Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_04-04-79_Meeting_Minutes(PC 4/4/79) 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; Thomas B. Rosenberger; Herbert sluder ABSENT: Elmer Venskoske CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order and proceeded to the first order of business. The minutes of the meeting of March 21 were corrected to add to the name on page 5, second line from the bottom, "Mr. Baker," the following amplification, "executor of the Hughes estate." With the foregoing correction, the minutes were approved unanimously. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BIMONTHLY REPORT Mr. Berg explained in response to Mr. Brumback's question about ..ater run -off that jurisdic'.�_on varies depending on the cause (after Mr. Sluder in- dicated that the case in question was not in his area of experties), that it can be a matter of Planning, for Public Works, or for the Highway Department. Planning, in the case of a subdivision; water flowing into a drainage easement, the Highway Department; construction on a site, Public Works. The Bimonthly Report was accepted as information. Request for site plan approval for Winchester Mall by Development Corporation of America (tabled from March 21 meeting) Action -- Approved for Phase I Asked for background, Mr. Berg said he had correspondence, and that representatives were present: Hanes, Mr. Glenn Bair and Mr. It was moved, seconded, Mr. Wetsel for Kuykendall Whiting Costello & David Krebs for Development Corporation of America. and approved that the letter from Winchester Mall be included as a part of the minutes It appears herewith: F,d I (PC 4/4/79) p. 2 W I N C H E S T E R M A L L a regional shopping facility BOX 520 Westminster, Maryland 21157 March 29, 1979 Mr. H. Ronald Berg Planning and Development director Frederick County Department of Planning and Development Nine Court Square P. 0. Box 601 Winchester, Virginia 22601 Phone: 301 - 848 -9100 301- 876 -2288 Re: Winchester Mall - Phase I Winchester, Virginia Dear Mr. Berg: With reference to our discussion at the Planning Commission meeting on March 21st, we have been in contact with the Virginia Depart- ment of Highways regarding their requirements for the third entrance east of our property as well as the westernmost entrance, and Mr. Small of the Richmond office has advised that he feels they can have this information for us by the early part of next week in order that this can be presented at the Planning Commission meeting on April 4th. Accordingly, we would appreciate your including us on the agenda for April 4th meeting so that this information can be presented. We are enclosing copy of letter dated March 27, 1979 to Mr. Small along with plat showing the proposed third entrance for your review. Very truly yours, WINCHESTER MALL, INC. s /Glenn S. Bair t /Glenn S. Bair GSB:wfd Enclosure Cc: J. E. Wetsel, Jr., Esquire (w /encl.) The Chairman called on the petitioners to come forward, and asked Mr. R. C. King of the Highway Department to join them. Mr. Wetsel's opening remarks included the points that the Highway Department have had no opportunity to review detailed construction plans for 642 (PC 4/4/79) p. 3 the third entrance of the shopping facility but that so long as the entrance iwas; built to Highway Department technical requirements as toagrade-;-,-surface.con- ditions, alignment with the cross -over, and any provisions for deceleration lanes if necessary, the Department would see no reason to deny application for approval of an entrance at that site. On the matter of acquiring right -of -way, about which concern was expressed by the Commission at the previous meeting, Mr. Wetsel acknowledged that no more detailed commitment from the property owner in question was in hand; he said that the commitment from the other two owners, Snapp and the Apple Cart, was firm. Mr. Wetsel attributed the difficulty with the executor of the Hughes estate as being the usual situation,with engineers and attorneys acting for owners. He called for approval of the first phase. Mr. Bair, invited to speak, stressed the passage of time since drawings were first submitted in September, compliance with the requirements of the first phase, and also the objections of the Planning Commission at the previous meeting. Mr. King summarized the Highway Department's approvals by the Richmond Traffic and Safety Division: the present entrance has been approved, and permit issued. The location of the westernmost entrance has been "more or less" approved, though the location of an additional cross -over has been denied, but the plans for the development to use that entrance with the cross -over at the one already issued a permit, with signalization if-and when needed, are in order. The third entrance,,the proposed easternmost entrance, has no reason for denial: the site distance is 1400 feet, approximately one - quarter mile, it is at a cross -over, and if it met all requirements would receive a permit. Some adjust- ment of cross -over might be necessitated, perhaps more storage capacity in the median, deceleration lane possibly for westbound traffic on the westbound lane that would be turning into the facility. To Mr. Golladay's question "Whose responsibility would it be to put in the deceleration lane ?" Mr. King responded, "The developer's." Mr. DeHaven's question to Mr. King sought to pin down whether the right -of -way would need to be 80, 50 or 60 feet. Mr. King said that for the entrance, whatever would be 643 (PC)4/4/79) p. 4 required to get the necessary width of pavement plus adequate radius. If a street were to built as an addition to the highway system "we'd have to look into that further, but all I'm looking at at this time is just an entrance to Route 7. Of course, our maximum width is 50 feet for an entrance, 50 feet of pavement, that is." "Making haste slowly" was the description given the negotiations with Mr. Baker, executor of the Hughes estate. The Chairman read a letter to Winchester Mall, signed by George W. Baker, to the effect of confirming "that I believe the owners of the 202 acres to the north and east of your tract, whom our firm represents, will be willing to pro- vide a 60 -foot right -of -way over the southwestern boundary of their property to the 30.58 -acre tract." The Chairman stated the position of the Commission, that the over -all, long -range view of the 200+ acre tract and its relation to the third entrance is of concern, with the legal ramifications down the road if for any reason the third entrance did not mature. He directed a question to Mr. Wetsel: What would be the circumstance if by chance the first stage were approved and the third right -of -way did not mature due to things not working out with the property owners. Where does that put everybody, legally? Mr. Wetsel's response: "We don't expect that to happen; assuming that it did, it becomes an inquiry as to whether the two entrances, as they presently exist as shown on the plan on the board, would meet the needs of the shopping center so far as the State Highway Department and the County are concerned, and that is a factual determination based on the number of trips per day and the general traffic configuration and flow in that area. Assuming that they were adequate in the future, I believe perhaps that we would be entitled to have our site plan approved." "Without the third entrance ?" asked the Chairman. "It is conceivable, yes, sir. Of course, you realize the ultimate authority on this is always the Board of Supervisors. They are vested with the final discretion either to approve or disapprove the site plan even though it met (PC 4/4/79) p. 5 with the technical requirements of the Codes," was Mr. Wetsel's reply. "We're sure that could, and that we're only the advisory capacity, but the Board relies on us to do the spadework and at least present a recom- mendation to them; this is what we're attempting to do, to forestall any problems that might develop because of inadequate planning for an 105 -acre tract," said Chairman Gordon. Mr. Berg was called on then, and said "If there's not a third entrance, then there's someone who's going to be stuck with the intersection of a major state road and an interstate road without adequate access: if not this Planning Commission or the Development Corporation of America, someone. The property's not going to sit vacant, and someone is going to have to solve that problem, and we just don't know how that can be solved. The traffic engineers for D.C.A. have recommended that there be an eastern access point -- that's part of the recommendations that they make in this traffic study." Mr. Wetsel quickly remarked that no one could contest the desirability of the third entrance. "We want that, for business purposes it's a good plan, and we're making every effort to get it. It's a requirement that we want to comply with, in order to entice business into the shopping district that the shopping center will provide. We have strong economic incentives to try and get this third entrance." He projected that this would be final in a few weeks' time. Mr. Berg's reply to Mr. Golladay's question about the potential of the Commission for denying the site plan at a later phase, once initial approval has been granted, was that, while they could try, if it came down to litigation they'd probably lose. If the entrance is there, the corner can't be landlocked: in short, that the critical approval is the one right now. Mr. Wetsel reiterated that the Board of Supervisors could reject the plan, and the Chairman's position was that the Courts could overturn the rejection. To this Mr. Wetsel said he wouldn't project what a court would do on scarcely any matter, and that D.C.A. projects no litigation to further ensnarl the building they want to do. IM (PC 4/4/79) p. 6 Asked by Mr. Rosenberger who in later years would be responsible for modifying ramps, for example, Mr. King replied that it would be the State's, since it would not be possible to prove that such modifications were made necessary by the shopping center, and these would be viewed more as normal growth problems. To Mr. Brumback's question "Would the project still be viable with only two entrances ?" Mr. Bair replied it would be best to have the three entrances. He described negotiations with the Hughes estate executor as very tedious, but said they have learned of an agreement to sell, don't want to proceed on that basis, and can go forward that way if they have to in order to get the third entrance, the terms proposed by the Hughes people. He gave as his opinion that the project could go forward, with only two entrances, but that it would be wrong to go forward on that basis. Mr. Brumback pressed Mr. Bair for a direct answer, and got it: Mr. Bair said it could be a viable project with two entrances only. The Chairman asked Mr. Berg if a contingency could be written into the site plan approval, and Mr. Berg said there would be no way to enforce the con- tingency other than sitting on the building permits, which would defeat the whole purpose; that contingent approval would have little meaning or utility. Mr. Rosenberger moved for approval of the site plan for Phase I, Mr. DeHaven seconded. The vote was as follows: Kirk; DeHaven; Golladay; Brumback; Gordon -- YES BE IT RESOLVED, that site plan approval for Winchester Mall be recommended to the Board of Supervisors. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Request for a Conditional Use Permit by Eston and Helen Keeler for a sign permit on Rt. 672 in Brucetown. Mr. Berg gave the background; the Keelers had received a C.U.P. in order to operate an antique store in their home in Brucetown. At the time the need for a sign was mention, and they learned they must reapply for this permission, a (PC 4/4/79) p. 7 for a sign on a metal post at the driveway entrance. The sign is to be about 8" x 24" with wording on both sides, facing east and west to Route 672. Upon ascertaining that the sign was for daytime use only, and not to be lighted, in the absence of any opposition, Mr. DeHaven moved for approval, Mr. Brumback seconded. Vote was: Kirk; DeHaven ;Golladay;Brumback;Rosenberger -- YES BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the C.U.P. for a sign permit to Eston and Helen Keeler to the Board of Supervisors, for one year, and with no light. A ten - minute break was agreed upon at this point. PUBLIC HEARING Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 004 -79 of Dennis L. and Betty A. Ridings P.O. Box 441, Stephens City, Va., requesting that 7.228 acres, on Rt. 277, now zoned Agricultural- General District (A -2) be rezoned Industrial- Limited District (M -1). This property is designated as a portion of property identi- fication number 86(A) 179(c), in Opequon Magisterial District. Mr. Berg's summation: Property is on south side of Rt. 277, 2 miles west of Double Tollgate, and its planned use is as a welding shop, with materials stored inside. The building to be constructed is approximately 50' x 150'. I Dennis Ridings appeared as the petitioner. He described his operation as I being performed in two stages, pre- welding in his shop, and completion in the field, the Falls Church - Vienna area. Number of employees ranges from 4 or 8 to 6, including Mr. Ridings, and volume of business was given as about a half - million dollars per annum with fluctuations. He characterized the nature of his business as commercial /industrial and "not the junk -yard type of welding." He cited bridges for the State and small commercial or industrial buildings as types of work he does. He indicated that he does little local work as subcontracting, the style common in Fairfax area, is less common here. The building he plans for the site would be what is generally described as prefabricated metal building except that he would build it himself. It would be colored siding, either aluminum or galvanized, with a gravelled area surrounding it. 647 (PC 4/4/79) p. 8 There would be truck traffic in and out; a crane. This is on his own property. He mentioned that his lease was expiring at his current place of business. His home is behind the area asked to be rezoned. He stated that he would care about the site's appearance for this reason; has made inquiries and learned spot zoning exists, while conceding "It's something the Board doesn't like to see." His view of the proposed use: not enough land to farm economically, soil conditions not very favorable to residential use, so he proposes this as the best use of the land. Mr. Gordon's question brought out that Mr. Ridings owns 38 acres behind the seven in question, with a right -of -way along the right side to his house; Mr. Rosenberger' "s, that there is at present no building on the 7 -acre area, and that "not much" of the 7 acres would be taken up by the building and the rest of the operation, and that the 7 -acre lot had been intended for sale when he mortgaged his house, or planned to. "A couple of acres," he said, "would probably take care of the operation." He indicated that he might put in trees as a screen and windbreak, combined, as there's a strong wind which blows across the plot, with snowdrifts in winter. The existing septic field „ he was told, could be enlarged to accommodate the planned operation, which would extend acreage in use over his previously stated figure. Mr. DeHaven suggested one extra acre would be about right. Mr. Ridings further stated that he would be willing to put conditions on the rezoning for which he is asking, in the event of his incapacitation or death or other cause of selling the property, to prevent extension of the industrial use of the land beyond present intent -- even to take down the building. Mr. Golladay asked if he had spoken to his neighbors. Mr. Ridings replied that he had, particularly to Mrs. Carlson (now Feathers), whose property is beside his access road. Her concern, trucks at night -time. Mr. Ridings assured her there would be no need for that, no shifts at night. On this subject, Mr. Berg had, he reported, issued seven notifications to adjoiners, and it was determined that the property has been signed. In a (PC 4/4/79) p. 9 discussion, the fact that the present land use plan does not contemplate such a usage was expressed. The P.C. saw in the Ridings case a point for the use- fulness of conditional zoning. It was decided that Mr. Berg would check with Mr. Ambrogi as to whether Mr. Ridings' offer to place a condition on zoning could be legally enforced by any existing means, and accordingly this hearing will be continued at the next session of the Planning Commission. The vote was: Kirk; DeHaven; Golladay; Brumback; Rosenberger; Gordon - YES BE IT RESOLVED, that the petition of Dennis L. Ridings be reconsidered at the next meeting of the Planning Commission. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, Chapter 21, Zoning, adopted July 12, 1978 to amend article XI, XIII, XIV, and XIII -A. Mr. Berg summed up that this amendment pertains to new business districts, B -1 through B -4. Mr. Gordon described the amendment as a football which has been around the better part of a year and indicated a decision would not be over - hasty. Mr. Berg replied to Mr. Golladay's query that the M -1 category is unaffected, remains the same, although some of its features have been added to the B- zones. He further explained that the decision as to which zoning to use would depend on such factors as intention, adjoining property zoning, and that the changes would make mapping easier. Mr. Golladay moved, Mr. Brumback seconded a motion: BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors approval of ordinance cited above, as written. The vote was unanimous. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, Chapter 21, Zoning, adopted July 12, 1978 to amend Article 1, Frontage and adopt Street, Road, Right -of- way definitions. Mr. Berg explained that this proposed change has been discussed at several prior meetings but could not be completed due to a defect in advertising, and is intended to deal with situations such as more than one house being built on a minimum lot and later found unsalable. a (PC 4/4/79) p. 10 Mr. Kirk moved the amendment be recommended as written, Mr. Brumback seconded, and it was unanimously voted upon. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors of the amendment cited above, as written. WORK SESSION Presence of Planning Commission members at a session of the Board of zoning Appeals was rolled forward to the next later scheduled session of the B.Z.A. as Mr. Golladay will be unable to attend the upcoming meeting. Mr. Berg's briefing on amendments to parking regulations in the zoning ordinance brought out that no review has been made for quite some time, and these regulations, he said, date back essentially to 1967. More spaces are required in some instances than is actual current practice; staff is revising and updating the parking requirements to bring them into conformity with cur- rent practice. Changes to the Conditional Use Permit section are included in the agenda to permit P.C.'s further study. Updating is intended to provide better guidance for decisions for the Commission and the Board, to provide citations backing up actions, and guidance to the public. The Use Permit section, said Mr. Berg, was not reflecting the amount of work involved. Ms. Steen added that this section has been routed to regular reviewing agencies because of its importance and wide effect, to Highway and Health Departments. It has been reviewed by Mr. Ambrogi. State law and court cases were considered during its drafting to make it clearer and more workable. She stressed that this is a legislative function, an instance in which the Board has true legislative power. The Chairman confirmed the importance of this as putting solid ground under necessary actions of denying or approving, and stated that it was long overdue. Ms. Stefen suggested the Commission compare existing ordinance with the revision to determine how much more specific the new wording is contrasted 650 it (PC 4/4/79) p. 11 with former vagueness. This was received as information. Mr. H. W. Butler, Jr.'s request to address the Commission was next in order of business. Petitioner, President of Shenandoah Pools, Inc., declared that he was "trying to subdivide a section of a piece of property on Merriman's Estates." He appeared to believe unreasonable delay had occurred: said he'd initiated proceedings by asking Mr. Ebert "a year ago to present a plat and work it through the Planning Commission. I don't know whether you all have heard of it or not." He further said, "We were told to get a 100 -year flood plain and we did that, and then I think that Mr. Berg said that he was waiting for a call from the F.I.A. and if you're waiting for a call from the Federal government I don't think you'll ever get one and we've been waiting a year and a half to get this subdivision through, and it's the third part of a section that's been approved twice by the Supervisors over the last twenty years, and that's a long time to wait to get some action. Just wondered if it was on your calendar or it wasn't." Mr. Butler went on to say, "Am I supposed to get invited to these meetings to find out progress or what ?" The Chairman explained that sometimes some information is needed which has not been furnished to the staff. Mr. Berg indicated that, rather than returning Mr. Butler'sluncompleted work to him, the staff had been doing his work for him and stated that he was personally less than pleased at the inquiry and its tone. He further noted that there was lengthy delay involved on the part of the surveyor in bringing in his work. The responsibility for obtaining certification by the F.I.A. for one lot is the developer's, yet the staff has undertaken to get this done for him. If Mr. Butler were to assume the responsibility of corresponding with the F.I.A. and bringing in his petition when all requirements had been met, he would not have to raise the question as to where he stood. ;— M III (PC 4/4/79) P. 12 Further discussion brought out the fact that the flood plain problem is the province of the Department of Public Works. A motion was made by Mr.Rosenberger and seconded by Mr. DeHaven The vote was as follows: Kirk; DeHaven; Rosenberger; Gordon - -YES Mr. Golladay - ABSTAINED (as adjoiner) BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission take up with the Board of Supervisors the question of time delay for approval on such issues.;as flood plain development, involving the Federal government, as demonstrated in the Butler development plan. Ensuing discussion turned on "red- tape" delays as affected by environmental studies, and the difficulty of completing projects such as a bridge over a creek: Mr. Rosenberger was the spokesman for this objection. He asked Mr. Berg if something could be done about such delays. Mr. Brumback contributed the "other side of the coin" in pointing out that disagreements between governing bodies on the local level resulted in the State's assuming more responsibility. Mr. Berg said he would look into whether anything could be done to cut delays. There being no further business, Mr. Golladay moved for adjournment, Mr. Brumback seconded, and the motion was passed by unanimous vote. Respectfully submitted, H. Ronald Berg, Secretary.0 C. .dol Gordon, Chairman a�,