped land areas. We are aware of the limitations in certain aspects of the existing MOP and RP Zoning plans and invite you to meet with us on this matter. In the meantime, our group believes it would not be in the best interest of this area of Shawnee District to approve the Grove Estates plan as currently presented. Respectfully, Fairway Estates Group Respectfully, Mat .. =.hall Crisman for the Fairway Estates Group *Master Development Plan ** One of The Two Highest Density Single Family Developments Permitted Under the Present Zoning Plans 2492 -4- Q so 2493 ': S j � Y j, UMPLANIVED LA ND `' =l M- M I L LGR �= OEV ELO I.aN O GIB -GROV CoLLZc-,.? 'PA [ztc FE - ralRwA( = STATES MH - tjILL'E(2,f(EI<7 HTS U - 11 N'D �2RWCOD 2493 ': S j � Y - 5 Chairman Brumback next called for public comment and the following persons came forward to speak in opposition: Mr. Leonard Newcome, 1470 Yale Drive, Lot #58, presented some aerial photographs of the area. Mr. Newcome noted that he sent a letter of opposition, on behalf of himself and other residents of College Park, to each of the Planning Commissioners and also to Mr. Throckmorton on the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Newcome was concerned about the density of the proposed development and also, excessive water run off. Mr. Barry Bryant, 1494 Yale Drive, Lot 1128, was concerned about the flooding he experiences during heavy rains. He was concerned that additional development would add to the problem he is experiencing. Mr. Bryant was also concerned about access to Route 50, overcrowding of the schools, access by the fire company, and the impacts of the proposed development on the existing College Park subdivision. Mr. Gary Pugh, 1189 Vassar Circle, said that his main concern was the increased burden to an already overcrowded school system. Mr. Pugh was also concerned about out-of-state developers building homes and then leaving the area, resulting in County citizens being responsible for providing schools, fire and police protection, road maintenance, and water and sewer maintenance. He also felt that high - density development would not only decrease the value of the existing homes, but raise real estate taxes as well. Mr. Pugh inquired about the type and price range of homes and deed restrictions for the proposed development. He then called for a show of hands from people in the audience who were opposed to the development and about 30 people raised their hands. Mrs. Emile Neumann, 1508 Yale Drive, Lot 1127, said that the map she received from a real estate agent when she bought her home was completely different from what was being presented at the public hearing. Mrs. Neumann felt this was false advertising because people buy lots on the basis of what was presented to them by realtors. Mrs. Neumann said that they built their home under certain deed restrictions and inquired about deed restrictions for the proposed development. Mrs. Neumann was also concerned about standing water at the corner of Tulane Drive which she felt was originating from the Holiday Inn East. Mrs. Neumann said that the standing water was unsanitary and dangerous in the winter when it froze. Mr. Jessie Brittain, 1429 Yale Drive, estimated that the collective home investments in the College Park area totaled over 4.25 million and he felt it would be wrong to surround it with cluster housing. Mrs. Lorraine Wiley, 1112 Princeton Drive, felt the quiet and uniqueness of the area would be disrupted. She also noted that there was a blind spot at the access to Route 50 from Purdue Drive. Mrs. Wiley was not opposed to development, but was opposed to high density development. Mr. Lawrence Veach, Minister and representative of the College Park Church of Christ, said that the church was not opposed to the development of Grove Heights and felt it could enhance their future prospects for congregational growth. He noted, however, that their congregation has 2494 - 6 - experienced considerable growth in the past two and a half years and they had approached Flournoy Largent, legal representative of the Lages heirs, on purchasing additional property for the expansion of their parking area and the development of recreational facilities for church families. Mr. Veach said that the church's verbal understanding with Mr. Largent was that when the property was sold, church needs would be met in compliance with the new owners' extension of the existing streets of Princeton and Purdue Drive. Mr. Veach said that the Lages property was sold to Mr. Eugene Grove and the agreement was not honored, however, Mr. Grove was notified by Mr. Largent of the church's interest in acquiring land. He said that Mr. Grove has been approached, but will not consider selling property to the church due to plans of selling the entire tract to a developer. Mr. Veach felt that the situation has created a series of concerns by the church which include noise, parking, congestion, and safety. Mr. Veach went into detail on each of these concerns and why he felt they would present problems for the congregation and neighbors. Mr. Bennie Place, 1136 Princeton Drive, Lot #16, and resident for 24 years, felt the lots should be larger than what was proposed. He felt that a market existed for larger lots and people would pay extra to get them. Mr. Hugh Price, 134 Harvard Drive, was concerned about where the children from the development would play. Mr. Price said that he already has problems with litter and children running through his property. Mr. Albert Nicholson, property owner at the corner of Purdue and Princeton, was present to represent both himself and his son. He expressed concern about the following: 1) the increasing air traffic patterns over the area; 2) the County's capacity to handle increased demand for utilities; 3) the possibility of establishing a separate entrance to the new development that would not go through College Park. Rev. Karl Tangeman, 1431 Yale Drive, was concerned about protection of the environment. He felt the density was too high and that the proposal was not harmonious with existing properties. Mr. Richard Martin, representing the residents of Miller Heights, was concerned about density, stating that the adjoining Miller Heights and Fairway Estates subdivisions have lots which are 1/2 acre or more in size. He was also concerned about the intentions for Stanley Road. Mr. Martin said that the feeling of people in Miller Heights was that they were not opposed to residential development, but felt that the area was not ready for this size development. He said that the residents do not feel the schools or the fire company could handle it and they were also concerned about plans for drainage and water run off. He said that the residents felt the lots were too small and the entrances were very problematical. He said that they realize there was going to be continual growth in the County, but they want it to come in an organized, regulated, conforming manner. There being no others in the audience wishing to comment, Mr. Stiles said that he would be in favor of requiring that approval of this plan be contingent on the primary access to Route 50 being via Route 781. Mr. 2495 t 7 Stiles felt this should be the primary access for all the residentially zoned land in this area and that this new access would allow a road to be properly built to handle the amount of traffic that would eventually be generated from the approximately 350 total acres. He said that this would allow all of the traffic to be channeled and to have a proper intersection at Route 50, rather than attempting to channel it through existing subdivisions in a piecemeal fashion. Mr. Stiles felt that the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors could require that a road network be planned before any additional development on the Miller, Echols, or Glaize land. Mr. Romine felt the high density impact was the major problem and it had not been addressed adequately by the developers. Mrs. Copenhaver agreed with Mr. Romine that the high density was the major concern of adjoining property owners and it had not been addressed by the developer. Mr. Stiles felt the Commission and Board had the leeway to deal with the size of the lots adjoining the existing College Park subdivision. He felt that by eliminating two or three of the small connection stub streets, the "thru" traffic could be eliminated and additional space gained for increased lot size. Mr. Wilson said that he was pleased to see residents of the adjoining neighborhoods coming to the meetings and expressing their concerns. Mr. Wilson made the following points: 1) regarding lot size, he felt the developer was only exercising his right to develop in this matter under the ordinance; 2) the rate of water run off could not exceed predevelopment rates; 3) regarding the school system, the Capital Improvements Plan Subcommittee had a school planned for Shawnee District for 1990 -91; 4) the Commission could not control the cost of homes; 5) the chief of the Greenwood Fire Company had no problems with the development providing that roads asked for were constructed; 6) regarding the church's concerns, the Commission could not control who Mr. Grove sold his land to. Col. Myers expressed concern over contributing to existing traffic problems on Route 50. He was also concerned about the system of collector roads which involved more than just this one development. Col. Myers agreed with Mr. Stiles that it was possible for the Planning Commission to adequately blend this development with the existing subdivisions. Mr. DeHaven said that he was very unhappy with this proposal and the RP Zoning in general. He said that the residents of College Park purchased lots in this subdivision with the belief that future development would be similar to their existing development. Chairman Brumback said that when RP Section of the ordinance was written it allowed for smaller lots and more affordable housing, but did not give permission for smaller lots by right. He said that this decision was left to the descretion of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. 2496 g ,. John R. Riley, Jr., Frederick County Administrator, said that during the initial discussions of the RP District, the Planning Commission was very clear that where there were existing subdivisions, they wanted to maintain the status quo or provide a logical transition to the higher density. Mr. Riley felt the Commission had the responsibility to protect existing subdivisions. He felt there had to be some legislative perogative with the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors when reviewing these requests. Upon motion made by Mr. Wilson and seconded by Col. Myers, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously table the Preliminary Master Development Plan of Grove Heights until the traffic circulation patterns, the access to Route 50, the preservation of woodlands, the density, and the lot size adjoining existing homes was resolved. The vote on this application was as follows: YES (TO TABLE): Mrs. Copenhaver and Messrs. McDonald, Stiles, Myers, Brumback, DeHaven, Wilson, Romine ABSTAIN: Mr. Golladay Mr. Stiles left the meeting at this point. DISCUSSION ON THE MASTER PLANS FOR CLEARBROOK AND SHERANDO PARKS Mr. Watkins said that the Parks and Recreation Department has requested an opportunity to present the new master plans for Clearbook and Sherando Parks to the Planning Commission. He said that the locations of the parks are already included in the Comprehensive Plan and no action is required, however, the Parks and Recreation Department would appreciate comments or recommendations. Mr. Nedham Cheeley, Director of the Frederick County Parks and Recreation Department, introduced Mr. Paul R. Moreth and Stuart Connock, Jr. from Resource Planners, Inc. from Richmond, Virginia. Mr. Cheeley said that Mr. Moreth and Mr. Connock worked with the Parks and Recreation Commission and staff in preparing the master plans. Mr. Morris and Mr. Conneck then gave their presentation to the Commission on the master plans for Clearbrook and Sherando Parks and answered questions from the commissioners. fei4il - 9 - REQUEST OF MR. AND BOZIDAR JANAKIEV FOR RIGHT -OF -WAX ABANDONMENT Action - Tabled Mr. Watkins said that Mr. William M. Mote, representing Mr. and Mrs. Bozidar Janakiev, has requested that the 50' right- of-way that was dedicated for a future street adjoining Lot 1114, Section 2, of the A. Melvin Lewis Subdivision, be purchased from the County by his clients and joined with Mr. and Mrs. Janakiev's Parcel 1114. Mr. Watkins said that the staff felt it was appropriate for the County to abandon approximately 20 feet of this 50 foot right-of-way. He said that closing off the right-of -way would not land-lock anyone or reduce anyone's access to state roads. Mr. Watkins added that the Transportation Committee has reviewed this proposal and recommends that the right-of-way be abandoned. Mr. Gyurisin said that the remaining 30 feet of right-of-way continues through undeveloped portions of the Lewis Land and then to Cherry Hill Drive. Mr. Gyurisin noted that the Board of Supervisors would need to advertise and have a public hearing on this abandonment. Mr. Golladay moved to table this request due to lack of representation. This motion was seconded by Mr. McDonald and passed unanimously. COMMISSION RETIRES TO EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by Mr. Golladay and seconded by Mr. DeHaven, the Planning commission unanimously voted to retire to executive session under Section 2.1-344.(6) of the Code of Virginia. Upon motion made by Mr. Golladay and seconded by Mr. DeHaven, the Commission unanimously voted to resume the regular public meeting. ADJOURNMENT There being no other business to discuss, the meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, P'ranlc H�Brumb c hairman Robert W. Watkins, Secretary 2498