Loading...
PC_10-18-78_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board of Supervisors' Meeting Room, October 18, 1978. PRESENT: C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; Frank Brumback; Vice Chairman; James Golladay, Jr.; W. French Kirk; Thomas Rosenberger; Herbert L. Sluder ABSENT: Manuel DeHaven; Elmer Venskoske CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order and proceeded to the first order of business. Minutes of the Meeting -- October 3, 1978 -- Approved as Submitted Upon motion made by James golladay, Jr., seconded by W. French Kirk and approved unanimously, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby approve the minutes of the meeting of October 3, 1978 as submitted. BIMONTHLY REPORT The bimonthly report was discussed. The Commission showed a concern for several of the site plans and subdivisions being held in the files so long. Mr. Berg pointed out that Checker Oil had to do a flood plain study and the staff was awaiting results from the applicant; Goldston Trucking Company's site plan was being delayed because of their surveyor; Merriman's Estates Subdivision was being delayed because the preliminary plat is subject to correction and it has been sent to the surveyor; the Winchester Mall site plan had been rejected by the Highway Department because of their proposed crossover of Route 7 to the property. Mr. Berg told the Commission a letter had been sent to the applicants of Winchester Mall informing them of the Highway Department's comments. 549 (P /C 10/18/78) p 2 Mr. Brumback stated that a lot of times the County is accused of "dragging their feet" on an application when in fact it is held up because of something the applicant has failed to complete. SUBDIVISION Subdivision request by the Nora L. Garber trust for one lot fronting Route 522 South in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Recommend Approval Mr. Berg presented copies of the plat to the Commission and told them this was the same property that had been considered at the meeting of October 4th for a rezoning... Mr. Donald Garber, applicant, appeared before the Commission. A brief discussion was held and the following motion was 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 of this subdivision request to the Board of Supervisors. The motion passed by the following vote: Kirk; Golladay, Jr.,; Brumback; Rosenberger; Chairman -- YES USE PERMIT Conditional Use Permit No. 016 -78 -- request by L. J. Wright & Son, Inc. to operate a petroleum storage facility off Route 11 north in the Stonewall Magisterial District. Action -- Recommend Approval Mr. Berg read the application to the Commission and told them the property would be used for receiving and disbursing gasolines and heating oils; bulk storage of petroleum products, and a storage tank farm. He stated the existing buildings would be demolished and the storage tanks would be moved. A new storage building would be constructed and a storage tank farm installed. 550 (P/C '10/18/78) p 3 Loring J. Wright, applicant, appeared before the Commission and stated the property in question was the old Southern States property. He told the Commission that the present facilities would not meet current building or fire code requirements. Mr. Wright told the Commission they would be moving the storage tanks from along Route 11 to the property in question and the tanks would be set on concrete on the ground. Mr. Wright stated the property would be dyked twice the size of the largest storage tank, as required. He also stated he would have a total of fourteen (14) storage tanks. A brief discussion was held on who would be inspecting the project. Mr. Wright pointed out that the whole project had been designed by a corporation in Richmond and they would also do the actual construction, according to all the regulations and restrictions. He stated the County Building Inspector would do the inspecting. Mr. Wright stated they would be meeting 1983 air pollution controls. The consensus of the Commission was that Mr. Wright was making a great improvement to the property. There being no one appearing in opposition of the request, the following motion was 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 of a nontransferable permit to the Board of Supervisors. The motion passed by the following vote: Kirk; Golladay, Jr.; Brumback; Rosenberger; Chairman -- YES Discussion - Fiscal Impact Report Spencer Elmore and Steven Jacobs, representatives from Daniel A. Robinson and Associates, appeared before the Commission to discuss a draft of the Fiscal Impact Report. Mr. Elmore told the Commission they had been employed by the County to assist the Commission in a development of a framework of a concept for analyzing the 551 (P /C 10/18/78) p 4 fiscal impact of residential developments. He cautioned the Commission on the utilization of this system on determinations that are made relative to approval or disapproval of a development. Mr. Elmore stated it would be basically impossible to devise a system that would be exact in determining fiscal impact of a particular development, however, it is possible to develop an approach which will give a good indication of whether a development will have a positive or a negative impact and a general order of magnitude of that positive or negative impact. Mr. Elmore stated an approach such as this, when used in conjunction with other considerations, would be a valid ingredient or element in the decision making process but cautioned the Commission against using the system as a singular consideration. Mr. Elmore stated another consideration would be the capital improvements program. He stated the major fiscal cost of a development, depending on the scale of the development, is the cost of actual capital facilities that, may be necessitated. He stated some developments, depending on scale, may not require or necessitate any additional facilities, however, a large scale develop- ment may necessitate these facilities. Mr. Elmore told the Commission a Capital Improvements Program would be needed to show the facilities that were planned in the absence of a proposed development and then the Commission would have a basis for approving :or..disapproving a development. He stated the Commission could look at a proposal and say that this development would require an additional capital facility, therefore, in evaluating its economic impact the County is justified in allocating a certain portion of that facility '.s cost. Steven Jacobs told the Commission they had set out to develop a system that could associate the County revenue with the expenditures with aspects that would be found in residential development. He stated as a source for the report they had used the 1977 County's annual audit report. 552 (P /C 10/18/78) p 5 Mr. Jacobs stated the system that had been set up was geared toward owner occupied, single family, detached subdivision. He stated with modifications, the system could be applied to a development mixed with commercial and residential uses as opposed to straight single - family, detached houses. Mr. Elmore stated that the draft report was incomplete. He stated they would be using three (3) existing subdivisions and put them through the system for examples to show the Commission how the system would work. He stated they would also be adding some basic summaries and concluding comments to the report. A discussion was held by the Commission. Mr. Berg stated that the report used format of the present County budget but it would make no recommendations or changes in the County Budget. He stated Jim Boyd, Director of Finance, had reviewed the report and had no problems with it from an accounting standpoint. Mr. Berg pointed out a Capital Improvements Program would be a tool for the budget director to use in forecasting County expenditures coming up. A discussion was held and it was noted that this system was a planning tool which allows the County to gain a grasp of what the fiscal impact would be of a development. Mr. Rosenberger stated that he thought this study would relate more with the financial part such as recommendations on methods of financing and new methods that were not being used by the County. Mr. Berg stated that when the plan was originally presented to the Commission, there were two proposals: one was to do a Capital Improvements Program and the other was to do a study of the impact of residential development. Mr. Berg stated the Capital Improvements Program would have examined the capital expenditures that the County has made to date and then it would have gone on as a five year plan for County expenditures upcoming and it would have included recommendations for methods of financing the capital improvements. Mr. Berg told the Commission they 553 (P /C 10/18/78) p 6 had decided at the time this first presentation was made not to have the Capital Improvements Program because the County and the City at that time were discussing courthouse facilities and they did not know what expenditures were ahead. He stated they had decided to go along with the portion of the study that had to do with the fiscal impact of residential development of the County. The Chairman asked the differential of single family versus a planned development or multi - family development. Mr. Elmore stated that basically this would involve different characteristics. of family size, income, and different revenue production in terms of the unit of land. He stated a higher density development would be more revenue producive then the single family because of the property taxes, etc. Mr. Rosenberger asked about the County providing for R -3 development and then a developer applying for a change in the zoning to R -6 which would increase the number of families on the property. He stated the services would not be allowed for and he wondered what the County would do. Mr. Elmore stated that was the purpose of this fiscal impact system. He stated the Commission could evaluate the proposal and be able to tell the effects it would have on the County. The Chairman asked the status on enabling legislation regarding impact charges on new development. Mr. Berg stated there had been no changes in the legislation. Mr. Elmore stated that he had talked with an associate with the State govern- ment, and he had been told that a subcommittee of the legislature is addressing the question of levying charges on new development for school facilities alone. Mr. Elmore noted that they would be finalizing the report and it would probably be ready by the middle of November. 554 (P /C 10/18/78) p 7 Discussion -- Conditional Zoning Mr. Berg led the Commission in a discussion on Conditional Zoning. He pointed out that a rezoning applicant could list conditions.1that the County could enforce. Mr. Berg stated that if an application is recommended to the Board of Supervisors and during the Boards' hearing the conditions are changed then the application would have to come back to the Planning Commission before it could be acted upon. Mr. Berg told the Commission that in the event an applicant makes conditions of physical improvements, the County can require a surety bond to guarantee the improvements will be made. A discussion was held and it was noted that the Commission could not make the conditions, however, they could make suggestions as to what they would prefer. Mr. Berg noted the disadvantages of the conditional zoning as being spot zoning. He stated there would be a problem with enforcement because every zoning would be unique. The Commission discussed the advantages and disadvantages of this conditional zoning and decided that the Board of Supervisors should be aware of this issue and the Commission should get a consensus from the Board before they pursue the issue further. Mr. Berg presented the plan of work to the Commission. He reminded the Commission of their joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors to be held on October 25, 1978 with dinner beginning at 5:30 and the meeting starting at 7:00 PM. Mr. Berg told the Commission the second priority (Revise agricultural zoning districts) was a little unclear because they had talked about revising the A -1 and A -2 zones and also, they had talked about having a zone for strictly agriculture activity. After a discussion with the Commission, it was noted that both should be addressed. 555 (P /C 10/18/78) p 8 Mr. Rosenberger suggested discussing this preservation of agricultural land with the residents of the County when the meetings are held in the various localities for the new zoning maps. Mr. Brumback suggested that the Soil Conservation District representative be called in to give an indication of what they consider prime agricultural land. Adjournment Upon motion made by James Golladay, Jr., seconded by Frank Brumback 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. Respectfully Submitted, ) - 4"a Ronald Berg, Secretary � r r La,n, g?j6 Gordo 556