Loading...
PC_05-19-76_Meeting_Minutesi MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board of Supervisors Room, May 19, 1976 PRESENT: C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman; Frank Brumback, Vice Chairman; Manuel C. DeHaven; James Golladay, Jr.; Elmer Venskoske; Keith Williams ABSENT: Thomas B. Rosenberger CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the Meeting to Order and proceeded to the First Order of Business: CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS Forest Lake Estates (Mobile Home Park) Conditional Use Permit Application No. 62, Opequon Magisterial District, A -2 Zoning, 491 spaces, 123 acres, by H. Ray VanDyke and T. G. Adams for Rayland Corporation. Action - Tabled until June 2, 1976 for Plat Revision EXECUTIVE SESSION Upon motion made by James Golladay;.,Jr., seconded by Elmer Venskoske and approved by the following vote: DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback - YES: BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby adjourn for Executive Session to discuss legal matters. REGULAR SESSION Upon motion made by Elmer Venskoske, seconded by James Golladay, Jr. and approved by the following vote: Williams; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskosek; Brumback - YES: BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby return to Regular Session from Executive Session. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the Meeting to Order and proceeded to the Conditional Use Permit Application No. 62 of Forest Lake Estates Mr.Lewis M. Costello, representing the applicants, appeared before the Commission and stated that the plat proposed is for 491 spaces of which 161 have thirty -foot (30') width in accordance with-the court's decree. He stated that the engineers had ® informed him that the plans include approximately 70 acres for development, approxi- mately 17 acres for the lake and 36 acres undeveloped that would qualify for recreational use. .,, (PC 05/19/76) P. 2 Opposition Mrs. Laura F. Pifer, secretary, Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc., .is appeared before the Commission in opposition and quoted the following letter: "The Frederick County Environmental Council in its regular monthly meeting on May 17, 1976 has once again discussed in considerable detail the subject of the proposed Trailer Court to be located on Route 636 in the Opequon District and the opposition to such a project. We would like for the following comments to become apart of the record for the Planning Commission so that the project can be viewed from an over ..... all stand point. We consider the effluent from a central sewage treatment plant required for the proposed development should be discharged into a stream which flows continuously. The tributary of Crooked Run which runs through the area is frequently dry. We have photographs taken on July 17, 1974 by David Smith of the Winchester Evening Star accompanied by a notarized affidavid showing this stream bed at a point where it crosses Route 636 a couple of miles down stream from the proposed mobile home devel- opment. You may be assured that this stream is frequently dry particularly in the summer when effluent odors are the most noticeable. Mobile homes have historically been the scene of very violent and destructive fires. The development site is located in a large ravine or draw in a wooded area. We quote from a publication of the University of Colorado written during the summer of 1972 under a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation whose titl i "residential Development in the Mountains of Colorado - A Survey of Issues" . /si /. Under the heading "Fire Danger" on page 33 it states: "Some areas should not be developed because of their natural fire danger. A prime example is described as a fire chimney. Such areas are ravines or draws characterized by steep slopes and dense vegetation." We submit that with the number of mobile homes proposed, their loca- tion in a densely wooded fire chimney -type area; the tendancy of children to build fires; and the distance from fire ^fighting equipment, the fire hazards are too great to permit closely sited mobile homes as proposed. It is understood that a private water system is planned using several wells and a central storage system. For the number of families contemplated such wells would need to be quite deep. There is a history of an increasing number of new wells in the vicinity having water of high sulfur and iron content. This would be difficult to treat and could become very costly. We are also concerned about lowering the water table as a result of increased draw down caused by more concentrated population densities. Public road access to the site is only via Route 636 located between Route 277 and Route 641 (The Double Churches Road). The Route 277 end of Route 636 is a macadam, fairly narrow but winding road with many sharp turns that becomes a dirt road about half way to the Double Churches Road. Those individuals living in the mobile home park working in or having the occasion to go to Front Royal would naturally take Route,636 and the Double Churches Road to Ninevah on Routes 340 and 522 as a short cut. The unpaved portion of Route 636 is narrow with frequent sharp turns and traverses a hill through a cut. The road in the cut is very narrow without enough room for two cars to safely pass. The widening of this section of road has been requested at the Board of Supervisors Road hearings the past two years to no avail. Several vehicles have failed to negotiate one narrow section of this road and turned over or slid into the gulley below. In view of this we can only conclude that the existing public road (Route 636) is inadequate for the extensive use that would accompany this development. The availability of state road funds is not known at this time but from the fiscal problems emerging from Richmond, it does not appear that one can count on the repair of this road in the near future. An analysis of the number of calls for police assistance to the Sheriff's depart- ment reveals that there is about one call per mobile home per year and less than half of this from residents not living in mobile homes. The activation of this mobile home park could mean a significant increase in activity of the sheriff's C .r (PC 05/19/76) P. 3 department whose members are already spread pretty thinly over the county. The school situation and the burden put upon it should also be a vital considera- tion as Dr. Wright has expressed that the present school system is inadequate for • the existing school population. If all of these areas are given a complete study and then compiled for an accurate picture of the full impact of such a project on this portion of Frederick County, we do not see how the Planning Commission could act in favor of having this trailer park considered as an asset to our community. We, therefore, urge you strongly to vote against this proposal and help the citizens to protect and preserve the environ- ment of this county. Sincerely, /s/ Laura F. Pifer, Secretary" (Letter from The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc. to Mr. Ronald Berg, dated May 19, 1976, submitted to the Planning Commission at the meeting of May 19, 1976) Opposition Mr. Mason Larwood, The Frederick County Environmental Council, Inc., appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that he strongly recommended that both bodies and Judge Woltz jointly visit the site in order to make a more intelli- gent decision. He objected to the 460 -foot elevation of the proposed treatment plant as being very close to the lake's water level; and asked if this would constitute interference with the stream's water flow. Mr. Costello stated that he believed the State Water Control Board's requirements • would have to be met before the project could be developed; and the Chairman stated that the Commission appreciated the point of opposition Mr. Larwood wanted to make, even though it was not relevant to the Conditional Use Permit application. Mr. Williams stated that the plat did not indicate the original 173 lots permis- sible. Mr. Doug Legg, C.L.S. (Greenway Engineering and Surveying Co., Inc.), for the applicant, stated that Lot Numbers 1 -109, 223 -256, 120 -132, 433, 411, 406, 328, 363, 261 were shown, and that Lot Number 285 was deleted (where Lake Prince Drive comes in) of the lots on the original plat; and 122 lots have widths of fifty feet (50') or more. Mr. Williams inquired about the discrepancy of 14 lots out of 187. Mr. Berg stated that Lot Numbers 1 -109, 223 -256, 149 -156, etc., totaled 187 lots as found by the staff; and Lot Numbers 151 and 157 were too narrow to meet the thirty- ,10 foot (30') requirement. The Chairman noted that the lots totaled 160 by actual count rather than 161. �I (PC 05/19/76) P. 4 Mr. Williams noted that the balance of the subdivison now totaled 172 rather than 173 lots. • Mr. Costello maintained that the prior requirement was not footage, but square feet. He further stated that they did believe they had exceeded the permissible 173 lots, but that they would eliminate lots on the plat if necessary to meet requirements. Mr. Williams suggested that the original 173 lots should be sharply defined on the plat. Mr. Williams stated that the contour map appeared to have gradients much in excess of 5% slope that would interfere with required mobile home tiedowns. Mr. Costello (referring to lot size) stated that if the lots on the plat exceeded the maximum authorized they would voluntarily amend the petition. Mr. Costello (referring to the gradient) stated that specifications were not in the conditions of the surface at this time, but rather a matter that must be met under the - .continuing police power of the Trailer Ordinance after the Site Plan is approved. He said that he was aware that the gradient other than on the insert show- ing the typical layout would be a matter shown on the Preliminary Plan. He noted that this matter would be under the Ordinance section dealing with the mobile home placement requirements -- not a detailed plan requirement for each lot. Mr. Berg emphasized that wherever the slope exceeded 10% it was germain that the applicant clarify how he proposed to handle it. Mr. Williams said that the Commission needed assurance that the plan could be imple- mented in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Costello stated that they wished to present the plan in conformance with the court's decree under the applicable Trailer Ordinance; however, that they were privileged to have this application reviewed in the same manner as other applicants were reviewed at the time. He said that when this application was before this body before with the construction in the same area this point was not raised, nor was it deemed a requirement. • He continued that they would have to meet grading requirements for each lot before a trailer could be placed; that it should not be a prerequisite or consideration of the Site Plan because the gradient is subject to adjustment on the surface by engineering. (PC 05/19/76) P. 5 Mr. Costello emphasized that placement gradient would be required before a Certificate of Occupancy could be issued (® 20 -38). • Mr. Williams quoted from Judge Woltz's Opinion: "...However, in the use of any such remaining area as there may be which in effect will constitute an enlargement of the park in units though not in area, he shall comply with the requirements of all applicable ordinances, as to filing of site plans, size of lots, density of units, construction standards and the like, as those ordinance existed when the Board denied his 'conditional use permit' April 14, 1974." (Circuit Court of Frederick County case of H. Ray VanDyke v. The Board of Superviosrs of Frederick County, Opinion by Judge Robert K. Woltz of February 19, 1976, p 6, 3rd paragraph, 6th sentence) Mr. Williams then stated that the Commission could not in good conscience make an approval recommendation to the Board of Supervisors of this proposal with this existing terrain; that it (the Commission) had previously made such requir ements of applicants. Mr. Costello stated, for the record, that the applicants are entitled to a review in the same way as previously reviewed for the same tract and lots; which did not include a question of gradient. He said that they did wish to, wihtout admitting it is necessary, be cooperative about this issue. He asked that the lots in question be • specified so that an answer may thus be addressed. Mr. Williams stated that evidence should be submitted that this is an accomplishable fact to the staff prior to further review by the Commission, with all property designated. Mr. Costello maintained that this Plat was initially the same as previously reivewed; except that some lot lines were changed. He said that the building areas were substan- tially the same as before, and that the same criteria applied as before; Mr. Berg indicated areas with a slope of 10 -15 %, 15 =25% and 25% or more. Engineer Legg stated that the requirement of 0 -15% grade is for the mobile home stand -- not for the lot, as he understood the Ordinance. Mr. Costello quoted from the Tailer Ordinance: ... "There shall be 0 -5% longitudinal gradient and adquate crown of cross gradient for surface drainage of the mobile home stand. "... He said that the purpose is not to provide more than 5% gradient; and that gradient of the entire lot was not necessarily applicable under the Ordinance, too. He suggested • that it might be advisable to defer action, while again stating that they did agree to amend in any way to bring the plat into conformance with the Ordinance. �j I (PC 05/19/76) P. 6 Mr. Costello said that his clients wanted to accomplish the best that could be done with the area, as well as be in compliance and answer all questions as best they could. • He mentioned that previously the questions had been other than technical considerations. He suggested the requirements by the Commission be put in writing, and that the proposal be tabled until June 2, 1976. He said that if adjustments could not be made by that time, they would advise time enough in advance of that meeting date. Mr. Williams suggested that Mr. Berg address -a letter to Mr.. Costello outlining the items that the Commission would like the applicant to comply with. Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by James Golladay, Jr. and approved by the following vote: Williams; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback - YES: BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby table, per applicant's counsel's request, until Regular Meeting date of June 2, 1976 the Conditional Use Permit Application Number 62 of Forest Lake Estates (H. Ray VanDyke and T. G. Adams for Rayland Corporation) so that they may adjust the Plat in compliance with said Commission's requests. SUBDIVISIONS Golliday - RT 625 & RT 638 LOTS 2 lots, Opequon Magisterial District, at the inter- section of Routes 625 and 638, A -2 Zoning, approved by Frederick - Winchester Health • Department and State Department of Highways and Transportation, submitted by Larry S. and Catherine C. Golliday. Action - Recommended Approval by a vote of 2:1 James Golladay, Jr. stated that he wished to abstain from all participation and voting because he and Mr. Golliday are relatives. Mr. Larry S. Golliday appeared before the Commission and stated that he had pur chased this tract from a five (5)- acre plot belonging to his father. He stated that he intended to build a home for his family for which he had applied to the Building Inspector's office for a Building Permit without knowing the Ordinance regulations. He said that the house in which he and his family presently reside is on the market for sale. Mr. Berg stated that the question was raised at the meeting of May 5, 1976 of future development of the'three (3) tracts. • Mr. L. S. Golliday stated that there would be no more subdividing. He said that this parcel is the balance of the family -owned land in that area. J (PC 05/19/76) P. 7 Opposition • Mr. Alfred Snapp appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that he appreciated having received answers to some of his questions. He mentioned that it is difficult to operate orchards close in proximity to houses because of the spray. Opposition C J Mr. John Pickeral appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that he objected to strip development, and to approve a subdivision at this site is inconsis- tent with previous action by the County in that area -- it would be setting a prece- dent by continuing to break those concepts. Upon motion made by Keith Williams, seconded by Manuel DeHaven and approved by the following vote: Williams; DeHaven - YES, Venskoske - NO, Brumback; Golladay, Jr. - ABSTAINED: BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby recommend to the Board of Supervisors of said County approval of the Subdivision application, Golliday - RT 625 & RT 638 Lots, by Larry S. and Catherine C. Golliday (2 lots, Opequon Magisterial District, at the intersection of Routes 625 and 638, A -2 Zoning). Mrs. Nellie E. Dellagotta 2 lots, Gainesboro Magisterial District, fronting Route 703 (Ebenezer Church Road), A -1 Zoning, approved by Fr. =Winc. Health Dept. & State Dept. of Highways and Transportation. Action - Recommended Approval • Mr. Berg stated that Mrs. Dellagotta is proposing to sell the remaining lots and that all the lots meet'-zoning requirements. The.Commission discussed the site's location. Mr. Berg stated that Mrs. Dellagotta owns five (5) acres adjacent to this site, (D.B. 440, p 568). He stated that the balance is now being sold as five (5)- acre and two and three - quarters (2 -3/4)- acre tracts. He said that her- residence is :. located North of this proposal. He apologized for not having notified Mrs. Dellagotta that she should be represented at this meeting. Upon motion made by Manuel C. DeHaven, seconded by James Golladay, Jr. and approved by the following vote: Williams; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Brumback - YES, Venskoske - ABSTAINED: .5.S I i (PC 05/19/76) P. 8 • BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby recommend to the Board of Supervisors of said County approval of the Sub- division application by Mrs. Nellie E. Dellagotta for two (2) lots (Gainesboro Magis- terial District, fronting Route 703, A -1 Zoning). FAMILY CONVEYANCE Thomas G. Miller, Route 600, D.B. 329, 2.000 acres ..... non - agenda item Action - Staff advised that Approval in Orde 11 Mr. Berg stated that Mr. Miller wished to convey this tract to his niece (who is not a direct relative) and that he had presented this request to the Commission because "family" had not been defined anywhere. He stated that the tract is located North of Gainesboro, across from the Skirmish Club; does meet 200 -foot (200') setback require- ments on the side piece; and the entire boundary is on E.V.A. right -of -way, so all frontage is not necessarily accessible. He asked for the Commission's recommendation. Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by Elmer Venskoske and approved by the following vote: Williams; DeHaven; Golladay,. - Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback - YES: BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby recommend that Mr. Berg, Deputy Subdivision Administrator, sign the Family Variance application of Mr. Thomas G. Miller, Route 60, D.B. 329, for a 2.000 -acre tract conveyance to Mr. Miller's niece. WORK SESSION Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 014 -76 of Brady T. Ellis, SR. and Shirley C. Ellis 2108 Haviland Drive, Richmond, Virginia, hereby request that 9.211 acres, more or less, located on the North side of Route 664, approximately three - tenths (3/10) mile East of intersection with Route 666, now zoned Agricultural - General (A -2) be rezoned: Industrial - Limited (M -1). This parcel is designated as 44 -(A) -172 -3 on tax map 44 and is in Stone- wall Magisterial District. (Was tabled at meeting of May 5, 1976) Action - To Board of Supervisors with no Recommendation Mr. Berg reiterated the highlights of discussion of the proposal during the Plan- ning Commission meeting of May 5, 1976. The Commission discussed some of the important items that it felt must be considered by the County for M -1 and M -2 Zoning: a..- - tax base e b. use of existing buildings f C. land use planning g d. spot zoning amount of land necessary available facilities and services accessibility i (PC 05/19/76) P. 9 Mr. Berg offered the Commission some research results and responded to the Chair- man's inquiry of his opinion: • Most jurisdictions use a special exception system that grants a special right to a particular application, without initiating any zoning change. This special use permit may be issued with specific items listed, such as, restraints and /or allowable use. The Code states, ® 15.1 - 491 (C), that the Board of Supervisors may retain onto them- selves this perrogative. Some localities use a system whereby the Board of Zoning Appeals may act on a special use permit; which creates citizen distrust because it appears to be granting special individual rights -- this type of Variance can be unadvisable and should be avoided. At this time, Mr. Keith Williams made a motion which was seconded by Mr. Elmer Venskoske and stated later in these Minutes. Mr. Williams quoted Section 15.1.491 (C) of the Code,".. issuance of special... or use permits. "... Mr. DeHaven objected to the lack of consideration toward the applicants when it was proposed to construct a costly new.building. The Chairman asked the applicants and /or a representative to appear before the Commission, also noting that he had neglected to do so at the proper time during is these proceedings (for the record). Mr. Jim Largent appeared before the Commission as representative for the applicants. He stated that the area did not initially lend itself to development; that the appli- cants had honorable intentions; that future problems cannot be anticipated; and that the proposed use of the property and existing buildings appeared to,be the highest and best use. He said that he knew of no single opposition of the area to the proposal. He opined that it certainly would be advnatageous for the County to segregate industry within a particular area, but that there is no other classification for this proposal. Upon motion made by Keith Williams, seconded by Elmer Venskoske and approved by the following vote: Williams; Golladay, Jr.; Venskoske; Brumback - YES, Manuel DeHaven - NO: BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby forward to the Board of Supervisors of said County the Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 014 -76 requesting that 9.211 acres, more or less, be rezoned from A -2 to M -1 without recommendation so that said Board may entertain the possibility of granting • the applicants a special exemption of allowing the continued use of property and /or outlining limitations of property use, such as: 97 L (PC 05/19/76) P. 10 a) Maximum employees allowed, b) Maximum occupancy in conformanity with Health Department requirements, c) Allowable use of existing structions, with a specific list suggested, • d) Allowable use of all or a portion of the 9.211 acres, more or'less, with a specific list suggested, and e) Any exceptions, additions, deletions, etc. that the Board may deem necessary for the health and well -being of that particular area. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That thetPlanning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia does hereby include, enclose, or forward to the Board of said County any pertinent comments and /or opinions, and the Minutes of the Meetings of May 5 and 19, 1976. SITE PLANS Goldston Trucking Company 1.386 acres, Route 783, Stonewall Magisterial District, M -2 Zoning, City water and sewer, to erect a one (1)- story building (70' X 100'). State Department of Highways and Transportation approved with one entrance change provision. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Berg described the proposal's location as being just North of the City's boundary. He stated that the staff had received a letter from the City accepting the water and sewer system; and that parking spaces would not meet setback require- ment of M -2 zoning, as presently planned. is Mr. Tom Glass, C.L.S., Rich Food Products (the lessor), stated that Goldston Trucking ships for, Rich's Food Products. He stated that it is planned to have a three (3)- bay terminal building of 70' X 100' that would include two (2) mechanical bays, change rooms and office space. Mr. Glass further stated that the applicants are willing and agreeable to adjusting the parking space inadequacy to meet requirements. Upon motion made by Elmer Venskoske, seconded by James Golladay, Jr. and approved by the following vote: Williams; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Venskosek; 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 said County of the Site Plan application of Goldston Trucking Company, 1.386 acres, Route 783, Stone - wall Magisterial District, M -2 Zoning, City water and sewer, to erect a one (1)- story building of 70' X 100', per application with adjusting of the parking spaces to meet requirements. i (PC 05/19/76) P. 11 M -1 and M -2 Zoning Discussed and Staff Recommendation Requested The Commission discussed the fact that the Board of Supervisors can make exceptions, • etc. to M -1 and M -2 Zoning that the Commission cannot. The Chairman asked the Staff to present a recommendation to the Commission for a policy statement. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion made by Keith Williams, seconded by James Golladay, Jr. 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, i • H. Ronald`Berg, Secretary C. Langdon Gordon, Chairman F 1 LJ .