Loading...
PC_08-02-73_Meeting_Minutes• MINUTES OF THE MEETING of the FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board of Supervisors Room, August 2, 1973 PRESENT: James W. Golladay, Chairman; Keith Williams; Manuel C. .DeHaven; Richard F. Madigan; Maurice W. Perry; Elmer Venskoske; Clinton Ritter, Jr.; H. Ronald Berg; J. William Riley, III; and R. Wesley Williams. The Chairman called the Meeting to Order at 1:00 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The first order of business was the approval of the Minutes as written: June 7, 1973 June 12, 1973 June 28, 1973 July 5, 1973 ® July 12, 1973 Mr. Madigan moved the approval of the Minutes as written. Mr. K. Williams seconded and the motion passed unanimously. REVIEW OF JUNK CAR ORDINANC if The next order of business was the review of the Junk Car Ordinance. Mr. Golladay suggested to the Members that if they wish to recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors for adoption this ordinance that they make a motion to read: Subject to the legality of the Ordinance. Mr. Golladay asked the Members if it was their s wish to read the Ordinance in its entirety or to just read each section. Mr. K. Williams stated that he would prefer to go by sections. SECTION 12 -1. Mr. K. Williams wanted the definition of ABANDONED MOTOR VEHICLE clarified. He asked if this would include anything that was driven by a motor or an engine. Mr. Golladay stated that that was the intent of the Ordinance. Mr..Madigan asked a question with respect to "...or a part • thereof..." in the same section. He questioned if this would mean a hood on an automobile or a chasis, etc. Mr. R. Williams stated that if the abandoned motor vehicle • was being used for something, then in the stricter sense it would I not be abandoned since it was being used. Mr. Golladay further stated that if the vehicle was screened, then it would be a permitted use. Mr. Robert Fletcher, Director of Parks and Recreation, asked if there would be a charge on a vehicle if it was being used as a storage building. Mr. Golladay said no since it was serving a purpose; but that it would have to be properly screened from view. Mr. Fletcher asked if the vehicle would still be titled. Mr. Madigan answered that it would still be titled until the vehicle was junked and the person owning it turns in the title. Mr. Madigan asked if a sentence could be put into the definitions defining that type of use of an abandoned vehicle or trailer, etc. Mr. Golladay answered that it could be put into the definitions if the abandoned vehicle was properly screened and not being used for an offensive purpose. Mr. Madigan suggested that uses be stated as follows: • "...or any part thereof unless otherwise screened." Mr. Madigan further asked if there was a definition in the Ordinance defining the word "screen." He was answered that on Page 6, Section 12 -1.10, (1) read: "Junk yards which are screened by natural objects, plantings, fences or other appropriate means so as not to be visible from the main - traveled way of the highway_or street, or otherwise removed from site." Mr. Madigan stated that in this definition the Ordinance was talking about Junk Yards and that he was talking about just one (1) unit. Mr. H. R. Berg suggested that the definition read: "...any part thereof that is not visible from the highway." Mr. Golladay read the definition of INOPERABLE MOTOR VEHICLE on Page 2 in Section 12 -1. Mr. Madigan stated that the definition for an INOPERABLE MOTOR VEHICLE needed to be expanded. -2- I Discussion followed. Mr.KK. Williams questioned part of the same paragraph stating: "...a vehicle that is incapable of being propelled due to the fact that it isn't licensed...." Mr. Madigan suggested that the Commission get their attorney to study the definition of ABANDONED MOTOR VEHICLES for a more elaborate definition:•. SECTION 12 -1.10 - Mr. K. Williams would like to have the word "road" included with the reference to "highway or street." Mr. K. Williams suggested that the State definition of PRIMARY HIGHWAY be used. Mr. Golladay suggested that the Planning Commission Secretary and the County Administrator study the Junk Car Ordinance and two (2) additional Ordinances the Commission had received from other counties and see if a better Ordinance can be put together. Mr. Clinton Ritter, Jr., Attorney for the Commission, has questioned the legality of this Ordinance. Mr. H.RR. Berg asked Mr. Golladay if the Ordinance should go back to the Planning and Development Committee. • It was agreed by all that this would be best. Mr. DeHaven moved that the Junk Car Ordinance of July 25, 1973 be referred back to the Study Commission for further study. Mr. Madigan seconded the motion and was passed unanimously. OLL D B U S I N E S S ROSENBERGER APPLICATION FOR REZONING RECOMMENDED APPROVAL The property sought to be rezoned is located at the Corner of Route 600 and Route 613 on the West side of Route 600. It has a frontage of 245.27 feet and a depth of 180 feet (1.025 acres). The property is owned by: Thomas B. & Gretchen D. Rosenberger as evidenced by deed from C. M. Rosenberger recorded in Book 223, Page 322 in the County Clerk's Office. It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from Agricultural (A -1) to Business (B -1). It is proposed that the property will be put to the following ® use: Modern self- service grocery store. -3- I It is proposed that the store will be completed by April 1, • Mr. Doug Swift, Attorney, represented Mr. Rosenberger's application for rezoning. d 1974. Mr. Swift presented a petition from area residents primarily in the Shawneeland Development who signed in favor of the rezoning. (Attached) Mr. Swift stated that the store would be along the lines of a 7 -11 Store with the one modification that the architecture would be a little less "citified "nand more "rustic." He further stated that the store would blend in with the area. Mr..Madigan spoke to Mr. Rosenberger. Mr. Madigan was worried about the road, stating that there was a "blind" area that might create some traffic congestion and possible safety hazards. Mr. Rosenberger stated that he has requested the Highway Department to make a two -lane bridge out of the bridge at the bottom of the hill. He further stated that he "would take down the trees and the white building in the blind area Mr. Madigan made reference to. He also said that he has offered the State more right of way if they wanted to widen the toad. Mr. Madigan raised a question on the location of the Fire ® Station. Mr. Rosenberger answered that the Fire Station was located on the corner of his field just before entering into Shawneeland on the upper corner. The Fire Station will serve the homes on Route 600 and not just the residents of Shawneeland. Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Swift's opinion of spot zoning. Mr. Swift answered that this rezoning is, in a sense, a spot zoning; but that it would serve the needs of the community. Mr. Golladay was worried about further spot zoning if this rezoning application was approved. .Mr. Rosenberger stated that he would be willing to increase the size of the rezoning to ten (10) or fifteen (15) acres due to this possibility. Mr. Madigan stated that he would rather have sufficient land rezoned for commercial complexes and then limit all the businesses to that complex instead of having it scattered all over. .Mr. Swift stated that if the question of acreage was the only possible problem, that it would be his intention to reapply for a larger area of land than this one (1) acre since Mr. Rosenberger does own all the land in this area. ® Mr. Golladay asked if there was any urgency as far as this application was concerned. I Mr. Madigan added that there was a Moritorium on for at ® least 60 days before the Board of Supervisors could consider this rezoning application. Mr. Rosenberger stated that he would reapply for more additional acreage if the Commission would consider this application. He further stated that since the Commission would not accept any more applications until the Moritorium was lifted, that he would like f,or them to consider this rezoning now and that he would `add on another four or five acres at a later period. Mr..Perry asked Mr. Swift what his definition of SPOT ZONING is. Mr. Swift answered as follows: "Spot zoning is defined as being a use of an unusually small parcel of land which would benefit one person and be to the detriment of the surrounding people." He further added that it would be to the benefit of the people and not to their detriment. Mr. Swift's comments on the rezoning were: • 1. Stated that there was a petition with 50 signatures and that he would have gotten more but that there was not enough room�for signatures. 2. The rezoning will benefit the people of the area. 3. That it was a buffer zone. Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Rosenberger what he thought would be a reasonable amount of additional land to rezone. Mr. Rosenberger stated that an eight (8) acre tract might be more desireable. No one appeared in opposition. Mr. Madigan moved that the Planning Commission rezone this parcel of land located at the intersection of Route 600 and Route 613 from Agricultural (A -1) to Business (B -1) with the stipulation that Mr. and Mrs. Rosenberger apply for a rezoning of additional land to make up the eight (8) acres and that this be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for their approval. Mr. Vehskoske seconded the motion and was passed unanimously. • -5- 1 I 5t % • N E W B U S I N E S S MARJEC, INC. APPLICATION FOR REZONING The property sought to be rezoned is located in Back Creek Magisterial District adjoining Shawneeland. It has an acreage of 475 acres. The property sought be rezoned is owned by Marjec, Inc. as evidenced by deed from Janet Hedrick and also J. Frank Loy, recorded in the County Clerk's Office. It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from Agricultural (A -1) to Residential (R -2). It is proposed that the property will be put to the following use: Multi - family homes. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: Apartments, condominiums and duplexes. Mr. Joseph Massie, 'Attorney, represented the application for rezoning. He stated that single - family dwellings should have been put on the application but that it had been forgotten. Mr. Massie stated that Shawneeland had acquired two (2) tracts of land innthe last seven (7) months. One was from J. Frank Loy and the other from the Sherwood Hedrick Family. The tracts total about 475 acres whibh lays just West of Secondary Route 600 and East of the Hancock Estate. The purpose of these two (2) tracts of land is to go from their present zoning of A -1 to R -2 for a better type of residential recreational development. Mr. Massie stated that it was located at the bottom slopes of North Mountain and that it is wished to put in central water and sewer to serve these tracts of land. He added that it would be an asset to the County, the Developer and to the people buying the land. Mr. Venskoske asked Mr. Massie which creek the water would flow into from this plant. Mr. Massie answered that he was not certain at the moment. He stated that before anything could be done about the water and sewer, that approval from the State Health Department would have to be secured along with acquiring approval from the Water Control Board. He added that there would not be any use going • to them for approval until it is zoned properly. • Mr. K. Williams asked Mr. Massie why he this rezoning in light of the Moritorium sin a recreational section under the new revised affect the rezoning and because the Board of not be acting on this even if the Commission W was applying for �5 / ::e there would be code which could Supervisors would does approve it. Mr—Massie stated that he did not think.the statement made by the Supervisors concerning the Moritorium could be retroactive. He further stated that anything that was "in the mill" could be considered by this Commission and the Board of Supervisors. He added that the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance was a very "iffy" situation and that the Commission should proceed with the rezonings in light of what happened at the Supervisors Meeting. Mr. DeHaven asked Mr. Massie if he had any idea how many units would be in this .tract of land. Mr—Massie answered no; that he did not have the layout of the Developer yet. Mr. K. Williams asked what could be placed on the land if the Commission rezones the property. He was answered with the 475 acres, approximately 6,650 apartment units could be built with about 3 people per unit, is which amounted up to approximately 9,975 people. This was about a third of the County's population. Mr. Madigan asked if the people would pay for the water and sewer when they bought the lot. Mr. Massie answered that they would not. Mr. Madigan asked how the sewage plant would be paid for. Mr. Massie stated that it would be paid for by the developer. He said that there was a utility plan in Shawneeland known as SHAWNEELAND UTILITY COMPANY in operation now which has two (2) central water systems. He added that these two (2) systems would be enlarged to cover this area to put in the water and sewer systems and to operate this water and sewer system in these two tracts of land. The company is paid by the connection fee. Before anyone could connect onto the system, an availability fee is paid by all property owners until the connection is made, and then after the connection, a service fee is charged. Mr. Golladay asked how many permanent residents are now in Shawneeland. Mr.RR. Williams answered that there are about 75 permanent ® residents. -7- I The Commission was afraid of the rapid.growth rate of the 1 area. Mr. Massie said that he was asking for R -2 zoning so that Marjec could put in water and sewer and develop the land for single - family homes. He added that there are 3500 lots on record and that only 75 families are living there in 17 years. He stated that that was not a very fast growing situation. No one appeared in opposition to this rezoning. Mr. Madigan moved to have this application of Shawneeland by Marjec, Inc., deferred to a future date because the Commission needs more information on the project; and that in light of the Moritorium that was passed, Mr. Lamborne would be happy to defer action on this application until the New Zoning Ordinance is enacted. Mr. K. Williams seconded and the motion was passed unanimously. EDMONSON APPLICATION FOR REZONING RECOMMENDED APPROVAL The property sought to be rezoned is located at the West • side of Route 728 and the South side of Route 50 East of Winchester at their intersection. It has a frontage of 3,000 feet (Route 728), 800 feet (Route 50) and a dept of 3,000 feet from Route 50. The property sought to be rezoned is owned by: William E. Edmonson and Leroy W. Edmonson, heirs of W. W. Edmonson, as evidenced by deed from E. W. Knee to W. W. Edmonson recorded in Book 166, Page 67 in the County Clerk's Office. It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from Agricultural, General (A -2) and Industrial, General (M -2) to Industrial, Limited (M -1). It is proposed that the property will be put to the following use: Subdivision into tracts of approximately 20 acres in area for light and medium industrial use. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: This will depend upon building requirements of prospective purchasers, but in accordance with the Frederick County Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Doug Swift, Attorney, represented this application for rezoning. He stated that the property is under contract to Mr. James Hobbs, one of the principles of Spectrum Properties, Inc. ® Offices in the Winchester area. I Mr. Swift stated that this was a good piece of property to rezone because: 1. Prime area for development since it was immediately adjacent to the Winchester Airport and for light industries that is a tremendous plus factor. 2. Close to a major highway. With the air and trucking facilities, this land is a very favorable location. ,Mr. Swift added that the intention is to divide the land into tracts of approximately 20 acres to be used for light or medium industry. (Like electronic parts and components assembly). He further stated that this would enhance the tax base of the property in that it would be increasing the value of the property. Mr. Swift stated that there is no site development plan ® at present. Mr. Hobbs will engage engineering people to make the best use of the land. ,Mr. K. Williams further asked about the water and sewer situation. Mr. Swift stated that the type of industry requested would not be a heavy water user. The water would be used strictly for the employees. No one appeared in opposition. Mr. DeHaven moved to recommend for approval to the Board of Supervisors this tract of land to be changed from A -2 and M -2 to M -1. Mr. ,Madigan seconded the motion and was passed unanimously. ESSANEE APPLICATION FOR.REZONING RECOMMENDED DENIAL The property sought to be rezoned is located on the South side of Senseny Road (Route 657) and consists of 38.967 acres. r 1 U 6%L The property is located on the Airport Road which is off Route 50. It is a large tract of • land adjoining the Winchester 5 Airport Property which is to the South (zoned for general industrial purposes), and across the street from Perry Engineering (zoned M -1). The Garber property is .across from the property being rezoned. Mr. Swift stated that this was a good piece of property to rezone because: 1. Prime area for development since it was immediately adjacent to the Winchester Airport and for light industries that is a tremendous plus factor. 2. Close to a major highway. With the air and trucking facilities, this land is a very favorable location. ,Mr. Swift added that the intention is to divide the land into tracts of approximately 20 acres to be used for light or medium industry. (Like electronic parts and components assembly). He further stated that this would enhance the tax base of the property in that it would be increasing the value of the property. Mr. Swift stated that there is no site development plan ® at present. Mr. Hobbs will engage engineering people to make the best use of the land. ,Mr. K. Williams further asked about the water and sewer situation. Mr. Swift stated that the type of industry requested would not be a heavy water user. The water would be used strictly for the employees. No one appeared in opposition. Mr. DeHaven moved to recommend for approval to the Board of Supervisors this tract of land to be changed from A -2 and M -2 to M -1. Mr. ,Madigan seconded the motion and was passed unanimously. ESSANEE APPLICATION FOR.REZONING RECOMMENDED DENIAL The property sought to be rezoned is located on the South side of Senseny Road (Route 657) and consists of 38.967 acres. r 1 U 6%L • The property sought to be rezoned is owned by: Carlin L- Smith and Lester A. Elliott, doing business as ESSANEE, a Partnership as evidenced by deed from Lewis A. Lamp, Jr., et ux, recorded in Book 293, Page 178 in the County Clerk's Office. This property is presently under Contract of Sale to Real Estate General Corporation. It is desired and requested that the foregoing property be rezoned from Residential (R -1) to Residential (R -2) and Business (B -2). It is proposed that the property will be put to the following use: A. Approximately 172,500 square feet Commercial (B -2); B. 13 twelve unit apartments; C. 116 Townhouses; D. 17 single family dwellings. It is proposed that the following buildings will be constructed: 1 cJ A. Small service business buildings in Commercial Zone B. 116 Townhouses in R -2 Area C. 13 twelve unit apartments in R -2 Area D. 17 single family dwellings in R -2 Area • Mr. Ben Butler, Attorney, represented this application for rezoning. He "raised the following points in favor of the petition: 1. The title is in the Clerk's Office in the Name of ESSANEE. The property is in the name of REAL ESTATE GENERAL CORPORATION who has a Contract on this property which will be closed in 30 days. 2. The preliminary plan is nothing less than a "preliminary sketch ". • Mr. Butler stated that the citizens would like to keep the area exactly as it is now. That they only want single- family dwellings. Mr. Butler presented Mr. Flemming Lee, a developer, to show the Commission an aerial map which revealed a "true" idea of the area. Mr. Lee stated that ESSANEE was looking for a Park - Type development. He added that it would add to the beauty of the area. He further stated that there was a need for a shopping center and professional -type buildings. Mr. Lee stated that it will not be built over- night. That about 30 units will be built the first year, about the same the second year, and so forth. -10- A A short discussion followed while the Commission looked • over additional plats. Mr. Butler stated that these are only Preliminary Sketches and they do comply with Frederick County. OPPOSITION TO REZONING Mr. Boris, M. Luts came forward as a representative of the people in opposition. He brought to the attention of the Commission copies of petitions from the residents of Senseny Road Area which are on file with the Petition for Rezoning. It was brought to the attention of the Members that there was a high traffic count on the Senseny Road. There will have tc be a major entrance to the proposed complex either directly in front of the Senseny Road School or immediately West of Senseny Road School. It was further added that it would be difficult to enter and exit the complex with such a high volume of traffic. There was a question on the setup for sanitary water and sewer. The City of Winchester may not be able to accept any substantial increase at the present time and the County of Frederick will not be able to accept it for some time. • In general, most of the signers of the petition feel that the Senseny Road area is one of the most desireable areas to serve an attractive single - family residential suburb. They would like the property ro remain zoned for single - family homes or so that the area would remain under the R -2 zone which is proposed by the New Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Madigan asked Mr. Lee if he had metes and bounds on his R -1 and R -2 zone. Mr. Lee answered that he did not. A short discussion followed in which the Commission discussed the maps. Mr. Golladay stated that there were eight (8) Subidivisions in opposition to the rezoning. 1. Fairway Estates - Mr. Boris Luts, spokesman, gave his comments above. 2. Frederick Heights - Mr. Walter Thomas, spokesman, stated that a petition had been circulated in opposition to the rezoning. It was a result of the concerned residents in the immediate area. He was asking on behalf of the 82 residents of Frederick Heights who signed the petition that • the.Planning Commission recommend against this application for rezoning. -11- FIB, W31 I r1 U 3. Greenwood Heights - no one present. 4. Miller Heights - no one present. 5. Green Acres - Mr. Andrew Hoszowski, spokesman, stated that Green Acres had a unique problem in that'.WYlkins Drive serves as an access road for all the subdivisions along Senseny Road to get to Nichols. He added that any further high density development would cause greater concern for their children. I / 5 � 6. Senseny Heights - Mrs. James Didhl; spokesman, stated that the residents of Senseny Heights were concerned about the picture that was shown concerning the Garden Apartments that are being put on the E. L. Peters land that was adjacent to Senseny Heights. She stated that it was not the same as the picture shown; that it was worse. The residents are concerned that the developer will not put up exactly what he states. They are also very concerned about the increase of pupils in the schools. 11 7. Country Club Estates - Mr. William Hartwell, President of Countpy Club Estates, spoke to the Commission. He stated that he agreed with every- thing that had been said. He further said that there was approximately 90 per cent representation on the petitions and that hbc-was hopefull the Commission would vote against the rezoning. 8. Rollings Fields - no one present. A short discussion followed in which the Commission referred to the Plats. Mr. Madigan asked the residents for an alternative. Mr. Kenneth Cramer came forward and spoke to the Commission. He stated that the proposal of Mr. Madigan would not solve the problems of density, school safety, sanitation, etc. Mr. Boris Luts was in full agreement with Mr. Cramer. EXECUTIVE SESSION • Mr. K. Williams moved to go into Executive Session for the express purpose of correlating and reviewing the facts which each Member had taken down in discussing the rezoning with the residents of the various communities as well as with the developers;; and owners. Mr. Madigan seconded and the motion was passed unanimously. -12- • ADJOURNMENT FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr.,Madigan moved that the Commission adjourn from Executive Session. Mr. Williams seconded and the motion was passed unanimously. REGULAR SESSION Mr. Madigan moved that the Commission reconvene Regular Session. Mr. DeHaven seconded the motion and was unanimously passed. Mr. DeHaven moved to rbcommend to the Board of Supervisors that the ESSANEE rezoning due to density population and impact be denied. J Mr. K. Williams seconded and the motion was passed unanimously. S U B D I V I S I O N S GORDONDALE (FINAL PLAT) RECOMMENDED APPROVAL • Gordondale Subdivision is essentially a Roadside Subdivision. It is located on Route 670 and Route 669 in Stonewall Magisterial District. The plat contains the signature of APPROVAL from the Health Department but not the Highway Department. Mr. King, Assistant Resident Engineer, stated that the Highway Department would require a topographic map and drainage information before they would approve the plat as a Final Plat. Mr. H. R. Berg, Secretary to the Commission, recommended that this plat be tabled until the necessary information is received. Mr. Ray Nicely, surveyor, stated that he could not under- stand why the Commission could not act on the Subdivision as is. He further stated that the drainage plans were with the Highway Department and that they would be "tied up" for 30 days and maybe even 60. He added that he could not see where it would make a difference if it had been approved or not. Mr. Golladay stated that the Commission had been authorized by the Board of Supervisors to review Preliminary as well as Final Plats. He asked Mr. Berg if it was the Commission's privilege to review this subdivision without all the necessary signatures. • Mr. Berg stated that it was. -13- I ® Mr. K. Williams moved the approval of this subdivision pending the necessary signatures. Mr....DeHaven seconded the motion and was passed unanimously. SURRY SQUARE (PRELIMINARY PLAT) RECOMMENDED APPROVAL This subdivision is located just North of the Smithfield Farms addition. Comments of the Staff are: 1. Density of 12.25 dwelling units per acre was high. 2. Need adequate plans for a cul -de -sac. 3. Need to provide for determination or continuation of Battle Avenue. 4. Some lots with 12 unit apartments do not have sufficient area. (Require 23,000 square feet). 5. There is some question on who would own the Square. 6. Questions on who would own and maintain the private access road that leads to the townhouses. 7. Same holds for the recreation area. • Mr. John Mitchell, developer, worked up a basic plan with the townhouses. They are almost the same but with more open area. Mr. Mftchell and Mr. Nicely added recreational features (playground, tennis courts, etc). They would like a reaction from the Commission to this type of development pending the technical details can be worked out. The Commission raised the question of who would maintain the OpenaAreas and the parking areas. They were answered that Escrow Funds from the Home Owners Association would be used to maintain the areas. It was added that the major streets would be dedicated to the Highway System. A short discussion followed. Mr. K. Williams recommends approval to the Board of Super- visors of the plat embracing the preliminary studies suggested by this plat and the recommendations set forth. Mr. Perry seconded and the motion was unanimously passed. c is -14- 1 � 58 ® ZEIGER (PRELIMINARY PLAT) RECOMMENDED APPROVAL The only comment on this subdivision is that a Master Plan of the seconded section was not submitted. Mr. Ray Nicely, surveyor, stated that the Master Plan was submitted with the first section in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. The subdivision is located on Route 616. The first section was approved on the condition that no mobile homes would be put in the section. Mr. K. Williams moved to recommend approval to the Board of Supervisors the Preliminary Plat. Mr. DeHaven seconded and the motion was passed unanimously. BRADDOCK HILLS ESTATES (FINAL PLAT) RECOMMENDED APPROVAL This plat had been approved on July 13, 1971, but the Final • Plat was never recorded. Mr. Ben Butler resubmitted the Plat to the Commission. Mr. K. Williams moved to approve the plat of Braddock Hills Subdivision to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Perry seconded and the motion was passed unanimously. WAKELAND MANOR (PRELIMINARY PLAT) .RECOMMENDED APPROVAL It was brought to the attention of the Commission that the plat was to read Wakeland Manor and not Wakeland Estates. Mr. Ray Nicely, surveyor, stated that this was a portion of the Master Plan; that it was a 25 acre section. Comments of the Staff: 1. No drainage calculations. 2. Street and intersection elevations not shown. 3. Lot 88, some question on whether a house could ® be built on this lot. -15- A 4. Plans for approval must be submitted prior to • acceptance of the Final Plat. The Staff recommends approval of this plat to the Board of Supervisors with the revision of Lot 88. lake. The Commission asked if the people would have useage of the They were answered that they would. .Mr. K. Williams moved the approval of the Plat for Section E of Wakeland Manor with the provision that Lot 88 is corrected to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. DeHaven seconded and the motion was passed unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Mr, K. Williams moved that the Commission adjourn. Mr. Venskoske seconded and the motion was unanimously passed. Respectfully submitted, H. Ronald,Berg, Secretary James W. Golladay, Chairman ® 9 -16- 1,744 P E T I T I O N DMS /bf 7/12/73 II To The Planning Commission and The Board of Supervisors of Frederick County, Virginia b I� RE: Proposed Rezoning of Property Owned by Thomas B. and Gretchen D. Rosenberger located in Back Creek District, Frederick County, Virginia at the intersection of State Route 600 and State Route 613, having a frontage of 245.27 ft. on the north side of Route 600 and a depth of 180 ft. on the east side of Route 613, con- taining 1.025 acres and being a part of the real estate which was conveyed to Thomas B. and Gretchen D. Rosenberger by Deed of record in the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Frederick County, Virginia in Deed Book 223, at page 322 from Agricultural A -1 to Business, Limited, B -1. The undersigned Petitioners respectfully petition_ the Frederick County Planning Commission and Board of 'Supervisors - to approve an Application for Rezoning filed by Thomas B. and ® Gretchen D. Rosenberger on the 29th day of May, 1973. Your Petitioners, who are property owners in the area of the property for which rezoning is proposed, respectfully represent that the proposed rezoning should be granted for many reasons, of which the following are representative: 1) Such proposed rezoning has been requested in order that a modern self - service grocery store may be constructed. There is presently'a "great need for such a facility in the area because of the relatively dense population and a lack of any modern grocery stores for a radius of several miles. 2) The property for which rezoning is requested is bordered by two state roads and by other property owned by ® Thomas B. and Gretchen D. Rosenberger which would serve as a buffer as far as any other property owners are concerned. 3) There is no evidence that the proposed rezoning would appreciably depreciate the value of the surrounding area.' I On the contrary, because the property is expected to serve a need which is not already served to.the residents of the area, OF it would, in all likelihood, enhance the value of the surrounding property. WHEREFORE your Petitioners respectfully request that • • the proposed rezoning of the Rosenberger property be approved. NAME 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6? 7 12) 13) -4) -5) -6) -7) i 20) 21) Q) 3) ADDRESS Mro- IV I�Dojq m-145 -F4,6 IJO, 0 ) INAME 25) 2 7) 28) el L 29) 30) /?, �Al f yl t 31) 32) 33) 34) 35) 36) 37) 38) ------ 39) ' z/ 40) L 41) 42) 4 3 45) 46) 47) 48) 49) ADDRESS 110'7L) 1 il- RIF 7