PC_01-21-76_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
® Held in the Board of Supervisors Room January 21, 1976
PRESENT: Frank Brumback; Elmer Venskoske; C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman;
James Golladay, Jr.; Keith Williams; Manuel DeHaven
ABSENT: Thomas Rosenberger
CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman called the Meeting to Order and proceeded to the First Order of Business:
MINUTES OF THE MEETING Approval
December 3, 1975
Action - Approved with Correction
Upon motion made by Elmer Venskoske, seconded by Manuel DeHaven and approved by the
following vote:
DeHaven; Williams; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback -- YES.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby dispense with the Reading of the Minutes of December 3, 1975.
® Upon motion made by Keith Williams, seconded by Manuel DeHaven and approved by the
following vote:
DeHaven; Williams; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback -- YES.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby approve the Minutes of the Meeting of December 3, 1975 as written with the
following correction:
Page 12, 6th sentence . . . "about the land reclammation requirements of the State."
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
Application'of MRS. GEORGE KELCHNER to erect two (2) signs on property owned by Robert S.
Castleman at the intersection of Routes 608 and 612 and Routes 611 and 612 in Back Creek
Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Conditional Approval
Ronald Berg described the proposed use and discussed the location on the map with the
Commission. He stated that it is proposed to erect two (2) each four -foot by eight -foot
(4' X 8') signs located twenty feet (20') from the right -of -way for the purpose of.directing
is attention to PEACEFUL VALLEY LAKE with the wording "Fishing April 1 thru October 31; boats
for rent; bait and tackle for sale ".
)5 t
(PC 01/21/76) P. 2
Mrs. Kelchner appeared before the Commission and discussed with it the proposed use
and location of the signs. She stated that she had talked with Mr. King (Highway Department
who had then talked with the field representative in Stanton.
Mr. Berg stated that the Highway Department completes an application before it goes
through zoning procedure and then back to the Highway Department -- as normal procedure.
He said that the proposal meets all zoning requirements and it probably would be in com-
pliance with the proposed Sign Ordinance. He also stated that a twelve (12)- month State
license would be helpful in eliminating abandoned signs.
Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by Keith Williams and approved by the
following vote: DeHaven; Williams; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback -- YES.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors of the Conditional Use Permit
application of Mrs. George Kelchner to erect two (2) signs on property owned by Robert S.
Castleman at the intersection of Routes 608 and 612 and Routes 611 and 612 in Back Creek
Magisterial District with the condition that the signs be removed within a year following
cessation as commercial use.
SITE PLANS
® MILLER AUTO SALES - Addition of a service and parts area (114' X 36') to existing building,
located on Route 522 South. (Planning Commission recommended rezoning approval December 3,
1975 /Board of Supervisors approved rezoning January 14, 1976 /Highway Department approval
given January 14, 1976.)
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Berg stated that this property was recently rezoned for Commercial use and showed
the Commission the site plan.
Mr. George Miller appeared before the Commission and stated that the proposed is for a
new and used car dealership with future possibility of auto service, also.
Upon motion made by Manuel DeHaven, seconded by Frank Brumback and approved by the
following vote: DeHaven; Williams; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback -- YES.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors of the Site Plan of Miller Auto
Sales for addition of a service and parts area (114' X 36') to existing building (located
on Route 522 South).
Consideration of HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
(Route 681 / Proj. 0681- 034 -148, C501)
® Action - Tabled One Month
l�
(PC 01/21/76) P. 3
Mr. Berg stated that the project had been referred to the Board of Supervisors'
Engineering as well as to the Planning Commission and read a portion of the
® letter from Mr. A. R. Cline (District Environmental Coordinator), Commonwealth of Virginia,
Department of Highways and Transportation (Stanton), dated January 5, 1976:
"0.053 mile north of the intersection of Route 805 and ending 0.,0845 mile north of the
Route 805 intersection. The proposal follows the existing road for the first 0.1 mile at
which point the present road curves to the left. At that point,the proposed facility con-
tinues on a straighter alignment crossing Back Creek approximately 475 feet to the east of
the.existing bridge. It follows the existing road for a short distance to the location of
a sharp curve to the right. At that point our proposal continues on an improved alignment,
tying back into the existing road near the end of the project.
A new bridge, approximately 80 feet in length, is proposed over Back Creek. The project
ends just short of the Isaac's Creek bridge.
The proposed road is to have 20' hard surfaced pavement. A right of way width of approxi-
mately 70' width will be required to construct this project with additional to be acquired
as needed, to accommodate cut and fill slopes.
To assist us in our evaluation, we would appreciate your comments on the following:
1. Has there been any organized opposition? 2. Does it disrupt a community or its plan-
ned development? 3. Is it consistent with community goals, such as proposed land use?
4. Will this project be compatible with your county planning ?"
Mr. Berg then read a letter from Mr. R. Edward Duncan (LFPDC) of January 14, 1976,
addressed to Mr. A. R. Clint 'in answer' as follows:
® "The following are comments regarding the above referenced project as noted in your letter
of January 5, 1976.
1. There has been no organized opposition to date.
2. It is consistent with community goals.
3. Project is compatible with existing regional planning programs. "
Mr. Venskoske stated that the proposed Route 681 will be taking part of his prime
farmland.
Mr. E. E. Bayliss, Jr. joined the discussion and showed the Commission another map.
The.Commission discussed the seventy -foot (70') right -of -way and location of the
proposal.
Mr. Bayliss stated that there will be thirty -eight inches to two feet (30" - 2') of
fill along a "bottom" and said that he would like to see the former road revert to farming
use. He also stated that he would have no objection to the proposal because it would remove
traffic from in front of his farmhouse.
Mr. Venskoske stated that the State had moved this road once before in the same
is area and had stopped at Back Creek Bridge with the blacktopping. He said that it may
be that people in that vicinity may have no objection to the proposal.
(PC 01/21/76) P. 4
Mr. Bayliss stated that Hog Creek Bridge is hazardous for school buses.
Mr. Brumback said that he wondered if the abandoned road would be deeded back to the
® original landowner(s).
Mr. Venskoske suggested postponement of approximately thirty (30) days so that he may
have an opportunity to talk with Mr. King (Highway Department).
Upon motion made by Frank Brumback,.seconded by James Golladay, Jr. and approved by
the following vote: DeHaven; Venskoske; Golladay, Jr.; Brumback; Williams -- YES.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby table consideration of the Highway Department Project 0681- 034 -148, C501 for
one (1) month to allow time for Mr. Venskoske to meet with Mr. King of the Highway Depaximeit:
Consideration of RESTAURANT DEFINITION
(Resolution of June 19, 1975)
Action - Resolution Rescended & Committee Appointed
Mr. Berg read the resolution (Page 4) from the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of
June 19, 1975:
"...That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby move
• that the definition of a restaurant is any building which will compensate food or beverages
and are dispensed for consumption on the premises including, among other establishments,
cafes, tea rooms, confectionery shops or refreshment stands, and excluding dancing of any
king."
Mr. Berg stated that the Commission had discussed the definition of a restaurant in re
to a Conditional Use Permit and, therefore, he had looked it up in the Minutes. He said
that the staff had taken no action to advertise the resolution as a Public Hearing because
they had originally only asked the Commission for advice and definition clarification.
Mr. Williams stated that he was vigorously opposed to the possibility of that resolu-
tion becoming an Ordinance because it would be a detrimental inference that dancing is evil.
Mr. Berg stated that a Conditional Use Permit probably would be what is needed each
time for a restaurant to have dancing on premises.
Upon motion made by Keith Williams, seconded by the Chairman and approved by the
following vote: Venskoske; Golladay, Jr.; Brumback; Williams -- YES and DeHaven -- NO.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick,:Virginia
® ' does hereby rescend the forementioned resolution of June 19, 1975.
THE CHAIRMAN APPOINTED James Golladay, Jr. and Frank Brumback TO STUDY AND MAKE A
RECOMMENDATION to the Planning Commission of whether a resolution is necessary to clarify
B -1 and B -2 Zoning, combined with a Conditional Use Permit, re dancing on restaurantpreises.
(PC 01/21/76) P. 5
BRUMBACK COMMITTEE REPORT - Strip Development
Action - Tabled Thirty Days
® Mr. Brumback stated that they found nothing in the State of Virginia to help them and
that they were presenting a guideline that is open for debate (discussion and input); not
a recommendation.
Mr. Berg stated that many counties do not attempt to regulate; but rather they sum -
marily reject such items for reason of health, safety and welfare. He said that there are
many problems with an outright ban on lots fronting roadways and that the proposed change
to Section 4 -20 (ACCESS and EGRESS) of the Division of Land Ordinance would still permit
discretionary decisions by requiring an applicant to ask for specific permission; especially
when supported by the two (2) proposed Land Use Plan changes.
Mr. Brumback stated that their proposal is designed to not be specific and that the
five (5)- acre figure reference in "Recommendation No. 2 (AGRICULTURAL /FORESTRY /OPEN SPACE
DISTRICT)" is purely dependent upon the final Land Use Plan recommendation.
®
Mr. Williams
said
that
Number Two District will always be a "hot"
one
to handle in re
to transportation
plans
by
the State and suggested that projected
figures
from Richmond
would be helpful.
Mr. DeHaven stated that the Commission has already begun controlling strip development
and suggested the proposal would penalize a lot of people for other people's bad moves.
Mr. Venskoske stated that the proposal is a good beginning and that strip development
in the past has been impossible to control -- will alleviate a lot of problems.
Mr. Golladay, Sr. stated that the basic idea is good, but the words "should" and "all"
are objectionable in regard to houses facing the streets, and suggested "most" as a change
(would make houses aesthetically better).
Mr. Berg suggested changing "houses or homes" to "lots"
Mr. Williams questioned if the first sentence should be included of "Recommendation No.
2 (AGRICULTURAL /FORESTRY /OPEN SPACE DISTRICT)" because subdivision problems have been re -..:
® duced in the last 3/4 of the past year due to the fact that the Planning Commission policy
has been backed up by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Brumback asked the Commission to consider the contrast between an Ordinance and a
Commission member policy. 1,
(PC 01/21/76) P. 6
Mr. DeHaven asked the Commission to set aside the proposal until the anticipated_
u
joint Planning Commission /Board of Supervisors meeting.
Mr. Sam Lehmann (Tax Payers' Association of Frederick County) distributed printed
comments to the Commission.
THE CHAIRMAN took a consensus of the Commission (unanimous) and stated that the
BRUMBACK COMMITTEE WILL CONTINUE with work on the strip development control and present
a progress report in THIRTY (30) DAYS at the next Work Session.
Mr. Williams suggested Mr. Berg obtain information from the Highway Department.
MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY
Action - Tabled Thirty Days
Mr. Berg stated that this item concerned. transferring Conditional Use Permit procedure
•
of mobile homes to the Department of Building Inspection for procedure of permit issuance.
He said that he planned to note the mobile home park locations on a map and explained the
procedure that would be involved for a change -over. He suggested the Commission should
begin work on it even though it could be postponed for thirty (30) days.
THE CHAIRMAN DIRECTED MR. BERG TO PUT THE MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY ON THE AGENDA IN
THIRTY (30) DAYS (tabled).
LAND USE PLAN Discussion of
Proposal presented to the Board of Supervisors
Mr. Berg stated that a gentleman appeared at the last Board of Supervisors meeting
suggesting that the Board.should enact a moratorium on all rezoning activity until the
Land Use Plan is adopted. He said that the Board had informally referred the question to
him.
The Commission discussed the moratorium proposal.
THE CHAIRMAN took a consensus of the Commission (unanimous) and stated that the
PLANNING COMMISSION IS NOT IN FAVOR OF A MORATORIUM OF ALL REZONING ACTIVITY and referred
the subject back to Mr. Berg.
LAND USE PLAN
Progress Reviewed to Date
Action - To Be Continued
0 A
(PC 01/21/76) P. 7
Mr. Berg stated that he had asked the Engineering Department to do some scaling, upon
which he had done some computations of developable land for the Commission's information
(as a guide and assistance).
Mr. Berg demonstrated on the map the forementioned figures from his submitted report
and discussed said figures with the Commission. He stated that these figures should indicate
that the outlined map would be enough to serve the County's needs and, if the Commission is
now comfortable with the map the next step is to finalize the text of the Plan. He also
said that he needs to do some drafting to the text to clarify the issue of water and
sewer service.
Mr. Williams stated that the Commission needed to concentrate on urban development
areas (existing communities).
A discussion followed regarding, among other things, length of time to finish the
presentation for the Board of Supervisors; publicity and citizen involvement; and display
of the work map in the Clerk's office (for public convenience).
.® LETTER OF APPRECIATION
Upon motion made by the Chairman, seconded by Frank Brumback and approved by the
following vote: DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Brumback -- YES.
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby direct their secretary to compose and send a letter of official recognition
and appreciation of service throughout the years to Keith Williams, Past Chairman
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.
THERE BEING NOTHING FURTHER TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED.
RESPECTFULL
H. Ronald Berg, Secretary
• � non /1 e,— IM � l�
C. Lang do 7 Gordon, Chairman