PC_11-03-76_Meeting_MinutesFV
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE
FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION
•
Held in the Board of Supervisors' Room November 3, .1976
PRESENT: C. Langdon Gordon, Frank Brumback, Vice Chairman;
Manuel C. DeHaven; James Golladay, Jr.; George G. Snarr, Jr.;
Elmer Venskoske; Thomas B. Rosenberger
ABSENT: R. Wesley Williams
CALL TO ORDER
The Chairman Called the Meeting to Order and proceeded to the First Order of
Business.
MEETING MINUTES - October 6 and 20, 1976 - Approved With Corrections
•
Upon motion made by James Golladay, Jr., seconded by Frank Brumback and approved
by the following vote: Snarr, Jr.; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.;
Brumback; Venskoske; Chairman - YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby approve -the Minutes of the Meetings of October 6 and 20, 1976 as written
with the following correction:
October 24 1976, page 5, last sentence - change the word "seen" to read "soon"
A -95 REVIEWS
Route 696 Improvements - 2.40 miles from intersection of Route 522 to the West Virginia
state line, $147,000 federal plus $103,000 state = $250,000 total funds. Gravel- surface
road to be widened and paved.
_...._ .___. Action - In Accordance With Local Planning
Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by Manuel C. DeHaven and approved by
the following vote: Snarr, Jr.; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Brumback;
Venskoske; Rosenberger; Chairman - YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby endorse said Route 696 Improvements as being in accordance with local
planning while noting that this roadway improvement is not the highest priority in the
County.
Town of Stephens City Va. applications to EDA (U.S. Dept. of Commerce), Local Public
Works Capital Development & Investment (LPW) Program:
$103 ;000..federal & total funds - Civic Center Improvements
• This project will provide a much needed gathering place for community civic and service
organizations as well as recreational facilities for all town citizens. It'is an im-
portant part of the Town's Master Improvement Plan.
153
r
(PC 11/03/76) p 2
$59,800 federal & total funds - Addition to Fire Hall
Rehabilitation and addition to the existing Town Fire Hall. This project will provide
needed room for facilities storage and satisfy a long term need of community safety.
• $151,200 federal &-- funds - Elevated Water Storage Tank
The Town presently has no water reserve. In the event of a break in the City of Win-
chester's transmission main, the Town residents suffer extreme inconvenience. This
project would insure the public safety and satisfy the long term needs of the community.
$275,900 federal & total funds - Water System Upgrade Construction
The Town has been experiencing generally substandard water service due to the age and
inadequate sizes of certain lines. This project would solve this problem and further
serve the long term needs of the community.
Action - No Comment
•
Mr. Berg stated that Mr. Bruce Edens (Town Manager) had assured him that none of the
above A -95 Reviews would extend beyond the corporate limits of Stephens City.
Upon motion made by George G. Snarr, Jr., seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger and
approved by the following vote: Snarr, Jr.; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Brumback;
Venskoske; Rosenberger; Chairman - YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby make no comment on the said A -95 Review Projects for the Town of Stephens
City, Virginia.
Procedural Policy (A -95 REVIEWS)
LJ
The Commission discussed the following points in regard to the attempt to arrive
at an efficient and consistent course of action in dealing with A -95 Reviews:
1. Should an applicant be invited to attend meetings'at which their A -95 Review
is to be considered?
2. Sketchy information supplied by the Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission
on those that directly affect local planning.
3. Whether or not Staff Comments should accompany each in the agenda.
4. Action is required only when the applicant is from within Frederick County.
Upon motion made by George G. Snarr, Jr., seconded by Frank Brumback and approved
by the following vote: Snarr, Jr.; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Brumback;
Venskoske; Rosenberger; Chairman - YES:
BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick, Virginia
does hereby initiate as its A -95 Review procedural policy the following in order to
eliminate unnecessary and time - consuming discussion:
1. The Secretary is to continue outlining A -95 Reviews in the agenda.
2. "No Comment" will be made by the Commission unless a major reason for
action is evident.
154
r
(PC 11/03/76) p 3
Development of Legal Services Capabilities for Elderly Virginians by Virginia Office
on Aging to Office of Human Development, Administration on Aging, Department of Health,
• Education and Welfare in the amount of $20,000 state and total funds.
Development of the State Legal Services Plan to develop legal services activities within
State Planning and Service Areas which will increase the quality and quantity of legal
services to persons sixty (60) years of.age and.over.residing in the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
Action - No Comment
The Chairman asked the Secretary to proceed per the above newly - established pro-
cedural policy on A -95 Reviews.
Mr. Berg stated that this A -95 Review had no impact on local planning.
DISCUSSION - Yard Requirements for Accessory Buildings in Agricultural Zones
Action - None
Mr. Berg stated that the present requirements for accessory buildings are: A -1 at
15 feet from left and rear sideyards, and 50 feet from the rear line (Frederick County
these requirements make good sense for subdivisions (of which many of the older ones
are in agricultural areas), but are controversial for larger -sized lots because some-
times these buildings are not easily visible. It has become necessary to refer some
of the small -yard building applicants to the Board of Zoning Appeals, and some of
these people have become upset enough -to abandon the project -- creating a problem for
our office.
He stated that accessory buildings is not a very definitive category.
Mr. Brumback opined that adjacent property owners have difficulty with buildings
close to the property lines, creating hazards to mowing and mowing equipment, such as,
dogs and their chains, broken bottles, mini - bikes, children, debris, etc. He empha-
sized that tractor tires are too expensive to be ruined in this manner.
The Commission's consensus was to study the matter and do nothing at the present
• time.
155
Zoning
Ordinance 0 2 -1 -16, 2 -5 -1, 2 -5 -2); and
A -2 at 15
feet from
the
rear,
left
and
•
right
property lines (Frederick County Zoning
Ordinance
® 3- 1 -15).
He
also
said
that
these requirements make good sense for subdivisions (of which many of the older ones
are in agricultural areas), but are controversial for larger -sized lots because some-
times these buildings are not easily visible. It has become necessary to refer some
of the small -yard building applicants to the Board of Zoning Appeals, and some of
these people have become upset enough -to abandon the project -- creating a problem for
our office.
He stated that accessory buildings is not a very definitive category.
Mr. Brumback opined that adjacent property owners have difficulty with buildings
close to the property lines, creating hazards to mowing and mowing equipment, such as,
dogs and their chains, broken bottles, mini - bikes, children, debris, etc. He empha-
sized that tractor tires are too expensive to be ruined in this manner.
The Commission's consensus was to study the matter and do nothing at the present
• time.
155
I
(PC 11/03/76) p 4
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 020 -76 of the COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD of FREDERICK
COUNTY VIRGINIA, 36 East Whitlock Ave., Winchester, Virginia, hereby requests
• that 27 acres, more or less, located on the West side of Route 739, just North of
intersection with Route 522, now zoned Business- General (B -2) be rezoned: Residential -
General (R -3). This property is designated as Parcel No. 42(5)D on tax map No. 42 and
is in Gainesboro Magisterial District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Berg stated that the proposal is for 2,119.73 feet of frontage and 750.92 feet
of depth.
Mr. C. Edward Lizer, Assistant Superintendent of Frederick County High School,
appeared before the Commission.
Messrs. Berg and Lizer showed the map location of the proposal and stated that .
the reason for the proposal is to make the whole 69 acres the same zoning -- the
balance is already zoned R -3 -- so that it all may be used for a public school.
Mr. Lizer stated that he believed the present law requires court approval before
the School Board can legally sell any of its property; which must be done by way of
•
a petition to
the
court.
He stated,
also, that he knew of no definite plans for
which portion
of
this land
would be
used for parking, construction, etc.
The Commission was concerned about the lack of information about the planned use
of the proposal.
Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by James Golladay, Jr. and approved
by the following vote: Snarr, Jr.; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Brumback;
Venskoske; Rosenberger; Chairman - 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 said
Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 020 -76 of the COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD of FREDERICK
COUNTY VIRGINIA from Business - General (B -2) to Residential - General (R -3).
Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 022 -76 of Howard F. PERRY 13 Valley Ave., Winch-
ester, Virginia hereby requests that 5.447 acres, more or-less, located on the North
side of Route 50 East (immediately North of the Econo - Travel Motor Hotel), now zoned
Residential- Limited (R -2) be rezoned: Business- General (B -2). This property is
designated as Parcel No. 108 on tax map 64(a)108 and is in Shawnee Magisterial District.
• Action - Recommended Approval
156
i
(PC 11/03/76) p 5
Mr. Berg stated that the proposal is for 10.32 feet of frontage and 366.43 feet of
depth. He said that the planned use is for expansion of the existing motel (Econo-
• Travel) by sixteen (16) rooms. He said that Mr. King (Highway Department) had corres-
ponded that this proposal is satisfactory.
Mr. F. L. Largent appeared before the Commission to represent Econo - Travel Motel
(contract purchaser).
Mr. Berg quoted the review comment of October 25, 1976 by Mr. James W. Givens,
Utilities Superintendent, City of Winchester, Virginia:
"As can be noted from the attached plat, City sewer is not 'adjacent'. to the 5.447
acre tract for which the rezoning request was received.
Although it is understood that the subject tract is for the expansion of the Econo-
Travel Motel, the property, by being in two parcels, could be divisible by sale, and
in accordance with the City Code, must have a separate sewer service; however, in
accordance with City policy, adopted in January, 1976 (copy enclosed), a separate
sewer connection is not possible as a sanitary sewer main is not adjacent to the
5.447 acre tract.
Should the property line on the plat be-removed as indicated, then the 5.447 tract
and the Econo - Travel tract would become one property. An expansion of the existing
motel (in such a way as to not be divisible by sale) would permit the use of the
existing sewer service for the expansion.
If further information is required, please advise."
• Mr. Largent stated that at the present time there is a motel North of Route 81 with
access to Route 50 by right -of -way. He further stated that they will increase the
motel size by 24 rooms with six (6) on the existing property and 18 on the land to be
acquired. He said that City water and sewer is presently available to the existing
motel. He also said that the existing driveway will be used and that the ten feet would
give them additional access they need. He stated that they have no purpose or use for
the balance of property excepting additional parking area and /or landscaping, and /or
future motel expansion.
Mr. Berg referred to the Land Use Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan when he said
that this intersection is indicated as a commercial area.
Mr. Brumback asked what affect there would be on water and sewer facilities if
they decide to develop the property in another fashion.
• The Commission again expressed concern about the planned "use" not being expressed
for all or a portion of the 5.447 acres.
fFIVl
r
(PC 11/03/76) p 6
Mr. Jim Ross, Sr. appeared before the Commission. He stated that the five (5)
acres is presently without sewer; therefore, the proposal would be making use of
• dormant land.
Mr. Largent stated that his clients have no other access to the property than Route
50, with no possibility of access to any other direction unless a property owner would
agress to an access.
Upon motion made by George G. Snarr, Jr., seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger and
approved by the following vote: Snarr, Jr.; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Brumback;
Venskoske; Rosenberger; Chairman - 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 said
Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 022 -76 of Howard F. PERRY from Residential- Limited
(R -2) to Business - General (B -2).
Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 021 -76 of Harry F. STIMPSON Jr., Harry F. STIMPSON
III, and Margaret B. STIMPSON Boyce, Virginia hereby request that 6.57 acres, more
or less, located on the South side of Route 277, approximately 2/10 miles East of
intersection with Interstate 81, now zoned Residential - General (R -3) be rezoned:
Business - General (B -2). This property is designated as part of Parcels 144, 145,
• and 146, and all of Parcel No. 147 on tax map 85 and is in Opequon Magisterial
District.
Action - Recommended Approval
Mr. Berg stated that the frontage would be 312.86 feet (offset of 25.12 feet as
shown on plat), and the depth would be 920.15 feet along the southwestern boundary and
1,095.75 feet along the northeastern boundary. He read from the application of Octo-
ber 7, 1976:
"The portion of the property next to Route 277 is intended to be presently developed
into a retail business property for the sale of local agricultural products, including
apples and apple products and possibly other gift items, with related parking, etc.
The rear portion of the property will be reserved for future business use possibly in
connection with the tract adjoining the subject property on the West.
A one -story retail commercial building of approximately square feet is proposed
to be constructed near the Route 277 frontage of the subject property. Dimensions and
other specifications of the building are under study and are expected to be available
to the applicant no later than November 1, 1976."
Mr. William A. Johnston (spokesman) and Mr. Robert Borth (Walton, Madden and Cooper)
• appeared before the Commission. Mr. Johnston stated that they believed the highest
and best use of this property, considering residential and-Route 81 adjoining, would
be'to rezone to B -2. He said that there is a deep ravine perpendicular to the frontage
which allows only a portion developable, considering the sewer line.
158
(PC 11/03/76) p 7
He said that it would be justifiable to fill in the front for now. He said, also,
that the adjacent properties to the East and South are owned by the same party,
• Stimpson. He stated that the gray area of the map may eventually be used by food
service, as he understood it. He emphasized that the proposal is good planning. He
said that there may be a country store operation along the frontage. He stated that
Mr. King (Highway Department) had found no problem with the proposal.
The Commission expressed concern about the planned access roads because of the
nearby schools and subdivisions, etc.
Mr. Golladay suggested one entrance and one exit would be easier than one entrance
and exit for each commercial development and one entrance for the residential area.
Mr. Johnston stated that these plans are purely tentative.
The lengthy discussion that followed involved traffic'-congestion and hazards.
Mr. Borth stated that a common access for the proposed rezoning area was considered
by his office when they drew up the plans
Mr. Brumback expressed concern about how and from where land would be acquired in
• the future for access roads, if needed.
Upon motion made by James Golladay, Jr., seconded by George G. Snarr, Jr. and
approved by the following vote: Snarr, Jr.; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Brumback;
Venskoske; Chairman - YES,
Rosenberger - NO:
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 said
Zoning Map Amendment Petition No. 021 -76 of Harry F. STIMPSON Jr., Harry F. STIMPSON
III, and Margaret B. STIMPSON from Residential - General (R -3) to Business - General (B -2).
GENERAL
The Commission requested the Secretary to invite Mr. Reginald C. King of the Vir-
ginia Department of Highways and Transportation to a Work Session to discuss rezoning
applications in relation to future planned use.
The Commission requested the Secretary to make a list of their Procedural Policies
so they may be reviewed.
U
159
r
(PC 11/03/76) p 8
•
The Commission requested the Secretary to request Legal Counsel's opinion of how
much planned use they may legally require a rezoning applicant to state.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by Thomas B. Rosenberger 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,
Y 4ji &
H. Ronald Berg, Secretary
n QAAO d7�:
C. Langdon Go 01 on, Chairman
r.
r1
U
160