Loading...
PC_02-18-76_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 0 February 18, 1976 PRESENT: Frank Brumback, Vice Chairman; Thomas B. Rosenberger; Elmer Venskoske C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; James Golladay, Jr.; Manuel DeHaven ABSENT: Keith Williams CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the Meeting to Order and proceeded to the First Order of Business: "MEETING MINUTES of January 7 & 21, 1976 SUBMITTED" Action - Approved with Corrections Upon motion made by Elmer Venskoske, seconded by James Golladay, Jr. and approved by the following vote: DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Rosenberger; Brumback -- YES; BE IT RESOLVED, That the PI Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby dispense with the Reading of the Minutes of the of January 7 and 21, 1976. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby approve the Minutes of the Meetings of January 7 and 21, 1976 as written with the following corrections: 1) 07,.p.,10, para. 10 ... add the letter "t" ... "..they want to locate.." 2) 21, p. .3, para. 6 ... add the word "Jr." ... "..Mr. E. E. Bayliss, Jr. .." 3) 21, p. 3, para. 9 ... delete the words "..(approximately in 1976).." ARTICLE OF INTEREST - Urban Land Jan 76 (pp 3 -4) Discussed Minimum Lot Size Requirements Mr. Berg read to the Commission an excerpt: "..... the thra acre lot minimum, the product of compromise operating on the five -acre minimum desired by exclusionary- minded suburbs, is the worse possible pattern for land development. It neither preserves nature, which is one objective, nor does it economi- cally house people, which is another. It is the one pattern guaranteed to destroy the _ largest area of open countryside to house the smallest number of people. I think we need an entirely new attitude toward peripheral land development. We should realize that the days of the well and the privy are over; that you cannot develop housing, except on farms and really large lots, without the whole galaxy of services -- sewer, water, electricity, roads, transportation. We can no longer afford to allow developers to put up houses at miscellaneous locations and, after the ground • has become saturated with sewage from individual septic tanks, force the costly exten� sion of interceptor sewers at public expense, wasting money, energy, and resources. There should be a national policy that no housing, including mobile homes, should be placed on the land unless sewer and water facilities are already in place,....." (Urban Land Jan 76 Commentary p. 4) 2'x'0 r (PC 02/18/76) P. 2 A discussion followed that included the forementioned article in relation to land use planning application and the Commission's attitudes toward peripheral land 0 development. CTTR PT ATTQ DONALD E. GARBER - Fast Food Restaurant - Application No. 23 - located on a lot fronting Route 522 South and backing onto old Route 522 (across Route 522 from Lowe's ... Drainage problem. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Berg stated that the proposed structure meets all zoning requirements, and Health and Highway Departments' approval, with the possible exception of a drainage problem. He said that Lots 1, 2 and 3 have existing drainage easements. He stated that, since its construction, Lowe's drainage has flowed to new Route 522 for discharge onto Lot 3. He also stated that he had asked the Highway Department to pay particular attention to the drainage problem that had resulted for Dr. Jerry L. Grimes' property. He further stated that the State Department of Highways and Trans- portation officials had met with Mr. Garber at the site and had followed up with a • letter from Mr. John W. Chiles, Jr. by Mr. R. C. King (Hydrology Section, dated ., 2/12/76) to Mr. Garber. He said that the recommendation had been that the proposed DI -1 drop inlet be replaced by a standard manhole to prevent any drainage from entering into the development's culvert and that erosion - control stone be placed at the discharge end of the proposed culvert extension. He further summarized the letter by saying that a curb is to be constructed along the North edge of the paved area to direct the runoff to a drop inlet on the Northwest corner and if the entrance to Garber Road is to be eliminated, a paved flume may be used in lieu of the drop inlet and culvert. Mr. Berg continued from the forementioned letter: "This site plan is being approved by this Department with the understanding that no drainage from this proposed development is allowed to enter the drainage easement or the property to the north. All drainage is to be directed to Garber Road. Should additional development be planned in this area which would increase the run off it will be the responsibility of the Developer to make satisfactory arrangements with the effected property owners and this Department." Mr. Berg stated that the staff is of the opinion that it is improper:to route water to an incomplete drainage easement because it would only delay, not solve the problem I and that the drainage easement should be updated or all water routed to old �9 (PC 02/18/76) P. 3 Route 522 (Garber Road). Mr. R. C. King (State Department of Highways and Transportation) appeared before • the Commission and stated that the first time they reviewed the site plan they were under the impression that the Garber family still owned all the surrounding property and had thus recommended continuing the easement to Dr. Grimes' property, then to old Route 522 or to channel this water directly to old Route 522. He further stated that the Hydrology Section of the said Department (Staunton, Virginia) re- submitted a ruling that Mr. Garber's entrance permit could not be denied, nor further drainage easement expected, as long as Mr. Garber would not contribute any additional water to the easement, even though it would not be an ideal situation. He also stated that it would be desirable to continue the easement further, or relocate it. He said that there are no guarantees and each developer would be responsible for his individual drainage] which could be resolved. Mr. King continued that there is adequate room to enlarge the ditch on the East is side of old Route (to accommodate any runoff from the development). He said that eventually the drainage would have to be cared for either by extending the easement across Garber and Grimes property or, at some point, diversion to old Route 522 via proper flume or drop inlet. He stated that, if additional water runs off to Dr. Grimes' property, Dr. Grimes would have to take erosion control measures because he is pretty well eroded now from this and another area's drainage. The Chairman stated that it would be exemplary if the drainage problem could be reviewed for the whole area at this time and asked Mr.'King if the entire problem could be solved by re- directing the drainage to Garber Road (old Route 522) for the total tract. Mr. King stated that when Lots 4 and 5 (along new.:Route 522) are developed, there • will be additional impervious area to be drained and it would not be feasible to direct the drainage back to the culvert, rather would probably have to go across Dr. Grimes' property. He also stated that the whole area drains toward Route 81. Discussion followed -- surrounding property ownership cited by Mr. Berg; present B -2 zoning (since 1967); piecemeal solution versus area -wide drainage planning that r- (PC 02/18/76) P. 4 would involve fewer families (all being closely related to each other.), and pinpointing responsibility. • Mr. Frank Brumback made the following motion that was seconded by Mr. James Golladay Jr.: Return to Mr. Donald E. Garber his Site Plan Application No. 23 for the proposed Garber's Restaurant located on Lot No. 3 of Garber Subdivision, Shawnee Magisterial District, for consideration by all the lot owners involved (in that vicinity), if legally possible, until a practical and workable solution to the drainage problem could be worked out to avoid their becoming 'locked -in' with no relief until considerable money is expended for the development of these surrounding lots, at which time Mr. Garber may re- submit said Site Plan application. Opposition Mr. James Crewalt appeared before the Commission and stated that he rents property from Mrs. Norma Richard across the street from the proposal. He cited reasons of the aesthetic value of residential community being disturbed by traffic, odor, etc. Opposition Mrs. Norma Richard appeared before the Commission and stated that she had built • her home in 1956 (located across the corner from the proposal) and the rental house in 1958. She stated that she had not known of the rezoning of 1967 and cited her opposi- tion to the disturbance and visible restaurant litter. Rebuttal Mr. Garber stated that he had built his home in that area in the 1950's. He stated that it is anticipated to enclose with shrubbery the side fronting Garber Road. He further stated that, since the project will cost $150,000; a mess wouldn't be tolerated. He said that two (2) entrances are planned on new Route 522 with none on old Route 522. Mr. Thomas Rosenberger made the following motion that was seconded by Manuel DeHaven to amend Mr. Brumback motion Recommend to the Board of Supervisors, approval of Mr. Donald E. Garber's Site Plan Application No. 23 for the proposed Garber's Restaurant located on Lot No. 3 of Garber Subdivision, Shawnee Magisterial District, on the ® recommendation of Mr. R. C. King (State Department of Highways & Transporta- tion) that the drainage problem situation will be taken care of on Garber Road. 31 �� (PC 02/18/76) P. 5 Opposition Dr. Jerry L. Grimes appeared before the Commission and stated that it has the • responsibility of setting a precedent now for development of that area. He stated that Farm. Credit has indicated that they might agree to help solve the drainage problem. He said that the easement stops with the,property that borders the road and all the water eventually drains through his property. Mr. Rosenberger amendment to Mr. Brumback motion was approved by unanimous vote -- Mr. Brumback motion, as amended was defeated by unanimous vote; therefore, the entire motion was defeated Dr. Grimes stated that he felt Mr. Garber's proposal would not aggravate the problem much more; that Mr. Garber would be responsible for any additional drainage. Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger, seconded by Manuel DeHaven 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 Donald E. Garber Site 'Plan Application No. 23 for Garber's Restaurant located on Lot No. 3 of Garber Subdivi- sion, Shawnee Magisterial District, based upon Mr. R. C. King's (State Department of Highways and Transportation) statement that the proposal's drainage problem will be corrected with no future problems to effect residents on the West side of Garber Road (old Route 522). SUBDIVISION PLANS informally presented by Mr. J. P. Darlington prior to application. Commission's Consensus - not feasible Mr. J. P. Darlington appeared before the Commission and presented, informally, a request for their consensus of feasibility of 131 lots of 40,000 square feet each located Routes 669 and 670 (with 30 -acre par k area donated). He stated that the Health Department feels there should be two (2) approved drainfield sites, as well as one (1) well site. He said that he had asked - before proceeding with the pre- application expense. He stated that Dr. Hatfield (Frederick- Winchester Health Department) had told him in a letter that a soil scientist would be required to evaluate each lot as it is developed and this would constitute for him (Mr. Darlington) a complete survey equal is to that of a final plat for each lot, plus the expense of hiring the soil scientist. Discussion followed including: strip development (Darlington objects to it) and drainage easements. PC 02/18/76) P. 6 Mr. Darlington stated that it was his intention to develop the land -- it is just the "choice ". The Planning Commission's unanimous consensus was unfavorable. (Brumback not in favor without central water and sewer -- Rosenberger, Venskoske, DeHaven were totally against it.) PINE SUBDIVISION (Staff Presentation) Route 11 North at Route 839 Action.- Recommended Conditional Mr. Berg stated that Mr. Pine proposes purchasing Lot A that has an existing septic tank and well, and Shell service station. He also stated that land along Route 11 is filled; therefore, Lot B would be unsuitable for a septic system because it would not pass health requirements -- thus restricting it to use with central water and sewer only. Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger, 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 Pine Subdivision lcoated on Route 11 North at Route 839, Stonewall Magisterial District; noting that to the best of its knowledge Lot B has no existing septic system, cannot have one, and none is planned. STONEBROOK FARMS 8 6 (15 lots) SUBDIVISION Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Berg stated that the subdivision is a continuance of existing sections into Section 6 to plat fifteen (15) lots of 40,000 to 60,000 square feet which have been approved by the Health and Highway Departments and for which the staff recommends $111 Recreation Impact Fee per lot. He said that the proposal is generally rolling land; that Lot 105 has a very unconventional boundary line because of difficulty of I obtaining a drainage easement on Lot 106 (a house would have to set back 75'). He stated that the balance of fourteen (14) lots would have a setback of thirty -five feet (35'). • Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger, seconded by James Golladay, Jr. and approved by the following voted DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Rosenberger; Brumback -- YES; I r (PC 02/18/76) P. 7 BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors, of Stonebrook Farms,.:Section 6 (15 lots) Subdivision, Back Creek Magisterial District, with Recreation Impact Fee • of $111 per lot. HERITAGE HILLS ® 1A (7 lots) Bounded by S 1 and Abrams Creek Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Berg stated that the proposal is to extend Section One with seven (7) lots; the Highway Department has approved the short piece of road and cul -de -sac; the staff recommends a Recreation Impact Fee of $111 per lot; and Central water and sewer to be provided by the developer. Upon motion made by Manuel DeHaven, seconded by Frank Brumback and approved by the following vote: DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Rosenberger; Brumback -- YES,j; BE IT RESOLVED,. That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors of Heritage Hills, Section 1A (7 lots), bounded by Section 1 and Abrams Creek, Shawnee Magisterial District, with Recreation Impact Fee of $111 per lot. MOLDEN REAL ESTATE CORPORATION (2 Lots) SUBDIVISION • Fronting Woodstock Lane (1 improved with house) Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Berg stated that it is proposed to subdivide one (1) lot of 40,000 square feet located at the Green Acres entrance and has an existing white frame house into two.(2) lots for the purpose of providing a building lot. He also stated that Win- cheater central water and sewer is available; the Highway Department has approved; it meets R -2 zoning requirements; and there is room between the right -of -way and setback line to build a house. Upon motion made by Elmer Venskoske, seconded by Manuel DeHaven 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 Molden Real Estate Corporation (Z, lots) Subdivision fronting Woodstock Lane, Stonewall Magisterial District, with Recreation Impact Fee of $111 for one (1) vacant lot only. Attorney for the Commonwealth's Opinion -- • Lot Acreage (3 v 5) Requirement is Discretionary Presented by Secretary Mr. Ronald Berg stated that the Attorney for the Commonwealth, Mr. Lawrence R. Ambrogi, Esq. had opined that a county does have the right to set lot size requirements. 1 (PC 02/18/76) P. 8 Mobile Home Community, Art. XXV, Dist. MH -1 Secretary presented and discussed draft Action - Tabled 30 days per the Chairman's directive Mr. Berg outlined and reiterated the proposal's history for the Commission, noting that it would be subject to the Building Inspector's jurisdiction. He stated that Mr. Clark is presently compiling a map designating every operational park that has a Condi- tional Use Permit. He said that this district would include ordinance and maps (which are not yet completed). Upon Mr. Rosenberger's suggestion of tabling until April's first meeting (04/07/76) to allow time for information to be digested, Mr. Berg stated that he felt certain advertising preparations could be made by that time. The Chairman directed the Secretary (Mr. Berg) to place this item on the Agenda for the work session of the second March meeting ( 03/17/76 ). Route 681 (Highway Dept. Proj. 0681 - 034- 148,C501) Status Discussed Mr. Berg stated that the Department of Highways and Transportation had not yet forwarded the requested information and that Mr. Venskoske hadn't yet had an oppor °'tunity to discuss the proposal with Mr. R. C. King. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion made by Thomas B. Rosenberger, seconded by Elmer Venskoske 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. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, I F Ronald Berg, Secretary • (AmAc C. Langdo Gordon, Chairman 35 �