Loading...
PC_06-15-77_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING • OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COPM:MISSION Held in the Board of Supervisors' Room June 15, 1977 PRESENT: C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; Frank Brumback, Vice Chairman; Manuel C. DeHaven; James Golladay, Jr.; Thomas B. Rosenberger; George G. Snarr, Jr.; Elmer Venskoske. ABSENT: R. Wesley Williams CALL TO ORDER The Chairman Called the Meeting to Order and proceeded to the First Order of Business. MEETING MINUTES -- 1May�%31, 1977 -- Withheld to make corrections June 1, 1977 -- Withheld to make corrections • Meeting Cancellation i The Work Session .Meeting to be held by the Planning Commission on June 20, 1977 was cancelled due to the Board of Supervisors meeting scheduled fo r that night in the Board room. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Discussion with Highway Department Mr. Berg told the Commission the Sign Proposal had brought about ( several i questions on how the Highway Department handles sign permits and abandoned signs He then turned the discussion over to Mr. Reginald King of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Mr. King stated that he had brought Mr.Ralph Carty, specialist with the environmental division, to tell the Commission about their system of signs. Mr. Carty told the Commission the applicant first makes an application for • any off - premise sign. If the sign is being put in an area that is zoned, then a copy of the application is sent to the local Zoning Administrator. If the 256 or (P /C 06/15/77) p 2 sign is on a Federal Aid Primary or Interstate Route, a form is filled out and • sent to the Central Office. The Central Office gives the application a- permit number and sends this number to the applicant, then the applicant erects his sign and puts a temporary cardboard tag with the permit number on the sign. An inspection is then made by the Highway Department and a permanent tag is put on the sign. An inspection sheet is then filled out and put in a log book in the Staunton Office. On the Interstate system, the only permit the Highway Department can issue is called a Blue Permit, which covers official signs or educational, recreational,,:or. historical signs. The State is very stringent about who may put up signs on the Interstate, the applicant must submit a letter describing why they think they qualify for the sign before the permit is issued. Mr. Carty told the Commission the State does not issue permits for on- premise signs. He stated the only Routes in Frederick County that were not Federal Aid Primary Roads were Route 259 and Route 11, plus secondary routes, and they can not issue permits on those routes except in areas properly) zoned for signs. Mr. Carty also told the Commission they did not control signs in the Cities except for spacing. When asked about blank signs, Mr. Carty said the sign can remain as long as the permit is paid each year. He stated the State Code prohibits an outdoor sign that has false or misleading information and if this occurs, the sign owner is given 30 days to paint out the sign. If the sign owner doesn't take care of the.sign within the 30 days then the permit is cancelled and the sign is taken down. .Mr. Carty said a sign may be erected without a State Permit on any routes, except Interstates, if it advertises civic organizations or churches and if it is • six (6) square feet or less, or a directional sign of two (2) square feet or less can be put along any routes. 257 (P /C 06/15/77) p 3 Mr. Carty told the Commission that he and another man covers eleven (11) Counties every two weeks. They have to make inventories on all the signs and i state which ones are conforming and which are non - conforming, and in order to keep the inventories up -to -date they have to be on the road most of the time. If a sign is found to be not in place, a picture is sent to the office in Richmond informing them this is a non - conforming sign and they will cancel the permit. Mr. Carty explained that the Central Office has a renewal sheet for each sign and the fees for the permit is due the first of each year. If the sign is not renewed for some reason and the sign is left up, the sign owner is given notice to paint the sign out or take it down and if he does not take it_down then it will be taken down. Mr. Carty said there is a section in the Code that says if the sign gets in disrepair the State can cancel the permit. Certified letters are sent to the sign owners and if after 30 days nothing has been done, the Central Office cancels the permit and the crew goes out and takes the sign down. Mr. Carty told the Commission an Outdoor Advertising Fund was available to pay for the removal of signs. When a man goes out and removes a sigh, he keeps a record of the time and equipment used and then a bill is prepared and. sent to the sign owner. When the sign owner pays this bill the money is put into the Outdoor Advertising Fund. When asked about unpaid bills, Mr. King explained that they were turned over to the Attorney General's and they attempt to collect for two years. Mr. Carty explained an abandoned sign is a sign that is unsightly to the eye. Most Sign Ordinances are restrictive enough, according to Mr. Carty. He • stated that a sign smaller than 500 square feet will not be much good. PM J (P /C 06/15/77) p 4 A discussion was then held on the removal of signs and Mr. Carty told the Commission they are required to hold the sign for 30 days, then if the sign is not claimed it is sent to -the landfill. He stated most of the I signs they remove are in bad-shape. The Commission then asked Mr. King and Mr. Carty to comment on the Sign Ordinances. Mr. Carty stated that he felt the Ordinances were restrictive enough and it would make his job easier if all Ordinances were similar, but they aren't. Mr. King then stated that he thinks the laws are restrictive enough but wishes there could be something done with portable signs. The Chairman then thanked Mr. King and Mr. Carty for coming to the meeting and the two gentlemen left the room. At this point, Mr. Brumback left the meeting. The Commissioners were then asked to give their opinion on the Sign • Ordinance as it now stands. Mr. Golladay said that he would like to see something done, maybe tracking the State Code with provisions made for blank and on- premise signs. Mr. Venskoske stated the State is in the process of removing unsightly signs so maybe time would solve the proposal. Mr. DeHaven stated that he thought the State Code was the answer. Mr. Rosenberger stated that he thought the unsightly signs need to be taken down. Mr. Snarr stated that he feels Frederick County need not be like every other County, and he would like to see a more stringent Sign Ordinance. He stated that if we feel the scenery is being scarred because of signs then we have to decide if this is what we want and personally this is not what he wants. The Chairman stated that we should upgrade the signs and do away with blank • signs. I 259 ' (P /C 06/15/77) p 5 El Mr. Her told the Commission that the Sign Ordinance in existence now substantially tracks the State Code. He stated there is the prohibition on the rotating and flashing signs, off - premise signs must have a Conditional Use Permit, no sign can be painted on the exterior of a building, and signs are not permitted in Residential District. The State Code does not speak to on- premise signs. Mr. Snarr stated that he would not disfavor the tracking of the State Code for off - premise signs but he thinksethe attention should be towards on- premise signs. It was the Commission's consensus that they wanted something to be done to the present Sign Ordinance. Mr. Venskoske left the meeting at this point. • HOUSING PLAN Mr. Berg told the Commission about the Goals and Objective Sections of 1 the Housing Plan. developments. GOAL 1: To achieve adequate housing choice for all- County Residents. OBJECTIVE 1: Eliminate existing hazardous health conditions in residential i Mr. Berg explained that under that objective are two methods of implementation, the first being to provide water to the Stephenson and Clearbrook areas. He stated the people in this area have contaminated wells and they need this service. The second implementation method is to provide water and sewer to Route 522 South and the Paper Mill.Road area. Mr. Berg stated the Federal money is available for the projects and these • two areas have the greatest population density. 260 r. (P /C 06/15/77) p 6 OBJECTIVE 2: Assist access to the housing market for all county households. • Mr. Berg explained this meant that the County is going to do some to help the people to improve their housing. He told the Commission there were i three methods for implementing this. The County is going to takelan_active_roll in - assisting. people to get into the housing market by looking into the methods of using available Federal and State sources to help people. Also, the County is going to assess existing regulations to determine areas that can be modi£ied.to help cut down the cost of single - family housing, such as the cost of land, construction, roads, water and sewer lines. Mr. Berg told the Commission there would have to be an agency to take on the responsiblity of securing the funds and funneling it back out to the people. The Chairman brought up the question of whether or not the County should • get involved in this housing market. Mr. Berg told the Commission the County could purchase land, put in water _ and sewer and the required improvements on a non - profit basis, and then make the lots available for the Farmers Home Administration funded houses. Mr. Golladay brought up the question about a private group working with Frederick County to handle the project. Mr. Berg told the Commission that the State of Virginia money and Housing Urban Development money which is made available to families for new construction or for rehabilitation can be applied for by an authority or a governing body, however, a private group can not apply with much success. He stated that every year for the last three (3) years the County has applied to HUD for Block Grant Funds and included a Housing Assistance Plan that says we are going to rehabilitate a certain number of units and build a certain number of units and I so far the goal has been very simple because of rehabilitating the housing units that are going on the water and sewer lines. However, we are coming to I 261 ' PF (P /C 06/15/77) p 7 an end to that method of assisting housing and we are going to find Housing and Urban • Development- funds,-cut off because we will not have an on going Housing Program. Mr. Snarr stated that he would like to see this as a long range project, because he does not believe the County is equipped to handle the project at this time. Mr. Berg stated that he would take the Objectives back and work on them some more to come up with something to indicate that this looks like a good idea now but we don't feel like the County is ready. Mr. Berg explained COAL 2, OBJECTIVE 2: Staging development in such a manner that Frederick County can afford to pay for the services that are going to be demanded. There are two methods of implementing this objective: 1. Adopt a Capital Improvements Program. 2.. Discourage residential development in areas where services are • not provided, or are planned to be provided. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Regional Sewage Treatment Plant - Supported Mr. Rosenberger brought up the Regional Sewage Treatment Plant and asked the Commission to go on record with a vote. The Commissioners discussid the location and cost of the plant. Mr. Berg stated the Original Phase I study called for three treatment- plants. One was in the vicinty of Turkey Run to serve the Stephenson and Clear - brook area, however, there were not enough people there to pay for the service. The second was recommended at Route 7 because that was the most cost effective location to serve the developed area of Winchester and the developing area of Frederick County. The third was to be located at Parkins Mill to serve Stephens City and the area of Frederick County around Stephens City. There was only one • of these three feasible and that is the one on Routez7. 262 I (P /C 06/15/77) p S Mr. Golladay stated that we have to look at what is best for Frederick • County as a whole, and we can no longer separate the City and the County. Mr. Berg explained that the Treatment Plant would be mostly Frederick County's however, Winchester will initially be using the largest share of the capacity. He told the Commissioners each jurisdiction will have its own meter and will be charged according to flow. The Federal Government is going to fund 75% of the cost of the Treatment Plant and the trunk line and the City of Winchester will be responsible for taking care of their infiltration in -flow problem and Frederick County will be responsible for putting in sewer mains. The 2M cost of building the plant and the debt service will become part of the rate for 'reatment that is charged to the users. Upon motion made by George Snarr, seconded by James Golladay, Jr., and approved by the following vote: Rosenberger - ABSTAIN Snarr, Jr.; Golladay, Jr.; Chairman - YES: • BE IT RESOLVED,That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby recommend to the Board of Supervisors their support for the Regional Sewage-Treatment Plant. C ity of Winchester - Req for Co mment Mr. Berg showed the Commission a map showing Boyce's Western Shop and told them the City of Winchester had requested their comment on an application for rezoning by Boyce's Western Shop. Upon motion made by James Golladay, Jr., seconded by Tom Rosenberger and approved by the following vote: Snarr, Jr.; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Rosenberger; Chairman - YES: BE IT RESOLVED, That-the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby comment to the City of Winchester on the rezoning, application by Boyce's Western Shop that the adjoining County area is zoned R -2 for single - family residences. • I 263 ' PF (P /C 06/15/77) p 9 the Commission's concensus that Mr. Snarr would be missed because of his many contributions over his term. Adjournment Upon motion made by James Golladay, Jr., seconded by Manuel DeHaven, 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, H. Ronald Berg, Secretary 0 _7 9 Q Q;12 t1 _ C. Langdon ordon, Chairman ul 264 I Membership Resignation - George Snarr, Jr. ® The Chairman recognized the resignation of George Sdarr, Jr._, It was the Commission's concensus that Mr. Snarr would be missed because of his many contributions over his term. Adjournment Upon motion made by James Golladay, Jr., seconded by Manuel DeHaven, 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, H. Ronald Berg, Secretary 0 _7 9 Q Q;12 t1 _ C. Langdon ordon, Chairman ul 264 I