PC_03-21-79_Meeting_Minutes(PC 3/21/79) p. 1
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
PRESENT: C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; Frank Brumback, Vice - Chairman;
Manuel DeHaven; James Golladay, Jr.; W. French Kirk;
Elmer Venskoske; Thomas B. Rosenberger
CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the meeting to order and proceeded to the first
order of business.
The minutes of the meeting of February 7 were corrected as follows:
Page 2 -- "Tisiner" amended to read "Tisinger"
Page 5 -- "establisha" should read "establish a"
Page 6 -- "Proram" should read "Program"
Page 6 -- "highly recommended" questioned but allowed
The minutes of the meeting of March 7 were read and accepted.
Upon motion by Mr. Kirk, seconded by Mr. Golladay, and approved by all,
BE IT RESOLVED, that the minutes of February 7 and March 7 be accepted
as corrected.
BIMONTHLY REPORT
The Bimonthly Report was received as information.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Request for site plan approval by the Development Corporation of America for
two stores at Rt. 7 and I 81, Stonewall District.
ACTION -- Tabled for Two Weeks
Asked for background, Mr. Berg indicated that the agenda contained much
pertinent information, including the recommendation section of the transportation
plan for the D.C.A. He explained that the east entrance as proposed is not
shown on the site plan. The center entrance, meant to serve the food and drug
stores, is planned to be constructed at this time, and referred to in the
transportation study. Present entrance plan has been approved by the Department
of Highways. The erosion and sedimentation control plan has also been approved,
632
(PC 3/21/79) p. 2
by the Department of Public Works
When queried by Mr. Brumback, Mr. Berg
said the traffic light required is to be installed at the developer's expense,
and has been approved to go in when needed. Mr. Golladay's question led to
a clarification: there are to be two lanes entering, two out, with room for
a third coming out.
Petitioners were called forth: Mr. Scott Bair, Mr. Glenn Bair, Mr. J.
Sloan Kuykendall, Mr. Jay Wetzel, and Mr. David Krebs. Mr. Kuykendall introduced
Mr. Scott Bair.
Mr. Bair said: "I have never in my fifty years of business life started
a project that I didn't finish." He emphasized that he felt the region -- not
so much Winchester -- needed a shopping center to serve the adjacent 10 counties
of Virginia and the six of West Virginia. His studies have shown "a deficiency
in sales of general merchandise of $188 million annually." He stressed that
the project "will be in keeping with historic Winchester, it'll be white, and
it will make a beautiful presentation." He claimed execution, or near - execution,
of 62 leases. "We expect to have high -class stores."
"Gentlemen, I can tell you now that this is the shopping center that'll
be developed, and we don't deal in rumors." He repeated, "This'is going to
be built. We have a lead, we have the water and sewer there, we're going to
start on the Safeway and Drug Fair stores, if we get a permit here, within the
next 30 days." His claim: center will employ over 2,000 people. Says some
$15 million or more will be spent there in the next 24 months. Talked of
150 -room Sheraton Motel scheduled for upper left -hand corner of (his) drawing,
at 7 & 81. He says his project will be finished, and in the near future.
He added that a third entrance "has already been arranged for, we have
the documents here today, and this will be built from the second cross -over
east of 81, by the Apple Cart. This will pick up the traffic coming from the
east and lead it directly into the center of the shopping center, to eliminate
any congestion down further, where they come into Safeway and Drug Fair."
633
(PC. 721/79) p. 3
Mr. Rosenberger asked about competition in mall development, to which
Mr. Bair replied, "They endeavor to develop." He described the early history
of his Salisbury mall; zoning board turned down his request, he went to court,
won out. All of this consumed two years. According to his account, he invited
the developers of another mall in the same area to join forces with him, but
was refused.
Mr. Rosenberger asked him about the anchor stores, and Mr. Bair said,
"We're going to have four. They're all being spoken with," to which Mr.
Rosenberger returned, "Is that a reality or just something in the making ?"
Mr. Bair's rejoinder to that was that they are real even though not under
contract today. "They'll be there in due time."
The Chairman invited Mr. Kuykendall to interject his thoughts here;
Mr. Kuykendall disclaimed having any factual offering but mentioned the site
plan location as strategic, the access to highways as good, and the reality as
that it will be developed as projected. He mentioned his own connection with
the property in the past, and pointed to future nature of Rti 7 as dual highway
all the way to Leesburg soon and extended to Washington. HeLffered to obtain
any information needed or requested.
At Mr. Wetzel's suggestion, Mr. Kuykendall appended the comment that this
was the first stage of the development for approval, an 8 -ac i re lot involved,
with a highway- approved entrance for the Drug Fair and Safeway, and he appealed
for approval of this first stage. Mr. Golladay asked if right -of -way had been
acquired for the third road. "Yes, sir," said Mr. Bair, "we have the evidence
right here." This was confirmed by Glenn Bair in the form of statements of
intent from the three owners, the Apple Cart, the Hughes estate, and Snapp.
The details are still being worked out. Mr. Scott Bair interjected that two
have been closed and one has not.
Mr. Brumback expressed the Planning Commission's concern: the overview of
the entire project. He gave as his personal concern the matter of the traffic
problem, highway department approval of the other two entrances. Mr. Bair
said the Highway Department wanted to see the third entrance, no question about
634
(PC 3/21/79) p. 4
that.
when discussion arose :.. ' about a sixty -foot right -of -way being adequate
to the mall, Mr. Berg interposed a previously ignored contingency: that right -of-
way, he said, will have to serve more than the mall. The east entrance will
also have to serve the Hughes property.
i
Chairman Gordon asked Mr. Bair the total size of the D.C.A. tract; the
answer was 100 to 105 acres. In discussing traffic flow, Mr. Berg pointed out
that Phase I traffic alone could not be predicted on basis of the study. The
Chairman added that the traffic report assumes the finished mall. Questioned
by Mr. Venskoske about the size of the Hughes property, Mr. Bair said 200 acres;
we're acquiring 30 acres, a northern parcel. The balance lies beyond the shopping
area. They're thinking of zoning that residential, Mr. Bair acknowledged.
Mr. Scott Bair several times expressed the view that his mall would "make
Winchester the metropolis of the Shenandoah region." "We have 4,000 feet on 81,"
he declared.
Mr. Golladay took the tack of assuming completion of the mall as planned --
Mr. Scott Bair broke in to announce that it would be built -- and the development
of the Hughes property as a frame to the question "Whose responsibility would it
be to widen the road if an 80 -foot right -of -way is needed ?" Mr. Berg's response
was that probably before the Hughes property could be developed, something would
have to be done with that road. I£ they have 170 acres and they develop 3 units
to the acre, that would be 510, in terms of single occupancy, and that's going
to produce about 3,500 vehicle trips per day in addition to the mall's which would
have to be carried by this roadway. There will have to be some kind of intersection
approved by the Highway Department to extend this on into this portion of the
Hughes property.
The Chairman said the primary concern before the P.C. is traffic, ingress
and egress; added that it was too bad that no representative of the highway
department was on hand, and asked if specific conversation on the subject of the
other two entrances had yet been held with them. Mr'. Berg answered that he has
635
(PC 3/21/79) p. 5
had such conversation, and said they felt that this entrance, serving primarily
as an exit for west -bound Winchester and 81 -bound traffic, could be approved
Mr. Bair conceded that "we never figured on the west entrance turning any
way but west, there'd be no cross -over traffic there."
Mr. Berg said he had not talked to the highway people in detail about the
proposed eastern entrance. They had contacted him to say that the road was not
in their system, they did not maintain it, and if there were an entrance to be
built there, a permit would have to be sought. If this were to be a public road,
the design would have to be approved by the Highway Department; if not, then the
property to the rear would have to be developed entirely on private roadways.
Then, said Mr. Brumback, it would be incumbent on the property owner to develop
it. Mr. S. Bair broke in to say that "there is now a farm entrance that lies
to the north of the road we're building."
The Chairman asked Mr. Bair if he had any thoughts about requesting the
highway department to take this into their system, if he'd had any conversation
on this at all. "Yes, very tentative," was the reply. "I think if we build to
their specifications, they will then take it in and maintain it -- this is my
understanding."
Mr. Brumback projected the possibility of a tremendous traffic jam "if we're
not careful." He foresaw the likelihood of a great number of cars using the west-
bound lane, and claimed that the future use of the nearby land ought to be built
into our plans along with the cross - overs; that the entire area ought to be dealt
with as a single problem rather than in a piecemeal way. He called for determining
traffic density on the Rt. 7 side in light of the ordinances and applying this
knowledge as it will affect the total project. Mr. Berg suggested that potential
development of the adjacent land plus potential traffic from the mall can be esti-
mated, and the highway department then can be asked directly if they will approve
for that traffic flow.
Mr. Bair said he had talked to Mr. Baker, who says he's already arranged
for another entrance which would "lay east of the road we're talking about"
636
(PC 3/21/79) p. 6
and feed into the Hughes property, a quarter -mile to the east.
To Mr. Rosenberger's question as to whether the State would put in a cross-
over for the access road, Mr. Bair replied "I think you'd have to put them in,
but Solenberger has a sixty -foot right -of -way at the east end of his property."
Mr. Rosenberger asked, "No cross -over there ?" No, said Mr. Bair. Mr. Rosenberger
wanted to know if the State would permit or build cross - overs. i
Mr. Golladay asked if de- acceleration lanes would be provided by the developer.
The State sets that forth, replied Mr. Bair.
Mr. Brumback expressed the view that all the entrances had pretty well better
be nailed down. When Mr. Bair stated "We've got them nailed down," Mr. Brumback
said "You don't have highway department approval." To Mr. Brumback's expressed
surprise that all the phases are not already behind them, Mr. Bair said "Would
you believe I just got the Hughes portion of that, just yesterday ?" Mr. Brumback
said he'd like to see the whole thing laid out on paper, with highway approval,
before he'd be willing to approve Phase I. Mr. Bair asked if he would assure his
i
approval if D.C.A. got highway approval; Mr. Brumback said No, because he didn't
i
know what the highway department would require. He'd think the�.project had a
lot of merit when all three entrances were approved. To Mr. Brumback's state-
s
ment that he was willing to make a motion to table the issue prior to getting
together with the highway department, Mr. Bair quickly asked if!he'd be willing
to add to his motion that he would reopen the matter as soon as the approval was
obtained.
Mr. Brumback moved, and Mr. Venskoske seconded, that the pititicn be tabled.
I
In the ensuing discussion as to what was needed, it was stressed that highway
department agreement in writing rather than merely verbal assurance (Glenn..Bair
said the verbal assurance had been obtained so long as there was no cross -over
asked for, in the westernmost entrance.)
Mr. Kuykendall was recognized, and made the point that the ordinance does
contemplate stage- development approval, and since Mr. Bair has commitments
637
(PC 3/21/79) p. 7
to the two stores, he hopes for Stage I approval, and feels that even if further
approval were not received, no harm would be done in the approval for the present
two stores.
Mr. Rosenberger, referring to Mr. Golladay's earlier mention of the Phase I
approach, gave his support to the approval of the two stores.
Mr. Golladay read from the Code, Sec. XXI- 116,(m) on stage development;
Mr. Berg pointed out that this referred to the shopping center zoning, but that
the district in this case is zoned B -2, so that it does not apply.
The Chairman asked if approval could be given, contingent on highway depart-
ment approval, and Mr. Berg stated that this was not possible: if approval were
given and the east entrance failed to be approved, then the balance of the mall
could be brought in with but two entrances to serve it.
The Chairman asked Mr. Bair what penalty would he involved in a two -week
delay, and Mr. Bair said "Not too much." The Chairman suggested a highway depart-
ment representative might meet(either prior to the next session�or)with the Plan -
ning Commission to determine official reaction.
Mr. Berg summarized: the east entrance's commitment had beien the primary
hurdle, and looked to be pretty much agreed upon. The problem !for the highway
department, then, is principally a matter of numbers -- the volume of traffic,
the numbers to be served. In the matter of off -site improvements at 81 and 7
ramp, an agreement needs to be struck. He said the consultant's report on this
was quite acceptable; and that highway department input within two weeks is pos-
sible. The Chairman asked if the representative would be likely to appear at
the next Planning Commission meeting, was told Yes.
In the discussion of the wording of the motion, Mr. Rosenberger suggested
that the commitment for -the right -of -way for the east entrance and for making
off -site improvements be incorporated in the motion.
Mr. Rosenberger moved, Mr. Golladay seconded, and the vote was unanimous:
BE IT RESOLVED, that this site plan be tabled until the next meeting to work
out the east right -of -way and commitment for off -site improvements.
NO
(PC 3/21/79) p. 8
At this point a five - minute break was taken.
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, Chapter 21, Zoning, adopted
July 12, 1978, to amend Sections 21- 15(r), 21- 26(r), 21- 36(i), 21- 44(i), 21- 52(n),
21- 90(x), and 21- 101.2(1) to read:
Section I: Church bulletin boards and identification signs and signs
for non - profit service clubs and charitable associations,
off-premise signs not to exceed eight square feet.
Section II: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon adoption
by the Board of Supervisors of Frederick County.
Mr. Berg was asked to report on information about the highway department's
regulations on signs at previous P.C. meeting, and said no sign 8 feet square
or less requires a highway department permit. He then added this information
to the new wording above applicable to church bulletin boards and identification
signs for non - profit service clubs and charitable associations, "off-premise
signs not to exceed eight square feet." On their properties, any size sign is
permitted.
Mr. Golladay moved, Mr. Brumback seconded a motion to accept the revised
wording. The vote was unanimous.
BE IT RESOLVED, that Sections I and II be approved for recommendation
to the Board of Supervisors. I
Upon this action, the Commission turned: -;to a work session.
Work Session
Mr. Berg gave the background, that evening work sessions of the Planning
Commission in which no business was discussed are proposed, though not budgeted
at this time. One night a month was further suggested, with the intention of
sticking to one project in order to bring that to final form, according to Mr.
Brumback. Holding a regularly scheduled work session in the primary purpose, even
if only once every two months. Mr. Rosenberger offered to take this to Finance Com-
mittee.
It was agreed that the yearly work schedule outreaches the actual agenda
accomplished. The fourth Tuesday of each month at 7:30 during the summer
639
(PC 3/21/79) P. 9
months was set, not to start, however, in the current month (the 27th of March);
to commence on Tuesday evening, April 24. The topic choice was allotted to the staff.
Mr. Berg then spoke of the memo in this day's agenda addressing a previous
session's request for a time -frame which gives a general over -view of the steps
involved and time consumed in moving projects through the stages of review.
He spoke also of having operating procedures for subdivisions, rezoning, and
site plans, the steps for petitioners to take (also here included). As to point 1
i
in the memorandum, Mr. Berg said it was something of a disclaimer, needing emphasis,
as it is a problem which causes some trouble. Petitioners seldom bring in completed
work, though they wish it to go through right away. The material gets,referred
back to surveyors, engineers, and drops out of sight. Mr. Berg's message to the
P.C., then, is that when members receive phone calls asking how soon, they would
do well to emphasize the importance of compliance, good organization, clear goals,
and follow- through, and the complained -of delays will be less of a problem.
The Chairman mentioned that frequently the petitioner has a chip on his
shoulder, he gets perturbed if anything goes wrong, and advocated helping Mr. Berg
in any way possible. Mr. Brumback asked about the use of a checklist, and Mr.
Berg replied that in every case but subdivisions, a checklist is used.
There being no further business, Mr. Golladay moved for adjournment, Mr.
Brumback seconded, and the motion was passed unanimously.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick,
Virginia, does hereby adjourn its meeting, there being no further business.
Respectfully submitted,
H. Ronald Berg, Secretary
C. Lan on Gordon, Chairman