Loading...
PC_03-01-78_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board of Supervisors' Room March 1, 1978. PRESENT: C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; Frank Brumback, Vice Chairman; Manuel C. DeHaven; James Golladay, Jr.; W. French Kirk; Thomas Rosenberger; Elmer Venskoske; Herbert L. Sluder ABSENT: None CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the Meeting to Order and proceeded to the First Order of Business. Minutes of the Meeting -- February 9, 1978 -- Approved as Submitted February 15, 1978 -- Approved with Correction page 404 -- line 13 -- change "leans" to "liens" 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 February 9, and 15, with the one correction. The motion passed by a unanimous vote. Request by Douglas 0. Grimm to correct the zoning maps. Mr. Berg told the Commission that Mr. Grimm's property had been zoned incorrectly and that the intended use of his property was Agricultural. He sated this was a matter of staff error and with the Commission's permission, it would be advertised for public hearing to correct it. Mr. Douglas 0. Grimm, property owner, appeared before the Commission and told them that he had sent a letter to the Planning and Development Department in August of 1974 explaining to them that he had discovered that his property was zoned three different zones and he would like it to be all zoned Agricultural. 40-i (P /C 3/01/78) p 2 Mr. Grimm stated that he had been notified that the Planning Commission had reviewed the request and that it had been noted that the Land Use Plan, that was being adopted at that time, would make some adjustments to the zoning maps and this should take care of his problem. Mr. Grimm stated nothing had resulted after that and he was asking for the land to be zoned Agricultural. The Commission held a brief discussion. Upon motion made by Thomas Rosenberger and seconded by W. French Kirk, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia, does hereby recommend that this zoning matter of Mr. Grimm be held for public hearing. The motion passed by the following vote: Kirk; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback; Rosenberger; Chairman - YES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - FREDERICK MALL SUBDIVISION Request for subdivision approval for three (3) lots fronting Route 522 North and Fox Drive. Action -- Recommend Approval Mr. Berg stated this was a request for subdivision of three lots; two lots fronting Route 522 and one lot fronting Fox Drive. Mr. Berg told the Commission two corrections had been requested by the Commission when this was brought before them on August 17, 1977: (1) to give additional right -of way on Fox Drive for future widening of Fox Drive, (2) Lot 2 had been moved back from the Corner property to permit a sixty (60) foot right -of -way to serve both lots 1 and 2. Mr. Berg stated that the plat met all requirements. Harry K. Benham, III, attorney representing this petition, appeared before the Commission. He told the Commission that this was the revised plat that had been requested. A discussion was held by the Commission. Upon motion made by Frank Brumback and seconded by Manuel DeHaven, 40A. (P /C 3/01/78) p 3 BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors of the Frederick Mall Subdivision. The motion passed by the following vote: Kirk; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback; Rosenberger; Chairman - YES - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - The Chairman told the Commission they had about one -half hour before the public hearings would be held so they decided to start their worksession on proposals for residential - agricultural developments. Mr. Berg reminded the Commission of their worksession meeting that had been scheduled for March 2, at 7:00 PM. Clinton L. Ritter from Kernstown appeared before the Commission and stated that he would like to see the Commission enforce the Ordinance which they had adopted in December, 1977. Mr. Ritter stated that variances could always be granted for persons who needed to vary from the Ordinance. Mr. Ritter recommended a thirty (30) foot right -of -way and stated that the wider the right -of -way, the more water accumulation and the more storm problems you create. Mr. Ritter told the Commission if the land was being sold for recreation purposes, streets would not be needed. The Chairman told Mr. Ritter the Commission was having a difficult time determining between what was recreational and what was residential. The Chairman- stated that the worksession would continue after the public hearings. A ten minute recess was held. The Chairman reconvened the meeting. 46cl (P /C 03/01/78) p 4 PUBLIC HEARINGS Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 002 -78 submitted by G. M. Kerns contract purchaser acting for Marquis Property of Winchester and Duane B. Dillard 3237 Valley Avenue, Winchester, Virginia who hereby request that 2.506 acres North- west of Winchester on the North side of U. S. Route 522 on the West side of Darlington Drive now zoned both Business- General District (B -2) and Residential- General District (R -3) be rezoned: all Residential - General District ( -3 ). This property is designated as Property Identification Number 053AOA0000002 and is situated in Stonewall Magisterial District. Action - Denied Mr. Berg told the Commission the property was zoned both Residential - General and Business - General and it was being requested that it all be made Residential- General (R -3). He stated it had been proposed to have seven (7) single - family dwellings on the property. "Butch" Kerns, and "Swag" Koonce, property owners, appeared before the Commission and told them that they had planned for seven (7) brick houses with basements and car shelters. Mr. Kerns stated the smallest lot would be 13,000 square feet and the.largest would be 17,000 square feet. He maintained that the houses he had planned would be compatible with the neighboring Darville Subdivision. Mr. Kerns pointed out that-the homes in that area are on larger lots because at the time the houses were built they had to have individual water and sewer and now central water and sewer is available in the area. The Commission held a discussion and it was noted that although the area was zoned R-3 it had developed into an R -2 or R -1 zone. The Commission felt that the property should not be divided into seven (7) lots, they felt _five (5) lots would be better. Mr. Kerns stated that economics and feasibility were the reasons for the seven (7) lots. The Chairman called for persons to'speak in favor of the petition. Since no one appeared in favor, the Chairman asked for opposition. nDDn CTTTnV I. W. Pike, resident of 1325 Darlington Drive, appeared in opposition of the petition. He stated he would like to see the lots zoned R -2 because it would require 410 (P /C 03/01/78) p 5 a much more restrictive use. Ellen Murphy resident of 1333 Darlington Drive, appeared in opposition of the petition. She stated regardless of the honor of the builders, the County could not hold the builders to the type of house they said they would be building on the lots. Ms. Murphy stated that Darville Subdivision was composed of single family residences on 20,000 square foot lots and she didn't think the small lots proposed by Mr. Kerns and Mr. Koonce would coincide with the area. Ms. Murphy stated that the more lots proposed the more houses would be built and this would bring more children into the area. Ms. Murphy maintained that the lots would be small and the children would not have room to play in their own yards. She also pointed out that the streets would be congested with the additional traffic. Ms. Murphy concluded by saying that she was not against an R -2 zoning of the property which would allow for five (5) lots. Peggy Love resident of 1329 Darlington Drive, presented a petition to the Commission from the residents of Darville Subdivision. Mrs. Love told the Commission the Subdivision had been zoned R -3 without the resident's knowledge and she thought it should be zoned R -2 or R -1. She maintained that the crowded homes would decrease the value of their homes and she did not think this should be allowed. Mrs. Love stated she felt the area should be zoned R -2 which would coincide with the existing homes. Sheila A. Naravas resident of 1305 Ambrose Drive, told the Commission she lived across from the property in question. Ms. Naravas pointed out that the seven (7) lots would face what is presently on three (3) lots. She stated the lots and houses planned would not be compatible with the existing neighborhood. The Chairman pointed out that the Commission could control the size of the lots however, they had no control on what size house went on the lots. Agnes Tyndall adjacent property owner, told the Commission she objected to the number of houses proposed. She added that she would concur that the subdivision was zoned wrong. 41 (P /C 03/01/78) p 6 Peggy Warner resident of 1316 Darlington Drive, appeared in opposition of the petition. She sated that the Commission could not control the size of the houses but they could control the zoning and if this particular piece of property was zoned R -2 then Mr. Kerns and Mr. Koonce would have to build accordingly. James L. Berry attorney representing Sara and Bob Smith' (residents of 1316 Ambrose Drive), told the Commission they were opposing the request for the R -3 zoning but would support the R -2 zoning. He maintained that the Darville Subdivision conforms to a R -2 or R -1 zoning. Mr. Berry stated he felt the Commission should rezone the entire Darville Subdivision. Raymond Ward appeared before the Commission in opposition and asked the Commission who had control of the size of the houses being built on the lots. The Chairman stated that deeds of dedication can specify size of houses but the County had no control over the matter. Lawrence Ambrogi, Commonwealth's Attorney, stated the County could only regulate the size of the lot not the house. REBUTTAL Mr. Kerns rebutted by saying that he could appreciate the fact that the people do not want a small house on the lots, but he felt he was just asking for a zoning that was already in existence. Mr. Kerns pointed out that he could have asked for a Business zone and put up one building but he felt houses would harmonize with what already existed in the area. 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 petition presented by the home owners in Darville Subdivision be made a part of the minutes. The motion passed by the following vote: Kirk; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback; Rosenberger; Chairman - YES 41: , (P /C 03/01/78) p 7 -- Petition presented by Darville Subdivision Home Owners -- RESOLVED: That the undersigned homeowners oppose the application for rezoning # of land adjoining Darville Subdivision to R -3 for the following reasons: 1 - R -3 zoning was applied by the county without representative or consider- ation given to property owners in this area to the existing Darville area. 2 - R -3 zoning allows for greatly smaller lot sizes than those in the sur- rounding area and would present a non - conforming and lower -level of building site. 3 - That further R -3 zoning would only decrease the value of the property we have already invested so much money and time into improving. 4 - The below signed property owners would appeal to the planning commission and the board of supervisors to have the current R -3 zoning changed to R -2 so that all lots will be more uniform in size. 5 - That all residential property in the immediate vacinity of this appli- cation would conform to R -1 but residents do not wish to put an unusual burden on the owners of the undeveloped land, therefore we have decided that an R -2 zoning would be satisfactory to all concerned. 6 - That small lots, as allowed by R -3, would prohibit yards sufficient for small childred to have enough room to play and also increase traffic hazards to children in this area. No playground or park facilities are avail- able for small children in the immediate area. Name: Peggy Love Brenda Miller. Ruby Darlington Vernon L. Thayer Georgia Thayer Ira W. Pike Walter M. Shaver Alice Shaver Mrs. Roy H. Moore Mrs. Lawrence Taylor Mrs. Peggy Warner Steve Warner Roy B. Carper, Jr. Mrs. Lorraine Carper Pearl W. Urquhart Russell J. Urquhart Roy B. Carper Julia-F. Carper Margaret Ward Margaret M. Clowser Charles B. Clowser Robert L. Kipps Address: 1329 Darlington Drive 1336 Darlington Drive 1332 Darlington Drive 1328 Darlington Drive 1328 Darlington Drive 1325 Darlington Drive 1317 Darlington Drive 1317 Darlington Drive 1306 Darlington Drive 1309 Darlington Drive 1309 Darlington Drive 1305 Darlington Drive 1228 Darlington Drive 1224 Darlington Drive 41:,5 (P /C 03/01/78) p 8 Mr. & Mrs. Ben F. Wood Mr. & Mrs. R. A. Hoover Mr. & Mrs. Floyd Staines Alfred & Ellen Murphy Joseph T. Tyndall Agnes C. Tyndall Edward F. Naravas Sheila A. Naravas Frances Rush Richard E. Rush 1345 Ambrose Drive 1329 Ambrose Drive 1325 Ambrose Drive 1333 Darlington Drive 1304 Ambrose Drive 1304 Ambrose Drive 1305 Ambrose Drive 1305 Ambrose Drive 1309 Ambrose Drive 1309 Ambrose Drive Mr. DeHaven stated that there had always been trouble in Sunnyside with the small lots. He maintained that the people who built the nice houses in the Darville Subdivision and put them on the larger lots should not have the value of their homes decreased by these smaller lots that Mr. Kerns and Mr. Koonce were proposing. He felt five (5) lots were adequate. Mr.:Brumback stated that the Commission could only approve or deny this petition as presented. The Chairman asked Mr. Ambrogi if the Commission had the right to change the petition before voting. Mr. Ambrogi stated the Commission could amend the petition if everyone could come to an agreement. Mr. Golladay stated that he felt the Commission had a policy of acting only on what was presented and he didn't feel they should amend this petition. Mr. Rosenberger concurred with Mr. Golladay. The consensus of the Commission was to act on the petition as 'presented. Upon motion made by Manuel DeHaven and seconded by W. French Kirk, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby deny this rezoning application #002 -78. The motion passed by the following vote: Kirk; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback; Rosenberger; Chairman - YES 41• (P /C 03/01/78) p 9 THE RECREATION PLAN AND THE INVENTORY OF CAPITAL FACILITIES SECTION OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Action - Recommend Approval Mr. Berg told the Commission this was the public hearing on the Recreation Chapter and the Inventory of Capital Facilities section of the Comprehensive Plan. A discussion was held with William D. Pike, Director of the Parks and Recreation Department, concerning the Recreation Plan. Upon motion made by Frank Brumback and seconded by W. French Kirk, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby recommend approval to Board of Supervisors of the Recreation Chapter and the Inventory of Capital Facilities of the Comprehensive Plan. The motion passed by the following vote: Kirk; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback; Rosenberger; Chairman - YES AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE, Chapter 21, Sections 21- 16(w), 21- 26(y), 21- 103(k), 21- 109(3b), 21- 120(u)(v), 21- 127(z)(aa), 21 -150, 21 -151, 21 -152, 21 -153, 21 -154, 21 -155, and 21 -156, ZONING, ADOPTED November 1, 1973. Action - Recommend ADDroval Mr. Berg told the Commission these were the sections of the Zoning Ordinance dealing with nonconforming uses. He explained that Sections 21- 16(w), 26(y), 103(k), 109(3b), 120(u)(v), and;127(z)(aa) were sections that were scattered through the Ordinance dealing with the nonconforming uses, and Sections 21 -150, -151, -152, -153, -154, -155, and -156 were the sections added dealing with the nonconforming uses. Mr. Berg stated that the nonconforming.uses_ were being taken out of the different zoning districts of the Ordinance and being put into one section. A brief discussion was held by the Commission. Upon motion made by James Golladay, Jr., and seconded by Manuel DeHaven, 40 (P /C 03/01/78) p 10 BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors of this nonconforming section of the Zoning Ordinance. The motion passed by the following vote: Kirk; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr:; Venskoske; Brumback; Rosenberger; Chairman - YES Continued discussion on the review of the proposals for residential - agricultural development Mr. Rosenberger stated that he thought the Commission should invite George Whitacre, Clerk of the Circuit Court, to the meeting on March 2nd to discuss this matter. The consensus of the Commission was to invite Mr. Whitacre and Mr. Berg was asked to relay the message to Mr. Whitacre. The Chairman stated it had been brought to his attention that possibly a member of the Planning Commission should be appointed to the Capital Facilities Committee of the Board. He asked Mr. Rosenberger to brief the Commission on the situation. Mr. Rosenberger told the Commission the City of Winchester had ideas of the scopes they would like to see considered and the County had scopes that they had been instructed to consider. He stated he understood that the City had a member of the Planning Commission on their committee and perhaps the County should have a member of their Planning Commission on their committee; since the committee is tied in with the operations of the Planning Commission in the over -all plan. Mr. Rosenberger opined he felt it:would be appropriate to have a member on the committe and he felt they should appoint one. The consensus of the Commission was to appoint a member, therefore, the Chairman opened:the floor for nominations. Upon motion made by James Golladay, Jr., and seconded by W. French Kirk, 41- (P /C 03/01/78) p 11 BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby nominate C. Langdon Gordon to represent the Commission on the Capital Facilities Committee of the Board. Upon motion made by Elmer Venskoske and seconded by Thomas Rosenberger, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby nominate James Golladay, Jr. to represent the Commission on the Capital Facilities Committee of the Board. Upon motion made by Elmer Venskoske, and seconded by Manuel DeHaven, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby move to close the nominations. The following vote was recorded nominating James Golladay, Jr . to represent the Commission: Kirk - YES Golladay, Jr. - ABSTAIN DeHaven; Venskoske; Brumback; Rosenberger; Chairman - YES ournment Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by Elmer Venskoske 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, t J aeA H. Ronald Berg, Secretary �- "qJ'1Ar- C. Langd n Gordon, Chairman 4:"