Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC_09-05-79_Meeting_Minutes14INUTES OF MEETING OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PIANNING COPM4ISSION Held in the Board of Supervisor's Room, September 5, 1979 PRESENT: C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; Frank BrLunback, Vice- Chairman; Elmer Venskoske; W. Frenck Kirk; Manuel DeHaven; James Golladay, Jr.; Herbert Sluder. ABSENT: Thomas B. Rosenberger —_ ►W � The Chairman called the meeting to order. The first order of business, corrections and approval of the minutes of the previous two meetings, August 15, 1979 and August 21, 1979. Corrections were as follows: Page 11 - the to then in third paragraph. Page 2 - anyone's request should be changed to the owner's request in second line. Page 5 - change assessment in second paragraph to reassessment. (NOTE: assessment will be used on new properties and anything existing at last assessment will be a reassessment.) On motion by Mr. Golladay, seconded by Mr. Kirk, unanimous approval was voted. Chairman Gordon then asked if single family residence permits have been listed separately in the past. Staff acknowledged they would look into this. Mr. Brumback suggested this information might be incorporated into the quarterly report after the material had been compiled for a year. Mr. Golladay then commented that everything listed seemed to be current. Cha irman Gordon acknowedged the receipt of the bimonthly report as information. SUBDIVISION Ridgefield Section II, Route 277, 53 lots, Harry F. Stimpson, Jr., Harry F. Stimpson, III and Margaret B. Stimpson. ACTION - Approved Mr. John Riley noted that all reviewing agencies indicated satisfaction. Mr. Peter Johnston then came forward and introduced himself to the Ca mdssion noting that he was representing Mr. Harry F. Stimpson. Mr. Johnston noted that the IN (P /C 9/5/79) Page 2 density would be consistent with the development pattern to this point. Mr. Brumback asked if Mr. Johnston could determine haw many lots would be in the entire development. Mr. Johnston noted that only a certain amount of lots are guaranteed water and sewer capacity at this time. There being no one to speak further or in opposition, Mr. Golladay then moved to approve this subdivision request. This was seconded by Mr. Brumback and passed unanimously. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors of the Ridgefield Section II Subdivision. SITE PLANS Request for Site Plan approval by Bulbs International for an 85' X 60' building for office and storage space on Lenoir Drive, Stonewall Magisterial District. Site Plan #018 -79. ACTION - Approved Mr. Riley then comnented on background information, noting that central water and sewer service will be available, dependent upon the developer or other installing lines to serve the lots within the industrial park, with availability of service in late November of 1979. Mr. Riley also noted.that Zoning found difficulty with the Site Plan showing only a 2.5 acre parcel of the total 5 acre tract. Mr. Riley continued, noting that a revision is needed to the Site Plan showing the entire acreage. Mr. Art Judd then came forward and introduced himself to the Commission, commenting that he had brought:revised Site Plans with him. Mr. Judd further explained that Bulbs International functions as importers of products for distribution to automotive and motor- cycle markets. In answer to'Cha Gordon's question regarding acreage, Mr. Judd explained that it is a five acre lot as it stands now, with a purchase agreement with the Gilpins to sell back 2.5 acres if the Gilpins are allowed to subdivide. Mr. Judd noted that they will 783 (p /C 9/5/79) Page 3 develop the 2.5 acres as described on the original site plan whether they buy. 2.5 acres or 5 acres. Chairman Gordon explained that the Commission must assume the lot to be 5 acres as it has not been subdivided and that this Site Plan will be approved or disapproved on a five acre basis at this point. Mr. Bnmback then asked what Nlr. Judd thought was dawn the road if the sub- division was not allowed. Mr. Judd commented that a second or third warehouse might be built on the initial 2.5 acres for their expansion or to be rented. mr. DeHaven then noted concern regarding the entire Gilpin Industrial Park and the direction the 500 acres of development is taking. Mr. Judd then brought the revised Site Plans forward for the Commission to study. Mr. Brumback explained again that this lot cannot be subdivided without the Commission's approval, hoping that Mr. Judd understood. Mr. Judd acknowledged that they were buying 5 acres with the option of selling back 2.5 acres should there be approval to subdivide. Mr. Judd also noted that it was hoped construction could be done by the first of the year. Mr. Riley commented that the amended Site Plan seemed sufficient. Chairman Gordon noted that the only problem he could see was having a Site Plan on a 2.5 acre basis when the Site Plan should include 5 acres. Mr. Riley suggested this could be approved if Mr. Judd submits an additional sheet to this amendment showing the dimensions of the 5 acre tract. Mr. DeHaven then asked how an occupancy permit can be obtained when there are no water or sewage connections. Mr. Sluder noted that temporary sewage facilities could be obtained. Chairman Gordon then asked if there was anyone present in opposition to this Site Plan. 784 (P /C 9/5/79) Page 4 Mr. DeHaven then made the motion for approval providing this Site Plan is- duly_noted..as being for a five acre tract. Mr. Brrmback then seconded the motion, noting that keeping this in a five acre plot is acceptable. There being no further discussion, this motion passed unanimously. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission recc intend approval of the Bulbs International Site Plan,with the amendment duly noting it as a five acre tract,to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. DeHaven commented that it was now time to have a master plan of this industrial park from Mr. Kenneth Gilpin. Mr. Brumiback noted that the developer should know what the Commission has in mind and is asking of him. Chairman Gordon asked if it would be in order to ask Mr. Gilpin to a meeting as soon as possible to exchange ideas, etc. With all Commission members concurring, Mr. Riley was then directed to invite Mr. Gilpin to a meeting as soon as possible. Request for Site Plan approval by C. Edward Shirley for a 40' X 60' building for equipment maintenance in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Site Plan #010 -79. ACTION - Approved Mr. Riley's briefing established that Staff recommends approval but recommends the.suggestion by the Va. Department of Highways and Transportation for a standard co mlercial entrance be incorporated into the Planning Commission's approval. Mr. C. Edward Shirley then came forward and introduced himself to the Commission. In answer to Chairman Gordon's question, Mr. Shirley acknowledged that the building is already existing. Mr. BrtmdxZCk then asked for clarification of the road widening requested. Mr. Riley suggested that the Highway Department might be concerned about sight distance: at the entrance. 785 (P /C 9/5/79) Page 5 Mr. Shirley noted that the pile of dirt at the entrance is to be spread and grassed. Mr. DeHaven noted that this business is non - conforming and has been there for years and that a standard comiercial entrance would be a financial burden. Mr. J. 0. Renalds noted his agreement with Mr. DeHaven's thoughts and stated that this reccamendation can be made at the pleasure of the Commission. Chairman Gordon noted that it was not the intention of the Commission to impose a financial burden on a situation that is not needed. Mr. DeHaven then made a motion to recommend approval with the stipulation that the dirt pile be moved. This was seconded by Mr. Kirk and passed unanimously. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Coimtission recommend approval of Mr. C. Edward Shirley's Site Plan, with the stipulation that a dirt pile at the entrance be removed, to_.the-Board of Supervisors. Mr. BrmTback then requested that it be specifically noted in the minutes that the Highway Department had "recatmended" a standard commercial entrance and that it was not mandatory. PUBLIC HEARINGS CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Request for a Conditional Use Permit for Wayne Lee Whittington, No. 014 -79, for an automotive repair garage, Opequon Magisterial District. ACTION - Withdrawn Request for Conditional Use Permit for Bernard and Carolyn Turner, No. 016 -79, for a beauty shop, Back Creek Magisterial District. ACTION - Will Apply Administratively Mr. Riley noted that since the changes to the home occupation section of the zoning ordinance have been adopted, it appears that the Turner's no longer need a conditional use permit to operate a hone occupation in an R -2 zone and, consequently, they have withdrawn their request and will apply administratively. F (P /C 9/5/79) Page 6 Request for Conditional Use Permit for Denny's Inc., No. 017 -79, for off- pranise sign, Stonewall Magisterial District. ACTION - Approval Mr. Riley then gave the background information, noting that Public Works suggests that the sign be located so as not to obstruct sight distance on Route 7. Mr. Roger Fischel then came forward and introduced himself to the Ccnrdssion, noting the property is located one mile east of Winchester on the south side of Route 7 next to the Earl Haines property with the sign located in the east corner. In answer to Mr. Golladay's question, Mr. Fischel noted this sign would not be lighted. Mr. DeHaven then asked if this sign would block the view. Mr. Fischel acknowledged that it would not. Mr. DeHaven then made a motion to approve this conditional use permit. This was seconded by Mr. Kirk and passed unanimously. BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Co mission recmmend for approval the Conditional Use Permit of Denny's Inc. to the Board of Supervisors. Chairman Gordon then addressed the next item, the rezoning of Mr. Robert Fulton. Mr. Riley noted that Mr. Fulton received a rezoning to 1.1 -2 and has since sought to construct an additional building on the property. Mr. Riley continued, saying we are trying to address the question of does he need a conditional use permit in an M -2 zone to construct a building which was already reflected in the rezoning application. Mr. Riley comnented that this would put Mr. Fulton through the review process twice, when it could be possible to approve this site plan administratively. Mr. Robert Fulton then came forward and suggested that he came here a year ago to have his property rezoned in order to build this building. I was told, he con -`-_: tinued, that I could not build this building on Agricultural land and I came and rezoned it to M -2. Chairman Gordon noted that the zoning ordinance does call for M -2 zonings 787 (P /C 9/5/79) Page 7 to have a conditional use permit regardless of the use. Mr. Riley explained that the rezoning application reflected the proposed building, refer to it as an expansion of existing trucking firm on the application. Mr. Golladay questioned if this put a citizen in double jeopardy in an M -2 district, having to ask for a rezoning and then come back and ask for a conditional use permit. Chairman Gordon noted that at one time it was felt that M -2 zoning needed to be scrutinized a little closer then some of the other zones. Cha irman Gordon commented that perhaps this has been a way to keep a handle on things in the M -2 zone. Cha irman Gordon noted, that short of changing the zoning ordinance, a conditional use permit must be gotten before the building can be built. Mr. Riley noted that an application for Conditional Use Permit has been received and has been routed for comments:, Mr. Ambrogi acknowledged that if the zoning ordinance calls for a conditional use permit in 14-2 zones, that is the way it has to be. Mr. Golladay noted that this use has been present in this rezoned area and the proposed building is just an expansion. Mr. Ambrogi catmented that Mr. Golladay was referring to pre - existing use, as long as you do not expand. Mr. Brumback explained that when this was rezoned, the Commission was aware of what was to be done, however, this property could change hands and a conditional use permit helps the Conraission keep a handle on things. In answer to Mr. Gollday's question, Mr. Ambrogi answered that you would even need a conditional use permit to expand an existing use. Mr. Leman then asked how often a conditional use permit would care up for review. Cha irman Gordon ccmnented that it would be renewed on a yearly basis and the pre - existing use would be given first consideration if others should move into area and canplain. WM (P /C 9/5/79) Page 3 Cha irman Gordon then noted that the ordinance only allows for the application for a conditional use permit before the proposed building can be built. Mr. Riley noted this could be heard on October 3, 1979 and the Site Plan was routed at the same time. Cha irman Gordon commented that the Commission's hands are tied on this. Mr. Golladay suggested that expansion and conditional use permits should be discussed, possibly at a work session. Chairman Gordon then announced the following names for inclusion on an eight member committee for Downzoning: W. French Kirk, Planning Commission; Thomas Rosenberger, Board of Supervisors; Roy Jennings, Commissioner of Revenue Office; John R. Riley, Planning Office; Dorothea L. Stefen, Planning Office; Robert Hansbrough, Assessor /Appraisor; J. O. Renalds, County Administrator; and, one citizen member. The Commission, by general consensus,requested that Chairman Gordon appoint the citizen member. Chairman Gordon then requested that Mr. Riley coordinate first meeting. Mr. Riley next explained that Eskridge and Long Construction Company requested time to cone before the Commission to make a preliminary presentation on the site they are interested in developing. Mr. Frank Eskridge, Eskridge and Long Construction Company and Mr. Conrad Mazur , Amoco Home Products then came forward and introduced themselves to the Commission. Mr. Eskridge then noted that a site plan and technical background information have been provided to the staff for review for the site developrent of an industrial facility on the Ervin Cather Property on Route 11, north of Winchester in Frederick County which is zoned 14-1. Mr. Eskridge noted the proposed development is for a new light industrial manufacturing plant for Amoco Foam Products, manufacturing plastic products from prepared materials. In answer to Cha irman Gordon's question, VIr. Eskridge further located the 0.101 (P /C 9/5/79) Page 9 property as being that property abutting Interstate 81 and the B & 0 Railroad, consisting of 23 acres in the rear of the original 35 acre tract. Mr. Eskridge continued that initial employment would be approximately 100 people developing into employment possibly for 300. people. Mr. Eskridge noted that access would be through a 60' easement through the property. Mr. Brumback then asked where this would cane out on Route 11. Mr. Eskridge, referring to a visual aide, noted it would come out on .. Route 11 on-.the oneway and that this has been reviewed and given a tentative O.K. by the Highway Department. Mr. Mazur, Manufacturing Manager for Amoco Foam Products, commented that they now have three plants in the U. S. manufacturing the type of products they are talking about manufacturing in Frederick County. Mr. -Mazur noted the original plant is in Northern Wisconsin in Chippawau Falls; Beech Island, South Carolina; and in Ins Angeles. Mr. Mazur noted they are looking at this as a possible expansion for products that are sold in this part of the U. S., trying to keep distribution costs dawn by going to regional facilities. Mr. :Mazur then presented a slide presentation to further explain and illustrate the process to be used. Mr. Mazur then distributed samples of the products to be manufactured. C hairman Gordon next asked what the timetable might be. Mr. Eskridge noted they would like to get into production in the first quarter of next year, time being a key ingredient. Mr. Riley commented that two weeks would be needed if camisits on preliminary plans were back in. Mr. Eskridge noted they had contacted the State air pollution control board and received tentative approval from then. In answer to Mr. Brmmmback Mr. Eskridge noted that the initial set up would be only 94,000 s quar e feet and the remainder would be maintained in grass. 790 (P /C 9/5/79) Page 10 In answer to Mr. Venkoske's question regarding noise, Mr. Eskridge noted the only noise would be from the air conditioners. Mr. Gordon then asked if 45' silos would present a problem. Mr. Golladay noted that cooling towers, flues, etc. not occupied by workmen are excluded fran the 35' restriction. In answer to Mr. DeHaven's question, Mr..Eslridge noted the entire tract is zoned M -1. Mr. Leman then asked if there was a possibility of smoke or fire damage associated with these silos. Mr. Eskridge ,noted there was not. Mr. Brumback noted that Mr. Eskridge should deal with the question of the height of the silos and make a determination at this time. Cha irman Gordon then assured Mr. Eskridge and Mr. Mazur that the Commission will work with than in any way they can. Mr. Riley next addressed conditional use permits in the M -2 section and the conditional use section on home occupations, noting there was sane citizen continent on hone occupations. Cha irman Gordon then noted concern regarding the intent regarding conditional use permits, particularly in R zones. Cha irman Gordon explained that apparently in R zones conditional use permits are not required and noted that there seems to be discrepancies in the writeups at this time in the zoning ordinance. Mr. DeHaven commented that he did not think the intent on this conditional use permit is what was passed. Cha irman Gordon noted that Ms. Stefen is not in attendance and perhaps she could shed some light on what transpired. Cha irman Gordon said the question is why was it eliminated from residential zones. Chairman Gordon suggested the action of the joint public meeting be looked into to see what exactly was adopted and what the problem might be. 791 (P /C 9/5/79) Page 11 Chairman Cordon suggested that the subject of conditional use permits should be discussed at a work session, possibly at the September 25th 'Rork Session. Mr. Brumback suggested that the minutes of the joint public meeting be reviewed and the Cmnassion members be notified of the findings. Mr. Riley then noted that citizens were present who wanted to the address the Commission regarding a certain home occupation in Shenandoah Hills. Mr. Robert H. Frye, Shenandoah Hills then came forward and introduced himself, Mrs. Morrella Cox and Mr. Eugene Renner both of Shenandoah Hills. Mr. Frye continued that these is a body shop operating in Shenandoah Hills in a building owned by Leonard Bowie, 6409 Blossom Drive. Mr. Frye related that this problem goes back approximately three months ago, when his wife first called the building inspector when Mr. Bowie applied for a permit to build a personal use garage. Mr. Frye stated that it was his understanding that garages of this type had to be attached to the house. Mr. Frye then passed out a list of things that have occurred and noted that the neighbors had talked to Mr. Ambrogi and on August 16, 1979 had delivered a petition to Mr. Renalds' office. Mr. Frye commented that Mr. Renalds requested Mr. Lingo to obtain a list of home owners opposed to this and the signatures of 27 in opposition were collected. Having received the cease and desist letter from Ms. Dorothea Stefen, Mr. Frye continued, the grace period would have been up the end of August. Mr. Frye then related that on Labor Day Mr. Bowie started operating his body shop again and Mr. Lingo notified ¢4r. Ambrogi. Mr. Frye commented that the Lingo and Cox children were awakened on Labor Day weekend, that the body shop is noisy and a health hazard with paint settling into nearby hones. Mr. Renner then noted that the garage was permitted for Mr. Bowie's own use and that the neighbors have the license plate numbers of cars towed and driven in. 792 (P /C 9/5/79) Page 12 Mr. Ambrogi then noted that Mr. Bowie could not have gotten a conditional use permit for an industrial use of this kind in a residential zone like this. Mr. Golladay then asked what has been done since he was served notice to stop and has not stopped. Mr. Ambrogi noted that this has been handled by Ms. Dorothea Stefen and I assumed she was going to obtain a warrant. Mr. Ambrogi continued that Mr. Bowie would first have to be tried and found gailty and then a penalty could be imposed for every day after that he was in operation. Mr. Frye then ccmuented that Mrs. Lingo was told by Dorothea Stefen that apparently Mr. Ambrogi did not know the law was changed. Mr. Ambrcgi noted that the landownem could seek an injunction under their deed convenant. Mr. Frye noted that he could not find where this was prohibited in the deed convenant . Chairman Gordon acknowledged that something would be done about this as soon as possible. Mr. Brumback then requested that a followup report be submitted at the next meeting. Mr. Riley next addressed the subject of the definition of frontage, noting that each member received a memorandum on this subject. Mr. Riley then asked for any continents. Chairman Gordon noted that the addition of the word minimum was the intent and there seems to be no p ro bl em. with this word amendment. Chairman Gordon then noted that this could be advertised for the next public hearing. Mr. Riley then showed the Commission the signs which will be on sale to the Public for Conditional Use Permits and Rezonings at a cost of $1.50. 793 (P /C 9/5/79) Page 13 Mr. Brumback then reported that the Prime Agriculture Conmittee meeting progressed well and perhaps Mr. Cary DeOms and Mr. Mark Davis could address the Ccmussion at the next meeting. Mr. Brumback then requested that the Committee be left standing to supervise the transfer of information onto maps. This was acknowledged acceptable by general concensus. There being no further business, Mr. Venskoske made a motion to adjourn. This was seconded by Mr. DeHaven and passed unanimously. 794 Respectfully Suhndtted,