Loading...
PC_11-19-75_Meeting_MinutesMINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION • Held in the Board of Supervisors Room, November 19; 1975 PRESENT: Keith Williams, Chairman; Elmer Venskoske, Vice Chairman; James Golladay, Jr.; Langdon Gordon; Manuel DeHaven; Frank Brumback ABSENT: Richard Madigan CALL TO ORDER The Vice'_Chairmah called the meeting to order and welcomed Mr. James Golladay, Jr. to the Commission as a new member. The Vice Chairman proceeded to the first order of business because the Chairman had not yet arrived. LEGAL COUNSEL TO ACT AS PARLIAMENTARIAN Action -- Motion Defeated Frank Brumback stated that it was his suggestion that the Commission consider Legal Counsel also act as Parliamentarian for the Planning Com mission to help avoid later legal complications, that he has an open mind and was not intending to be critical of present procedures. Vice Chairman stated that he felt that procedures were up to the Chair; that it is necessary to follow rules. He said that Counsel may offer help- ful comments. Langdon Gordon stated that the Chair is in an awkward situation at times and the suggestion would alleviate responsibility somewhat. Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by Manuel DeHaven and de- feated by the following vote: Gordon; Brumback -- YES DeHaven -------- - - - - -- ABSTAINED Golladay, Jr.; Vice Chairman -- NO. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the.County of Fred- erick, Virginia does not wish that Legal Counsel also act as Parliamentarian. • VIRGINIA BY14AYS SYSTEM Inclusion of Route 723 (old Route 50) in the Virginia Byways System. Clarke County is considering a like request for Route 723 in that County. Action -- Tabled ��-7 (PC 11/19/75) P. 2 Ronald Berg stated that the Highway Department has inquired if Fred- erick County would like to participate and that it would entail no respon- sibility to the local governing body -- that maps would show Route 723 as a Byway and signs would be posted indicating that it is a scenic Byway. He said that the Highway Department is proceeding slowly -- that they are look- ing for an indication that Frederick County is not opposed. He also stated that it does not effect widening, improvements, zoning or special treatments and suggested that a communication be sent to the Highway Department indi- cating that both bodies (Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission) are either opposed or not. Frank Brumback suggested that the Commission should have more informa- tion. He asked what the procedure would be if neither body has objections. Ronald Berg stated that he did not know the procedure. Manuel DeHaven stated that people along that highway should have some "say ". He asked if there had been any public meetings on the matter. • Ronald Berg stated that he did not know for sure, but there were quite a few meetings when they were working on Route 5. Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by James Golladay, Jr. and approved by the following vote: Gordon; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Brumback; Vice Chairman -- YES. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Fred- erick, Virginia does hereby table this request until Ronald Berg obtains more information from the Highway Department via letter on procedure, time table, etc. STUDY AREA FOR MIDDLETOWN FACILITIES PLAN Action -- No Objection to "Study" Ronald Berg stated that the Study is for upgrading Middletown's cur- rent sewage lagoon. J. 0. Renalds, III stated that the Water Control Board has requested • that Middletown study the drainage area and that it would, more or less, support the Town Council in re to Step One Grant for a facility that would (PC 11/19/75) P. 3 have to be built outside Middletown Corporate limits, He said that Fred- area for proposed subdivision -- would it conflict with the drainage area? Mr. Renalds stated that it would be dependent upon the sewage treat- ment plant and that there had been no development pressure except-.an in- dustrial development located just outside of the town -- that the study would be approached on a regional basis. He said that it is feasible that the study area would not necessarily be the ultimate service area; however, Step One Grant would be the next step once the service area is decided upon and that the local share would be approximately $20,000 with Step Two Grant being considerably more (approximately $92,500). He said that they now are asking for planning money and by 1977 they will be forced to upgrade their facilities which he suggested would have be done either locally or with an area -wide plan. He stated that Step Three Grant would be the construct- ion phase. He explained that Middletown is interested in the County',s input in case the facility services more than the town itself. He stated that the A -95 Review was received about three (3) weeks ago for which they will be expecting the County's input for Middletown's records. Ronald Berg stated that the Commission might want to consider the im- pact of the facility on vacant land surrounding Middletown and advised cau- tion might be in order in considering progression from Study to the design and construction grants. .Mr. Gordon stated that the Commission should have more information be- fore asserting an opinion. Mr. Brumback stated that a facility outside of Middletown -will perpet- erick- Winchester Service Authority has already reviewed the request. • Frank Brumback asked what the effect would be of using that orchard area for proposed subdivision -- would it conflict with the drainage area? Mr. Renalds stated that it would be dependent upon the sewage treat- ment plant and that there had been no development pressure except-.an in- dustrial development located just outside of the town -- that the study would be approached on a regional basis. He said that it is feasible that the study area would not necessarily be the ultimate service area; however, Step One Grant would be the next step once the service area is decided upon and that the local share would be approximately $20,000 with Step Two Grant being considerably more (approximately $92,500). He said that they now are asking for planning money and by 1977 they will be forced to upgrade their facilities which he suggested would have be done either locally or with an area -wide plan. He stated that Step Three Grant would be the construct- ion phase. He explained that Middletown is interested in the County',s input in case the facility services more than the town itself. He stated that the A -95 Review was received about three (3) weeks ago for which they will be expecting the County's input for Middletown's records. Ronald Berg stated that the Commission might want to consider the im- pact of the facility on vacant land surrounding Middletown and advised cau- tion might be in order in considering progression from Study to the design and construction grants. .Mr. Gordon stated that the Commission should have more information be- fore asserting an opinion. Mr. Brumback stated that a facility outside of Middletown -will perpet- Gordon; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Brumback; vice Chairman -- YES. uate zoning pressures for which the County should be prepared. • Upon motion made by Frank Brumback, seconded by Langdon Gordon and ap- proved by the following vote: Gordon; DeHaven; Golladay, Jr.; Brumback; vice Chairman -- YES. (PC 11/19/75) P. 4 BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Fred- erick, Virginia does hereby request that Middletown keep the Planning Com- mission abreast of the Facilities Plan "Study" to which it has',no objection. • REQUEST OF THE PICTURE SHOPPE FOR ZONING DISTRICT Action -- Zonina Classification P AND Rezoning Application Re Ronald Berg read the letter from "The Picture Shoppe" dated July 22, 1975 and signed by Mr. William H. Madigan to re- acquaint the Commission with the request. William H. Madigan appeared before the Commission and explained where buildings and adjoining properties were located on the map. Mr. Berg reiterated some of the previously- mentioned information to re- familiarize the Commission further and stated that Mr. Madigan had original- ly requested the Commission to provide a zoning classification -- permitted use and a Zoning District. Mr. W. H. Madigan stated that there is a thirty (30) foot Right -of -Way, ® but that, even though he would rather not, he could have a sixty (60) foot Right -of -Way. i Mr. Berg showed the Commission a sketch of the currently proposed plans for the four (4)- acre tract and the frontages. Mr. Madigan showed the Commission photographs of the fronts he planned to use and stated that they were four (4) stories high but only two (2) stories would be used. He said that there would be plenty of parking spaces provided. Mr. Berg stated that setback lines cannot be determined until a zoning classification is decided. He also stated that he had worked with Mr. Shumate of State Planning to submit to the Commission the following classi- fication: • " COMMERCIAL RECREATION AREAS A lot or tract for public recrIeation, pub- lic displays or public activity to be operated by individuals or corpora- tions for profit; with a Conditional Use Permit." Mr. Berg said that his proposal is in very vague language and that it o (PC 11/19/75) P. 5 appears to be a commercial enterprise for the B -2 district rather than A -2. He said that there are two (2) problems and one of them is the suitability • of Mr. Madigan's tract of land for any type of public enterprise. Vice Chairman asked Mr. Madigan if he planned to charge admission. Mr. Madigan stated it was his intention to charge admission. Vice Chairman suggested B -2 Zoning was most applicable. Mr. Berg referred to page 37 of the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Upon motion made by Keith Williams seconded by Vice Chairman and ap- proved by the following vote: Gordon; Golladay, Jr.; Williams; Vice Chairman -- YES. BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Fred- erick, Virginia does hereby propose to the Board of Supervisors the follow- ing category to be classified as B -2 Zoning: COMMERCIAL RECREATION AREAS A lot or tract for public recreation, public displays or public activ- ity to be operated by individuals or corporations for profit; with a Conditional Use Permit. ® Vice Chairman asked Mr.,,?Lawrence Ambrogi, Commonwealth Attorney, if the next procedure would be to put the category into a zoning classification for Agricultural (A -2) land. Mr. Ambrogi replied that it concerned him that the business is planned to be operated for profit (commercial) -- that it seems more appropriate to be in either Business (B -1) or (B -2) because it would not be consistent with the general meaning and intention of Agricultural Zoning and it is difficult to rationalize. He said that he realized it is difficult to get a compari- son, but that a hobby might fit into Agricultural Zoning rather than a busi- ness enterprise or commercial venture. Ronald Berg stated that if this language is acceptable to the Commission as B -2 zoning classification -- (1) need to amend B -2 "use" and then (2) need an amendment to the zoning map; which are two (2) separate actions. Keith Williams stated that it was the intention of his motion to amend the Zoning Ordinance to include the category as such. (PC 11/19/75) P. 6 Ronald Berg stated that a Public Hearing could be advertised for the next meeting in January. • Vice Chairman reiterated to Mr. William H. Madigan the Commission's opinion of the procedure he (Mr. Madigan) should pursue should he choose to continue with his plans: MR. WILLIAM H. MADIGAN SHOULD make a rezoning ap- plication to be advertised as B -2 Zoning about which Mr. Ronald Berg will contact him. MOBILE HOME COMMUNITY This District is designed to replace the current Mobile Home Park and Mobile Home Subdivision Sections of the A -1 and A -2 Districts and the Mobile Home Conditional Use Permits. Action -- Tabled Chairman asked if this involved deciding upon a category that would allow Staff to act directly upon each application without Conditional Use Permit process. Ronald Berg.stated that the Chairman was correct. Elmer Venskoske asked how policing of the tie -downs would be handled. Mr. Berg stated that proposed would be transferring responsibility for everything to Building Inspections that would include -- tie -down permit, electrical inspections, building permit, plumbing inspections from trailer to the ground (internal by State), etc. He said that if a trailer should not meet inspection requirements applicant could be denied an occupancy per- mit. He further stated that the proposed changes would not be more restrict- ive, but would involve more active inspections. Mr. Berg stated that the proposed would involve the following amend- ment: "2 -1. AREA REQUIREMENTS: The minimum lot area for permitted uses shall be seventy- thousand (70,000) square feet. The maximum density shall be one (1) dwelling unit per 70,000 square feet. He said that there are instances of single - family dwelling and mobile home on a seventy- thousand (70,000) square foot lot; that the proposed would limit ore unit (single - family or mobile home) on the same dimensions to help (PC 11/19/75) P. 7 alleviate problems involving multiple dwellings on one (1) lot, Mr. DeHaven asked if the proposed included well specifications. • Mr. Berg stated that well specifications would require more research. Mr. DeHaven asked about one (1) of the zonings requiriiig- twenty (20) acres or more for a Mobile Home Park. Mr. Berg replied that the old Ordinance had that requirement for Mobile Home Subdivisions, the new Ordinance has a requirement of not less than twenty (20) acres and that he did not include it in the proposal because it is difficult to substantiate such a requirement. He asked the Commission to refer to Sections 25 -2 (AREA REGULATIONS - Mobile Home Subdivision) and 25 -3 ( Mobile Home Stands A, B, and C) that only apply to lots for sale. He described the difference between a Mobile Home Park and Mobile Home Sub- division to avoid confusion and referred the Commission to Section 25 -2 -2 ( Maximum Density SERVICES PROVIDED of Public water and sewer, Public water or 'sewer, and Septic tank and well). • Mr. DeHaven asked what protection is provided against strip building. Chairman stated that he believed some built -in deterrents to be within the proposed that are not readily apparent -- the one (1)- acre requirement, for instance. Chairman stated that the problem of ribbon building had been discussed many times by the Commission and he was aware that the Commission mutually dislike it, but it is a difficult problem to solve or regulate. He said that they had even discussed three.(3) acres on major, dual highways in the County that met with public resistance. Mr. DeHaven emphasized that he is still in favor of three (3) acres over the entire County fronting the highway as well as in the rear -- that it would eliminate a lot of the strip building. • Chairman agreed that there was meaning in Mr. DeHaven's statement, but the burden should not be placed only upon mobile homes. Mr. DeHaven stated that the time to do it is now. ;2_6q (PC 11/19/75) P. 8 Mr. Brumback suggested using the overall perimeter of subdivided pro- perty and work with a configuration of depth derived from a minimum percent- 40 age of depth, etc. Chairman said that Mr. Brumback's suggestion would involve,very tricky formulation that, once it is begun, would almost have to be categorized by the estimated property value, etc. Mr. Berg stated the Subdivision Ordinance, contains applicable, but dif- ficult to enforce, wording of Section 4 -20 and that there should be no hous- ing facing public highways. Chairman suggested putting more rigid specifications in Section 4 -20. Mr. Gordon stated that developers, when denied, ask what they are.per- mitted to do. Chairman stated that guidelines from which to work are necessary, with- out being too arbitrary. • Mr. Ambrogi stated that the guidelines should be clearly defined, not vague, and definitely not prejudicial. Chairman stated that property is owned prior to appearing before the Planning Commission and the developer can state that he only owns specified depth, etc. Mr. DeHaven stated that central water should be only one of the require- ments of a subdivision because people will not spend any more money than they have to. Chairman stated research and background are needed for study to avoid being prejudicial against mobile homes and deferred the problem of strip building to a committee of one (1), Frank Brumback, to work with Chairman (ex officio), Ronald Berg and Counsel for the purpose of research He ask- ed that they report to the Planning Commission with a non - prejudicial recom mendation (in re to zoning) that will fit all categories. He also stated that the report could be a guide to the Land Use Plan and Sign Ordinance - 69 F ,) proposals. '(PC 11/19/75)P. 9 "TABLING" POLICY DISCUSSION Action -- None Mr. Gordon suggested that the Commission might wish -to conisider the possibility of tabling a rezoning application, etc.; at times when public pressure is present and extreme; as a policy. He cited some examples of the Commission's previous experiences that might have benefifted from the time it would allow for the members to consider the request. Mr. Venskoske stated that he believed that the Commission could follow the same procedure by way of a motion to table for further study and that he was not in favor of it becoming a policy of the Commission -- just a matter of exercising authority or right. Mr. DeHaven suggested that the public would not possibly appreciate a request being voted upon by members that may not have set on the Commission during the Public Hearing. • ADJOURNMENT Upon motion made by Elmer Venskoske and approved unanimously, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Planning Commission for the County of Frederick Virginia does hereby adjourn its meeting. THERE BEING NOTHING FURTHER TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED. N % 1 Respectfully submitted, loor H. Ronald Berg, Secretary Keith Williams, Chairman � 69.