PC_04-06_77_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
I[
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
CALL TO ORDER
•
The Chairman Called the Meeting to Order and proceeded to the First Order of
Business.
Held in the Board of Supervisors' Room April 6, 1977
C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; Frank Brumback, Vice Chairman;
Manuel C. DeHaven; James Golladay, Jr.; Thomas B. Rosenberger;
George G. Snarr, Jr.
Elmer Venskoske; R. Wesley Williams
MEETING MINUTES -- March 16, 1977 -- Approved as Submitted
Upon motion made by James Golladay, Jr., seconded by Frank Brumback and ap-
proved by the following vote: Snarr, Jr.; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.;
Brumback; Rosenberger; Chairman - YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Vir-
ginia does hereby approve the Minutes of the Meeting of March 16, 1977 as submitted.
WINCHESTER TRANSP. STUDY - Systems Level Environmental Assmt.
Fox Drive and Southern Connector
- Not in accordance with Countv Plans, Obiectives &
Mr. Berg quoted the following letter from Mr. 0. L. Gray, Associate Traffic Engi-
neer, Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, dated March 22, 1977, with
cc. to Gene R. Wray:
"In reference to your letter of February 3, 1977 to Mr. Gene R. Wray concerning
your comments on the Transportation Study, I would like to take this opportunity to
thank you for your comments and -to answer those questions you had relative to Route
739 (Fox Drive) and the Southern Connector.
The intersection of Route 739 (Fox Drive) with Route 522 was recommended to be re-
aligned to the close proximity of this intersection to the Route 522 -37 interchange.
This recommendation was based on the forecasted traffic volumes in the Route 522 and
Route 37 corridors.
In regard to the Southern Connector, this facility terminates at Route 522 and
Route 645 basically because we feel that these facilities will be capable of handling
the future forecasted traffic volumes. We do not anticipate any tremendous amount of
growth in the Route 645 corridor; however, if growth does occur to any great extent
at some point in the future, this facility could be improved to the extent necessary
• to accommodate this 'growth. The existing traffic volumes are 410 vehicles per day
on Route 645 and 5,300 vehicles per day on Route 522.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please feel free to contact me
at 804 -786- 2983."
204 J
(PC 04/06/77) p 2
Mr. Berg opined that neither Fox Drive nor the Southern Connector would be
feasible because the development in the area that would cause property acquisi-
tion to be too costly. He said that the City would be suggesting that both
projects should be considered low priority, and that Weems Lane would be a better
alternative than Fox Drive. He also opined that Route 37 would be a better al-
ternative for both projects in the County.
The motion to postpone the Fox Drive concept as outlined by the VDH in their
Winchester Transportation Study of Systems Level Environmental Assessment until
more information can be obtained (made by Frank Brumback, seconded by Manuel C.
DeHaven) failed by the following vote: Snarr, Jr.; Rosenberger; Chairman - NO,
DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Brumback - YES.
The motion to approve the above - stated Fox Drive concept (made by George G.
, Snarr, Jr., seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger) was defeated by the following
vote: Snarr, Jr.; DeHaven - ABSTENTION,
Golladay, Jr.; Brumback; Chairman - NO,
Rosenberger YES.
® Upon motion made by James Golladay, Jr., seconded by Manuel C. DeHaven and ap-
proved by the following vote: Snarr, Jr.; Rosenberger - ABSTENTION,
DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Brumback; Chairman - YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Vir-
ginia does hereby disapprove the Fox Drive concept as outlined by the Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation in their Winchester Transportation Study
of Systems Level Environmental Assessment because it is not in accordance with
county plans, objectives and zoning.
Upon motion,made by Frank Brumback, seconded by James Golladay, Jr. and ap-
proved by the following vote: Snarr, Jr.; DeHaven; Rosenberger - ABSTENTION,
Golladay, Jr.; Brumback; Chairman - YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Vir-
ginia does hereby disapprove the Southern Connector concept as outlined the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation in their Winchester Transpor
tation Study of Systems Level Environmental Assessment because it is not in ac-
cordance with county plans, objectives and zoning.
SITE PLAN - No. 006 -77 of Harry F. Stimpson Jr., B -2, Opequon Magisterial District.
(SITE PLAN -'No. 037 of Allen Property B -1, Opequon Magisterial District.)
®
Action - Conditional Approval
205
I
(PC 04/06/77) p 3
•
Mr. Berg reiterated the history of the meeting of March 16, 1977. He stated
that the Zoning Ordinance stipulates that a service road must be provided, but the
developer has the option of dedicating it or not to the highway department. He
said that Mr. Stimpson was requesting what had been included in his original
rezoning application. He opined that the second 35 -foot entrance would be in
keeping with local plans.
William A. Johnston appeared before the Commission for Mr. Stimpson. He stated
that he and his client had an understanding with Mr. Allen about sharing the cost
of developing the combined 60 -foot entrance situated between the two properties.
Upon motion made by James Golladay, Jr., amended by George G. Snarr,,Jr.,
seconded by Frank Brumback, and approved by the following vote:
Snarr, Jr.; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.;
Brumback; Chairman - YES,
Rosenberger - NO:
•
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Vir-
ginia does hereby approve the Site Plan application No. 006 -77 of Harry F.
Stimpson subject to the following:
1) Mr. Joe Allen must submit his approval of the common 60 -foot entrance
situated between his property and Mr. Stimpson's (Ref. Site Plan No.
037 of Allen Property).
2) Each 30 -feet of the 60 -foot common entrance situated between the
properties of Messrs. Stimpson and Allen be a dedicated right -of-
way to the public.
SUBDIVISION - Welltown Acres § I, Plat Revision for Lots 1, 2, 12, 13, 14
Stonewall Magisterial District. Health and highway departments have approved.
Action - Recommended
•
Mr. Berg stated that the entrance lots of this existing subdivision are being
proposed for plat revision to meet the drainage requirements of the highway depart-
ment.
C. Robert Solenberger appeared before the Commission and stated that this re-
vision had been made mainly because of the costs involved. He said that the high-
way department was going to require them to take care of 125 feet of drainage.,
206
I
(PC 04/06/77) p 4
Actually, he said, all they did was move the road up. He also said that some of
the original plat dimensions for Lot 12 may have been taken due to the curvature
• of the road, but that most of the lots are larger than were originally recorded.
Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by James Golladay, Jr. and ap-
proved by the following vote: Snarr, Jr.; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.;
Brumback; Chairman - YES:
(Rosenberger - absent)
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Vir-
ginia does hereby recommend to the Board of Supervisors of said County the stated
plat revision to Lots 1, 2, 12, 13, 14 of Welltown Acres 8 I.
PUBLIC HEARING
ZMAP # 005 -77 of J. P. DARLINGTON Rt. 6, Box 173, Winchester, Va., hereby requests
that 197.511 acres, more or less, fronting the South side of Rt. 669 and the West
side of Rt. 670 (frontage begins a short distance South and West of intersection),
now zoned Agricultural - General (A -2) be rezoned: Residential- Limited (R -2). This
property is designated as parcel No. 48 on tax map 2T -57 and is in Stonewall Magis-
terial District.
Action - Recommended Denial
• The Chairman removed himself from participation, and Frank Brumback, Vice Chair
man, assumed the Chair
John F. Anderson appeared before the Commission to represent Mr. Darlington. He
stated that the use would be for two -acre and larger tracts.
J. Ray Nicely. (C.L.S.) stated that the whole tract would be used.
Mr.'Darlington stated that this tract was all that remained of the original one.
Mr. Berg stated that the single- family dwellings proposed would not meet Land
Use Plan guidelines in relation to the lot area. He said that the tract sought
to be rezoned had frontages of 2051.44 feet on Route 670 and 3000.00 feet on Route
669, and a depth of 2400 feet. He mentioned limestone outcroppings and sink holes
that would be a high potential for ground water contamination, which, he said, could
be conveyed by an underground stream that allows no method of determining the source.
Mr. Berg stated that the basis for his comments about ground water contamination
® were from a former application for this same property by Mr. Darlington, and com-
ments by the State Water Control Board for an application on property with similar
soil conditions.
207
J
(PC 04/06/77) p 5
Opposition
•
L_J
•
L
Roy F. Cooper appeared before the Commission in opposition. His objections were:
a) not in accordance with the Land Use Plan; b) strip development; c) well and septic
contamination on narrow lots of 150 feet; d) water drainage problem with Route 669;
e) Route 670 would have to be completely rebuilt; f) Route 669 would be faced with
a traffic hazard; g) overcrowding of schools. He said that he represented a num-
her of concerned homeowners surrounding the proposal.
Robert J. Smith appeared before the Commission in opposition. He stated that he
would not have purchased the 40 acres and home from Mr. Darlington had he known this
rezoning application were going to be made. He objected to the water and septic
situation.
William T. Reuther appeared before the Commission in opposition. He cited the
history of Duncan Run as being unkempt and constantly overflowing and creating a
swampland that breeds mosquitoes.
Morrel M. Runner appeared before the Commission in opposition. He objected to
brush piles that had not been removed and flooding.
Harry A. Leipfert, III appeared before the Commission in opposition.) He ob-
jected to flooding; and showed the Commission some pictures of same.
Mr. Darlington opined that the water drainage winds up in the same place, no mat-
ter what route it should take -- to the property of C. Robert Solenberger. He
stated that, when he developed the property across the road, he had not contacted
the owner to see if it would be feasible to purchase easements, rather he had as-
sumed it would be too costly. He conceded that there had always been a drainage
problem in this area. He stated that he would give whatever easements that he could
now.
Mr. Anderson stated objections to.not having prior knowledge of the basis of
Mr. Berg's comments about ground water contamination. He then asked tolhave the
proposal postponed until he could obtain this information.
W.
(PC 04/06/77) ,p 6
The motion to table the proposal for the sole purpose of answering the one ques-
tion posed by Mr. Anderson (made by George G. Snarr, Jr.) died due to the lack of
0 a second, stated the Chair.
Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger, seconded by Manuel C. DeHaven and ap-
proved by the following vote: Snarr, Jr.; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.;
Rosenberger; Vice Chairman - YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Vir-
ginia does hereby r ecommend denial to the Board of Supervisors of said County of
the Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 005 -77 of J. P. Darlington for' -the following
reasons:
1) It is contrary to the Land Use Plan;
2) It has been pointed out by the Staff as having health problems; and
3) It would require a tremendous amount of highway monies to meet the
standards of road requirements in the County.
AN AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE AS ADOPTED JANUARY 14, 1976, AS AMENDED,
TO AMEND SECTION 21 -14 SIGNS.
Action - Deferred
The Chairman returned to Chair duties.
• Mr. Berg stated that he had received a survey of signs from the Wincester Council
of Garden Clubs and Belle Grove Garden Club; which reveals that 472 signs were found
to be acceptable out of 861 total, and 389 were excessive signs and billboards.
Mrs. C. Ridgeley White of the Council of Garden Clubs appeared before the Com-
mission. She said that this type of survey was made in other areas of the state,
and that she had calculated and found that the whole state has pretty much the same
problem as Frederick County.
Mr. Berg commented that two committees of the Winchester Chamber of Commerce had
reviewed this proposal.
Laura F. Pifer appeared before the Commission as member of The Frederick County
Environmental Council, jnc. and the ad hoc committee that had worked toward the
I
preparation of this proposed sign section to the Zoning Ordinance. She stated that
•
she
felt
the ad
hoc
committee
had come
up with the
best solution, that would elimi-
nate
the
dumping
of
otherwise
unwanted
signs.
209
(PC 04/06/77) p 7
Opposition
George A. President of the Winchester - Frederick County Chamber of Com-
merce, Inc., appeared before the Commission and quoted the following "Position
Paper ":
"On June 4, 1975, a special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Winchester-
Frederick County Chamber of Commerce, Inc., was held in reference to the proposed
Frederick County sign ordinance which was the subject of a Planning Commission
hearing on June 5, 1975. At that time-it was stated that:
'The existing Frederick County sign ordinance and the Virginia State Code
are adequate to protect the scenic beauty of Frederick County. We believe
additional restrictions are unnecessary and would restrict further e
mic development and commerce in Frederick County.'
The local government affairs committee and the travel promotion committee have met
within the past several months in order to review the changes to the new ordinance.
After careful deliberation between the committees and the Board of Directors, the
Board of Directors hereby reiterate its position of June 5, 1975.
There are over 14 pages of laws already on the books in Virginia which regulate
and control outdoor advertising. The intent behind the laws is found in Section
33.1 -351 (a) where it is provided that the purpose of these statutes is:
'In order to promote the safety, convenience and enjoyment of travel on
and protection of the public investment in highways within the state, to
attract tourists and promote the prosperity, economic well -being and gen-
eral welfare of the state, and to preserve and enhance the natural scenic
beauty or aesthetic features of the highways and adjacent areas, thelGen-
eral Assembly declares it to be the policy of this State that the erection
and maintenance of outdoor advertising and areas adjacent to the rights of
the highways within this state shall be regulated in accordance with Ithe
terms :of this article, and regulations promulgated by the State Highways
and Transportation Commission pursuant thereto.'
Not only has the State set out regulations with regard to limitations and prohi-
bitions on advertising, but the Federal government likewise has restricted ad-
vertising on federally funded roads. The legislature has required the Governor
to appoint an advisory commission of eleven members to review federal and state
laws with regard to federally funded roads and to review and recommend to the
State Highway and Transportation Commission revisions in its regulations which
the committee deems necessary or desirable to improve the commerce and safety
of the motoring public or to lessen the economic impact on business. This com-
mittee is the proper agency to be reviewing the statewide laws so as to insure
a proper balance between business interest and the natural scenic beauty of
this Commonwealth.
It has come to our attention that there are businesses who intend on investing
in our community and who may reconsider their investments because of such an or-
dinance. We have had the occasion to review the future plans of one business
endeavor in particular and billboard advertising is already being planned upon.
In the light of the above and of the economic impact that such a restrictive
ordinance would have on our community, it is our position that this ordinance
• should not be adopted."
210
L
(PC 04/06/77) p 8
Lewis H. Ebert appeared before the Commission and opined that tourism is the
single greatest industry in the County. He also opined that every tourist dollar
spent in the County is equivalent to five manufacturing business dollars. He also
said that Virginia is the second biggest tourist attraction following Florida. He
objected to restrictions of size, location and amount of signs.
Warren G. Teates appeared before the Commission and opined that travel is a
i
very important aspect of the health of the state's economy. He also opined that
489 people in the County owe their jobs to travel - related businesses.
Mr. Teates objected to the following items:
a) Portable signs being prohibited without a Conditional Use Permit.
b) Sign dimensions restricted because not readable from any distance and /or high
vehicular speeds.
c) Sign placement area too restrictive.
d) Illumination prohibited of hunting, fishing, trespassing, etc., signs because
illumination and off - premises signs are already severely restricted by state
regulations.
e) Regulations of subdivison, informational, directional, etc., signs are too
restrictive.
f) Unclear description as to which district(s) will permit which signs, and where
• would general business signs be permitted?
g) Does not allow small businessmen to make use of more explanatory signs; which
they need more than a nationally =known chain.
h) Some districts do not allow replacement of destroyed signs.
i) More restrictive in general than the Ordinance of the City of Winchester, Virginia.
Mr. Berg conceded that the proposal is not as clearly stated as it should be for
general business signs.
Edgar K. Guthrie appeared before the Commission. He appeared to question who
had complained about signs to bring about the proposal. He said that he considered
some structures more harmful to the landscape than signs, especially signs that are
well - kempt. He opined that farmers can earn profitable rent for the leasing of a
small amount of land for a sign placement, thus income is created. He also opined
that the state ordinance on signs is sufficient.
Libbie Pingley appeared before the Commission. She said that her gift shop,
during season, receives 98 percent of its traffic from tourists; and that these
• tourists are attracted by her signs.
`481
L
(PC 04/06/77) p 9
Douglas Wright appeared before the Commission representing the Winchester Out-
door Advertising Company. He said that his company considers 300 square feet or
better as a minimum for sign dimensions. He suggested that state highway signs
are scientifically calculated, therefore they would be more difficult to read if
the same signs were moved further away from the edge of the road. He said that
the governor's advisory committee had asked him to obtain a copy of this meeting's
i
minutes and a copy of the County's Ordinance. He stated that the gentlemen that
had contacted him from this committee had said that he was concerned with the eco-
nomics of controlling signs in the state of Virginia. He mentioned a recently-
passed state law that the owner of an abandoned sign would be notified of thirty
days within which to correct the situation.
Bob Claytor appeared, before the Commission. He said that his petroleum business
would not be allowed to put up a service station with signs to their specifications
if the proposal were to become law. He also said that every time a businessman
is restricted, more are put out of business.
® Mrs. White appeared again and said that more signs will not make the County more
attractive, and that tourists do not need signs to tell them of local points of
interest. She also opined that signs should be neat and precise. She suggested
that, if everyone cut down on the size and numbers of signs, that they would still
be effective.
Mr. Berg stated that the sign'section that was proposed in 1975 had
limitations on square footage and an outright ban of off - premise signs. The com-
mittee that worked on that proposal had met, he said, with sign users and the
counsel for the billboard industry. He said it was then determined that some type
of off - premise signage should be permitted. He also stated that some wording
clarification is needed for this proposal.
He continued that informational signs that pertain to businesses are an aspect
• that the recent committee had been desirous of including in the proposal. He
opined that high rise signs appear to not be economically feasible. He suggested
that new billboard locations will possibly be limited in the future.
212
I
(PC 04/06/77) p 10
The Chairman stated that the Commission will consider this proposal again during
a Work Session and that another Public Hearing will be held before forwarding a
• proposal to the Board of Supervisors.
AN AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE AS ADOPTED JANUARY 14, 1976, AS AMENDED,
TO DELETE SECTION 21 -90(h) OF ARTICLE X (District R -6): "Neighborhood commercial
uses such as drug stores, grocery stores, and personal services. Such uses shall
be limited to not more than twenty -five percent of the total floor area permitted."
Action - Recommended Approval
AN AMENDMENT TO THE FREDERICK COUNTY CODE AS ADOPTED JANUARY 14, 1976, AS AMENDED,
TO DELETE SECTION 21- 101.2(f) of ARTICLE XA (District MH -1): "Neighborhood com-
mercial use such as drug store, grocery store or personal services."
Action - Recommended Approval
Upon motion made by George-G. Snarr, Jr., seconded by Frank Brumback and ap-
proved by the following vote: Snarr, Jr.; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.;
Brumback; Rosenberger; Chairman - YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Vir-
ginia does hereby recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors of said County
of the above- stated amendments to the Frederick County Code, Section 21 790(h)
® of Article X and Section 21- 101.2(f) of Article XA.'
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - No. 002 -77 of William J. Mooney (R -2, Shawnee) for home
occupation of engraving, located in Rolling Fields Subdivision.
Action - Recommended Conditional Approval
i
Mr. Berg read the application, that included no construction proposed and the
address of 664 Meade Drive.
Mr. Mooney appeared before the Commission and stated that his property has 100
feet of frontage, and that he did not anticipate much traffic to be generated be-
cause he does presently work full -time at a job outside his home.
Upon motion made by George G. Snarr, Jr., seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger and
approved by the following vote: Snarr, Jr.; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.;
Brumback; Rosenberger; Chairman - YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Vir-
ginia does hereby recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors of said County
the Conditional Use Permit application No. 002 -77 of William J. Mooney with the
condition that the permit must be renewed annually.
213
(PC 04/06/77) p 11
Lord Fairfax Planning District DISTRICT PLAN Presented
Carl Hammons appeared before the Commission to present the LFPDC District Plan
• that he said was the culmination of four (4) years of somewhat heavy study on the
district level. He conceded that some of the data is, therefore, somewhat more
recent that others. He outlined the:contents contained therein. He commented
that he felt that the plan would not be in conflict with local plans. He asked
that a comment be submitted to the LFPDC within 60 to 90 days. Then, hl said,
probably a public hearing would be held at the Lord Fairfax Community College,
the LFPDC would review, and it would be returned for review and adoption by the
individual districts as a policy guide. The third stage, he said, would be
adoption by the Board of Supervisors.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion duly made, seconded and approved unanimously,
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission - for the County of Frederick, Vir-
ginia 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
H. Ronald Berg, Secretary
W
C. Langd a Gordon, Chairman
K
214