Loading...
PC_10-17-79_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING CCMIISSION Held in the Board of Supervisors' Roan, October 17, 1979, 2:00 P.M. PRESENT: C. Langdon Gordon, Cha Frank Brumback, Vice - Cha W. French Kirk; James Golladay, Jr.; Thomas B. Rosenberger; Herbert Sluder. ABSENT: Manuel DeHaven; Elmer Venskoske. [r�Nilfi►iZ• :: �: The first order of business was the consideration of the minutes of the two previous meetings, September 25, 1979 and October 3, 1979. There being no corrections or additions, Mr. Golladay made a motion the minutes be approved. This was seconded by Mr. Kirk and passed unanimously. Mr. Golladay first asked if the conditions.for Mr. Fulton's Conditional Use Permit were passed by the Board of Supervisors as recocunended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Riley noted that the Board did not approve the condition for the renewal period, but did leave the conditions of screening of outside storage and that it be only for the repair of the company's trucks. Mr. Golladay next questioned what was involved in the subdivision of Merriman Estates, Section III. Mr. Riley noted that since Merriman Estates had submitted appropriate documents previously, they will be allowed to go in under the previous requirements. Mr. Golladay then asked if there was a problem out there with the flood plain. Mr. Riley advised that one of the lots had to be re- arranged and the flood plain question was being addressed when the lot size requirements were changed. Mr. Riley then opened discussion regarding existing subdivisions that have ongoing development and asked if they would fall under the previous requirements for lot size. In answer to Mr. Brumback's question, Mr. Riley noted that he was referring to sections that had not been platted. Mr. Renalds added that those that have been recorded are not the problem. Chairman Gordon added that this seems to be a legal question and perhaps Mr. Ambrogi should be asked for a written opinion regarding this. Mr. Riley acknowledged that he would ask for a legal opinion. 2M Planning Commission -2- 10/17/79 Mr. Brumback then asked what the status was on the Leon Zeiger Subdivision. Mr. Riley noted that the Board action on the vacation of Section V is being contested by the owner and that everything is being held until a decision is reached. If the court rules the vacation is not valid, Mr. Riley continued, the subdivision will already be on file and approved. If they do not win he will have to go back throlmgh the Mete subdivision review process, Mr. Riley further explained. Cha irman Gordon asked if the Commission will not hear the case unless it is re- submitted. Mr. Riley acknowledged this would be the case. Chairman Gordon then acknowledged receipt of the Bimonthly Report as information. Cha irman Gordon next addressed the subject of the finalization of down- zoning criteria. Mr. Riley stated that he tentatively scheduled meetings for the Downzoning Committee and Planning Commission for every Tuesday night, starting October 23, 1979. After some discussion, it was decided by general concensus that the meeting schedule be as follows: October 23, 1979; October 29, 1979; and, November 5, 1979. Mr. Golladay asked if the Commission might want to schedule a District for each evening in the event citizens would like to coument. Cha irman Gordon noted that this is a good suggestion, however, it is hard to determine how long will be spent on any one area. Mr. Brumback also noted that until the work is completed it will be difficult to answer any questions. Mr. Riley noted that both he and Mr. Roy Jennings will record each parcel as it is discussed and, if it is to be changed, there will be a master list of parcels. This will help in a mass mailing to all property owners directly affected by this, Mr. Riley continued. Mr. Rosenberger noted that sane people will be affected by this monetarily. 831 Planning Cammission -3- 10/17/79 Mr. Rosenberger suggested that a meeting with the Board of Supervisors be set up prior to the public hearings to outline the recommendations and get a feel from the Board. Mr. Rosenberger noted that agreement and understanding should be made with the Board before any community meetings. Mr. Brumback then asked if adjacent landowners would be notified. Mr. Riley explained that this is a courtesy, not a requirement, and that any changes will be taken into the community for input and also be advertised in the paper- Mr. Riley next addressed the requirements for R -6 zoning. Mr. Riley noted he had a chance to look into the density requirements for R -6 and noted that the floor area of 1100 square feet would equate to 11.2 units per acre, not 20 per acre. Mr. Golladay commented that his interpretation of this was that the floor area ratio only included the first floor. Mr. Riley commented that this was calculated on two floors, he believed. Using a ratio of .28, Mr. Riley continued, you still cane up with a set amount of units per acre. Mr. Riley also commented that in the County's housing assistance plan, the R -6 area is denoted as an area available for low and moderate income housing and, in taking out available areas, we should question if we are hurting ourselves in the event the County would file for Federal funds for water and sewer, etc. Mr. Bnmmback then asked what the total R -6 is in the County. Mr. Riley noted that the best he could determine was that there are 53 acres at Star Fort and ten acres in Ash Hollow Estates, not including areas that are in R -6 but previously zoned another zone prior to 1973. In answer to Mr. Kirk's question, Mr. Gordon noted that Route 50 east has been set aside for this in the Comprehensive Plan, but has not yet been zoned. Mr. Sam Lelnnan then expressed concern over the cost of these so called low income houses. 832 Planning Commission -4- 10/17/79 Mr. Brtmiback then commented that Mr. Riley's cromnents desire scrutiny and perhaps the Camammission should question the complete elimination of multiple family housing. Mr. Rosenberger noted that by eliminating this one R -6 zoning, it was not the Commission's desire to el all R -6 zoning in the County. Mr. Rosenberger explained that, while going over the Comprehensive Plan, R -6 zoning will be considered. Mr. Golladay noted that it might be better to rezone this R -6 as it is needed. Mr. Golladay also expressed that economic conditions will have a bearing on this. Mr. Brtunback then asked if there would be an economic impact study done. Mr. Riley explained that.this would be submitted at the time of the rezoning and it would give the generation of pupils, trips, etc. for the project. Mr. Gordon noted that the Commission may be arbitrarily fooling itself if it thinks it can eliminate -multi-family housing in this County, as the State Code would not allow any jurisdiction to not -have a variety of housing. Chairman Gordon noted that it possibly boils down to how much and where multi - family housing should be. Mr. BrLMback noted that you could suggest that water and sewer considerations be part of the criteria for R -6 zoning. Chairman Gordon noted that there is an obligation to those people who cannot afford single family dwellings. Mr. BrLmback commented that the decision should be made as to if we want R -6 zoning and, if we do, how much and where we want it. Mr. Kirk commented that there are other areas such as Route 522 that have water and sewer and could be R -6 areas. In answer to Mr. Gordon's question, Mr. Kirk acknowledged that he agreed R -6 is needed, but hesitated taking it away from one man and going up the road and giving it to saneone else. 833 Planning Commission -5- 10/17/79 Mr. Golladay noted that there is a problem tying in multi - family housing to the financial situation of the County. Mr. Golladay continued, noting that perhaps this should be done on a piecemeal basis, taking the Comprehensive Plan into account. Mr. Brumback next questioned putting a timetable on this type of development by designating an R -6 area which could be developed at a future time, say 1984. Mr. Brtunback further suggested that if rezoning was being requested for a block of land, the CoTLission could say yes, but in stages which would allow the school budget, etc. to be developed to deal with it. Mr. Riley added that this could be feasible by designating possible areas on the Comprehensive Plan for R -6 zoning and tying it into timing developed in rela- tionship to water and sewer and so stated in the narrative. Mr. Rosenberger added.that he would not be in favor of R -6 zoning on any parcel larger than ten acres. Chairman Gordon noted that this discussion is for the sake of establishing thinking on this subject for use while going over these maps. Cha irman Gordon added that the Downzoning Committee will be meeting at night and the Board of Supervisors should also be invited to participate. Mr. Riley next addressed the action of the Board of Supervisors on the proposed amendment change to the Hone Occupation Section of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Riley noted that the Board tabled this proposed amendment at the last meeting because of confusion on their part. Mr. Riley commented that they were concerned that an individual could not operate an antique shop as a hone occupation but would have to operate it under a conditional use permit. Mr. Riley further explained that you can do these things in an Agricultural zone but you would do it under a conditional use permit instead of a home occupation. Mr. Riley suggested that perhaps a definition for home occupation should be written without labeling it residential or agricultural because you are talking about hone occupations in the residence, whether it be an A or R zone. 834 Planning Commission -6- 10/17/79 Chairman Gordon then asked if the problem might have been in the t ermin o- logy in the definition. Mr. Riley noted that if the exclusions were not listed there might have been less confusion. Mr. Riley continued, saying that he would look into the procedure for re- submitting this on the Board agenda. The Commission, by general cancensus, decided to let Mr. Riley look into the legalities involved and det just how to re- submit this ordinance change of the Home Occupations Section to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Riley next addressed the subject of a change in the wording of the M -2 Section, noting that.putting the applicant through the process too many times was a point of concern with the Board. Mr. Riley noted that the change would be the insertion of the word "may" instead of shall and putting in "and /or" after the words Planning Commission. Mr. Riley stated that this proposed change would give the administrator the flexibility to either approve administratively or send it through the process. Mr. Brtmback questioned if the Commission would still hear Site Plans and Rezonings on the same day. Mr. Riley noted that they would, noting that this would decrease the agenda load for both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Riley caanented that restrictions could be placed on the Site Plan by the Board as well as on the Conditional Use Permit, explaining that in any industrial zone the site plan has to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Board anyway. In answer to Cha irman Gordon's question, Mr. Riley noted that he would be comfortable approving routine requests but that he would refer anything questionable to the Planning Commnission and Board. Cha irman Gordon commented that this proposed change could be tried and, if it does not work out, it can always be changed. Chairman Gordon noted that this is 835 Planning Commission -7- 10/17/79 one step toward simplifying things for the citizen. Mr. Brumback then made a motion to prepare this ordinance change for advertisement and public hearing. This was seconded by Mr. Golladay and passed unanimo BE IT RESOLVED, that the Frederick County Planning Commission approvethe advertising and setting up for public hearing of the proposed change to the M -2 Section of the Zoning Ordinance-to insert the word "may" for shall and the words "and /or" after the words Planning Commission in Article XV, Sec. 21 -128 (a). Chairman Gordon suggested that perhaps Mr. Venskoske and Mr. DeHaven should be contacted in regard to this proposed change. Mr. Riley next stated that the correspondence regarding the Stephenson Post Office was informational and any comments could be welcomed. Mr. Riley next noted that there will be a conference in Fredericksburg at the Sheraton Motor Inn on December 5 and 6 on Protecting and Preserving Rural Land Issues. Mr. Rosenberger next addressed the subject of Land Use Tax, noting that he had confusion regarding Land Use Tax being used for other than agricultural zones. Mr. Riley commented that the way he understood it, on any land that was zoned or rezoned in 1973 and was in land use at that time , the tax will reflect the land use eventhough it is zoned something else. This will also be so in 1981, Mr. Riley continued. Mr. Riley further explained that rezonings that were requested would be taxed according to zoning in 1981. Chairman Gordon stated that this apparently is a State mandate. Mr. Rosenberger suggested that perhaps more clarification of this is needed. Mr. Riley suggested that if this Comprehensive Rezoning is being done solely on the premise that people may be adversely affected by the zoning in relationship to taxes they pay, then there should be no concern at all. If this rezoning is being done for UM. Planning Commission -8- 10/17/79 other reasons then we should go ahead and do it. Mr. Brumback stated that the need to update the Land Use Plan has became evident. Chairman Gordon summarized by saying that the Commission has felt that the time for updating is here irregardless of downzoning. There being no further business, Mr. Golladay made a motion to adjourn. This was seconded by Mr. Kirk and passed unanimously. Respectfully submitted, aaz e • - e tar�/ C. Laft g6 bn Gordon O - v a irman 837