Loading...
PC_01-18-78_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE .FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 'PRESENT: ABSENT Held in the Board of Supervisors' Room January 18, 1978' C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; Frank Brumback, Vice Chairman; Manuel C. DeHaven; James Golladay, Jr.; W. French Kirk; Elmer Venskoske; Herbert L. Sluder Thomas Rosenberger CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order and proceeded to thelFirst Order I of Business. Minutes of the meeting -- December 21, 1977 -- Approved with Correction January 4, 1978 -- Approved as Submitted page 375 -- line 33 -- change " meetins" to "meetings" Upon motion made by Elmer Venskoske and seconded by James Golladay, Jr., BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick Virginia, does hereby approve the minutes of the meetings of December 21, 1977 and January 4, 1978 with the one correction. The motion passed by the following vote: Kirk; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback; Chairman - YES SUBDIVISION Subdivision request by Howard and Margaret Starliper, one lot in Stonewall District. Action - Recommend Approval Mr. Berg told the Commission this was a five (5) acre lot that was ready to go to record the day after the emergency legislation had been passed by the Board of Supervisors changing the subdivisions regulations. Mr. Berg stated the Health Department had approved the lot, the Department of Public Works had reported no flood hazard area, the Zoning Administrator had reported that all requirements had been met, and that the staff recommended approval. 385 (P /C 01/18/78) p 2 Mr. DeHaven told the Commission the Starliper's had telephoned him and because of the road situation resulting from the heavy snowfall, they would be unable to attend the meeting but would like the Commission to vote on the subdivision request if possible. The Commission discussed briefly the situation and the following motion was made to make the exception for this request: Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by James Golladay, Jr., BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County ofl Frederick, Virginia does hereby waive their policy requiring a representative to be present when a request is brought before the Commission due to the ,weather conditions. The motion passed by the following vote: Kirk; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback; Chairman - YES A brief discussion was held about recreation impact fees and whether the Starlipers' would be charged this fee for their one lot. Mr. Bergistated that at the present time he was not sure if this fee would apply to all these large lot subdivisions or not, however, this was a matter for the Board of Supervisors to decide. Upon motion made by Manuel DeHaven, seconded by W. French Kirk, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors of this subdivision request. The motion passed.�by the following vote: Kirk; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback; Chairman - YES PLAT REVISION REQUEST Plat revision request, Fredericktowne Section III, Lots 130 and 131. Action - Recommend Approval Mr. Berg told the Commission this was a request to shift a lot line. He showed the Commission a.revised plat and told them that all requirements had been met. :. (P /C 01/18/78) p 3 Michael L. Bryan, attorney with McKee and Butler representing this petition, appeared before the Commission and stated that when the owner of lot 131 started to put a fence on his property, the surveyor found that the house had been built partially on lot 130. Mr. Bryan stated that the stakes had been moved when the house was being built and this had caused the problem. Mr. Bryan stated that when the mistake was found, Hinman - Pifer, Incorporated (building contractor) had purchased lot 130 and now a revision was being made so that both houses would meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Berg stated that both lots meet the County Zoning and Subdivision requirements. Upon motion made by James Golladay, Jr. and seconded by W. French Kirk, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia, does hereby recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors of this plat revision request. The motion passed by the following vote: Kirk; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback; Chairman - YES SUBDIVISION Subdivision request by Glenroy Duckworth for one lot in Gainesboro District. i Action - Recommend Approval Mr. Berg told the Commission this was a 6.92 acre lot in Gainesboro District and that the lot was on a county right -of -way (Old Redstone Road). Mr. Berg stated the neck of the lot was narrow and that the lot widened out in the back, therefore, the staff recommended that this plat be approved with a nine hundred (900) foot setback line so that the lot could be two hundred (200) feet wide at the setback line which is required in an A -1 zoning. Mr. Berg stated the Health Department had approved this lot. David Whitacre, attorney representing Mr. Duckworth, and David Knowlton, son -in -law of the buyer, appeared before the Commission. Mr. Whitacre told the Commission that the buyer's family was in this area and he wanted to move here from California. 387 (P /C 01/18/78)^ p 4 Mr. Brumback asked why the lot was such an odd shape. Mr. Knowlton stated the reason for the shape of the lot was that his father -in -law and Mr. Duckworth had negotiated because of the terrain�t. of the land. Mr. Berg told the Commission this lot would require a variance because of the width of the front. Upon motion made by Elmer Venskoske and seconded by Manuel DeHaven with an addition made by James Golladay, Jr., BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia, does hereby recommend approval with a nine hundred (900) set back for this subdivision to the Board of Supervisors. The motion passed by the following vote: Kirk; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback; Chairman - YES Review of the roadway proposal for the Stine Industrial Park Mr. Berg told the Commission that on the site plan that had been submitted by Dawson Investments, Mr. Stine had proposed access from Smithfield Avenue I across a forty -five (45) foot right -of -way onto a proposed sixty (60) foot street to serve the Dawson lot. Mr. Berg stated that at the Board of Supervisors' meeting, Mr. Stine proposed an alternate roadway scheme. He stated Mr. Stine requested the Board to approve the site plan with the understanding that they would use the forty -five (45) foot right -of -way coming in from Smithfield Avenue for eighteen (18) months or until Mr. Dawson would build another building on the lot, whichever comes first. Mr. Berg stated it had been proposed that after one of these occurences a roadway would be built from Brooke Road and serve the back of the Dawson property. Mr. Berg stated that he had been discussing the subdivision plat with Mr. Stine's attorney and he thought the roadway should be included-on the plat and he wanted the Commission's thoughts on the matter. (P /C 01/18/78) p 5 After a brief discussion, Mr. Berg added that he was not sure the proposed roadway would be located in the best location.for the park. He stated theoretically it.should.be.possible to extend Brick Kiln Road and connect it with Baker Lane, which is what the City of Winchester is encouraging. After a lengthy discussion, the Commission decided it would be best to have a meeting with Mr. Stine to discuss the best location for the roads in the park. Upon motion made by James Golladay, Jr. and seconded by Manuel DeHaven, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby request that a meeting be held with Mr. Stine at the first meeting in February (February 1, 1978) and that the Commission members go view the industrial park with Mr. Stine preceeding the meeting. If the February 1st meeting is not convenient, then it was suggested that he meet on February 15th with the Commission. The motion passed with the following vote: Kirk; DeHaven;. Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback; Chairman - YES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I The Chairman called a five minutes recess. WORK SESSION Proposed changes to the non- conforming use and structure section of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Berg told the Commission that the staff had taken all the non - conforming sections of the Zoning Ordinances -and put them into one section. Mr. Berg read the following sections that were new sections being added: Sec. 21 -150 Continuation. (b) If any nonconforming use (structure or activity) is discontinued for a period exceeding one year after the enactment of this chapter or subsequent amendments, it shall be deemed abandoned and any use thereafter shall conform to the requirements of this chapter unless a conditional use permit is obtained. Such conditional use permit shall allow for only an equal or less-nonconforming use. Sec. 21 -151 Repair an maintenance. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to prevent the strengthening or restoring to a safe condition of any structure or part thereof declared to be unsafe by any official charged with protecting the public safety, upon order of such official. :• (P /C 01/18/78) p 6 Sec. 21 -152 Expansion or enlargement of nonconforming structures. A nonconforming structure to be extended or enlarged shall conform to the provisions of this chapter; except, however, a nonconforming structure may be enlarged or modified in size only if such enlargement or modification will not result in an increase in the degree of nonconformity. Sec. 21 -157 Restoration or replacement. Nothing in this ordinance shall prevent the restoration of a nonconforming use, building, or structure, destroyed by fire, windstorm; explosion, act of public enemy, accident, or for any other reason whatsoever, or prevent the continuance of the said nonconforming use, provided that the owners of the property in question file with the Zoning Administrator a notice of intention to continue the nonconforming use within six,(6) months of said destruction, or damage, and provided further that said restoration or construction is commenced within one (1) year of the date of said notice of intention to continue the nonconforming use in question shall be deemed to have been abandoned. Mr. Berg stated that these nonconformin uses would be listed in one section of the Code. He told the Commission there was no register of the non- conforming uses in the County, the staff relied on the tax information and written statements from the property owners. The Commission discussed the nonconforming section and decided it was something the County had needed for a long time. Upon motion made by James.Golladay, Jr. and seconded by W. French Kirk, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of, Frederick; Virginia, does hereby move that the public, - hearing for the nonconforming section of the Zoning Ordinance be held on March 1st. The motion - passed by the 'following vote: Kirk; DeHaven, Golladay, Jr. .. - Venskoske;'Brumback; Chairman -- YES Discussion of amending the Zoning Ordinance to permit auctions in the agricultural zones. Mr. Berg told. the Commission that adding auctions to the agricultural. zones would require a policy determination of how much commercial activity is appropriate for an Agricultur district., and if commercial activity is appropriate then should there be regulations. He stated thca. staff had coraacted the Highway Department and the Sheriff's Department and.they had reported that there were no specific traffic 390 (P /C 01/18/78) p 7 hazards associated with these auctions. Mr. Berg stated he had been informed that the roads to the auction buildings could be posted "no parking ". Mr. Berg said the Health Department had reported that some auction properties can not be issued a health permit. A lengthy discussion was held on these auctions. Mr. Berg stated perhaps auctions held on a regular basis could be required to obtain aConditional Use Permit on an annual basis. He stated then the permit would have to be renewed every year and if a complaint had been received then the person operating the business would have to come before the Planning Commission, otherwise the renewal could be handled by the staff. Mr. Golladay stated he thought each applicant should have to come before the. Commission. Mr. Berg told the Commission the Planning Commission had a lot of work to do and it would involve a lot of time to bring each one of these renewals to the meetings. Mr. Golladay stated perhaps a list could be given to the Commission of any— thing that was handled administratively. ..— The Commission stated they felt this was a good idea and it was a way to keep up with the new developments of the County. A discussion was held on retail businesses and auctions. Lawrence Ambrogi, Commonwealth's Attorney, stated the first thing that the Commission needed to do was to define "auctions ". He stated then they would have to categorize auctions. Mr. Sluder stated if the Planning ComiTission decided to have the Conditional Use Permits on an annual basis, then he felt the Health Department should also have the opportunity to review the septic systems. 391 (P /C 01/18/78) p 8 The consensus of the Commission was to have the staff work some more on this amendment and then bring it back to the Commission for further discussion. Recreation Chapter and Capital Facilities Mr. Berg told the Commission that the Recreation Plan and the Capital Facilities Inventory were ready for public hearing. He indicated citizen participation had been added to the Recreation Chapter and that this completed the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Berg stated after the public hearing the Comprehensive Plan could be printed. Mr. Berg told the Commission he was working on the Capital Facilities Plan and he had solicited a proposal from a consulting firm to present to the Commission. A discussion was held about who was responsible for the Capital Facilities Program. i Mr. Berg told the Commission Mr. Malcolm's committee (Capital Tacilities Committee of the Board) was struggling with how to deal with insufficient court facilities. The consensus of the Commission was to meet with Mr. Malcolm and his committee and talk about the facilities program. Mr. Brumback stated he felt only a committee should meet with Mr. Malcolm; because.,if "the entire Commission met it would have to be a public meeting. Mr. Golladay told the Commission he felt the whole Commission should meet. The Chairman polled each member and it was decided that the. whole Commission should meet with Mr. Malcolm's committee. The Commission felt it should be a special meeting because they felt this was an important issue. The Commission shared their consensus that the Recreation Chapter was well written and that they liked the citizen participation being added to the Chapter. Upon motion made by James Golladay, Jr. and seconded by Elmer Venskoske, 392 (P /C 01/18/78) p 9 BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby move for public hearing to be held on March 1st for the Recreation Chapter and the Capital Facilities Inventory as presented. The motion passed by the following vote: Kirk; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback; Chairman - YES Zoning District for Large Lot Recreational Development Mr. Berg told the Commission he wanted to know what they wanted to do about the zoning districts for the large lot recreational developments since the Board had asked them to come up with something by the March meeting. After a brief discussion, the Commission decided to have a special meeting to discuss this matter on February 2, 1978 at 7:00 PM. Adjournment Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by James Golladayl, Jr. and approved unanimously, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the-County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby adjourn its meeting; there being no further business. THERE BEING NOTHING FURTHER TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED. Respectfully Submitted, i" d ' H. Ronald Berg, Secretary — lnJ Mq =M.1dr C. Langdon G don, Chairman 393