Loading...
PC_02-04-76_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ® Held in the Board of Supervisors Room, February 4, 1976 PRESENT: Elmer Venskoske; Frank Brumback, Vice Chairman; James Golladay, Jr.; Manuel DeHaven; C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; Thomas B. Rosenberger ABSENT: Keith Williams CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the Meeting to Order and proceeded to the First Order of Business. MEETING MINUTES Submitted - December 17, 1975 Action - Approved as Written Upon motion made by James Golladay, Jr., seconded by Frank Brumback and approved by the vote: DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Rosenberger; 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 the Meeting of December 17, 1975. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby approve as written the Minutes of the Meeting of December 17, 1975 with no corrections. SITE PLANS - Board of Supervisors Action Outlined & Discussed Site Plan Review Procedure Ronald Berg outlined for and discussed with the Planning Commission a summary of the action and explained resultant procedures; which were also discussed. Mr. Berg stated that the Board had felt it unnecessary for both bodies to review Site Plans and that it could possibly save a delay of two (2) to three (3) weeks, in some cases. if processed by the by the staff. He explained that those included are generally non - discretionary, time - consuming code matters; such as: entranceways, health facilities, parking spaces, etc. He continued that the exceptions are: dissatisfaction, problems or questions by the staff and /or the applicant(s); and large -scale residential development tracts. WORK SESSION REVISED SOILS MAPS Presented by Planning Commission's Secret Mr. Berg presented to and discussed with the Planning Commission the revised Soils Maps. He stated that it is a portion of the State's Soils Map (that is the most up -to -date at the present time) which will eventually (2 -3 years) include the exact location of each (PC 02/04/76) P. 2 soil class within the eight (8) dominant groups (which will be shown on the Land Use Plan Soils Map). He said that the-eventual map will also contain the new names, classifications, is and descriptions of these soils. Mr. Berg apologized that the testwas not yet prepared and stated that the entire Land Use Plan Soils Section will be re- written because of the eight (8) Classifications compared to the present six (6). He said that he had asked the State Soils Engineers to provide him with an up -dated description of the soil types, but the Section Leader had been called away and was unable to complete it. He said that he had intended to update each of the various soils classifications, charts of good and bad points, danger locations, etc. He also stated that the County will still be dependent upon the Health Department for specific soil evaluation, etc. Mr. R. W. Williams (Health Department) stated that their procedure would be the same regardless of whether there is a map or not. LAND USE PLAN AGRICULTURAL /FORESTRY /OPEN SPACE DISTRICT • Discussed Draft Submitted by Commission's Secretary Ronald Berg distributed copies of Land Use Plan pages 23 and 24 to the Commission for discussion reference; and explained the slightly different- requirements during which the Chairman asked if the County is satisfied with these requirements. Mr. Berg stated that the'State Code specifies five (5) acres in its definition of Sub- division requirements (1974); which the County presently parallels because counsel had so advised. The Commission then discussed whether or not it is a "discretionary decision" to paral- lel the State Code. The Chairman said that he thought the Board might have some input on this issue. LAND USE PLAN URBAN DISTRICT— Five (5)- Acre Lot Requirement Discussed Draft Submitted by Commi • Mr. Rosenberger asked Mr. Berg to interpret "provide central water and sewer" as phrased for less than five (5) acres. (PC 02/04/76) P. 3 Mr. Berg replied that if one wants to subdivide property into less than five (5)- • acre tracts the property has to be rezoned and must be provided with central water and sewer; which is expensive to the investor (also not recommended by the Land Use Plan to do otherwise). Mr. DeHaven opined that said requirement would limit construction of homes to the eastern part of the county because people would not want to be obligated to the county. Mr. Rosenberger cited a few of the several considerations in determining county growth: schools, health requirements, equal representation, etc. The anticipated joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors was discussed in re to the topics the Commission would like to have included -- simplification and coordination is needed of the Land Use Plan, Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance (each has slightly different requirements);as well as five (5)- acre tract requirements. The Planning Commission's consensus was to meet with the Board as soon as possible go and the CHAIRMAN directed Mr. Berg to set up the joint meeting with the Board to discuss Land Use Plan recommendations (AGRICULTURAL /FORESTRY /OPEN SPACE DISTRICT) on page 24,(items 1 and 2) and, specifically, five (5)- acre lot requirements LAND USE PLAN - Rural Community Centers Discussed Concept and Designations Mr. Berg stated that several times the need for rural service centers to provide com- mercial services, etc.; as well as the need for an area for rural subdivision activity (in the hope that central water and sewer service can be provided, if needed had been men- tioned in public meetings. Mr. Berg listed the communities that have thus far been designated: Brucetown, Nain, Hayfield, Round Hill, Pleasant Valley, Star Tannery and Armel The Commission then discussed whether or not encouraging clustering would obligate the County to provide complete services to these groupings..: <. Mr. Berg stated that commercial activity exists within three (3) of these communities • that would separate them from the others that just have a meeting place. He also said that commercial activity is versus a meeting building -- not as a central attraction -- the County needs to recognize these country stores, etc. r (PC 02/04/76) P. 4 Mr. Berg noted that Gore was removed from the list because of flood plain problems and a change was made by ?Gainesboro and designating Nain, due to the same problem. He ® suggested that the Commission attempt designating only within a reasonable perimeter be- cause of services, employment, etc. (not too far from, not too close to, the City). Mr. Rosenberger suggested that Whitaker be considered for designation. Mr. Berg surmised that the Summit's commercial area would largely serve the area of Whitaker; even though it is a private enterprise it should be available to the public. The Commission agreed that Star Tannery is a proper designation. PUBLIC HEARING An Ordinance to amend the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance adopted November 1, 1973 TO REZONE) .84 acres, more or less, of LEON R. FLEISHER and WILLIAM J. DOLIANTE, located at the intersection of Routes 11 South and 706; in Back Creek Magisterial District; from Residential, General (R -3) to Business, General (B -2) Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Berg relayed the following facts to the Commission: located at Kernstown (West of Route 11 South at the intersection with Route 706) -- 151' frontage X 390' depth -- Seven - Eleven (7 -11) Store proposed to the Board of Supervisors and referred back to the ® Commission -- all zoning requirements will be met. Mr. Berg reminded the Commission that it had recommended that proposal not be approved (11/05/75) because no "use" was indicated on the application and reiterated the application history. The Chairman commented that the applicants were not represented at that time. The Commission then discussed previous Public Hearings of rezoning proposals in rela tion to the Chairman's comment. Mr. Gordon stated that the church that is located near this proposal- -was previously apprehensive of a blanket endorsement, but that he "had received no objections to a Seven- Eleven (7 -11) Store when he solicited the opinions of a considerable number of the members. Upon the Chairman's quiry if the Commission could be reasonably assured that a Seven- Eleven (7 -11) Store would be constructed as planned, Mr. Berg said that he understood that • a sales contract is in existence that is subject to the Board's approval -- a Site Plan could be brought before the Commission. �5 � (PC 02/04/76) P. 5 The Chairman said that he had a strong conviction that Zoning Map Amendment Petitioners should appear (or be represented) before the Commission to answer its questions. ® Mr. Berg suggested the alternatives of tabling or amending the petition to B -1 Zoning, thus removing numerous nuisance possibilities. Mr. Benham appeared before the Commission, having just arrived, and submitted a letter from the prospective purchasers and said that it-contained a statement that indeed a con- tract had been entered into and that they (purchasers) hope to begin construction as soon as April or May. Upon motion made by Manuel DeHaven, seconded by Elmer Venskoske and approved by the following vote: DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Rosenberger; 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 Ordinance to amend the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance adopted November 1, 1973 to rezone 1.84 acres, more or less, of Leon R. Fleisher and William J. Doliante, located at the intersection of Routes 11 South and 706; in Back Creek Magisterial District; from Residential, General (R -3) to Business, General (B -2). ZONING MAP AMENDMENT PETITIONERS - Representation • Action - Planning Commission Policy - Mandatory The Planning Commission discussed whether or not petitioners should be_expected to be represented at Public Hearings to answer its questions and clearly state their intentions, etc. Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger, seconded by Frank Brumback and approved by the following vote: DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Rosenberger; Brumback -- YES; BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby resolve that it is its op licy that Zoning Map Amendment Petitioners be repre- sented at Public Hearings. HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT - Route 696 Project Proposed Action - Tabled J. 0. Renalds, III (County Administrator) had received a letter from the Commonwealth of Virginia's Department of Highways, /s/ A. R. Kline (District Environmental Coordinator) which the Chairman read, as follows, to the Commission: ® "We are evaluating the environmental impact for the improvement of Route 696 located in the northwestern corner of Frederick County. a M (PC 02/04/76) P. 6 The project is described as beginning 0.069 mile north of the intersection of Route 522 and ending at the West Virginia State Line. The project incorporates existing right of way except at the last curve next to-the West Virginia Line. At this location the proposed ® facility will be relocated to the inside of the existing sharp curve. The length of this relocated section is to be approximately 350 feet. Otherwise, the project generally fol- lows the existing alignment smoothing out some of the existing horizontal and vertical curves. The proposed road is to have a 20 foot hard surfaced pavement and is to be con- structed on a basic 50 foot right of way. We would like to request your comments on the following to assist us in our evaluation: 1) Has there been any organized opposition to this project? 2) Does it disrupt a community or its planned development? 3) Is it consistent with community goals, such as proposed land use? 4) Is it anticipated this project will be endorsed by the Board of Supervisors? 5) What is the zoning, present and proposed, for this area? Enclosed is a map showing the location of the project. If you need additional information please call..." Mr. Berg stated that he and Mr. Renalds have contacted the Highway Department to find out their proposed project timetables and priorities, etc. The CHAIRMAN stated that the proposed Route 696 Project - was tabled until further infor- mation is received. JOINT MEETING WITH THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Discussed setting the time and date ® Mr. Brumback emphasized, during the discussion, that the six (6)- month timetable directive (by the Board of Supervisors to the Planning Commission) for presentation by the Commission of the Land Use Plan Revision to the Board is becoming increasing difficult the longer the Board delays the joint meeting. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by James Golladay, Jr. and approved unani- mously; 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, f &ji z4a� IC Ronald Berg, Secretary n t� • iAy% 1�s(�A; C. Lan�ordon, Chairman