Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_08-17-83_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room on August 17, 1983. PRESENT: Frank Brumback, Chairman; James Golladay, Vice - Chairman; George L. Romine; W. French Kirk; Manuel C. DeHaven; A. Lynn Myers; Carl M. McDonald; Kenneth Y. Stiles; John T. P. Horne, advisory; Stephen M. Gyurisin, advisory CALL TO ORDER Chairman Brumback called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. The first order of business was the consideration of the worksession minutes of July 26, 1983. Mr. Golladay stated that his name should appear with those present at the meeting of July 26, 1983. Mr. Golladay moved to approve the minutes with this correction. This motion was seconded by Mr. Kirk and passed unanimously. BIMONTHLY REPORT The staff reviewed pending applications with the Commission. RESOLUTION IN HONOR OF M. DOMENIC PALUMBO Mr. Horne read a resolution prepared by the Commission to be presented to M. Domenic Palumbo. Upon motion by Mr. Golladay, seconded by Mr. Myers, and passed unanimously, this resolution was made a part of the official record as follows: RESOLUTION IN HONOR OF M. DOMENIC PALUMBO WHEREAS, M. Domenic Palumbo did serve the citizens of Frederick County as a member of the Frederick County Planning Commission from April 1, 1981 to July 15, 1983; and, 1793 -2- WHEREAS, M. Domenic Palumbo did also serve as the Commission's representative to the Winchester /Frederick County Economic Development Commission, was elected Chairman of that body, and was instrumental in its initial efforts; and, WHEREAS, M. Domenic Palumbo did serve with distinction, honor, and integrity in the above capacities and was a valued member of the Planning Commission, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby extend its thanks to M. Domenic Palumbo for his efforts in the service of the citizens of Frederick County. PUBLIC HEARING Conditional Use Permit #008 -83 of R. D. Brown /Bauserman Oil Company, Inc. for two off - premise highway signs on movable vehicles in the Stonewall Magisterial District. ACTION - Denied Mr. R. D. Brown, applicant, came forward. Mr. Brown stated that the signs will be 5' X 10' each. Each sign will be attached to a separate van at two separate locations. One will be located on the northbound side of I -81 and the other on the southbound side of I -81. Mr. Romine asked if the signs would be lighted and Mr. Brown replied that the signs would not be lighted themselves, but would have lights shining on them. In answer to Mr. Golladay's question, Mr. Brown stated that the vehicles will be licensed and inspected operable vehicles. Mr. Kirk asked if Mr. Brown owned both parcels of property. Mr. Brown said that he did not, but he had permission from the property owners to use their land. Planning Commission members who were in favor of this application felt that to avoid setting a precedent for future 1794 -3- applications of this type, a movable sign should only be approved on the basis that (1) the sign pertains to a business on the interstate, such as a food, gas, repair, wrecker service, or motel; and (2) the business is located near the interstate and relies on interstate traffic for business. Mr. DeHaven moved to approve this permit with the following conditions: 1. This will be a one year permit to be reviewed and renewed annually by the staff, Planning Commission, and Board of Supervisors. 2. If the use, occupancy, or ownership of the property changes, this conditional use permit shall expire and a new conditional use permit will be required. 3. The signs will be no larger than 5' x 10'. 4. Policing of the signs, with regard to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's requirement of moving the vehicles 5' every week, will be done by the Highway Department. 5. The signs shall remain on the parcels as shown on the application. This motion was seconded by Mr. Stiles, but died due to the following tie vote: YES: Messrs. Stiles, Golladay, DeHaven, Kirk NO: Messrs. McDonald, Myers, Brumback, Romine BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby deny conditional use permit #008 -83 of R. D. Brown /Bauserman Oil Company Inc. UPDATE ON THE WESTMINSTER /CANTERBURY /WINCHESTER REZONING Mr. Horne presented the Commission with a site plan showing the general layout approved by the city for rezoning. Mr. Horne stated that he has submitted a request to the Highway Department requesting a crossover on Route 522 North. Mr. Horne 1795 -4- added that although the request does not meet the normal standards for a crossover, they will consider the crossover because of the amount of traffic and the interest by the citizens and county government. Mr. Horne said that the development would be accomplished in two phases; the great majority of Phase I would be in the county. Mr. Horne next addressed the storm water runoff for the area. Mr. Horne noted that there will only be an additional 17% runoff from this site and the engineers are working on various proposals to insure that the new runoff rate and amount will not exceed the existing rate. Mr. Horne then explained three proposals that the engineers are considering. He added that the runoff rate and amount will be addressed by the Commission at the site plan stage. UPDATE ON THE PERFORMANCE ZONING The Commission and staff discussed three policies regarding the Performance Zoning Ordinance. The first policy decision made was to continue with the existing regulations on non -sewer and water, residentially zoned lands. The current ordinance provisions in the residential districts for areas without sewer and water require a minimum lot size of 100,000 square feet with state maintained roads. Regarding high density development, the Commission agreed with the subcommittee that potential impacts had been addressed under buffering, screening, recreation, and open space requirements and therefore, there would not be a significant detrimental impact if properties were developed at high densities. 17 96 -5- The third item discussed was the review process for performance development and the Commission concurred with the staff and subcommittee's recommendations for implemention. DISCUSSION OF SITE PLAN AND MASTER PLAN REVIEW FEES The staff asked that the Commission consider the institution of a site plan review fee and a master plan review fee to cover staff time spent in the office and field reviewing plans. The Commission felt that no fees should be charged at this time. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, FYank Brumb'ack, Chairman . P. Horne, Secretary 1797