144
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - JANUARY 9, 2006
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, January 9, 2006, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown,
Members present were: Chairman Don Ardinger, R, Ben Clopper, Linda Parrish, Bernard Moser, George Anikis, Terry Reiber, and Ex-Officio James F, Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C, Thompson, Chief Planner Timothy A. Lung, Senior Planners Lisa Kelly Pietro and Misty Wagner-Grillo, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard,
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Don Ardinger called the meeting to order at 7:03 p,m,
Mr, Thompson stated that the subdivision plat for Powers Estates (PP-05-007) and the site plan for Edgewood Drive LLC (SP-05-060) have been removed from the Agenda, The minutes for the December 5, 2005 Regular Planning Commission meeting have been added to the Agenda for review and approval.
MINUTES
Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 7, 2005 Regular meeting as amended, Seconded by Mr, Anikis, Unanimously approved,
Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 5, 2005 Regular meeting as amended, Seconded by Mr. Anikis, Unanimously approved,
NEW BUSINESS VARIANCES: Donn Ebberls (SV-05-040) Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a variance request for Donn Ebberts, The property is iocated along the north side of Black Rock Road, The owner is requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance Section 405,11 ,GA that restricts the stacking of no more than two lots, In 1994, the applicant received approval of a four-lot subdivision, Lots 1,2, 3 and Parcel 217, Mr. Ebberts currently lives on Lot 1, The remaining lands, parcel 217, was conveyed to his son, Lot 3 is to be conveyed to his daughter and Mr, Ebberts still owns Lot 2, The front portion of the property, including Lot 1 and the remaining lands, is zoned RV - Rural Village and the rear portion containing Lots 2 and 3 is zoned EC Environmental Conservation, Mr, Ebberts is proposing to re-subdivide Lot 1 to create a new 1A8-acre lot to the rear of Lot 1, A 400-foot panhandle will serve the new lot. The new building lot would meet the minimum lot area requirements of the RV zoning district. The configuration of the proposed lot is due to the location of the existing house and septic area on Lot 1, The Environmental Conservation zoned land has no potential for additional subdivision,
Mr, Clopper made a motion to approve the variance request based on configuration of the property and the Commission's desire to direct growth into the Rural Village areas, Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. Unanimously approved,
SITE PLANS: Garcia Boarding Kennel (SP-05-053) Ms, Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval the site plan for Garcia Boarding Kennels located on the north side of Lappans Road in Fairplay, The property is 5,12 acres, The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a special exception on May 25, 2005 to allow the kennel to be established without runways, The appeal was based on the previous zoning of Agriculture that did allow kennels, The current zoning designation is A(R) - Agriculture Rural and does not allow the proposed use, Expansion of the kennels may require an application for a Rural Business zoning designation, The owner is proposing 18 kennels in the existing 1,247 square foot building with outside runways, There will be one employee, Hours of operation will be Monday through Saturday 8:00 a,m, to 5:00 p,m, Five parking spaces are required and five spaces and one handicapped space will be provided, Lighting will be two building mounted floodlights at the front and rear of the kennel building, A 4' x 8' freestanding sign is proposed in the front of the property, Trash and waste disposal including the animal waste will be collected in an on-site container and picked up by a private contractor. No deliveries are proposed, This site is exempt from the forest conservation and storm water management requirements, All agency approvals have been received,
Discussion: Mr, Anikis expressed concern regarding the proposed 4' x 8' business sign, He stated that when the new outdoor advertising ban went into effect, signs along Lappans Road were limited or reduced because it is a main access road to the historic Antietam Battlefield, He noted that there is a kennel within one mile of this site that has a smaller (apprOXimately 2' x 2') sign that is less intrusive to the area, Mr, Anikis requested that the owner reconsider the size of the proposed sign for his kennel. 145 145
Mr. Garcia stated that he would consider adjusting the size of the proposed sign but would prder a sign that is approximately 4' x 4'.
Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the site plan. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. Maugansville Elementary SchoQ.[ (SP-05-066) Mr. Lung presented for revi"w aild approval the site plal1 for thE! Maugansville Elementary School. The property is located along the south side of Maugans Avenue just (lailt of its intersection With rV1ilugansvilie Road. The site consists of two parcels that are approximately 30 acres in size. One parcel is zoned HI-1 - Highway Interchange 1 and one parcel is zoned RR - Residential Rural. The existing school building will be removed. The proposed two-story building will contain 64,743 square feet and is designed to accommodate 735 students. The primary entrance to the school will be located across from the intersection of Maugans Avenue and Greenfield Avenue. A bus loop in front of the school and a private car drop-off loop are proposed. Parking proVided will be 99 spaces Inoluding handicapped spaces and an adjacent paved play area will accommodate overflow parking for special events. A secondary access road is proposed to serve as a service entrance for deliveries and trash pick-up. An emergency connection is proposed between the primary access and the secondary access roads. Landscaping will be provided around the building and buffer yards, pursuant to the Highway Interchange zoning, are provided in areas adjacent to existing dwellings. A five-foot high chain link fence is proposed along the property line adjacent to the railroad and along the front of the school property at Maugans Avenue. Sidewalks will be constructed along Maugans Avenue and a pedestrian crosswalk apross Maugans Avenue that will connect to the sidewalks in the Seneca Ridge development. A school crossing guard will be located at this crossing. The existing sidewalk on the west side of the propos,ed entrance vvill be extended to the reduced entrance with the Ruritan Club. A crossing guard will also be provided at this location. The proposed access road is designed to the ultimate right-of-way width for the widening of Maugans Avenue that is scheduled in the County's Capital Improvements Program for 2010. A portion of the sidewalk will be temporary until the County does the widening project. The storm water management pond will be located northwest of the access road. A stream buffer and crossing will be required along the sensitive area that has been identified on the site at the proposed entrance road. Approval is required 'from the Planning Commission to allow any disturbance within the designated stream buffer. The Soil Conservation District recommends approval of the crossing contingent upon obtaining the appropriate permits and addressing sediment and erosion control issues. Pole mounted lighting is proposed along the entrance, parking lot and service road. The photometric plan that was submitted shows no spillover on adjoining properties from these lights. Public water and sewer serve the existing school building. An additional 2,000 gallons of sewer allocation is needed to serve the new school and has been designated in the City of Hagerstown's 2006 Sewer Allocation Program and the County's Allocation Management Plan. The Forest Conservation requirement will be met on-site by planting 4.22 acres of trees.
Comment: Mr. Lung stated that this is designated as a "fast-track" project. The Planning Staff's comments have been addressed. The Engineering Department and Soil Conservation District have reviewed the plans and issued technical comments that will not affect the overall design of the site. The Department of Water Quality has granted approval contingent upon the payment of all fees and the completion of all requested revisions. No comments have been received from the City of Hagerstown Water and Sewer Department.
Discussion: Mr. Moser expressed concern regarding the number of proposed parking spaces vs. the number of students that could attend the school. Mr. Lung stated that the Board of Education is requiring a minimum of 80 parking spaces based on their past experience of school sites of this size. Mr. CVijanovich of Davis, Renn & Associates stated there would be 20 to 30 additional parking spaces available on the paved play area. He also stated that parking would be available at the Maugansville Little League field and the Ruritan Club, both are located in close proximity to the school.
There was a brief discussion regarding the design of the emergency access to permanently connect the primary and secondary access roads. It was suggested that the connection could be used only during special events and not on a day-to-day basis. The length of time proposed to be use the temporary entrance onto the site was also discussed. Mr. Cvijanovich stated that it is their intent to demolish the old school buildings to maintain adequate ingress and egress. Mr. Kercheval recommended that the plan be re-examined to provide alternate access if the County needs to temporarily keep the old school open to help with capacity issues until permanent solutions can be found.
There was a brief discussion regarding the location of new fire hydrants to serve the property. Mr. CVijanovich stated that there is one new hydrant proposed near the service entrance. Mr. Lung stated that no comments were received from the Department of Emergency Services or the Maugansville Fire Department.
There was some discussion regarding the proposed chain link fence located near the railroad. Mr. CVijanovich stated that the fence would be connected to the existing fence at the Maugansville Little League baseball field and the General Electric property. A fence will also be located along the front of the property where soccer and baseball fields are proposed.
Mr. Anikis made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon all agency approvals and payment of all required fees, approval of any disturbance within the designated stream buffer contingent upon obtaining the appropriate permits and addressing sediment and erosion control issues, and approval of the on-site planting of 4.22 acres of trees to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirement. Seconded by Mr. Moser. 146
Comment: Mr. Reiber recommended amending the motion that if any agency comments require major changes to the site plan, the revised plan should be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Anikis amended is motion to include Mr. Reiber's recommendation. Mr. Moser concurred. Unanimously approved.
PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS Allison Avenue Project (PC-OS-028) Ms. Pietro presented for review and comment the preliminary consultation.for the Allison Avenue Project located on the west side of Bower Avenue just north of its intersection with Sterling Road. The developer is proposing a Planned Unit Development with 137 townhouses on 24 acres. The property is currently zoned A- Agriculture and the developer is planning to apply for a PUD zoning overlay. The Engineering Department made the following comments during the preliminary consultation: the proposed private streets should be public, a traffic impact study would be required, accel/decel lanes would be required at the Bower Avenue intersection, a second access would be required, and basements are not recommended due to drainage issues on the property. The State Highway Administration made the following comments: a traffic impact study would be required at the intersections of Virginia Avenue and Bower Avenue, Virginia Avenue at Massey Boulevard and Maryland Route 632 at Sterling Road. The study needs to focus on the potential conflict between the left turn movement and the cuing for Massey Boulevard and Bower Avenue on Virginia Avenue. The study should include the traffic counts from the proposed Williamsport Ventures PUD. The State Highway Administration expressed their concerns regarding the ability to upgrade U.S. Route 11 to acceptable standards at Bower Avenue and Massey Boulevard due to the limited right-of-way on Virginia Avenue. The Department of Water Quality made the following comments during the preliminary consultation. They expressed concern regarding utility easements on the proposed private streets. A minimum of 50 units per year would be allocated for this development. The City of Hagerstown stated that an application must be submitted and reviewed by the Annexation Review Committee. Staff made the following comments during the preliminary consultation. The proposed development is located in the Williamsport Elementary, Springfield Middle and Williamsport 'High school districts. Currently, Williamsport Elementary and Williamsport High schoOls are over capacity. An historic farm complex is located on the site. Staff expressed their concern regarding the proposed private streets. Parking space is limited and should be re-examined. The PUD overlay requires parking designated spaces for recreational vehicles. A buffer was recommended along the railroad tracks and along Interstate 70. The total Forest Conservation requirement for this property is 3.48 acres and will be met by the on-site planting of 3 acres of trees. The developer may be permitted to plant the remaining Y2 acre of trees in the Storm Water Management area or may request approval of payment in lieu of by the Planning Commission for the remaining Y2 acre. The developer will submit a copy of the Home Owner's Association documents for Staff review. An easement should be considered along the rear of the dwellings for emergency access.
A revised plan was submitted addressing numerous comments and concerns of the approving agencies. The revised plan proposes a second access on the property and retention of the existing historic barn, farmhouse, and springhouse. The proposed interior street system would be pUblic. The existing wetlands would have buffers. The developer is proposing a six-foot high wooden fence along the railroad tracks and Interstate 70.
Discussion: Mr. Reiber recommended that the developer use a six-foot high vinyl fence along the railroad tracks instead of a wooden fence.
Mr. Jason Divelbiss, attorney for the developer, stated that the Historic District Commission recommended conversion of the barn into a house. The developer researched the practicality of the Commission's recommendation and has determined that conversion is not a practical solution due to the size and marketability of the structure. Currently, the developer is proposing to remove the barn.
There was a brief discussion regarding the placement of the proposed fence along Interstate 70 and the railroad tracks as a noise buffer. Commission members expressed their concern that the fence would not provide an adequate buffer against the noise.
Mr. Moser expressed concern regarding the traffic at the intersection of Bower Avenue and Route 11.
Mr. Kercheval recommended that the developer should consider obtaining a traffic study and have it reviewed by Staff prior to any public hearings. He also recommended a more substantial buffer along Interstate 70. He does not support any payment in lieu of to meet Forest Conservation requirements. Mr. Anikis expressed concern regarding the amount of traffic that would be generated by the proposed development. He also recommended obtaining a traffic study prior to any public hearings. He does not support a payment in lieu of to meet the Forest Conservation requirement and would recommend planting trees in place of constructing some of homes.
Ms. Parrish noted that the number of homes proposed for this development would add to the existing drainage problems on this property. She also expressed concern regarding traffic problems and school capacity issues. She is not in support of a PUD overlay for this development.
Mr. Reiber stated that he is not in support of payment in lieu of to meet Forest Conservation requirements. He commended the developer for improvements in the design layout. 147
Mr. Clopper stated that he is not in support of constructing a wall along Interstate 70 as a noise buffer and would rather have trees planted as a buffer.
No action required.
Mr. Ardinger left at 8:40 p.m. Mr. Clopper, Vice Chairman, conducted the remainder of the meeting.
FOREST CONSERVATION
Richard McCleary (SP-OS-047) Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a Forest Conservation Mitigation request from Richard E. McCleary. In October 2002, the Planning Commission approved a final plat for two "IG" lots and remaining lands along the east side of Western Maryland Parkway. The purchaser/developer was Mr. Richard McCleary. The Forest Conservation requirement was met by retaining .99 acres of existing forest on-site and 6.19 acres off-site on Mr. McCleary's farm on College Road. The Planning Commission approved a site plan for these three lots in November 2004. The site was known as NetConn Solutions or 100K Warehouse. In September 2005, a revised site plan was submitted for Parker Plastics to construct an office addition to their existing building. During review of the revised site plan, Ms. Pietro noted that the Forest Retention areas were not shown. In speaking with Mr. Tony Taylor of Frederick, Seibert and Associates, consultant for Parker Plastics, he verified that the trees have been cut and removed. Therefore, the site does not comply with the Planning Commission's 2002 approval and is in violation of the Forest Conservation Ordinance. On December 20, 2005, Staff received a letter from Mr. McCleary stating that the forest was accidentally cleared and is requesting approval to meet the Forest Conservation requirement by payment in lieu. The payment would be made for 1.99 acres or $8,668.54.
Discussion: Mr. Bill Stachoviak, Planning Staff, stated that the Forest Conservation Ordinance requires trees to be planted within two growing seasons from the time of final plat approval. If forest is being retained, signs must be posted in the retention area. The current Forest Conservation Ordinance . establishes a fee for non-compliance of $.30 per square foot for the area found to be in non-compliance. There is also a violation fee not to exceed $1,000 per day that must be sought in a civil court suit.
Comments: Mr. Anikis believes that Mr. McCleary should pay the non-compliance penalty and replant the area that was cut.
Mr. Clopper concurred with Mr. Anikis's recommendation.
Mr. Moser also concurred with Mr. Anikis's recommendation. He believes that the Commission has supported economic development, but the County has been lax regarding the enforcement of environmental issues.
Ms. Parrish stated her opinion that the trees should be replanted at a 2:1 ratio, planting half of the trees on-site and half of the trees off-site.
Mr. Kercheval stated that he is not opposed to the payment of a penalty but supports the planting of the trees at a 2:1 ratio in an area that would provide more benefit for the County.
Mr. Reiber concurred with Mr. Kercheval. Mr. Anikis made a motion to deny the request for payment in lieu of and direct him to replant trees on-site in the area that was cut and to recommend payment of the non-compliance penalty of $.30 per square foot as directed by the Forest Conservation Ordinance. Seconded by Mr. Moser.
Comment before the vote: Mr. Reiber believes that a precedent has been set for off-site planting on this development and others and that payment in lieu or off-site planting would be adequate in this case.
Mr. Anikis's motion passed with Mr. Anikis, Mr. Moser, and Ms. Parrish voting "Aye" and Mr. Reiber and Mr. Kercheval voting "Nay".
Discussion: Mr. Taylor requested clarification of the motion. In order to fully mitigate the site according to the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements, the site should be replanted at a 2:1 ratio. The Commission's desire is for the developer to replant the disturbed area and pay the non-compliance penalty and to waive the additional .99-acre planting. Mr. Thompson stated that he would contact the County Attorney for clarification on this issue.
Mr. Kercheval made a motion that when clarification is received from the County Attorney and if the additional .99 acre mitigation is required, the Planning Commission will accept, at the discretion of the applicant, payment in lieu of or planting off-site at Mr. McCleary's farm of .99 acres to meet the Forest Conservation requirement. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Kercheval's motion passed with Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Anikis, Mr. Moser and Ms. Parrish voting "Aye" and Mr. Reiber voting "Nay". 148
OTHER BUSINESS
Land Preservation, Parks and Recreation Plan Mr. Stachoviak presented for review and a recommendation the Land Preservation, Parks and Recreation Plan. The Plan is required by the State to determine how pas funding is being used within the County. The Plan summarizes policies, goals and recommendations for land protection and conservation from the Comprehensive Plan, inventories Agricultural easement acreages, park and recreation site and acreage and projects needs in relationship to the County's acreage goal for agricultural easement and park land. It identifies 2,250 acres of County and Board of Education parks and open space areas. According to the 2005 population, the County meets its local park and open space goal of 15 acres per 1,000 people. Assuming that all developments are built and all residents are new to the County, approximately 33 acres of additional park land will be needed each year over the next 15 years to meet the County's goal.
Comments: Mr. Thompson stated that the County's Parks and Recreation Department Is trying to assess the wants and needs of facilities and programs in the future. He noted that the proposed Maugansville Elementary School might have a larger gymnasium and restroom facilities accessible from the outside for organizations that would use the soccer and/or baseball fields. The County would have control of the playing fields.
Mr. Anikis made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the Land Preservation, Parks and Recreation Plan is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Unanimously approved.
Mr. Thompson stated that Hagerstown Spring and Alignment located on Oakmont Drive is proposing an addition to their existing building. Staff has received and reviewed the site plan and has received approvals from all agencies. Hagerstown Spring and Alignment has requested permission to begin grading on the site prior to approval of the Planning Commission. The site plan will be presented to the Planning Commission at the February meeting. The developer would proceed at their own risk prior to -receiving all permits and approvals. The Planning Commission gave Mr. Thompson their approval to allow grading only to begin at this time.
Mr. Thompson presented information regarding a proposed policy for documents needed prior to public hearings for rezoning requests. The proposed policy would require supplemental materials to be filed 14 days prior to the hearing and would allow additional information in response to a specific question from the Commissioners or Commission members to be submitted within a specific time limit.
UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Planning Commission Workshop meeting, Wednesday, January 18, 2006, 1:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street. 2. Planning Commission Regular meeting, Monday, February 6, 2006, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street.
ADJOURNMENT Mr. Moser made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m. So ordered.
irman 149
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING - January 18, 2006
The Washington County Planning Commission and Pianning Staff held a workshop meeting on Wednesday, January 18,2006 at 1:00 p.m. in the Washington County Administrative Annex, Conference Room #1,80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown, Maryland.
Planning Commission members present were: Chairman, Don Ardinger; George Anikis; Bernard Moser; Terry Reiber; and Ex-Officio, James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planners Stephen T. Goodrich and Timothy A. Lung, and Administrative Assistant Debra S. Eckard. Commissioner Dori Nipps was also present.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Don Ardinger called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m.
DISCUSSION
Planned Unit Development
Mr. Thompson distributed copies of guidelines established by various counties throughout Maryiand regarding PUD's. Developers usually submit a "phasing schedule" to determine the proposed infrastructure that would be installed by the developer to provide for the development's needs and the impact on other infrastructure in the area. The "phasing schedule" could also include proposed amenities and roads.
There was a discussion regarding the appropriate timeline for the installation of necessary infrastructure and the construction of amenities. Long range planning for the Urban Growth Area could be beneficial in planning for school sites, road improvements, and water and sewer infrastructure needs in various areas . throughout the County. Guidelines should be established for developers to use for large subdivisions as well as PUD's. Mr. Thompson recommended that phasing schedules should be based on the number of lots recorded and not the number of permits issued. If the developer does not comply with the phasing schedule, the Commission could withhold the approval of additional phases of the development until all phasing issues have been resolved.
There was a brief discussion regarding the open space/forest conservation area. Open space is required to be no less than 25% of the gross area with a minimum 15% of the total 25% open space being forest cover as required by the Forest Conservation Ordinance. Mr. Kercheval recommended separating the open space and forest mitigation areas by unit instead of percentage.
There was a brief discussion regarding the need for affordable workforce housing in Washington County. Commissioner Nipps expressed her concern that developers want to place affordable workforce housing off-site rather than within their developments and could create a potential for low-income housing. Mr. Goodrich stated that workforce housing would need to be monitored closely under specific Federal guidelines.
Mr. Thompson suggested an architectural review process for PUD's. Mr. Kerchevai expressed his opinion that PUD's should follow a uniform design throughout the development.
The Commission recommended preparing a chart using the information available from other jurisdictions to determine more definitive requirements needed for large subdivisions, PUD's, or both. The chart should inciude the following information: school sites, density, EMS and fire response times, the impact on area law enforcement, public use sites (libraries, firehouses, etc.), amenities, open space/recreation (by percent or per unit) (county owned or HOA owned), forest conservation requirements, housing types and how they are blended together, commercial area to serve the PUD, employment areas, street lighting, architectural control and propane systems. Mr. Thompson is hoping to have the chart in approximately 60 days. The Commission wouid review the chart and continue its discussion at a future workshop.
No action required.
(Mr. Reiber left the meeling at 3:00 p.m.)
Consideration of input from parties of interest and notification of adjacent property owners
Mr. Thompson began a brief discussion regarding concerns from various sources regarding notification of proposed development around the County. The Citizens for the Protection of Washington County have met with Mr. Thompson and have requested notification of Preliminary Consultations. He explained that the Preliminary Consultations are for developers and agencies to work together to address potential problems that would affect infrastructure, roads, schools, and the surrounding area in general. Mr. Thompson stated that amendments would need to be made prior to beginning any type of notification process.
Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that adjacent property owners should be notified regarding proposed development plans that could have an impact on their property. He believes that the adjacent property 150
owners have a right to know what is being proposed and should have a limited opportunity to express their views and concerns. Mr. Moser concurred with Mr. Anikis.
Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that if a developer or landowner is adhering to all laws, ordinances, etc., then he has the right to develop his property and the adjacent property owners do not have the right to dictate how the property is developed.
Mr. Reiber concurred with Mr. Kercheval. He suggested posting the subject property with a sign or notice indicating a phone number to call to address questions or concerns.
Commissioner Nipps suggested posting a notice on the property indicating the date when the Preliminary Consultation would be presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Anikis recommended a ten day comment period for the public to provide written comments following the presentation to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Ardinger expressed his opinion that posting the property could add a potentiai burden on the staff to post the signs, respond to phone calls and/or correspondence, or personally meeting with the public to discuss proposed developments. He beiieves that by posting the property, the public would expect time during Pianning Commission meetings to speak. Mr. Kercheval concurred.
Mr. Ardinger recommended addressing this issue during a future workshop meeting with all Commission members present to vote on the course of action to be taken.
No action required.
Requirement for two entrances
Mr. Thompson began a brief discussion regarding the requirements for two entrances, if possible, for all subdivisions. He explained there are benefits for having two entrances such as disbursement of traffic 'entering the roadways and safety issues for emergency services. Staff encourages multiple entrances and connectivity to adjoining properties.
Mr. Ardinger expressed his concern that there are no guidelines or standards to follow to provide continuity when requiring two entrances.
There was a brief discussion regarding the requirement for two entrances if a development exceeds a certain number of lots or lot size. Currentiy there are no regulations requiring the number of entrances for developments. Mr. Thompson will discuss this issue with Mr. McGee, Engineering Department, to review that department's standards for the requirement of two entrances. The Commission may consider adopting a policy to be used as a guideline for developers.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Ardinger adjourned the meeting at 3:45 p.m.
n 151
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - FEBRUARY 6, 2006
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, February 6, 2006, in the Washington CQunty Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown.
Members present were: Vice Chairman R. Ben Clopper, Linda Parrish, Bernard Moser, George Anikis, Terry Reiber, and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Senior Planner Stephen T. Goodrich, Chief Planner Timothy A. Lung, Senior Planners Lisa Kelly Pietro and Misty Wagner-Grillo, and Administrative Assistant Debra S. Eckard.
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chairman R. Ben Ciopper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
COMMENTS
Mr. Thompson announced that Mr. Anikis has been re-appointed to the Planning Commission for a second term by the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Thompson brought the following request to the Planning Commission. During the January 9, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed a Forest Conservation Mitigation request from Richard McCleary. Mr. McCleary's request was to make a payment in lieu of to meet the Forest Conservation requirement for forest that was accidentally cleared on the site of Parker Plastics located along Western Maryland Parkway. The Planning Commission denied the request for payment in lieu and directed Mr. McCleary to replant the trees on site in the area that was cut and recommended payment of the non compliance penalty of $.30 per square foot as permitted by the Forest Conservation Ordinance. A letter was sent to Mr. McCleary outlining the Planning Commission's decision. Staff has received a letter from Mr. McCleary's project manager requesting time during the March Planning Commission meeting to address the Commission to explain how and why the mistake occurred and to discuss the terms of the mitigation. After a brief discussion and hearing opposing views of the Commission members, Mr. Clopper felt that Mr. McCleary or his representative should be permitted to present a brief explanation at the March 6, 2006 meeting. The Commission also requested, in writing from the County Attorney, if the replanting could be required at a 2 to 1 ratio.
Mr. Goodrich distributed copies of the updated school capacity and enrollment figures. He stated that the charts included the December 31,2005 enrollment figures. Pupil yields from subdivisions approved since December 2005 are calculated using new Board of Education yield rates that were adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. As a result of these new figures, some schools' available capacity figures have changed but no schools have changed from adequate to inadequate status.
MINUTES Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 9, 2006 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.
OTHER BUSINESS Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan (CP-06-001) Mr. Goodrich presented for review the proposed Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate reference to the Heart of the Civil War Heritage Area Management Plan. The Amendment must be adopted in order for the County to be eligible for financial assistance and program marketing assistance from the State of Maryland. The Amendment will be heard at the Joint Public Hearing scheduled for March 13, 2006.
No action required.
NEW BUSINESS - Variances Todd Easterday (SV-06-004) Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a variance to create a fifth panhandle lot on the parent tract of proposed Lot 31 located along the east side of Easterday Court in the Mt. Aetna Subdivision. The property is currently zoned EC - Environmental Conservation and was previously zoned A - Agriculture. The developer is proposing to subdivide existing Lot 8 to make a 0.9-acre parcel (proposed Lot 31). Lot 8 was part of the subdivision of Lots 8-24 for Mt. Aetna Subdivision that was approved prior to the moratorium; therefore, Lot 8 is an exemption lot. The proposed lot would have a 205-foot panhandle that would be the fifth panhandle on the parent tract. The Subdivision Ordinance states that four panhandles are allowed on the original tract of land. It is the intention of the owner to convert two of the existing four panhandles into a public street and in effect eliminate two panhandle lots. The net number of panhandle lots would be three. 152
Discussion: Ms. Wagner-Grillo stated that a concept plan has recently been received by the Planning Department for Lots 32-35 and 36-40. The developer is proposing to subdivide Lot 4 (approximately 12.88 acres) into five lots and to convert the private road known as Cannon Forge Lane to a public street. After a brief discussion, Mr. Moser and Mr. Anikis expressed their desire to have staff review the concept plan prior to approval of the variance request. The applicant, Mr. Easterday, stated his desire is to have the Commission render a decision tonight.
Mr. Kercheval made a motion to approve the variance request to create a fifth panhandle for Lot 8 to add Lot 31 with the condition that no more of the remaining lands shall be subdivided until two panhandles have been removed and converted to a pUblic street as presented by the applicant as a future project. Seconded by Mr. Reiber.
Discussion before the vote: Mr. Anikis and Mr. Moser expressed their concern that the concept plan has not been reviewed by the staff and approving agencies to determine any potential problems regarding the proposed public street. If the public street were not constructed there would be five panhandles instead of four as permitted by the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Kercheval noted that his motion would prevent the owner from further development if the public street were not constructed.
Mr. Kercheval's motion passed with Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Reiber and Ms. Parrish voting "Aye" and Mr. Moser and Mr. Anikis voting "Nay".
- Subdivisions Rosewood Village PUD, Phase II-A (S-05-196) Mr. Lung presented for review and approval the final subdivision plat for Rosewood Village, Phase II-A. The property is located on the north side of Robinwood Drive and is zoned RS - Residential Suburban. A PUD overlay zoning was obtained in 1995. In 1999, the Final Development Plan was approved for 520 _residential units on 79 acres at a density of 6.6 dwelling units per acre. Phase II-A consists of one commercial lot for medical offices and five lots for residential purposes along with an additional 350-foot extension of John F. Kennedy Drive. Lots 12-15 would be established for proposed 10 unit blocks of rental townhouse units, each approximately Y2 acre in size. These lots would access Ashfield Court, a private street and parking lots that would be owned and maintained by the developer. Lot 16 is a 7.67 acre parcel that would contain two 24-unit apartment buildings, a 42-unit apartment facility, a 24-unit assisted living facility and the recreation and community center for the entire development. All residential units are age restricted as per the recorded covenants and have been reviewed and approved by the County as part of the preliminary plat and site plan process. The Engineering Department approval is pending contingent upon a change in labeling some storm water management easements. Mr. Lung stated he has also requested minor technical comments that needed to be addressed on the final plat. All other agency approvals have been received. The Forest Conservation requirement is being met by on site retention and was previously approved during the preliminary plat/site plan approval process. The Final Plat is essentially the same as the Preliminary Plat that was approved by the Planning Commission on December 5, 2005.
Discussion: There was a brief discussion regarding the enforcement of the age-restricted units. Mr. Kurtyka, attorney for the developer, stated that the occupants would be required to sign a deed and a lease certifying that they acknowledge, accept and understand the provisions as outlined in the covenants and they would be subject to any penalties for violations of the covenants. He also stated that a canvas of the neighborhood, as required by Federal regulations, would be completed every two years. The occupants must certify the number and age of the residents residing in each unit and the certifications would be available to the County for their review. Mr. Moser expressed concern regarding the last sentence of General Note #26 that states, "The elimination of fhis restriction from any units shall require review and approval of a revised site plan by the Planning Commission." Mr. Kurtyka stated that this sentence was required by the Washington County Attorney's office. He also noted that the Declaration states, "if the age-restriction ever comes off either by design or happenstance'; the County has the right to collect the excise tax, applicable at the time of the violation. He stated that it would be difficult for the age-restriction to be eliminated. Mr. Lung stated that amenities are required as part of a planned unit development and the developer modified the amenities for an age-restricted community.
Mr. Anikis made a motion to grant final subdivision plat approval contingent upon approval from all agencies and revisions made per Staff comments. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. The motion passed with Mr. Anikis, Ms. Parrish, Mr. Moser and Mr. Kercheval voting "Aye". Mr. Reiber abstained.
(Mr. Anikis briefly left the meeting) Rosewood Village PUD, Phase 11-8 (S-05-195) Mr. Lung presented for review and approval the final subdivision plat for Rosewood Village, Phase 11-8. The property is located on the north side of Robinwood Drive and is zoned RS - Residential Suburban. Phase 11-8 consists of a 6 acre commercial lot, a 1.44 acre lot that will contain four 12-unit apartment bUildings, and 125 individual townhouses. This phase also involves the first phase of construction of Varsity Lane that will be built to Collector road standards. Two new cul-de-sac streets, Capital Lane and O'Neal's Place, will be constructed. All residential units in this phase will be age-restricted per recorded deed covenants. Engineering Department approval is pending contingent upon a change in labeling of some storm water management easements. Mr. Lung stated he has also requested minor technical 153 comments that need to be addressed on the final plat. All other agency approvals have been received. The Final Plat is essentially the same as the Preliminary Plat that was approved by the Planning Commission on December 5, 2005.
Mr. Moser made a motion to grant final subdivision plat approval contingent upon approval from all agencies and revisions made as per Staff's comments. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. The motion passed with Mr. Moser, Ms. Parrish, and Mr. Kercheval voting "Aye". Mr. Reiber abstained.
(Mr. Anikis returned to the meeting)
PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS Lots 30-32, Millyville (PC-OS-030) Ms. Pietro presented for review the Preliminary Consultation for Lots 30-32, Millyville located along the south side of National Pike, east of Clear Spring. The developer is proposing three (3) single-family residential lots with sizes ranging from 2 to 3.8 acres on 12.48 acres. The property is zoned A Agriculture. The Forest Conservation requirement would be met by on-site retention on other lands of Mr. Kretzer in existing easement areas.
No action required.
- SITE PLANS Oak Ridge Terrace (SP-OS-OS9) Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a site plan for Oak Ridge Terrace located on the south side of East Oak Ridge Drive. The property is zoned HI-1. The developer is proposing a retail strip center on 1.98 acres. There is an ATM kiosk and All State Insurance Company currently existing on the property. . The total building area would be 11,808 square feet. Public water and sewer serve the site from the City of Hagerstown Water Department and the Washington County Department of Water Quality. Access to the site would be from the existing entrance at the insurance business and a proposed entrance located on the east end of the site. There would be 27 total employees. The hours of operation would be Monday through Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Parking required is 59 spaces, 64 spaces are provided including 5 handicapped spaces. The projected daily use is 100 trips per day for the shopping center and 216 trips per day with the insurance business and ATM use added in. Freight and delivery would be 12 trips per week. A screened dumpster would be located to the rear of the property. Lighting would be building mounted and pole mounted throughout the parking lot. There would be a building mounted sign in addition to a 14-foot by 13-foot site sign located in the center of the shopping center. Landscaping would be located throughout the site and will include Sugar and Red Maples, Ash, Leyland Cypress, White Pine, Barberry, Holly and Juniper trees. Sixty-four Leyland Cypress will be planted as a buffer along the southern property line. The Forest Conservation requirement would be met by planting .60 acres of trees off-site and to retain additional forest on the Bowman Farm located on Dam NO.4 Road. Approval from the City of Hagerstown Water Department is pending. All other agency approvals have been received.
Discussion: There was a brief discussion regarding the concern of the two-way entrance for the proposed shopping center closest to the intersection of Oak Ridge Drive and Sharpsburg Pike. Mr. Kercheval recommended that staff review the plans and consider a right in/right out entrance at this location. Mr. Thompson stated that he has discussed this intersection and entrance with Mr. Terry McGee of the Engineering Department. Mr. McGee stated that a traffic analysis has been completed at this intersection and this design is acceptable.
Additional screening was recommended to buffer the existing residential properties. A concrete wall is proposed to provide safety at the rear of the property due to the drastic change in grade and the location of the storm water management pond.
Mr. Anikis made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon further review of the two-way entrance close to the intersection, additional screening to buffer the existing residential properties, and approval from the City of Hagerstown Water Department and to grant approval of the off-site planting and retention to meet the Forest Conservation requirement. Seconded by Mr. Moser.
Clarification before the vote: Mr. Thompson recommended amending the motion to include the following statement. "As part of any approval of the re-development of the corner parcel where the ATM is currently located, a site plan would be required to be presented to the Planning Commission and the full movement intersection would be re-evaluated." Mr. Anikis amended his motion to include Mr. Thompson's recommendation. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Unanimously approved.
Building Systems, Inc. (SP-OS-069) Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a site plan for Building Systems, Inc. located along the south side of Hunters Green Parkway just west of its intersection with Hopewell Road. The property is zoned HI-1. This lot, #9, was approved in September 2005 under the name of Hunters Green Parkway Lots 8 and 9. The developer is proposing to construct a contractor's office/storage yard on 6.76 acres. They are proposing to construct two 200' x 60' office buildings and a 200' x 40' maintenance storage 154
building. Public water and sewer will serve the site. There would be one access from Hunters Green Parkway and would be shared in connection with another contractor's office/storage area on the adjacent parcel. The hours of operation would be Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. They are proposing 10 warehouse employees and 35 office employees. The parking required would be 60 spaces and 65 spaces are provided. Freight and delivery would be 2 to 3 trucks per day. Two dumpsters would be located on the site. Lighting would be building and pole mounted. A proposed sign would be located at the entrance. Landscaping would be provided throughout the site and would include Pear, Dogwood, and Spruce trees, and black-eyed susans. The Forest Conservation requirement was met when Lots 8 and 9 were approved in September 2005. Approximately .32 acres of reforestation would be located in the northeast corner of the site. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a special exception for a contractor's storage yard in September 2005. All agency approvals have been received.
Mr. Moser made a motion to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained.
Hagerstown Spring and Alignment (SP-OS-062) Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a site plan for Hagerstown Spring and Alignment located along the west side of Oakmont Drive. The property is zoned HI-1. The developer is proposing to construct an 11 ,200-square foot building that would include five bays for truck and auto repair service. There is an existing 17,760-square foot building located on the 3.19 acre parcel. There are currently 7 employees and they are proposing 5 new employees. The hours of operation are Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Saturday, if necessary, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Currently, there are 13 parking spaces provided and they are proposing an additional 10 parking spaces for a total of 23 spaces. No new signs are proposed. Lighting will be building mounted. Two deliveries per week are expected. Public water and sewer serve the site. The storm water management requirement would be met by a rain garden. The site qualifies for the express procedure and payment in lieu would be made to the Forest Conservation fund to meet the Forest Conservation requirement. All agency approvals have been received.
Mr. Reiber made a motion to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.
Bowman Business Park, Buildings Sand 6 (SP-OS-068) Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a site plan for Bowman Business Park, Buildings 5 and 6, located in the Interstate Industrial Park east of Williamsport. The site is zoned PI - Planned Industrial. There are four existing buildings on the 24-acre parcel and the developer is proposing to construct two additional buildings on a portion of that parcel with an additional 7-acre parcel. Each proposed building would be 100' x 475' to be divided into four units each having approximately 12,000-square feet. Building 5 would face Interstate 81 and Building 6 would face Governor Lane Boulevard. The loading areas and dumpster locations for each building are located to the rear of both buildings. Parking would be located at the front of the buildings with an access road to connect the parking lots, loading areas and the existing access road to the existing buildings. A storm water management facility would be located between Governor Lane Boulevard and the front of Building 6. Landscaping would be provided around the perimeter of the site and islands throughout the parking areas. Office, sales and warehouse uses are proposed and parking calculations are provided according to the Zoning Ordinance requirement of 1 space per 300-square feet of office area and 1 space per warehouse employee plus 2 spaces, for a total of 10 spaces per unit. Total spaces required would be 160 spaces and 218 spaces would be provided. Public water from the City of Hagerstown and public sewer from the Washington County Department of Water Quality would serve the site. The projected flow is 3,308 gallons per day. There is approximately 5 acres of existing forest on-site proposed to be cleared. Based on the total area of the site to be developed, 3.32 acres of mitigation is required to meet the Forest Conservation requirement. The developer is proposing to use off-site retention of forest at a 2:1 ratio on lands that he owns on Dam NO.4 Road (a total of 6.64 acres) to meet the Forest Conservation requirement. Approval from the City of Hagerstown Water Department is pending. All other agency approvals have been received.
Comments: Mr. Lung stated that he has requested additional information regarding the building mounted lighting and ifs ability to provide adequate lighting for the parking lot without creating glare problems. He also requested additional information regarding the parking requirements and adequacy of parking areas for the various proposed uses. A subdivision plat has been submitted to vacate the property line between the two parcels associated with this site.
Discussion: Mr. Lung noted that different uses require different parking requirements as designated by the Zoning Ordinance. He expressed concern that parking may not be adequate if businesses other than those designated on the plan are established on the site. The developer's representative stated that the existing buildings are a mix of retail and warehouse units and were used to determine the parking requirements for the proposed buildings. Building 5 would be constructed as a dock height building that would enter at ground level on the left side of the building and exit at dock height at the rear of the building. This type of building is conducive to a warehouse type business. Building 6 would be at-grade entering on both the Governor Lane Boulevard and Interstate 81 sides. This type of building is more conducive to office or retail type businesses. In these cases, occupants that need additional parking customarily convert the loading dock areas associated with those units to parking areas.
Mr. Anikis made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon approval from the City of Hagerstown Water Department and the applicant satisfactorily addressing Staff's comments regarding lighting and parking requirement issues, to grant approval of off-site forest retention to meet the Forest 155
Conserv"tion requirement, and to grant approval for Staff to approve the subdivision plat combining the two parcels. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.
Comment: Mr. Kercheval recommended that Staff track all off-site plantings and retention areas for future MDE credits.
8:55 p.m. - Mr. Clopper called for a five minute recess. 9:00 p.m. - Meeting resumed.
WCHS Regional Medical Center (SP-06-003) Comment: Mr. Thompson stated that this site plan has been given a "fast-track" designation by the Board of County Commissioners. The "fast-track" designation allows agency reviews to be completed concurrentiy; however, it does not allow the developer to skip any reviews or requirements. All permits must be obtained in sequence of events.
Mr. Lung presented for review and approvai the site plan for the WCHS Regional Medical Center located northwest of Robinwood Drive and Medicai Campus Road. The Hospital would be located on a 34.19 acre parcel adjoining the existing Robinwood Medical Center and is zoned RS - Residential Suburban. A Preliminary Consultation was held in November 2003 to discuss the proposed hospital, procedures for obtaining any required variances, and to address any special concerns. The Planning Commission reviewed the Preliminary Consultation during their December 2003 meeting and expressed their concerns regarding traffic issues and water and sewer service issues. In October 2005 the applicant filed for modifications to the special exception that was granted in 1991 as well as variances for height and setback requirements. A public hearing was held in November 2005 and in December 2005, the Board of Zoning Appeals granted the requested modifications and variances. A modification was granted to allow for a heliport and ambulance in emergency status being considered as an accessory use to the proposed hospital. Modifications and variances were also granted to the height restriction and buffer requirements, imposed by the 1991 opinion, that would allow for an 80-foot high building. It also reduced and eliminated some of the building setbacks between the proposed hospital building and the existing medical center where the two buildings will be joined. The Board of Zoning Appeals decision has been appealed; however, it is the County Attorney's opinion that unless the Circuit Court grants a stay of proceedings on behalf of the petitioners, site plan review and other processes of the Planning Department and Planning Commission with respect to this project may proceed. The applicant proceeds at his own risk with the knowledge that the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals may be reversed on appeal. Mr. Lung proceeded to explain the site plan and how all of the applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable ordinances have been met. The proposed hospital would be attached to the west wing of the Robinwood Medical Campus; however, it will be located on its own lot. A subdivision plat has been submitted to the Planning Department to reconfigure the existing property lines to accommodate the new hospital on its own lot. The proposed hospital would be a 5-story, 80-foot high building. The main entrance would be via Physician's Court off Medical Campus Road. A second entrance would be located to the west off Medical Campus Road and would extend the outer perimeter road that goes around the entire complex and also serves as the entrance to the ambulance receiving area and the emergency room. A helipad is proposed above the emergency room area. A loading dock area, maintenance garage and an emergency power plant would be located to the rear of the building according to the site plan. The hospital operates on a 24-hour per day 7 days per week schedule and there would be 979 employees per shift. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, parking requirements for a hospital are based on the square footage of the facility plus visitor parking equivalent to 1 space per 1,000 square feet. Based on the proposed 435,861 square foot building, 436 spaces plus 710 visitor spaces for a total of t,146 spaces would be required and 1,148 spaces would be provided (including handicapped parking). Since the proposed hospital would impact parking at the existing medical center, a new parking calculation was required based on Zoning Ordinance requirements. Parking requirements for the medical center are based on the number of practitioners and employees. Parking required is 747 spaces and 1,185 spaces are provided. The Zoning Ordinance requires that at least 5% of the parking area be established as green islands. This requirement must be verified in the site data on the plan. Pedestrian crosswalks would be provided at access roads located in front of a main building entrance. Lighting would be provided in the parking areas and around the access road. A photometric plan has been provided for review. The consultant has verified that any iight trespass would not exceed .08-foot candle. Signs are not shown on the current plan; however, the applicant has indicated a monumentai sign at the entrance of Medicai Campus Road is proposed. Plans for future signs would be required and must comply with Section 22.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed hospital would be located on an existing County Commuter route and additional stops would be added as needed to accommodate the hospital. According to the site plan, there would be 5 UPS deliveries per day and 28 tractor-trailer deliveries per week. Three loading docks are provided at the rear of the building. Recycling and compacting style roll off dumpsters wouid be used to collect and store solid waste and would be located in the area of maintenance garage and service entry area. Staff has requested that this must be clearly indicated on the plan. Disposal of medical and hazardous waste would be sterilized on site, ground to an unrecognizable state and disposed of in the public landfill. There will be no incineration. The end product would be safe to transport on public roads and dispose of in the public landfill. The applicant has submitted information that would be incorporated on the site plan in regard to Section 4.12 of the Zoning Ordinance that pertains to emissions such as smoke, control of heat and glare, radiation and electrical emissions. In regard to Section 4.12A pertaining to the control of smoke, dust, dirt, vapors, gases and odors, the applicant has submitted the following information. All equipment that emits gases, fumes, and 156
odors including boilers, boiler fiues, kitchen exhausts, sanitary vents and medical gas equipment exhaust has been designed in accordance with all codes and regulations. No mechanicai or eiectric equipment shall produce excessive heat that would adversely affect adjacent properties. All mechanical equipment inside and outside the building would be provided with vibration isolation. The exterior equipment includes cooling towers, air handling units, exhaust fans, air-cooled chillers and condensing units. The cooling towers have been designed with the low sound fan and water silencers to minimize noise transmission. The air-handling units are designed with a minimum of 2-inch thick insulated double walls that will minimize noise transmission, radiation of electrical emissions, radioactivity or electricai disturbance activity. Radiology and fluoroscopy rooms would be individually shielde.d to prevent escape of radiation. Fluorescent lighting shall utilize an electronic ballast that limits harmonic distortions and disturbances. All transformers provided on the job are internally shielded. Allegheny Power would provide electric service to the facility via underground ductbank. Medium voltage switchgear would be located indoors and distributed to three electrical substations also located indoors. All substation rooms are designed to comply with NFPA Fire and Life Safety Codes. A "Notice of Landing Area" proposal must be filed with the FAA for their review and approval regarding the location of the helipad. Landscaping would be provided throughout the site. A regional pond owned by the hospital and located on the north side of Yale Drive would provide storm water management. A FEMA flood plain associated with the area would require a FEMA letter of map amendment to modify the flood plain. Site disturbance would affect a small stream buffer area south of the site. The Washington County Soil Conservation District has recommended approval to provide a 24-hour extended detention in the regional storm water management pond for water quality lor the entire watershed that serves this stream as mitigation for the stream buffer. The proposed hospital site necessitates the relocation of existing forest conservation areas and the establishment of 8.75 additional acres of forest mitigation. All Forest Conservation requirements would be met on-site. An agreement is required with the City of Hagerstown's Water and Sewer Department to transfer flow equivalent to the hospital's average daily flow to the Conococheague Waste Water Treatment Plant by way of the new inter-connector currently under construction. The Maryland Department of the Environment has approved that connection.
Mr. Gary Rohrer, Department of Public Works, presented the following comments regarding the proposed 'off-site improvements and traffic concern issues in the area of the proposed hospital site. A detailed traffic impact analysis has been prepared by the State Highway Administration at the intersection of Edgewood Drive and Route 40. A State Highway Administration representative from Baltimore, the District Engineer, Assistant District Traffic Engineer, and representatives from the City and County Engineering Departments have been meeting on a monthly basis to discuss proposed improvements at this intersection. A preliminary alignment and layout of the intersection including traffic lanes, traffic lane assignments and the extent of work in all directions has been completed and a revised project schedule should be available in the near future. A presentation to the Board of County Commissioners and the Mayor and City Council is proposed for March to inform both entities on the progress of the project, the projections for need, and a proposed schedule. It is conceivable that the Edgewood Drive/Route 40 intersection could begin construction this time next year. All utility work would be completed first. The duration of that time frame is estimated to take approximately one construction season. Plans have been programmed into the CIP to add turning movements and expand the intersection at US Route 40 and Mt. Aetna Road to Yale Drive. Design plans are ready to be started with construction beginning late this summer or early fall. Construction should be completed sometime next spring. Based on programming and funding in the CIP, plans for the Robinwood 2 project, extending from the Elks Club to the Hagerstown Community College entrance, would go to construction in June 2008. This project is estimated to be completed in 9 to 10 months, Spring 2009. The final project, known as Robinwood North, would consist of the construction of a four-iane section of roadway beginning just beyond the Hagerstown Community College bending westward and then proceeding straight to connect to Jefferson Boulevard in the vicinity of the Daughtridge property. Estimated projections to begin construction would be July 2010 with a duration of approximately 1 year to completion. The segment of Edgewood Drive at Mt. Aetna Road towards US Route 40 would be addressed in partnership with the State Highway Administration when the US Route 40 and Edgewood Drive intersection is constructed.
Discussion: Mr. Rohrer stated that during construction of the Edgewood Drive/US Route 40 project, the State Highway Administration would be in charge of the project and during construction of the Mt. Aetna Road/US Route 40 project, Washington County would be in charge of the project. He also stated that the Board of County Commissioners, State Highway Administration and City of Hagerstown might consider a partnership program to fund these projects with each entity contributing 1/3 of the total cost. Mr. Kercheval stated his opinion that the State is in favor of this project and may contribute more than 1/3 of the cost and that the City of Hagerstown would participate to some degree. He also believes that the County's portion of funding is an obtainable goal. Mr. Anikis noted that the traffic study does not appear to include additional traffic generated by proposed PUD's in the area, increased enrollment at the Hagerstown Community College or for a new school in the area; however, Mr. Rohrer stated that those items are addressed in the background traffic portion of the study. Mr. Anikis noted that according to AADT numbers, intersections along US Route 40 at Colonial Drive and Emmert Drive have increased from 3.3% to 7% over the past six years; therefore, he believes that the assumpiion of a 2.2% traffic increase, as stated in the traffic study, is not a valid rate of growth. Mr. Rohrer stated that the Robinwood traffic corridor is based on growth rates from the Smithsburg and Leitersburg areas and cannot be compared to the US Route 40 traffic corridor. Mr. Anikis believes a schedule from project design to completion showing major milestones throughout the construction process would be beneficial for the Planning Commission. He would also like to have quarterly updates presented to the Planning Commission. Mr. Rohrer stated that schedule information regarding the Edgewood Drive/US Route 40 project and the US Route 40/Mount Aetna Road project could be available within the next month. Mr. Moser believes the intersection at Edgewood Drive proceeding into the Town of Funkstown is a major 157
traffic concern. Mr. Rohrer stated that improvements from the intersection at Edgewood Drive to the area of Twigg Cycles would be part of the proposed Edgewood Drive/US Route 40 project. Mr. Moser noted that during the approval of the Robinwood Medical Center, an agreement was established with the hospital to contribute to road improvements. Mr. Rohrer stated that WCHS contributed 10% of the funds programmed in the CIP for the Robinwood area that was previously negotiated when the medical center was constructed. Under the current Adequate Public Facilities agreement, WCHS has been granted credits for improvements made during the first project. Mr. Moser inquired about the detrimental effects the hospital's water flow transfer agreement would have on other development activity. Mr. Kercheval believes that the agreement would not have a detrimental affect on other development. He also noted that flow currently exists and is simply being transferred from one plant to another plant. Mr. Rohrer stated that the County has a 20-year capacity management plan for the Conococheague Waste Water Treatment facility that is being regulated and re-evaluated regularly. Mr. Reiber believes that a road connecting Eastern Boulevard and Robinwood Drive would be beneficial in helping traffic flow. Mr. Kercheval made an inquiry regarding the completion of the Edgewood Drive/US Route 40 project as compared to the completion of the proposed hospital. Mr. Rohrer stated that the road improvement project should run concurrent to or ahead of the proposed hospitai and is projected to be completed prior to the hospital's opening. Mr. Anikis made an inquiry regarding the effect the hospital would have on existing residential water pressure. Mr. Rohrer stated that the City of Hagerstown Water Department has been in contact with the developer regarding the construction of additional infrastructure such as an elevated water tank to serve the area. Mr. Anikis noted that the storm water management pond would be located adjacent to an existing residential area and safety is a concern. Mr. Rohrer stated the storm water management pond currently exists. Mr. Tony Taylor of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, stated that a security fence would be placed around the pond. Mr. Anikis made an inquiry regarding negotiations for water and sewer service to the site. Mr. Kercheval stated that the City and County have agreed on the concept of the flow transfer. The monetary issues must be resolved between the City and the proposed hospital. The County would be willing to assist in these negotiations to help ease the financial impact. Mr. Kercheval made an inquiry regarding a designated drop-off area for emergencies. Mr. Hamill, hospital representative, stated there is currently no drop-off area proposed; however, there is a separate entrance for the emergency room on the first floor in the northwest corner with parking available adjacent . to that entrance for short-term use. There is also parking on the west side for ambulances. On the east side of the proposed hospital is the main entrance that would be used for scheduled admissions and outpatient services. There would be a separate exit for outpatient services. Handicapped spaces would be available at all entrances to the proposed hospital. Mr. Moser made an inquiry regarding future expansion and the length of time that this facility would be adequate to serve the community. Mr. Hamill stated that based on the State's bed need formula, a new hospital must be built to 80% capacity. Proposed plans have removed a nursing unit of approximately 30 beds and the hospital wouid open at 70% capacity. They are proposing to "shell in" a floor that may be completed when future demand warrants. Imaging services, surgery and the emergency department are located. on outside walls to enable growth without major structural impact on the building. Another bed tower may be needed in the future. Mr. Moser made an inquiry why the site at Robinwood was chosen over other sites that were considered. Mr. Hamill stated that the Robinwood site was chosen because the existing facilities would compliment the hospital and would be an added value of inpatient and outpatient services on one medical campus. The construction cycle for the proposed hospital is estimated to be 30 months. If plans continue to move forward without any delays, the proposed hospital could open in the fall of 2008. Ms. Parrish expressed concern regarding ambulance traffic accessing the proposed hospital via the road in front of the Eastern Elementary School. Mr. Hamill recommended contacting the ambulance services to address this issue. He noted that 3 to 4 ambulance calls per day currently come from the Robinwood Medical Campus to the hospital. Mr. Lung stated that the Funkstown Volunteer Fire Company would serve the site and they have been working with the County's Emergency Service Coordinator to address all comments and concerns cited during the preliminary consultation. Mr. Thompson stated that numerous fire companies would respond to an emergency at the hospital.
Comment: Mr. Anikis noted his concern regarding security issues and recommends that the hospital consider a security design to address potential security risks. Ms. Parrish expressed her concern regarding the distance of the parking areas from the main entrance to the proposed hospital.
Mr. Anikis made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon all agency approvals, approval of the disturbance in the stream buffer area based on the Washington County Soil Conservation District's recommendation, approval of on-site retention to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirement, and to grant Staff the authority to approve the subdivision plat to establish the property line to grant a separate parcel for the Hospital. Seconded by Mr. Reiber.
Comments before the vote: Mr. Anikis requested updates as the proposed hospital plans move forward. Mr. Moser expressed his desire that the County and City would have a closer working relationship as future development progresses. Mr. Kercheval believes that regional planning is the future of Washington County and that the municipalities and the County need to work together as one community.
Mr. Anikis' motion passed unanimously.
UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Joint County/City Planning Commission Workshop, Wednesday, February 22, 2006, 5:00 p.m., City Hall. 158
2. Regular Planning Commission meeting, Monday, March 6, 2006, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 W. Baltimore Street
ADJOURNMENT Mr. Moser made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. So ordered.
Respectfully submitted, 159
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - MARCH 6, 2006
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, March 6, 2006, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown.
Members present were: Acting Chairman R. Ben Clopper, Clint Wiley, Bernard Moser, George Anikis, Terry Reiber, and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planners Stephen T. Goodrich and Timothy A. Lung, Senior Planner Lisa Kelly Pietro, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chairman R. Ben Clopper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Thompson announced that a student from Frostburg State University was in attendance to observe and record the meeting. There was no objection from the Commission.
MINUTES
Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 6, 2006 regular meeting as amended. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Mr. Wiley abstained. Unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS
Richard McCleary - SP-05-047
During the February 6, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Thompson presented a written request from Mr. McCleary to provide a brief explanation regarding the Forest Conservation Mitigation request for payment in lieu that was discussed during the January 9, 2006 meeting. Mr. McCleary's request was to make a payment in lieu of to meet the Forest Conservation requirement for forest that was accidentally cleared on the site of Parker Plastics located along Western Maryland Parkway. The Planning Commission denied the request for payment in lieu and directed Mr. McCleary to replant the trees on site in the area that was cut and recommended payment of the non-compliance penalty of $.30 per square foot as permitted by the Forest Conservation Ordinance.
Discussion: Mr. McCleary stated that site work on this property took approximately one year to complete and the excavating company that was hired as a subcontractor accidentally removed the trees. Mr. McCleary requested that the Commission reconsider their decision for payment of the non-compliance penalty and offered payment in lieu or replanting of the trees without the penalty.
Mr. Reiber believes that a mistake was made clearing the trees and was not done intentionally by the developer. The Forest Conservation Ordinance allows for a non-compiiance penalty and Mr. Moser believes the non-compliance penalty should not be waived. Mr. Clopper believes that the Commission has made the correct decision. Since the property is a commercial site, Mr. Kercheval believes that replanting should occur off-site.
Clarification: Mr. Thompson clarified the Commission's actions on January 9, 2006. Mr. McCleary is required to pay the $.30 per square foot non-compliance penalty, to replant the on site area, and, at his discretion, to plant an additional .99 acres off-site or make payment-in-Iieu-of to the Forest Conservation fund.
The original action of the Planning Commission on January 9, 2006 stands.
NEW BUSINESS - Variances Glen Afton Farm (SV-06-009) Mr. Lung began by stating that the request was initially submitted as a variance at the direction of the Staff. After additional review by the County Attorney, it has been determined that the cited section of the Subdivision Ordinance does not apply to this situation. Therefore, a variance is not needed; however, Staff is requesting the Commission's concurrence on this request. A subdivision plat has been received on a 140-acre parcel located primarily in Washington Township, Franklin County, Pennsylvania. Approximately 6-acres of this property is located in Washington County, Maryland. A deed is recorded and a property tax identification number and parcel number have been assigned in Washington County. There is no proposed buildable area in Maryland. The developer is not creating any separate lots of record in Maryland. The Mason Dixon line bisects nine of the proposed lots. Staff is recommending that a subdivision plat for the nine lots should be recorded in Washington County with notes on the plat stating, "There shall be no development or disturbance on the land in Washington County" and "no new lots would be 160
created in Maryland". A stream runs through the Maryland portion of the property and would require a stream buffer. Washington Township has granted preliminary approval of the subdivision plat contingent upon all Washington County, Maryland requirements being addressed on the final subdivision plat. Mr. Ken Grove, attorney for the developer, stated that they have no objections to the Staff's request.
Mr. Moser made a motion for concurrence with the Staff and County Attorney's determinations. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.
- Subdivisions Arnett Farm Lot 1 and Tract 3 (S-06-007) Mr. Lung presented for review and approval the preliminary/final plat for the Arnett Farm, Lot 1 and Tract 3, located along the west side of Maryland Route 65, north of Rench Road, zoned H1-1 and HI-2. A preliminary consultation was held in 2005 for the proposed development including apartments, townhouses and commercial development on a total of 60 acres. The developer is proposing to create a 10.43-acre parcel that contains a house and outbuildings (called remaining lands). The plat also creates a strip of land that would serve as the future extension of Battle Creek Boulevard west of Maryland Route 65. The plat also addressed Forest Conservation requirements for the future development of this site. Planting areas on the remaining lands and around the proposed storm water management area would be established. The Planning Commission previously approved 3.61 acres of on-site planting and off-site planting at a 2:1 ratio (3 acres) in sensitive areas in the Sunset Meadows development near Clear Spring. This plat does not constitute approval of any new development on this property. Site plans and/or subdivision plats would be required prior to any development on this site. The plat has been revised to give the remaining lands a point of access onto a public road. The Washington County Department of Water Quality would provide sewer service to the site. A surety and two-year maintenance agreement would be required for the Forest Conservation planting area. Approvals are needed from the Washington County Health Department and the City of Hagerstown Water Department. A pre-annexation agreement by the developer is needed prior to City Water Department approval. All other agency approvals have been received. Discussion: The developer's consultant stated that a traffic study is currently in progress by a traffic engineer hired by several developers proposing new development projects in the area. The State and County have approved the scope for the traffic study.
Mr. Anikis made a motion to grant preliminary/final plat approval for Lot 1 and Tract 3 contingent upon approval from the City of Hagerstown Water Department and the Washington County Health Department and the submittal and approval of the surety for the planting area and a two year maintenance agreement. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Unanimously approved.
- Site Plans Phoenix Color (SP-05-058) Mr. Lung presented for review and approval the site plan for Phoenix Color located along the west side of Henson Boulevard. The developer is proposing to construct a 270' x 185' building to house 50,000-square feet of warehouse space and 500-square feet of office space. The property is zoned IG - Industrial General with an Airport Clear Zone overlay. The building would be located on a 3.74-acre parcel. A subdivision plat has been submitted to create the 3.74-acre parcel and a 6.36-acre parcel to the north of this site. The remaining 79 acres contains the existing Phoenix Color facility. Access to the site would be off Henson Boulevard. Parking required is 10 spaces and 12 spaces are provided inciuding handicapped spaces. An access road would surround the building. A loading dock would be provided in the rear of the building with a maximum of 10 dock doors. Pole mounted lighting would be located around the access road and within the parking lot and building mounted lights would be provided above the loading docks. A sign would be located at the entrance near Henson Boulevard and conforms to the applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. The Airport Clear Zone establishes maximum building height requirements based on the distance of the site from the runway. The proposed bUilding height of 27-feet meets the FAA's height requirement. Landscaping is proposed around the front of the bUilding, parking lot and access road. The Forest Conservation Ordinance requirement would be met by retaining 8.56 acres of existing forest on site. The City of Hagerstown would provide water and sewer service to the site. The site is located in the Joint Service Area with the Washington County Department of Water Quality owning the sewer lines and the City of Hagerstown treating the sewage. Approvals are needed from the City of Hagerstown Sewer Department and the Washington County Health Department. All other agency approvals have been received.
Mr. Reiber made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon approval from the Washington County Health Department and the City of Hagerstown Sewer Department, to grant approval of the Forest Conservation Plan to retain existing forest on-site and to grant Staff the authority to approve the subdivision plat. 161
The Barbara Fulton Academic BUilding & Powell Hall Renovation at Saint James School (SP-06-001 )
Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval the site plan for The Barbara Fulton Academic Building and Powell Hall Renovation at Saint James School located along the east side of College Road. The site is 31.48 acres and is zoned A - Agriculture. The applicant is proposing to renovate the eXisting Powell Hall. the existing Barbara Fulton Academic Building and to construct a 17.300-square foot addition with a courtyard and sidewalk. The Washington County Department of Water Quality would provide sewer service to the site. Water is provided by a privately owned and maintained water system. No additional parking would be required. The hours of operation are Monday through Friday. 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. An existing sign would be replaced by a 13" x 40" sign. Trash would be disposed in an existing dumpster. Pole-mounted lights. wall lanterns and building mounted wall tacks. would provide lighting. An area of less than 40,000-square feet would be disturbed during construction and. therefore. the site is exempt from Forest Conservation requirements. Landscaping would be provided and would include boxwood. azaleas. hydrangeas. holly. sugar maples and tulip poplars. All agency approvals have been received.
Mr. Moser made a motion to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.
- Preliminary Consultations The Townes at Rockspring (PC-OS-032) Ms. Pietro presented for review the Preliminary Consultation for The Townes at Rockspring (formerly known as Crosspoint Residential - Caruso Homes) located along the east side of Hickory School Road and west side of Massey Boulevard. south and adjacent to Petco and Target. The property was recently granted an RM zoning designation by the Board of County Commissioners. During the January 11. 2006 consultation. the developer proposed 146 townhouse units on 17 acres (a density of approximately 8 units per acre) with no remaining lands. The Washington County Engineering Department would require a storm water management area and a comprehensive traffic impact study to include the proposed Williamsport Ventures and Allison Avenue developments. The State Highway Administration also requested a traffic impact study with special attention being given to U.S. Route 11. Hickory School Road. Bower Avenue and Massey Boulevard. The developer proposed several dead-end streets and on-street parking to meet the parking requirement of 1.8 spaces per unit that was determined unacceptable by the County Engineering Department and the Planning Staff. The tot-lots and pre-teen lots should be more centrally located within the development. Walkway areas must be paved and school bus waiting areas must be approved by the Washington County Board of Education and must be shown on the plan. All interior streets are proposed to be private. Street lighting was recommended. A revised concept plan has been submitted proposing 136 townhouse units (a density of 7.8 units per acre). The dead-end streets are proposed to connect. The parking required is 245 spaces. The developer is proposing 206 spaces in driveways. 52 off street parking spaces including 3 RV spaces and 62 on-street parking spaces for a total of 319 spaces. A few of the private streets would be public streets. One of the proposed tot-lots wouid be a pre-teen lot. a school bus waiting area. street lighting and crosswalks have been added. A vegetative buffer and berm would be created along Beckley Avenue. The existing Leyland Cypress would be retained to buffer the development from the Target shopping center. The developer is proposing to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirement by retaining 2.48 acres of eXisting forest and a partial payment-in-lieu in the amount of $18.338.76.
Discussion: There was a brief discussion regarding a fence along the railroad track to ensure the safety of the children playing in the tot-lot located nearby. The developer stated he would install a fence. There was a brief discussion regarding the private roads within the development. Ms. Pietro stated that the roads are not built to County standards. A Homeowner's Association would be responsible for snow removal on the private streets. Commission members also expressed concern that there is not enough street lighting proposed.
Comment: Mr. Kercheval noted that during the rezoning process. traffic was a major concern for this area. The Board of County Commissioners granted approval of the rezoning request contingent upon a detailed traffic study being completed. He stated that the developer was not guaranteed any specific density and would depend upon the impact of traffic during the approval process. Mr. Kercheval expressed concern regarding the volume of traffic and if upgrades could be provided to address the problems. A representative from Caruso Homes stated that a traffic impact analysis for this development has been completed in accordance with State and County guidelines and presented to the Washington County Engineering Department for their review.
Mr. Anikis expressed his concern regarding fire safety issues due to the private streets and snow removal in the winter.
No action required. 162
Taylor's Run (PC-05-031) Mr. Lung presented for review and comment the Preliminary Consultation for Taylor's Run located along the west side of Hopeweii Road, north of Wright Road. A consultation was previously held in 2004 that proposed 202 single-family residential lots. The revised concept plan proposes 142 lots including 106 semi-detached dwelling unit lots and 35 single-family dwelling unit iots on 109 acres (the density is 1.3 dweiiing units per acre). The property is zoned RR Residential Rural and lies within the Urban Growth Area. The clustering concept is no longer proposed. Mr. Lung stated that the Stafl's comments were essentially the same as the comments on the previous concept. The developer is proposing to meet the Forest Conservation requirement by on-site retention and on-site planting and off-site planting as previously approved by the Planning Commission. The coiiector road through the property would be an open section street and the interior local streets would be closed section streets with sidewalks. A future street connection to adjoining residential zoned land to the north is proposed. Buffering and fencing would be required along the railroad tracks. The strip of land located between relocated Wright Road and the railroad right-of-way would be owned and maintained by a Homeowner's Association. The Homeowner's Association would also maintain the Forest Conservation area on the site. This development is proposed to be age-restricted in accordance with HUD guidelines. A revised traffic study would be required.
Discussion: There was a brief discussion regarding street lighting for the development. Several members expressed concern that street lighting is not proposed and believe there is safety concerns especially since this is an age-restricted development. The developer, Mr. Sasson Shaool stated he would be willing to provide street lighting.
No action required.
9:00 p.m. - Mr. Clopper called for a five-minute recess. 9:05 p.m. - The meeting resumed.
Williamsport Ventures. LLC (PC-06-001)
Mr. Goodrich presented for review and comment the Preliminary Consultation for Williamsport Ventures located along the south side of Sterling Road, east side of Doub Road and north side of Kendle Road. Mr. Goodrich stated that this is the second preliminary consultation for this property to present revisions to the concept pian foiiowing a public hearing for rezoning the property in September 2005. The number of dwelling units was reduced from 1280 to 967 units and the density was reduced from 3.89 units per acre to 2.93 dweiiing units per acre. The developer is proposing 97 senior-restricted units. The proposed school site has been moved into the development along Sterling Road and the developer is proposing a 25,500-square foot commercial site within the development.
Comments: Commission members expressed their concern regarding sewer capacity issues, traffic issues, school capacity issues, and road adequacy issues. The developer is proposing to meet the Forest Conservation requirement by on-site retention and planting. Mr. Anikis stated his opinion that the commercial area should be moved to the interior of the development and would be more convenient for residents of the development. He also stated that he believes the proposed number of homes is too large for a development at the edge of the Growth Area. Mr. Kercheval stated that if the development is approved and moves forward, there are severai issues that would need to be addressed regarding traffic issues prior to the beginning of any construction.
Per Mr. Anikis' request, Mr. Goodrich presented brief comments regarding the historic structures located on the property. He stated that members of the Historic District Commission visited the site and modified their previous recommendations based on the site visit. The HDC recognized that the information contained in the Historic Sites Inventory was incorrect and that the building is a solid brick structure and not a log-cased brick structure and there is no signification architectural characteristics. They also acknowledged that the farm buildings are not worthy of retention and retracted their previous recommendation.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mayor and Council of Boonsboro Annexation Request
Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation the proposed annexation of 32.49 acres, more or less, along South Main Street. The purpose of the annexation is to provide municipal water and sewer service to existing commercial properties. A portion of the property on both the north and south sides of South Main Street is existing commercial properties and are designated as Commercial on the 2002 adopted Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning GC - General Commercial is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and requires no further action by the Board of County Commissioners. Approximately 9 acres of the property is proposed for SR - Suburban Residential zoning and would be surrounded on three sides by commercially zoned property. This portion of the property is inconsistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan; however, Staff would recommend that the Board of County Commissioner's 163
grant, "express approval" in order that the property could be developed without the five-year waiting period.
Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners "express approval" for the proposed annexation. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously approved.
Town of Smithsburg - "Frey Annexation"
Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation the proposed annexation of 3.04 acres located on the north side of Crystal Falls Drive. The property consists of two parcels and the larger parcel is proposed to be subdivided into two lots upon annexation. The property is designated as low density residential on the 2002 adopted Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning is SR - Suburban Residential and is consistent with the RR zoning and the LOR Comprehensive Plan. It is Staff's opinion that no further action is required by the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Anikis made a motion to recommend that the proposed annexation is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and that no further action is required by the Board of County Commissioners. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Unanimously approved.
Town of Smithsburg - "Fleming Annexation"
Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation the proposed annexation of 4.5 acres iocated on the north side of Cave Hill Road. The property is proposed to be subdivided into singie-family residential lots upon annexation. The property is designated as low density of the 2002 adopted Comprehensive Plan. The proposed zoning is SR - Suburban Residential and is consistent with the RR zoning and the LOR Comprehensive Plan. It is Staff's opinion that no further action is required by the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend that the proposed annexation is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and that no further action is required by the Board of County Commissioners. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.
Election of Officers
Mr. Thompson noted that in the Planning Commission's By-iaws, Section 4, Article 5 it states, "Vacancies in offices shall be filled by the adopted election procedure at the first regular meeting of the Commission following notification of the vacancy." Due to the resignation of Mr. Ardinger on February 17, 2006, the Commission must elect a new Chairman.
Mr. Reiber made a motion to elect Vice Chairman Ben Clopper as the new Chairman. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.
Mr. Moser made a motion to elect Mr. Anikis as the new Vice Chairman. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. Unanimously approved.
UPCOMING MEETINGS
1. Joint Rezoning Hearing, Monday, March 13,2006,7:00 p.m., Washington County Court House, Room #1,95 West Washington Street 2. Joint Rezoning Hearing, Monday, March 20, 2006, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Court House, Room #1,95 West Washington Street 3. Regular Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, April 3, 2006, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baitimore Street
Mr. Thompson noted that the Court House has also been reserved for Monday, March 27, 2006 in the event that the rezoning cases cannot be completed on the two previous dates.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Moser made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 p.m. So ordered.
Respectfully submitted,
irman 164
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 3, 2006
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, April 3, 2006, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown.
Members present were: Chairman R. Ben Clopper, Linda Parrish, Bernard Moser, George Anikis, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Timothy A. Lung, Senior Planners Lisa Kelly Pietro and Misty Wagner-Grillo, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Ben Clopper called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Thompson stated that the Update for the Hunter Hills Preliminary Consultation has been removed from the Agenda.
Mr. Thompson introduced two new Planning staff members, Sara Henke and Traci Enciso, to the members of the Planning Commission.
MINUTES
Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 18, 2006 Workshop meeting as presented. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.
Mr. Anlkis made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 6, 2006 regular meeting as presented. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS The Townes at Rockspring (PC-OS-032) Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval the revised concept plan for The Townes at Rockspring located along the east side of Hickory School Road and west side of Massey Boulevard, south and adjacent to Petco and Target. The property is zoned RM. The developer is proposing 136 town homes on 17 acres (a density of approximately 7.8 units/acre). During the March 6, 2006 meeting, Planning Commission members expressed their concerns regarding the placement of a fence along the railroad tracks to address safety issues, the proposed private roads within the development, the location of tot lots within the development, the lack of sufficient street lighting, the impact of traffic in the area, and the proposed method to meet the Forest Conservation requirements. As stated in a letter from the developer's consultant, the developer has agreed to reconfigure the street lighting as proposed to provide a safe and aesthetically pleasing neighborhood. They have also agreed to add a privacy fence along the railroad right-of-way adjacent to the proposed conservation easement and a landscaped berm to buffer adjoining residential properties. Adequate off-street parking has been proposed so parked cars will not block the private streets. A completed traffic study has been reviewed by the County Engineering Department to address traffic concerns in the area. Mr. McGee of the Engineering Department stated in a memorandum to the Planning Department that Hickory School Road is more than adequate to handle the additional traffic from this development. However, there could be an issue with the traffic signal at the intersection of Bower Avenue and Mr. McGee was waiting for comments from the State Highway Administration.
Comment: Mr. Kercheval stated that he spoke with Mr. McGee prior to the meeting. Mr. McGee noted that he had just received correspondence from a representative of the State Highway Administration stating that the signal warrants have been met. Mr. McGee commented that the State Highway Administration might require a traffic signal to be installed by the developer.
Ms. Pietro also presented a proposal regarding the Forest Conservation requirement that requires 6.7 acres of aforestation. The developer is proposing to meet the requirement by retaining 2.5 acres of forest on-site and to double the partial payment in lieu.
Discussion: Mr. Anikis expressed concern that the proposed tot lots are located too close to the streets and present safety issues. He recommended relocating the centrai park area to the area located between proposed units 7 and 8 on the east side of Marble Avenue. A representative from Caruso Homes, owner/developer, stated they could switch the proposed tot lot along Granite Avenue with the proposed pre-teen lot located along Slate Street and relocate the central park area as recommended by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Anikis made an inquiry regarding the excavating business located on Beckley Avenue that stores explosives on their property. Ms. Pietro has spoken to a representative from the State of Maryland Mines Office and the State Fire Marshall and has been informed that the owner of the excavating business would be required to meet all setback requirements and provide sufficient storage for the explosives.
Mr. Moser stated his opinion that the proposed street lighting being placed at both ends of each row of town homes and spaced approximately 125-feet to 150-feet apart would be adequate. 165
Mr. Clopper recommended that vinyl fencing should be used in the area along the railroad tracks because it is more durable and requires less maintenance in the future.
Mr. Moser expressed his concern regarding maintenance Issues for the private streets that would be maintained by a Homeowners Association. Ms. Pietro stated that all documents regarding the Homeowners Association would be reviewed by the County Attorney's office.
Mr. Reiber commended the developer for their efforts regarding the Forest Conservation requirement.
Mr. Anikis made a motion to accept the developer's proposal to retain 2.5 acres of forest on-site and to double the partial payment-in-lieu to meet the Forest Conservation requirement. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Unanimously approved.
Mr. Moser made a motion to grant approval of the private streets (Sandstone Drive, Slate Street, Marble Avenue and Quartz Road) contingent upon appropriate Homeowner Association documents being adopted, approval of a vinyl fence being installed along the railroad track, approval of the relocation of the tot lot and the pre-teen lot as discussed, and approval of the street lighting as proposed on the revised concept plan. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS • Variances Pollin Development LLC, Alan Pollin (SV'06'016) Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a variance for Pollin Development LLC located along the east side of Sharpsburg Pike south of its intersection with Manor Church Road in Tilghmanton. The property is zoned Rural Village with a Historic District overlay. The developer is proposing to create a four or five lot development on 10.5 acres. All lots would connect to a proposed new street that would . connect with Sharpsburg Pike. An existing house and several outbuildings are located on the site close to Sharpsburg Pike. The driveway for the existing house would connect to the proposed new street. The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 405.1 of the County's Subdivision Ordinance that requires all new access points to be 500-feet from adjacent access points on a minor arterial roadway (Sharpsburg Pike). The property has minimal frontage and the separations cannot be obtained. The proposed street would be located 80-feet south and 117-feet north of two existing driveways. Mr. John Wolford, a representative of the State Highway Administration has reviewed the plat and made a field check of the property. He states that the site does meet their required sight distance of 700-feet. Since the property is located within a Rural Village and has a Historic District overlay, houses built on these lots must be reviewed by the Historic District Commission to insure that the size and appearance of the house is compatible with the eXisting historic homes in the area.
Discussions: Mr. Moser inquired about the number of proposed lots in the subdivision. Mr. Dennis Ellis, prospective buyer, stated that due to the rocky topography of the site it might not be possible to get more than four perc tests approved on the site.
Mr. Clopper inquired if the cul-de-sac would be built to County road standards. Mr. Townsley, consultant, stated there would be a 50-foot right-of-way and accel/decel lanes would be added as required by the State Highway Administration. The proposed street wouid be a public street and would be dedicated to the County.
Mr. Thompson inquired if the accel/decel lanes could be eliminated to prevent an adverse appearance within the rural village. Mr. Ellis stated that the accelldecel lanes would be located directly in front of the property and they have not contacted the State Highway Administration regarding this issue. Mr. Thompson suggested creating a series of panhandles with a common drive to access the lots. Mr. Ellis stated he would be agreeable to that suggestion; however, that would create the stacking of lots and would also require a variance. Mr. Moser expressed his opinion that the proposed new street and subdivision would distract from the character of the historic area in Tilghmanton.
Mr. Anikis stated that infill development within a Rural Village is intended for vacant property. He believes that the 10-acre farmette, iocated on the way to Antietam Battlefield, does not qualify as vacant property since there are existing structures located on the property that were built around the 1850's. There are several large parcels adjoining and adjacent to the site and many of the homes in the area were built in the 1870's and 1880's. He believes this parcel is consistent with the north end of the Rural Village of Tilghmanton. Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that development within the rural villages would be detrimental to the preservation of Washington County's history.
Mr. Reiber noted that several of the parcels in close proximity of the site are not the same style and size of the subject parcel.
Ms. Parrish noted that if the property were developed, the Historic District Commission would review the homes so they would be compatible with the existing homes in the area.
Mr. Moser made a motion to deny the variance. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. 166
Discussion: Mr. Reiber asked Mr. Moser if the request is in violation of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Moser answered that he beiieves the request is in vioiation of the Ordinance because it is "an inappropriately scaled development that would detract from the existing rural history and character of this village".
Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that the Commission shouid vote only on the variance request and should work out what would be allowed on the property in the future. Ms. Pietro noted that if the variance request is approved and the developer proposes four lots on the property, the Pianning Commission would not review the plat because it would be an administrative approval. She aiso stated that the request is not in compliance with the County's Highway Plan.
Mr. Moser's motion to deny the variance passed with Mr. Moser, Mr. Anikis, Ms. Parrish and Mr. Clopper voting "Aye" and Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Reiber, and Mr. Wiley voting "Nay".
Robert E. Cody, Jr. (SV-06-014) Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a variance request for Robert E. Cody, Jr. located along the north side of Maryiand Route 68 just west of Pinesburg Road. The applicant owns approximateiy 53 acres. The portion of the property that fronts on Clear Spring Road has a zoning designation of RV Rural Village and the remainder of the property is zoned EC - Environmental Conservation. The property was previously zoned A - Agricultural. Lot 1, Parcel 282 was approved in 1980 and Lot 2, Parcel 300 was approved in 1984. In August 2005, the Planning Commission denied a variance from Section 405.11.6.2 that requires all new building lots to have frontage and direct access to a public road. Since that time, Dr. Cody has been working with the State Highway Administration to obtain two access points on Maryland Route 68 that meet the SHA's sight distance requirements. Proposed Lots 3 and 4 are located on the west side of the property and would utilize a shared access and meet all of the current Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Proposed Lots 5, 6 and 7 are located on the east side of the property and would share a single access point thereby creating a three tier stacking of lots that is not permitted under Section 405.11.G.4 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Lots 6 and 7 are panhandle lots and .are within the 400-foot panhandle limit of the Subdivision Ordinance. According to the application, the reason for the variance is due to adverse topographic conditions. It is more desirable to locate proposed Lot 7 directly north of proposed Lot 5 due to severe sloping conditions and would be more conducive to perc test locations and a septic system. The subdivision has been designed to allow adequate frontage available at the access point to allow construction of a public street should additional lots be proposed in the future. The plat would contain an easement to convey the portion of the panhandle for the construction of a street if additional lots are proposed on the remaining lands in the future. The potential for additional development on the remaining lands is limited due to the EC - Environmental Conservation zoning designation.
Mr. Moser made a motion to grant approval of the variance contingent upon a public road to be constructed if there is any future subdivision of the remaining lands. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.
Westview - David Myers (SV-06-01S)
Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a variance request for Westview, David Myers, located along Water Company Road in Cascade. The property is 7.52 acres and is zoned RV - Rural Village. The owner is proposing to subdivide five lots on the property with four panhandles and is requesting a variance from Section 405.11.G.3 of the Subdivision Ordinance that states there should be no more than two panhandles lots that have adjoining driveway entrances to a public right-of-way. Proposed Lot 2 would have a panhandle of 519-feet, proposed Lot 3 would have a panhandle of 485-feet and proposed Lot 4 would have a panhandle of 451-feel. The Ordinance limits the length of a panhandle to 400-feel. Due to the existing width of Water Company Road (16-feet), a maximum of four lots would be permitted. Therefore, prior to the meeting, the applicant amended the request proposing four lots with three panhandles. The lot and panhandle that would be eliminated has not been determined.
Discussion: Several of the members believed there was not sUfficient information due to the developer's desire to amend the variance request and expressed their desire to have a new plan with the changes the developer is proposing.
At the request of the owner, Mr. Myers, the variance request was tabled.
No action required.
- SUBDIVISIONS Powers Estates (PP-OS-007) Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval the preliminary plat for Powers Estates located along the west side of Maryland Route 63 (Greencastle Pike), north of Route 40. The 82-acre site is located in the Urban Growth Area and is zoned A- Agriculture. The developer is proposing 118 lots utilizing approximately one-half of the property with the remaining lands set aside as open space that would be maintained by a Homeowner's Association. The cluster development concept was approved by the Planning Commission on May 9, 2005 contingent upon the developer including sidewalks and closed section streets that have been added to the plans. The proposed development design would be based on 167 the Residential Suburban designation requirements that would require a minimum 10,000-square foot lot size, a 70-foot lot width, a 25-foot front yard setback, an 8-foot wide side yard setback a 40-foot rear yard setback. The developer is proposing a pavilion, a mUiti-purpose field with parking, and walking trails for the open space area. Public water and sewer would serve the site. Two accesses on Maryland Route 63 are proposed. The Forest Conservation requirement would be met by on-site retention of 18.61 acres of forest. A buffer is proposed along Maryland Route 63 for Lots 1 - 5 that would include white pine and redbud. A note would be required on the plat to make buyers aware of the existing landfill in close proximity to the property. The Department of Emergency Services requested Planning Commission approval for the development to be contingent upon the developer setting aside a 3 to 5 acre parcel of land for a new fire emergency station. However, the developer has not agreed to this request. The proposed subdivision is located in the Conococheague Elementary, Clear Spring Middle and Clear Spring High school districts. The Conococheague Elementary School is currently over capacity. The Homeowher's Association documents are currently being reviewed by the County Engineering Department and County Attorney.
Discussion: There was a brief discussion regarding wetlands on the property. Ms. Wagner-Grillo stated that a note was required by the County Engineering Department for Lots 53-59 and 63-72 that no basements would be allowed on these lots due to the wetlands.
There was a brief discussion regarding the fire emergency station requested by the Department of Emergency Services. There are several fire stations located in close proximity to the development site such as Williamsport, Maugansville, Clear Spring and Hagerstown. Mr. Kercheval does not believe the Commission has the authority to grant approval contingent upon the developer meeting this request. Other members of the Commission concurred with Mr. Kercheval.
Comment: Mr. Kercheval stated that a mitigation agreement has been forwarded to the Board of Education regarding school capacity issues.
Mr. Reiber made a motion to grant preliminary plat approval contingent upon approval from the Washington County Engineering Department and Washington County Attorney regarding the Homeowner's Association documents. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved.
- SITE PLANS
AC&T Truck Maintenance Facility (SP-05-058)
Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a site plan for the AC&T Truck Maintenance facility located west of the Halfway Boulevard and Hopewell Road intersection. The property is 37 acres and is zoned HI-l - Highway Interchange 1. In 1997, the applicant received a Special Exception to establish a traveler's plaza on this site. The applicant is proposing to construct a 200' x 100' building for a truck maintenance facility in the area west of the existing travel center. Access to the facility would be from the existing entrance on Hopewell Road. The hours of operation would be Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. There would be ten employees. Parking required is 11 spaces and 11 spaces are provided including a handicapped space. A small office area would be associated with the maintenance facility. Grass islands are proposed in front of the parking lot. Staff has requested additional landscaping along the property fronting on Hopewell Road and has been provided by the developer. Building mounted and pole mounted lights are proposed. Three 4'x 8' signs are proposed for a total of 96 square feet and meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Storm water management would be provided by an existing pond to the rear of the building and has been approved by the County Engineering Department. They currently have 99 EDU's of sewer capacity allocated for this site and currently use 86 EDU's. Therefore, additional sewer allocation is not needed for the site. The Department of Water Quality provides sewer service to the site and has issued their approval for the project. The City of Hagerstown Water Department provides water service to the site and has issued their approval for the project. There would not be any outside storage of materials. The Forest Conservation requirement for the entire site was approved in 1998 by payment in lieu. Staff has requested that the existing gravel parking area be paved in accordance with requirements set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. However, this issue must be reviewed and addressed by the Zoning Coordinator to establish if the area is exempt since a site plan was previously approved showing the gravel parking area and if the expansion would require the parking area to be paved.
Mr. Anikis made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon a resolution and agreement between the County and the owner regarding the gravel parking area. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.
Bethel United Methodist Church Revision (SP-05-067) Mr. Lung presented for review and approval the revised site plan for the Bethel United Methodist Church located on the north side of Twin Springs Drive in the rural village of Chewsville. The applicant is requesting approval to reduce the area set aside for buffering to the adjoining residential property and to allow development of the site. In June 2003, the Planning Commission approved a site plan for the construction of 80' x 100' buiidlng addition to the rear of the existing church and an additional parking area located to the rear of the building addition. The site plan provided for a buffer yard between the proposed parking lot and an adjacent residential property to the rear of the site. At that time, Staff expressed their concern regarding the sufficiency of the proposed iandscaping and buffer yard to provide adequate screening to the adjacent property. Staff also expressed concern regarding the proposed 168
building mounted lighting due to glare and light trespass onto adjoining properties. The Commission's approval was contingent upon additional plantings along the rear property line and the appropriate lighting being specified. FOllowing the meeting, the additional screen planting was provided and a detail of a fUll cut-off down directed light fixture was provided on the site plan and was approved by the Staff on August 6, 2003. In September 2005, the Church was notified by the Permits and Inspections Department that the site was in violation of the approved site plan for not deveioping the site in accordance with the plan. The Zoning Inspector found the parking area to the rear of the addition was extended beyond what was shown on the site plan, a retaining wall was constructed without a permit, and underground propane tanks were installed that were not shown on the plan. At that time, the Church was instructed to correct the violations by removing the pavement, retaining wall and propane tanks and install landscaping as required on the site plan. The Church was given the option to submit a revised site plan to the Planning Commission for review and approval; however, the Staff recommended that the site be developed as originally approved. A revised site plan was submitted on December 14, 2005 that shows the buffer yard along the rear property line was reduced by approximately 5-feet. Plantings of 4 to 5-foot Leyland Cypress interspaced with 18" to 24" globe arborvitae were provided within the buffer yard. The original site plan shows a totai of 21 Leyland Cypress planted 6-feet on center; the revised plan shows 19 Leyland Cypress planted 10 feet on center. The spacing was increased as recommended by the Permits Department due to the reduced area available for planting. Two ornamental Dogwood trees shown on the original site plan were also removed from the revised site plan. The approved site plan called for full cut-off building mounted iights to be installed on the rear of the building. The fixtures installed are wall pack style fixtures that create more glare and light trespass. During the review of the revised site plan, the Department of Permits and Inspections discovered numerous items that were not addressed on the original site plan. One item was the need for landscaped islands within the parking lot as required by the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant has prOVided the landscaped islands. Mr. Lung presented several photographs of the site as it has been constructed.
Discussion: Mr. Reiber inqUired how the errors were made and why the approved site plan was not followed. Mr. Robert Stouffer of Cushwa and Stouffer, architect, noted that the light fixtures on the exterior of the bUilding were designed by Antietam Design. The installed wall pack was not as specified, -but could be shielded by a piece of metal or could be removed and replaced by the appropriate fixture. Mr. Stouffer assured Commission members that the lighting issue would be corrected. He stated that the Church hired a subcontractor to install the propane tanks and permits to install the tanks were obtained by the subcontractor. Mr. Lung stated that propane tanks were not proposed on the original site plan. Mr. Wiley inquired if the Permits and Inspections Department would have reviewed the site plan, prior to issuing a permit for the propane tanks. Mr. Lung stated that he could not speak on behalf of the Permit & Inspections Department, but he believes that the Permits Department should check the approved site plan prior to issuance of a permit. Mr. Moser and Mr. Anikis do not beiieve that piacing a shield on the eXisting light fixture is adequate and that the light should be replaced according to the specifications on the approved site plan. Mr. Clopper inquired about the setbacks required for the retaining wall. Mr. Lung stated that setbacks are not an issue; however, the retaining wall was not proposed on the approved site plan. The retaining wall is necessary to handle the slope created by the additional grading of the site. Mr. Anikis inquired how the pavement could be extended five feet if the contractor had an approved site plan to follow. Mr. Belella, a representative of the Church, noted that there was insufficient area to provide parking spaces to the rear of the building, and the contractor decided to extend the parking area without the Church's consent. He also stated that due to the grading of the area, the Trustees of the Church decided to construct the retaining wall to address problems that could arise from runoff in the future. The Church intended to submit a revised site plan to address these issues. Mr. Belella stated that the Church would like to complete their project and they are willing to compromise and be flexible with the neighboring property owners.
Comments: Mr. Wiley believes that many of the issues go beyond a reasonable, common sense factor. Mr. Reiber believes that the contractor blatantly created the issues. He stated that the Commission approved a plan that should have been followed or revisions submitted prior to proceeding with the work. Mr. Moser noted that prior to approval of the site plan, the Commission expressed concern regarding the bUffering between the proposed addition and the adjacent property. Mr. Clopper stated his opinion that when the Commission approves a site plan, they are approving a contract between Washington County, a builder, an owner, a developer and a contractor. Mr. Kercheval believes that the buffering is adequate since only two trees were not planted as required by the approved site plan. He recommended planting additional trees in the vertical tree line toward the back of the parking area that wouid provide more of a buffer to protect the adjacent property and would provide a better viewshed. Mr. Kercheval does not believe the Church intentionally created the problems, but the contractor might have acted negligently in fOllowing the approved plans. He believes that the retaining wall could provide a better noise buffer for the adjacent property and does not see the benefit In tearing up the parking lot to gain the additional buffer footage and planting two additional trees. Mr. Wiley concurred with Mr. Kercheval's comments regarding the buffering issues and believes that a compromise could be achieved to satisfy all parties involved. He does feel that the existing lighting should be removed and replaced with the fixture specified on the approved site plan. Ms. Bramson, neighboring property owner, believes the Church should remove the parking spaces and the retaining wall and widen the buffer area to 10-feet as shown on the approved site plan. She stated the 10-foot buffer was previously agreed upon and would provide her with a better buffer from the noise of the Church's activities. Ms. Parrish believes if the revised site plan had been submitted prior to the work being done, the Commission most likely would have approved the plan. She also does not believe that the five-foot buffer and two additional trees would have a great impact on the noise buffer. She believes there could be a better solution that could provide a better screen than in the original approved site plan. 169
Discussion.: There was a brief discussion regarding options for more buffering such as a privacy fence or more trees. Commission members discussed having a professional look at the exposed tree roots and the buffering area to find the best solution for saving the existing vegetation and make a recommendation for the best way to provide screening. Mr. Lung suggested contacting a horticulturist from the County's Extension Service or the Department of Natural Resources to determine the extent of any damage to the existing trees. They may also be able to determine any negative impact there might be to the tree roots if holes are bored to install a fence.
Mr. Moser made a motion to table the revised site plan until a recommendation regarding the buffering and the negative impact of the existing trees can be determined. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved.
• PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS Overdale Estates (PC·06·003) Ms. Wagner·Grilio presented for review and comment the Preliminary Consultation for Overdale Estates located aiong Maryland Route 64. The developer is proposing a minor subdivision consisting of five lots with a public street. Individual wells and septic would serve the site.
Discussion: Mr. Kercheval inquired if this one section is only part of a larger development. Ms. Wagner· Grillo stated that she asked the developer to remove "Section A" from the plat title because this implies that there would be future sections and it is not the intent of the minor subdivision exemption (APFO schools) to allow major subdivisions to be submitted as a series of minor subdivisions. The developer could get four additional lots on this property. Members of the Commission expressed their concern that the developer might be trying to by-pass the APFO school capacity issues with a series of minor subdivisions.
There was a discussion regarding public sewer and water services in this area. Mr. Moser expressed his . concern regarding the availability of funds to upgrade and extend the sewer service areas within the County in the future.
- OTHER BUSINESS CP·06·001 - Heart of the Civil Water Heritage Area Management Plan Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation the Staff Report and Analysis Following the Public Hearing for the Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to incorporate reference to the Heart of the Civil War Area Management Plan.
Mr. Anikis made a motion to recommend approval of the Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to the Board of County Commissioners. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval and Mr. Moser abstained.
SO-06-001 - Text Amendment to Article 319 of the Subdivision Ordinance Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation the Staff Report and Analysis Following the Public Hearing for the Text Amendment to Article 319 of the Subdivision Ordinance. The purpose of the amendment is to delete references to specific fees within the Subdivision Ordinance and would provide general language that would permit fees to be established by resolution by the Board of County Commissioners in conjunction with the Ordinance.
Mr. Anikis made a motion to recommend approval of the Text Amendment to Article 319 of the Subdivision Ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval and Mr. Moser abstained.
FCO-06-001 - Text Amendment to Article 19 of the Forest Conservation Ordinance Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation the Staff Report and Analysis Following the Public Hearing for the Text Amendment to Article 19 of the Forest Conservation Ordinance. The purpose of the amendment is to delete references to specific fees within the Forest Conservation Ordinance and would provide general language that would permit fees to be established by resolution by the Board of County Commissioners in conjunction with the Ordinance.
Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend approval of the Text Amendment to Article 19 of the Forest Conservation Ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval and Mr. Moser abstained.
RZ-06-001 - Text Amendment to Section 24.3 of the Zoning Ordinance Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation the Staff Report and Analysis Following the Public Hearing for the Text Amendment to Article 24.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the amendment is to allow the Board of County Commissioners to establish fees by resolution for specific services rendered under the Zoning Ordinance. 170
Mr. Anikis made a motion to recommend approval of the Text Amendment to Section 24.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to the Board of County Commissioners. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval and Mr. Moser abstained.
City of Hagerstown - Hamilton Property Annexation Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation the City of Hagerstown A-06-01 Hamilton Annexation request. The 2.54-acre tract of land is located along the west side of U.S. Route 40 and is designated as commercial on the 2002 adopted Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is proposing a C-2 Commercial General zoning designation that is consistent with the existing HI-1 County zoning designation.
Mr. Anikis made a motion to recommend that the proposed zoning designation is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan for Washington County. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained.
There was a brief discussion regarding a date for the Commission's next Workshop meeting and joint meeting with the City Planning Commission. A date of Monday, May 22, 2006 was chosen. Mr. Thompson will coordinate this date with the City Planning Commission.
Mr. Thompson advised Commission members that he would be presenting a proposed fee schedule to the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, April 4, 2006. The proposed fee schedule would include changes to the fees charged by the Planning Department for sUbmittal and review of deveiopment plans. A public hearing would be held on Tuesday, April 25, 2006.
- UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Joint Rezoning Hearing, Monday, April 10, 2006, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Court House, Court Room #1, 95 West Washington Street 2. Regular Planning Commission meeting, Monday, May 1, 2006, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 W. Baltimore Street
- ADJOURNMENT Mr. Moser made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:25. So ordered.
Respectfully submitted, 171
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - MAY 1, 2006
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, May 1, 2006, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown.
Members present were: Vice Chairman George Anikis, Linda Parrish, Bernard Moser, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Timothy A. Lung, Senior Planner Misty Wagner-Grillo, Land Preservation Planner Eric Seifarth, Assistant Land Preservation Planner Holly Thibault, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.
CALL TO ORDER
Vice Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES
Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 3, 2006 Regular Planning Commission meeting as amended. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS Westview - David Myers (SV-06-015) Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a variance from Subdivision Ordinance Section 405.11.G.3 for Westview - David Myers, Harms & Associates. The property is located at 14418 Water Company Road, Cascade. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow three panhandle lots on 7.25 acres zoned RV - Rural Village. The Ordinance states, "Not more than two (2) panhandle lots may have . adjoining driveway entrances to a public right-of-way". The applicant is also requesting a variance for the panhandle on Lot 3 that exceeds the maximum length for a panhandle of 400-feet. The proposed panhandle is 460-feet.
Discussion: There was a brief discussion regarding the amount of frontage to allow for the width of the panhandles with the steep topography in the area. The applicant stated that he is proposing to improve and use the existing 12·foot gravel driveway as a common access to serve all the lots. There was also a brief discussion regarding the adequacy of the road for fire and emergency service access. The applicant assured the Commission that the road would be adequate to handle large equipment and fire apparatus.
Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the variance for three panhandle lots and to allow the panhandle on Lot 3 to exceed the maximum 400-foot length. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved.
Bethel United Methodist Church Revision (SP-05-067) Mr. Lung presented for review and approval the revised site plan for the Bethel United Methodist Church. A decision to approve or deny the revised plan was tabled during the April 3, 2006 meeting pending Staff obtaining additional information for the Commission's review. The original site plan was not followed in regard to the width of the buffer yard, underground propane tanks were installed that were not shown on the plan, and the building mounted lighting was not as specified on the plan. Mr. Lung has obtained additional information regarding possible root damage to eXisting trees, the feasibility of placing the proposed plants in the area shown on the revised site plan, and the feasibility of installing a fence in the buffer yard. Mr. Lung made a site visit with Ms. Lori Young of the Ag Extension Office along with church representatives on April 17, 2006. After reviewing the site, Ms. Young determined that there was no apparent damage to the existing trees and did not believe there is a need for any root pruning. She did recommend some pruning of dead and dangerous limbs on some of the trees. She indicated that additional screening can be accomplished within the reduced buffer area but did not recommend using all Leyiand Cypress as indicated on the plan. Ms. Young provided a list of plant material that should work in the buffer area and indicated where the planting should be located. On April 19, 2006, Mr. Lung met with church representatives and the Ms. Bramson, adjacent property owner. Ms. Bramson indicated that she would prefer an 8-foot privacy fence in place of the plantings. The church is in agreement with the installation of a privacy fence. Landscaping is proposed to the west of the fence and would include arborvitae, Leyland Cypress, holly, and junipers to be interspersed throughout the existing trees.
Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the 8-foot privacy fence as agreed upon by the Church and Ms. Bramson, additional landscaping west of the fence, and to change the bUilding mounted lighting as specified on the original site plan. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS • Agricultural Land Preservation District Applications Prior to his presentation, Mr. Seifarth introduced Ms. Holly Thibault, Assistant Ag Planner.
Mr. Seifarth presented for review and approval six agricultural land preservation districts. It is the Commission's responsibility to determine if the establishment of the proposed ag districts are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The following requirements are used by the Ag Advisory Board to 172
determine if the properties meet the ag criteria: the properties must be at least 50% Class I, II and III soils; property must be at least 50 acres in size; and other determinations as approved by the Ag Board. The Planning Commission must determine if the properties are outside the Growth Area and there must be no planned water or sewer service. The following properties were proposed for agricultural land preservation districts:
• Kriner Farm LLC, Application #AD-06-004, 11065 Dam No.5 Road, Clear Spring, 171.0 acres • Steven Palmer, Application #AD-02-001, 16290 Spielman Road, Williamsport, 145.87 acres • Carolyn Ann Barkdoll, Application #AD-06-003, St. Paul Road, Clear Spring, 70 acres • Betty Jane Oller, Application #AD-06-002, Watery Lane, southeast of Ringgold Road, 98.912 acres • Franklin E. Barnhart, Application #AD-01-002, Southeast corner of the intersections of Broadfording and Sprinkler Roads, 5 miles east of Clear Spring, 178.9 acres • Constance E. Thomas, Appplication #AD-05-001, 7301 Solomons Valley Lane, Boonsboro, 201.8 acre
Mr. Seifarth stated that the County currently has seven implemented easement programs and the County Commissioners have approved funding to develop a TDR (Transferable Development Rights) program. There are approximately 20,000 acres under permanent easement and an additional 21,000 acres in the ten-year ag districts. The County Commissioners goal is to have 50,000 acres in permanent easement or approximately 1/6 of the County's area.
Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the proposed agricultural districts because they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained.
- Preliminary Consultations Mt. Aetna Subdivision, Lots 32-34 and 35-39 (PC-06-004 and PC-06-005) Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and comment the preliminary consultation for Mt. Aetna Subdivision located along the south side of Mt. Aetna Road. The property is zoned EC - Environmental Conservation. The deveioper is proposing eight single-family residential lots on approximately 24 acres. Proposed lots 32 - 34 would be subdivided from existing lot 4 and lots 35 - 39 would be subdivided from the remainder of the property. The developer is proposing a cul-de-sac greater than 800-feet. The cul de-sac would be 1,490-feet and would replace the panhandles On existing Lots 4 and 24 to serve the proposed eight lots.
Discussion: Mr. Moser stated that when the original subdivision was approved, the Planning Commission recommended that there should be nO further subdivision of these lands. Mr. Lung concurred that the recommendation was a condition of the Planning Commission's original decision. Mr. Moser expressed his opinion that the subdivision was not well planned and a loop road could have been constructed with two entrances On Mt. Aetna Road. He recommends redesigning the subdivision and constructing the loop road at this time. Mr. Reiber believes the length of the cul-de-sac is excessive. He expressed concern with fire and emergency services being able to serve the residents at the end of the cul-de-sac quickly and efficiently. Mr. Reiber stated that a "piece-meal" approach to subdivision does not conform to policy. Mr. Anikis made an inquiry regarding a note shown On the plat that states, "The number of proposed lots is four. The number of lots and their configuration may change during development." The developer's consultant stated that the configuration could change based on any problem that arises due to County policies and the number of lots could only decrease.
Mr. Easterday stated that he intends to further subdivide the property and would connect the two roads in a "U" shape. However, he believes that current school capacity issues would prevent him from getting additional lots at this time. Mr. Easterday stated that County policies have restricted the design and development of the property and an 800-foot cul-de-sac would further encumber the design of the proposed lots.
Commission members recommended that a new concept plan be developed and submitted to the Planning Staff that shows all proposed future development of the property. The design should also include plans to eliminate the proposed cul-de-sac by connecting the two roads and should include a plan to construct the road at the same time development begins On the new lots.
- DEVELOPMENT PLANS Black Rock P.U.D. (DP-05-001) Mr. Lung presented for review and approval the final development plan for the Black Rock P.U.D. located along the north side of Mt. Aetna Road, east of the existing Black Rock subdivision. The total site area is 220.77 acres. The PUD zoning was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in November 2002 and established the density for the PUD of 2.7 dwelling units per acre. A preliminary development plan was submitted, reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission in August 2004. The final development plan was submitted to the Planning Commission for review last fall; however, an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the preliminary development plan was filed with the Board of Zoning Appeals and delayed further review and action of the Planning Commission pending action by the Board of Zoning Appeals. In March 2006, the Board of Zoning Appeals heard the case and denied the appeal of the Planning Commission's approval for the preliminary development plan; therefore, upholding the Planning Commission's approval. An appeal was filed on March 9, 2006 in the Court of Special 173
Appeals challenging the jUdgment of the Circuit Court for Washington County that had affirmed the decision of the Board of County Commissioners regarding the PUD zoning of the property was upheld. The owner is proposing to develop 595 units in three phases. Phase 1 would consist of 170 units including traditional single-family lots, zero lot line single-family lots, and semi-detached dwelling unit lots and the active recreation area that includes a swimming pool, clubhouse, tennis court, basketball court and a totlot. Phase 2 would consist of 210 units Including traditional single-family lots, townhouses and condominium units. Phase 3 would consist of 215 units including traditional single-family lots, zero lot line single-family lots and condominium units. There would be a total of 186 traditional single-family lots, 79 zero lot line single-family lots, 50 semi-detached dwelling units lots, 100 townhouse lots and 180 condominium units. The traditional single-family lots range from 1/3 to over Y2 acre in size, the zero lot line single-famiiy lots are 3,800 square feet in size, the semi-detached lots are 7,500 square feet in size, the townhouse lots are 2,400 square feet in size, and the condominiums are two 42-unit buildings and eight 12-unit bUildings. The condominiums and townhouses are three story units. Mr. Lung briefly explained the requirement of the Zoning Ordinance that states, "no phase of the PUD shall exceed the overall density approved for the PUD." Phasing allows for the orderly development of the site based on the approved plan. A phasing pian is a required element of the development plan and must be adhered to like any other part of the plan. To determine consistency with the approved density, the cumulative density of the development is assessed. At no point during the development of any phase of this development would the density exceed 2.7 dwelling units per acre. A totai of 61 acres of open space is proposed and includes approximately 40 acres of Forest Conservation area that would consist of new plantings and retention of existing forest. Sidewalks and/or pedestrian paths are proposed in the denser portion of the development and would tie-in with the recreation area. Other areas of the development would have a path system that goes behind the lots and through the open space areas. Waiking on the shoulder of the open section streets in the lower density areas would be required. When the preliminary development plan was approved by the Planning Commission, additional paths in the area of the zero lot line units was requested and has been provided on the final development plan. Associated with the pedestrian access is the provision of school bus waiting areas. Pre-designated school bus waiting areas in lower density single-family developments is problematic for the Board of Education due to the change in dynamics as the development grows. Based on comments and recommendations from the Transportation Director of the Board of Education to address this issue, a note has been added to the plan that states, ''The owner/deveioper shall be responsible for construction of bus waiting areas in accordance with the applicable requirements of the Washington County Zoning Ordinance upon determination of location by the Board of Education's Transportation Department". The Planning Commission previously approved the use of private streets to serve the townhouse lots and condominiums. The interior circulation around the units has been redesigned to address fire and rescue issues. These revisions have been reviewed and approved by the Director of Fire and Rescue. The development would be served by public water and sewer and is iocated in the City of Hagerstown's Service Area. As with any PUD there is no firm commitment at the development plan review stage from a service provider guaranteeing that any particular number of taps would be available at a certain time. The development would be subject to the City's Sewer Capacity Allocation Program and a note to that effect has been added to the plan. The plan includes an out-lot for a proposed water tank as per the City of Hagerstown Water Department's comments. All of the active recreation facilities would be completed during Phase 1. Mr. Lung recommended adding a note to the plan that states, "SUbsequent phases shall not be approved until the recreation facilities have been constructed". All agency approvals have been received. The Home Owner's Association documents have been reviewed. There will be different Home Owners documents for the different phases of the development and as those different phases are submitted to the Planning Commission, the documents must be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department, County Attorney's office and the Planning Department. The final development plan includes a note that has been approved by the County Attorney regarding APFO requirements. As part of each phase of the PUD approval process there is an evaluation of schools and road adequacy issues. Currently, the Greenbriar Elementary and Boonsboro Middle schools are over capacity and the Boonsboro High school is close to capacity. The school adequacy test would occur at the final plat or site plan stage for each phase. An initial traffic study was done with the rezoning request; however, it was very limited in scope and at the discretion of the County Engineer those numbers were incorporated into a plan that the County did for what was known as the Robinwood corridor. When the study was completed, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a policy to assess a fee based on the number of trips for a development located in that corridor to address specific needs. When the excise tax was adopted, the fee was eliminated. The County Engineer has issued final approval of this development plan with the understanding that each individual phase would be reviewed for road adequacy based on requirements of the current APFO. Deficiencies have been identified and off-site improvements will be required. The traffic generation numbers from this development were worked in with the traffic study that went along with the Hospital. The road improvements in the Robinwood corridor/US Route 40 area that would need to be made along with the Hospital construction will take into consideration this deveiopment. Excise tax that would be generated from this development would go toward the cost of those improvements in the US Route 40/Robinwood corridor. The County Engineer also noted that each individual phase might require additional off-site improvements to the east of the development in the area of Mt. Aetna Road and White Hall Road. Those requirements wouid be based on traffic studies that would have to be submitted concurrent with the different phases. Sewer iimitations based on a consent judgment that limits development to 25 units per year by an individual developer might require sub-phases for this development.
Comments: The developer and his attorney clarified issues regarding the Home Owner's Association documents. There would be one Home Owner's Association; however, there would be different documents for each type of dwelling unit and areas within the development. The basic amenities would be available with equal opportunities for all residents, i.e. swimming pooi, tennis courts, clubhouse, etc. 174
Services, i.e. trash collection, snow removal, etc., would be tailored depending on the needs of the different types of housing units and different areas within the development.
Discussion: Mr. Anikis inquired when the water tower would be constructed to help alleviate water pressure issues in the area. The developer stated that the City of Hagerstown would be responsible for the construction of the water tower. The land has been donated to the City and has been availabie for construction since 1999. He also stated that the water pressure issues in the area are not directly related to this development. Mr. Anikis also inquired which fire company would serve the development and how equipment would get into the gated community. Mr. Lung stated that it would be served by the Funkstown Fire Department and that they did not submit any comments regarding this development. The developer stated that the fire company would have a keyed access; however, if that wouid fail, the gates are designed to break away upon impact. Mr. Moser inquired about the sewer and water allocations from the City of Hagerstown. Mr. Kercheval stated that the development is within the County and allocations would come out of the County's allotment given to them by the City of Hagerstown. Mr. Moser asked if there is any elderly housing proposed for this development. The developer stated that no elderly housing is proposed at this time.
Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the final development plan contingent upon a note being added to the plat that states, "Subsequent phases of development will not be approved until the site amenities called for in Phase I are constructed". Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved.
-SITE PLANS Leitersburg Pike One LLC Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval the site plan for Leltersburg Pike One LLC located on the south side of Maryland Route 60. The property is 2.55 acres in size and is zoned BL - Business Local. The developer is proposing 508 mini-warehouse units in an existing building that is 22,000 square feet. The developer is proposing an addition that would make the building 28,500 square feet. One employee is proposed. Four parking spaces with one handicapped space is required and provided. A 5 'foot by 8-foot building mounted sign is proposed and they also propose to use the existing sign pole. Lighting would be building mounted. Solid waste would be stored in a dumpster and removed by a private hauler. Private water and sewer serve the site. Proposed deliveries are one per week. Landscaping is proposed using English oak trees and retaining existing trees aiready on the site. The Forest Conservation requirement would be met using the "express procedure". All agency approvals have been received except from the State Highway Administration.
Mr. Reiber made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon approval by the State Highway Administration. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Unanimously approved.
OTHER BUSINESS Town of Boonsboro Annexation Request Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation the proposed annexation of 197.57 acres in order to provide public water service in an area that has been determined to contaminate ground water wells. This would involve the extension of a new water main aiong Alternate Route 40 to Mill Point Road. The application proposes to zone the properties SR - Suburban Residentiai, TR - Town Residential and GC - General Commerciai upon annexation. Staff finds this request consistent with the 2002 adopted County Comprehensive Plan, which designated the properties as either low-density residential or commercial.
Mr. Moser made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed annexation to the Board of County Commissioners and concurs with the Staff's findings that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Unanimously approved.
Capital Improvement Program Mr. Thompson presented the Capital Improvement Program for the Planning Commission's review and recommendation. The Planning Commission's responsibility is to forward a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that the proposed projects within the CIP are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan of Washington County. Mr. Thompson stated that the Capital Improvement Program is a six-year plan with the first year of the Plan designated as the CIP budget for the upcoming fiscal year. Mr. Thompson presented the major Issues addressed in the proposed CIP as follows: 1) the FY 2007 CIP is approximately $80 miliion dollars more than the FY 2006 CIP over the six-year time frame; 2) the CIP bUdget for FY 2007 is approximately $33 million above the budget in FY 2006; 3) the Plan inciudes the construction of at least four new schoois and additional upgrades to existing schools as requested by the Board of Education; 4) the funding is based on 1,000 dwelling units a year being constructed, except in FY 2007 where the number of units was increased to approximately 1,200 units; 5) the excise tax adopted that became effective on July 1, 2005 is one of the primary funding sources for the BOE requests; 6) the Board of County Commissioners has indicated that bonding of up to $12 million will be used to heip fund the projects.
Mr. Moser made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the proposed Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the Washington County Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Mr. Wiley.
ok 175
Discussion: There was a brief discussion regarding Mr. Reiber's concern that the County is adding excessive debt compared to past history. Mr. Kercheval stated that there is an extensive debt affordability study done every year for the County to follow in preparing the CIP and that the County is several million below our annual affordability limit. He also explained that the County received an "AA" bond rating upgrade this year and that the County pays off about $11 million in debt principle each year.
Mr. Moser's motion passed unanimously. Mr. Kercheval abstained.
Airport Approval
Mr. Thompson stated that a hanger expansion project has been approved for David Rider at the Airport. The expansion is consistent with the previously approved Overall Airport Layout Plan.
Comment: Mr. Reiber expressed interest in a report from Airport officials regarding what is being done with the structures at the Airport, how many jobs, if any, are being added and what type of businesses are moving into the County. Mr. Thompson stated that there are some very highly sophisticated, classified users that are currently housed at the Airport and are looking for additional space in which to expand.
Election of Officers Mr. Thompson noted that in the Planning Commission's By-laws, Section 4, Articie 5 it states, "Vacancies in offices shall be filled by the adopted election procedure at the first regular meeting of the Commission following notification of the vacancy." Because Mr. Clopper's term expired on April 24, 2006, the Commission must elect a new Chairman.
Mr. Moser made a motion to elect Vice Chairman George Anikis as the new Chairman. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved.
Ms. Parrish made a motion to elect Mr. Reiber as the new Vice Chairman. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved.
UPCOMING MEETINGS
1. Planning Commission Workshop meeting, Monday, May 22,2006 at 1:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown. 2. Regular Planning Commission meeting, Monday, June 5, 2006 at 7:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown.
ADJOURNMENT Mr. Moser made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. So ordered.
, Vice Chairman 176
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - MAY 8, 2006
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, May 8, 2006, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown.
Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Bernard Moser, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Sam Ecker and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planners Stephen T. Goodrich and Timothy A. Lung, Senior Planners Lisa Kelly Pietro and Jill Baker, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Thompson stated that the variance for Melvin L. Pfaff and the site plan for Hagerstown Community College have been withdrawn from the Agenda and Bethel United Methodist Church has been added to the Agenda.
Mr. Kercheval introduced Sam Ecker as the newest member of the Planning Commission.
OLD BUSINESS
Bethel United Methodist Church (SP-05-067) Mr. Lung stated that during the May 1, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, a screening plan was presented and approved as part of the revised site plan approval for Bethel United Methodist Church. The screening plan provided for an 8-foot privacy fence and evergreen plantings in the buffer area west of . the fence, as suggested by Ms. Lori Young of the Extension Office and agreed upon by the Church and Mrs. Bramson. Following the Planning Commission meeting, Mrs. Bramson and the Church again discussed the pian and Mrs. Bramson indicated that she would prefer deciduous plantings rather than the evergreens. The Church agreed to plant spirea, holly, dogwoods and azaleas; however, some of these plantings were not included in Ms. Young's list. Mr. Lung recommended adding additional spirea between the dogwoods to provide better screening. He also recommended consulting Ms. Young for her approval of the new planting materials to be used. Planning Commission members, by consensus, agreed to the proposed changes without the need for additional review.
Thompson Propane Gas Storage IWestfields Subdivisionl (SP-04-080) Mr. Thompson presented for review and approval a request from Thompson Distribution, Inc., for an extension to continue providing gas service to Westfield's residents with the Temporary Propane Utility Facility. The Planning Commission granted site plan approval of the Thompson Propane Gas Storage facility for the Westfields Subdivision during the January 10, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. This approval was subject to an amendment that required the permanent storage facility to be installed and operating subsequent to the completion of the 150lh house or two years from the date of the meeting, whichever comes first. Thompson Distribution is proposing to construct and have in operation the Permanent Propane facility prior to the opening of the Westfield's Elementary School.
Mr. Moser made a motion that the Permanent Propane facility shall be constructed and operational on or before the 150lh house is completed. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS - SITE PLANS Penn Avenue Retail Center (SP-06-008) Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval the site plan for Penn Avenue Retail Center located along the west side of Pennsylvania Avenue (former site of Hardee's Restaurant). The developer is proposing to remove the existing building in order to construct a 9,000-square foot building for retail sales. The building would be divided into three 2,800-square foot individual spaces. The parcel area is .98 acres. There are two existing entrances onto Pennsylvania Avenue that wouid continue to serve the site and have been approved by the State Highway Administration and an existing side entrance would also continue to be used. Public water would be provided by the City of Hagerstown Water Department and public sewer would be provided by the Washington County Department of Water Quality. The parking required is 43 spaces based on 5.5 spaces per 1,OOO-square feet of retail space and parking provided is 43 spaces with two being handicapped. There is a 10-foot by 40-foot loading/unloading area provided to the rear of the building. Hours of operation would be 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday. The number of employees would be a maximum of 8 per shift. Solid waste disposal would be a screened dumpster and recycling containers would be provided inside the building. Freight and delivery would be approximately 4 per week. Signs and lighting would be bUilding and pole mounted. Landscaping would be provided throughout the site and would include Japanese holly, birch and red maple trees. The site is exempt from Forest Conservation requirements since there would be less than 40,000-square feet of disturbance. Storm water management would be provided through a bio-retention facility located to the rear of the bUilding. All agency approvals have been received. 177
Discussion: Mr. Wiley inquired how the hours and number of employees could be established without knowing the type of businesses that would lease the spaces. Mr. Shank, owner/developer, stated these items are based on an average of like businesses. Mr. Kercheval inquired if the establishment of hours and number of employees would iimit the businesses that could lease the space. Ms. Pietro noted that it would only be a problem if they exceed the hours of operation stated on the plan. Mr. Anikis inquired If required parking spaces would vary greatly if the buiidings are used for office space rather than retail space. Mr. Thompson stated that retail uses require more parking spaces than business uses require. Ms. Pietro stated that if parking would be inadequate for the proposed use of the building, a revised site plan would be required to be submitted for Planning review and approval.
Mr. Reiber made a motion to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Unanimously approved.
OTHER BUSINESS RZ-06-005 - Ritchey's Totlot, LLC Ms. Baker presented for review and recommendation the Staff Report and Analysis Following the Public Hearing for RZ-06-005 - Kim Ritchey/Ritchey's Totlot, LLC. The property is located at 13514 Little Antietam Road and is currently zoned RV - Rural Village. The applicant is requesting a map amendment for a floating overlay district of RB-N - Rural Business New.
Ms. Baker stated that during the public hearing, an inquiry was made regarding how the septic area would go from a residential use to commercial use. She stated that the Health Department views a residential use more intense in terms of water and sewer usage; therefore, the septic area should be adequate to support the proposed use. An inquiry was made regarding a conditional approval of the rezoning based on use of the property (I.e. the only permitted use on the property would be a day care facility). According to the County Attorney's office, the Board of County Commissioners could not des'lgnate one specific use because it would be prohibitive and would violate the principles of zoning law. An inquiry was made regarding the Board of Zoning Appeals variances. Ms. Baker stated that the variances would apply provided the site remains a day care facility. If there is a change in the use of the property to residential or another commercial use, the variances would become null and void.
Discussion: Mr. Reiber made an inqUiry regarding certification of the sewer system. Ms. Baker stated that the Health Department and the day care licensing agency would both be required to certify the adequacy of the sewer system and its use. All regulations and guidelines regarding the sewer system would have to be followed.
Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request to the Board of County Commissioners to open and operate a day care center. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained.
RZ-06-007 - Text Amendment Ms. Baker presented for review and recommendation the Staff Report and Analysis Following the Public Hearing for RZ-06-007 for the Text Amendment to Articles 3, 4, SA, 5B, 5E, SF, 110, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 21A, 22, 23, 24 and 28A of the Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to clarify language related to the adoption of the Rural Area Rezoning.
Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained.
RZ-06-004 - Portrait Homes-Mid Atlantic, LLL Ms. Pietro presented for review and recommendation the Staff Report and Analysis Following the Public Hearing for RZ-06-004 - Portrait Homes - Mid Atlantic, LLC. The property is located along the west side of Bower Avenue between 1-70 and Tower Drive and is currently zoned A- Agriculture. The applicant is requesting a map amendment and zoning designation of AlPUD - Agricultural/Planned Unit Development (floating zone).
Comments: Mr. Moser expressed his concern regarding the lack of infrastructure, sewer capacity issues, inadequate schools and roads, etc. He also believes the proposed six-foot fence along 1-70 is inadequate to serve as a sound barrier. Mr. Moser expressed opposition of the proposed development based on its incompatibility with the existing neighborhood that is made up of single-family homes.
Mr. Reiber expressed his concern regarding the additional impact that the density of this development would put on the existing infrastructure. He has no objection to the change of the zoning designation.
Mr. Anikis concurs with Mr. Moser's opinion that the proposed development would be incompatible with the existing single-family neighborhoods. He also believes that it does not meet the criteria for a Planned Unit Development because the developer is proposing all townhouse units in the development. One general requirement for a PUD is a variety of housing types within the development. Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that the proposed fence and sound-proofing of the houses would be inadequate to serve as a sound barrier. The State Highway Administration and EPA guidelines for sound barriers states, "Sound barriers do have iimitations. To work effectively, sound barriers must be high enough and long enough to block the view of the road". Therefore, the proposed barriers would not meet these guidelines. Mr. Anikis recommended that if the Board of County Commissioners approves the zoning 178
change, approval should be contingent upon the sound barriers being constructed to meet State guidelines.
Mr. Wiley expressed his concern regarding infrastructure issues, especially the inadequacy of schools; however, the Commission's recommendation cannot be based on these issues. Therefore, he does not have any objection to the change of the zoning designation.
Discussion: Mr. Reiber noted that the Staff Report does not challenge compliance of the criteria for Planned Unit Developments. Mr. Moser expressed his opinion that the criteria requirement is open to intrepretation and he concurs with Mr. Anikis's opinion.
Mr. Moser made a motion to recommend denial of the zoning application request because it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed development is not compatible with the existing neighborhood. Seconded by Mr. Anikis. Mr. Moser and Mr. Anikis voted "Aye", Mr. Wiley and Mr. Reiber voted "Nay", and Mr. Kercheval abstained. Due to a tie vote (2-2-1), Rezoning Case RZ-06 004 will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners without a recommendation either for or against the request.
RZ-06-003 - Heritage Land Development Mr. Goodrich presented for review and recommendation the Staff Report and Analysis Following the Public Hearing for RZ-06-003 - Heritage Land Development. The property is located between Sterling Road and Kendle Road, adjacent to the east side of Doub Road and is currently zoned A- Agricultural. The applicant is requesting a map amendment and zoning designation of AlPUD - Agricultural/Planned Unit Development (floating zone).
The developer is proposing 967 dwelling units consisting of single-family homes, townhouses, senior duplexes and townhouses, a school site and 25,500-square feet of commercial space on approximately 328 acres. Mr. Goodrich stated that the proposed PUD is compatible with the guidelines set forth in the .Comprehensive Plan and is located within the Urban Growth Area. It is consistent with the purpose of the PUD text in the Zoning Ordinance to provide for flexibility of design, a variety of housing types, commerciai space and recreation areas. The applicant previously submitted a rezoning request for this property in July 2005. The application was withdrawn following the public hearing in September 2005 after hearing the concerns and comments' of the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. During the previous rezoning process, Planning Commission members expressed their concern regarding the density of the development and compatibility with infrastructure and adjacent land uses. The developer has addressed several of these issues and includes a reduction in the number of units from 1,280 to 967 and density of the development from 4 dwelling units per acre to 3 dwelling units per acre, they have moved the school site onto the rezoning site, and they have added commercial space within the development. A more detailed traffic study has been completed. Several road and traffic improvements are recommended in the traffic study including a signal at the intersection of Bower Avenue.
Comments: Mr. Anikis believes the traffic study is inadequate and inaccurate. It is his opinion that traffic counts were not performed according to specific guidelines as set forth in the Road Adequacy Policy and the data being used to caiculate traffic projections might be outdated. He expressed his opinion that residents liVing in surrounding neighborhoods should not be inundated with the additional traffic that would be generated by this development.
Mr. Kercheval stated that a more in-depth traffic study would be required in the future to determine if roadways could be fixed in a reasonable manner.
Mr. Moser commended the developer for trying to address some of the concerns noted during the initial rezoning process. The property is located on the edge of the Growth Area; however, this development would have a significant impact on the eXisting infrastructure. Of particular concern are sewer capacity issues, school capacity issues and roadways. The State allows a specific allotment of sewer EDU's that would decrease rapidly with the approval and development of several PUD's. Mr. Moser also questions the compatibility of the PUD with the surrounding neighborhoods.
Mr. Reiber stated that he believes the Ordinances encourage a mixture of different types and styles of housing. School capacity and sewer capacity issues are a concern; however, he believes that these issues would be handled during the permitting process and should not be a barrier for the developer. He also commended the developer for addressing issues of concern from the previous rezoning process.
Mr. Wiley also expressed concern regarding sewer capacity issues. He believes that our limit of EDU's could be reached in the next 20 to 25 years unless we begin planning now for the future. He believes that this development is compatible with the Growth Area guidelines as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Wiley supports this PUD development concept; however, he believes the County needs to start looking at long term plans to address school capacity, sewer capacity and road improvement issues.
Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend approvai of the rezoning request to the Board of County Commissioners. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Mr. Reiber and Mr. Wiley voted "Aye", Mr. Moser and Mr. Anikis voted "Nay", and Mr. Kercheval abstained. Due to a tie vote (2-2-1), Rezoning Case RZ-06-003 will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners without a recommendation either for or against the request. 179
UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Planning Commission Workshop, Monday, May 22, 2006, 1:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street 2. Regular Planning Commission meeting, Monday, June 5, 2006, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street.
ADJOURNMENT Mr. Moser made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. So ordered.
Respectfully submitted, 180
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - June 5, 2006
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, June 5, 2006, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown.
Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Linda Parrish, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Sam Ecker and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Timothy A. Lung, Senior Planner Lisa Kelly Pietro, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman George Anikls called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Mr. Thompson noted the following changes to the Agenda. An addition under Old Business - Thompson Propane Gas Storage (Westfields Subdivision) (SP-04-080); a change in the order of the variances Danny Nabatti (SV-06-020) will be heard last; two additions under Other Business - SI. Lawrence Cement, removal of 1M - Industrial Mineral overlay zone and the Election of Officers for the upcoming year.
MINUTES Comment: Mr. Anikis requested that the following comment should be recorded regarding Westview David Myers (SV-06-015). During the May 1, 2006 meeting, Mr. Myers proposed to use the existing 12 foot driveway as a common access for the three panhandle lots. Mr. Anikis questioned this proposal because he did not believe there was room for the 75-feet of total area needed for three panhandles. He has discussed this with staff and expressed his concern that the developer would not be in compliance . with County regulations.
Ms. Parrish made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 1, 2006 Regular Planning Commission meeting as amended. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.
Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 8, 2006 Regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS • Airport Update Ms. Carolyn Motz presented an update on the Hagerstown Regional Airport for the period beginning July 1, 2005 through mid-May 2006. She provided the following projects that have been accomplished to date: completion of the terminal apron project; welcomed a new corporate hangar (BUilding #64); substantially completed Package 1 of Runway Improvement program (on budget and ahead of schedule); secured EAS (Essential Air Service) airline to provide passenger service through 2007 subsized through AlP money that comes from ticket taxes, cargo taxes and fuel taxes; welcomed STAT MedEvac; began package 3 of the Runway Improvement Program; began package 2 of the Runway Improvement Program; painted Hagerstown Aviation Building #16; welcomed Avenge, Inc. and Telford Aviation; made presentations to 15 airlines (commercial, charter companies, etc.); welcomed a $1.5 million addition by Sierra Nevada along with new engineering jobs (approximately 200 permanent jobs). The Hagerstown Regional Airport businesses fall into three specialized areas: (1) North American Industry Classification System Code - NAICS 334511 which entails search, navigation, guidance, aeronautical systems and instrument manufacturing; (2) Maintenance Repair and Overhaul (MRO) - Hagerstown Regional Airport performs more of this type of work than any airport east of the Mississippi; and (3) Aviation Business Services for pilots, travelers, aircraft owners and community emergency victims. Ms. Motz also presented potential development as follows: a developer has indicated a desire to add to HGR's building capacity by constructing a 45,000 square foot hanger, which is large enough for three Boeing 737's; a corporation has indicated a desire to construct a 60,000 square foot hangar; a Part 135 Operator (charter operator) has indicated a desire to construct a 9,000 square foot hangar; and a prospective business owner has indicated a desire to expand current facilities.
Ms. Motz stated that a runway is being moved 500-feet from the west to the east due to insufficient safety areas. More footage is being added to accommodate airplanes that want longer stage lengths in the future. U.S. Route 11 is being reconstructed so a runway bridge can go over the top of Route 11. The future taxiway golf would reduce the slope to the runway, it will meet the FAA threshold and it will open up more area for additional hangars.
The Overall Master Plan for the Airport should be updated every 20 years and it will soon be time to update the Plan. Also, at that time, a Business Plan will be prepared.
- Thompson Propane Gas Storage (Westfields Subdivision) SP·04-0BO During the May 8, 2006 meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed a request from Thompson Distribution regarding the Permanent Propane facility at Westfields Subdivision. The Commission unanimously approved the follow'lng motion that states, '1he Permanent Propane facility be constructed 181
and operational on or before the Isdh house is completed". A request to amend the motion has been received from the developer to construct the facility on or before the 153'0 house is completed.
Mr. Reiber made a motion, to amend the original motion, that the Permanent Propane facility shall be constructed and operational on or before the 153'0 house is completed. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS - VARIANCES Washington County Commissioners (SV-06-021) Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a variance from Subdivision Ordinance Section 405.11.B to create a new lot without public road frontage. The property is located along the east side of French Lane off of the Greencastle Pike and west of Hunter's Green Parkway off of Hopewell Road. This tract of land is identified as "Remainder of Parcel A, Hunters Green Business Park" and contains a considerable amount of flood plain, some forest conservation areas associated with the business park and is primarily unsuitable for development. The parcel also contains a farmhouse, listed on the County's Historic Sites Survey known as "French Lane House" or "Philip Sprecher Farmstead", and more recent outbuildings. It has been determined that the house is National Register eligible. The County would like to create a 4.5 acre lot around the house and associated structures, sell the property, and place it back on the public tax rolls. The County is planning a linear park on the remaining lands. The proposed lot would have access to French Lane via an existing ingress/egress easement; however, it would not have any public road frontage. The requirement for providing public road frontage to the proposed lot would create an extraordinary hardship due to the following facts: acquisition of additional land for a panhandle access from Tiger Development would be required, the resulting panhandle would be excessively long (approximately 650-feet) and, provision of a panhandle would sever the remaining lands proposed for the linear park.
Discussion: Mr. Lung stated that the Subdivision Ordinance requires that all new lots have 25-feet of public road frontage. The closest public road to this lot would be French Lane. An ingress/egress easement would allow the property owners access to the property. This would be a deeded access. Mr. Wiley and Mr. Reiber expressed their concern regarding the access to the property because it does not comply with the Subdivision Ordinance and could cause problems in the future with maintenance issues. Mr. Reiber is also concerned about fire and emergency service vehicles accessing the property. Mr. Lung explained that the only alternative to make the lot comply to all County regulations would be to extend French Lane. He does not believe this would be economically feasible for the County. Commission members expressed their support of selling the property so it can be rehabilitated and put back on the tax records.
Ms. Parrish made a motion to approve the variance. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained.
Harry and Richard Reynolds (SV-06-019) Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a variance from Subdivision Ordinance Section 405.11.G.4 and 5. The property is located on the north side of Stevenson Road inside the future Growth Area of Smithsburg. The site is approximately 16.5 acres in size and is zoned Agricultural. The applicant is proposing to create two new lots and approximately 8 acres of remaining lands. Lot 2 would have a panhandle length of 910-feet and Lot 3 would have a panhandle length of 1,200-feet. The maximum length of a panhandle allowed by the Subdivision Ordinance is 400-feet. This would be considered a three-tier stacking of lots which is also not allowed by the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant is proposing to use a common driveway off of Stevenson Road to serve these lots. The request has been forwarded to the Smithsburg Fire Department; however, to date, a response has not been received. The applicants are claiming the following hardship. The property was conveyed to Richard and Harry Reynolds by their mother in 1988. The brothers now wish to divide their interest in the property and to maintain a common interest in Lot 1 around the existing home. Due to the present shape and topography of the property, there are few reasonable ways in which to equally divide the remaining area. The most reasonable is to divide it into north and south portions with a panhandle providing road frontage to the north half.
Discussion: There was a brief discussion regarding the length of the panhandles with regard to fire and emergency service access. There was also a discussion regarding the common driveway access to the two proposed lots. Mr. Reiber expressed his concern that the shared access could be a problem in the future and the applicants should be required to build separate driveways. Other members noted that provisions for a second driveway would be provided by having the 25-foot road frontage available to both lots.
Ms. Parrish made a motion to approve the variance contingent upon affirmative comments from the Smithsburg Fire Department. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained.
Danny Nabatli (Woodberry Commons) (SV-06-020) Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a variance from Subdivision Ordinance Section 405.1.H. The property is 8.96 acres in size located along the west side of Nursery Road and is zoned RU - Residential Urban. Section 405.1.H of the Subdivision Ordinance states, "A residential street paralleling a railroad 182
shall be a distance from the track sufficient to provide lots with a minimum of 160-feet depth backing to the railroad right-of-way or a distance suitable for the appropriate uses of the intervening land as for park purposes in residential district or for commercial or industrial uses in an appropriate district. Such distance shall also be determined with due regard to the requirements of approach grades and future grade separations." Lots 26, 27, 28, 29, 43, 44, 45, 52, 53 and 54 in Woodberry Commons, Section Bare less than 160-feet in depth that back to the railroad tracks and are affected by this Subdivision Ordinance regulation.
Comments: Mr. tung stated this section of the Ordinance pertains to new streets built parallel to a railroad crossing and appears to be intended to allow space for a grade-separated crossing. In this case, however, there is no intent to ever build a grade crossing. He has spoken to the Engineering Department and they have no objections.
Mr. Divelbiss, attorney for the applicant, believes that this section of the Ordinance does not appiy to this subdivision. He cited the following reasons to support his belief: Nursery Road is not a new road and the new cul-de-sac streets will not be built parallel to the existing railroad tracks. Mr. Reiber made a motion to grant approval of the variance. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved.
- SUBDIVISIONS Woodberry Commons, Section B (PP-05-002) Mr. Lung presented for review and approval the preliminary plat for Section B, Woodberry Commons located along the west side of Nursery Road. The developer is proposing 42 semi-detached dwelling unit lots. Twelve of these lots would front on and access Nursery Road and the remaining lots would have access off of two new cul-de-sac streets to be built to County standards and dedicated to the County. The lots would range from 5,000-square feet to 14,000-square feet and would have a 25-foot front yard setback, 12-foot side yard setback and a 40-foot rear yard setback. The property line would follow the party wall through the house. The lots would be served by public water provided by the City of . Hagerstown and public sewer prOVided by the Washington County Department of Water Quality. Based on Engineering Department requirements, improvements would be made along Nursery Road and the existing turn-around on Nursery Road wouid be enlarged. Storm water management would be provided in the southwest corner of the site. The Planning Commission previously approved payment in lieu to meet Forest Conservation requirements for the entire subdivision. The amount due for Section B is $19,133.73. The property abuts the Norfolk Southern raiiroad tracks to the rear. Norfolk Southern has no objection as long as the lots are terminated at their right_of-way line that is approximately 30-feet from the center of the railroad. The developer will be installing a 6-foot high vision-proof fence approximateiy 2 feet off of the property line for the lots backing to the railroad tracks. The developer will be responsible for constructing the fence prior to the sale and occupancy of any dwellings on those lots. Maintenance of the fence will be the responsibility of each individual property owner. The Soil Conservation District is reviewing revisions made to the plat per their comments. All other agency approvals have been received. The developer is requesting that Staff be granted the authority to approve the final plat. The APFO school adequacy test would be done at final plat stage. Hickory Elementary and Williamsport High Schools are currently over capacity. In order for a final plat to be approved, the developer must have an approved mitigation plan.
Comments: Planning Commission members requested that the developer use a solid vinyl fence rather than a solid wood fence to eliminate maintenance issues. The developer agreed to the solid vinyl fence. Mr. Anikis made an inquiry regarding parking provided on the cul-de-sacs. Mr. Cump, stated there would be off-street parking for two or three vehicles depending on the lot. There was a brief discussion regarding school bus turn-around and waiting areas. Mr. Lung stated that the Board of Education has not given any comments regarding these issues.
Mr. Reiber made a motion to grant preliminary plat approval contingent upon approval from the Soil Conservation District and the Board of Education and the use of a six-foot solid vinyl fence along the railroad tracks and to grant Staff the authority to approve the final plat in accordance with current APFO regulations. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved.
Hunter's Green Business Park II, Lots 5 and 6 (PP-06-004 and S-06-053) Mr. Lung presented for review and approval the preliminary/final plat for Lots 5 and 6, Hunter's Green Business Park II located along the west side of Newgate Boulevard. Lot 5 is 40 acres in size and Lot 6 is 9.66 acres in size. Currently, there is no development proposed on these lots. Prior to development, a site plan must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. All agency reviews have been completed and a revised plat has been submitted to address agency comments. The site would be served by public water from the City of Hagerstown and pUblic sewer from the Washington County Department of Public Works. The floodplain area has been corrected per comments from the Washington County Engineering Department. The developer has requested payment in lieu to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements. Based on the total acreage of the subdivision of under 50 acres, 7.31 acres of Forest Conservation would be required with an amount of $31 ,842.36 due.
Ms. Parrish made a motion to approve the payment-in-lieu in the amount of $31,842.36 to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirement. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved. 183
Mr. Reiber made·a motion to grant preliminary/final plat approval for Lots 5 and 6, Hunter's Green Business Park II contingent upon all agency approvais. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimous[yapproved.
-SITE PLANS Mace Energy Supply, Inc. (SP-06-005) Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval the site plan for Mace Energy Supply, Inc. The property is located along the southeast side of Ringgold Pike (Route 418) and is zoned RB-E - Rural Business Existing. The owner is proposing to construction a storage addition, warehouse and showroom to the existing two-story bUilding. The square footage of the existing buiiding is 7,200 square feet and the proposed addition would add 9,664 square feet for a total of approximately 16,000 square feet. The site is served by individual well and septic. There is an existing access onto Ringgold Pike. Parking required is six spaces and 9 spaces are provided. There will be building and pole mounted lighting. Freight and delivery services would be 3 to 4 times per week in the months of September through March. Hours of operation will be Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. There will be six 4-foot evergreens placed along the east side of the addition. There are no new signs proposed. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance permitting the reduction of the 100-foot rear yard setback that is required when a business is adjacent to a residential use property. An existing dumpster would provide for solid waste removal. A loading area is located to the rear of the existing warehouse. The site is exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements because there would be less than 40,000 square feet of disturbed area. All agency approvals have been received.
Mr. Kercheval made a motion to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved.
Star Communities, Inc, (SP-06-017) Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a site plan for Star Communities, Inc. The property is located along the southeast side of Broadfording Church Road and is zoned A(R) - Agricultura[ Rural. The total acreage of the site is 148 acres. The owner is proposing to construct several additions to the existing day rehab facility for physically and mentally challenged children and adults. Additions include a rehabilitation building, therapy building and a greenhouse. The site is served by public water provided by the City of Hagerstown and individual septic. Lights would be building mounted with pole-mounted lights throughout the parking area. Solid waste would be collected in an existing dumpster. There are currently 25 employees with no additional employees proposed. De[iveries are 3 per week. Thirty-six parking spaces are provided. There is an existing sign in the front of the facility and no new signs are proposed. Hours of operation are 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. A private lane, owned and maintained by Star Communities, would provide access from Broadfording Church Road. Landscaping would be provided around the building and would include red maples, flowering cherry trees, spirea and yew with numerous flower gardens in the front. Forest Conservation requirements would be met using the "express procedure" with a payment of $6,795.36. All agency approvals have been received.
Discussion: Ms. Pietro explained that the "express procedure" may be used to meet the Forest Conservation requirement when a developer does not create more than five lots or the forestation requirements do not exceed two acres.
Comments: Mr. Kercheval commended Star Communities for their service to the citizens of our community and expressed his support for the expansion of their facility.
Mr. Kercheval made a motion to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.
Campbell Insurance & Financial, Inc. (SP-06-020)
Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a site plan for Campbell Insurance & Financial, Inc. The property is located along the north side of Jefferson Bou[evard just west of Cavetown and is zoned BL Business Local. The total acreage is .64 acre. The developer is proposing to construct a one-story 800 square foot insurance office. There is currently an existing vacant house and shed on the property. Access to the office will be from Paden Avenue which connects to Jefferson Bou[evard. The site is served by public water from the City of Hagerstown and public sewer from the Washington County Department of Water Quality. The hours of operation would be Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Parking required is three spaces and three spaces are provided. The interior parking lane would be gravel and the parking area would be paved. There would be a 4-foot by 10-foot bUilding mounted sign. Solid waste would be collected in the building. No deliveries are proposed. Lighting would be building mounted. There are 5 Ley[and Cypress trees along the rear of the property. The site would be exempt from Forest Conservation requirements because there would be less than 40,000-square feet of disturbed area. All agency approvals have been received.
Mr. Reiber made a motion to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimous[yapproved. 184
- OTHER BUSINESS RZ-06-002 - Hashempour Consulting & Management LLC Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation Rezoning Case RZ-06-002, Hashempour Consulting & Management, LLC. The property is located along the west side of Maryland Route 65 north of its intersection with Maryland Route 68. The site is approximately 178 acres in size and is currently zoned Agricultural. The appiicant is requesting a change in the zoning to RV - Rural Village based on a mistake in the original zoning. Fifteen people testified in opposition to the request. Points of opposition included: the property located to the east and west of the property is zoned Agricultural, granting this request would be a violation of the Maryland Code for the definition of a Rural Village, inadequate school capacity, traffic issues, recreation facilities, well and septic capabilities in the area, and this request would double the size of the Lappans Village. Rural Villages are Priority Funding Areas and this request would not be consistent with the recommendations within the State's guidelines for PFA's. The Staff Report states, "The subject property is adjacent to the Rural Vii/age of Lappans. Rezoning the subject properties to RV - Rural Vii/age would not be compatible with the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan, since the subject parcels are not located within the boundaries of the Rural Vii/age of Lappans and potential development of this site would not be considered 'infil/' development. The County's Comprehensive Plan states, "It is not recommended that undeveloped land be zoned or rezoned to a Rural Village classification to encourage development in the rural areas." The subject parcel was in a 5-year AgriCUlture Preservation District from 1981 to 1986 and again from 1999 to 2004. The applicant testified numerous times during the public hearing that he does not wish to develop the property; therefore, in Stafl's opinion the change to a higher density classification of Rural Village is unnecessary and unwarranted.
Comments: Mr. Wiley expressed his opinion that the developer may have an ulterior motive in having the property rezoned and believes this area is not conducive to large development that would not be considered "infill" development. He supports the Staff's findings as stated in the Staff Report & Analysis Following the Public Hearing. He expressed his opinion that there was not a mistake in zoning. He also expressed concern regarding water and sewer issues and believes that development should occur in the . Urban Growth Area as intended by the County's Comprehensive Plan.
In response to an inquiry made by Mr. Reiber, Mr. Thompson stated that he does not believe a mistake was made in the original zoning of the property. He believes the guidelines for smart growth were followed and it was not the County's intent to rezone surrounding vacant lands to enlarge the Rural Village areas. Rural Villages were established to obtain Priority Funding from the State in order to help existing communities should problems with wells or septic systems develop.
Mr. Anikis stated that during the time of the rural area rezoning, there were many discussions regarding minimizing the areas around the Rural Villages. The State encourages the focus for urban areas where there is infrastructure for water and sewer. If there were a problem with failing septic systems or failing wells in the Rural Villages, the State would provide financial support to provide public systems. However, if the County exceeds the requirements of the Ordinance (a 10% increase of homes in the Rural Villages), the State may not provide funding. The Heaith Department recommended that if this area would be developed, it should be developed with a public system. There are two USGS wells (one at Fountain Rock Elementary Schooi and one at Roxbury Correction facility) that are monitored constantly. Since January of 2006, these wells are down several feet and development could cause many probiems in the area.
Ms. Parrish expressed her opinion that the applicant did not prove a change in the character of the neighborhood and/or a mistake in the original zoning of the property.
Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend denial of the request to the Board of County Commissioners based on the Staff's findings and that the existing zoning of Agricultural is conducive to the property. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval and Mr. Ecker abstained.
Elmwood Farms, Section 2 - APFO Approval Mr. Thompson presented for review and approval the final plat for Section 2, Eimwood Farms. The preliminary plat for 174 iots received approval from the Planning Commission in May 2005. Policy #4 of the Planning Commission's Policies states, 'The Executive Director shall have the authority to review and approve all final plats for which previous approval has been granted to the Preliminary Plat by the Planning Commission, provided that the final plat meets all subdivision requirements and represents substantially the same plat that was approved as part of the preliminary plat". Changes have been made to the APFO and Section 5.4.1 states, 'The Planning Commission shall determine whether public school facilities are adequate for the proposed new development upon recommendation by the Planning Department after evaluating enrollment information provided by the Board of Education." The Board of Education has reviewed the final plat and the number of students that would be generated by this development and has determined that the project can move forward at this time. Based on the information received from the Board of Education, Staff recommends approval of the final plat for Section 2; however, future sections of the development would require an approved mitigation plan before they can be approved.
Comments: Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that the APFO approvals should remain in effect for a specified time. If a development would be stalled for any reason, capacity could be tied up that might be used for another development that would be able to move forward. 185
Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the final plat for Section 2, Elmwood Farm. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimousiyapproved.
City of Hagerstown Shaool Annexation Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation the City of Hagerstown Shaool Annexation (A06-02). The 1.6-acre tract of land is located along the east side of the Duai Highway between Mt. Aetna Road and Edgewood Drive and is designated as Low Density Residential on the Comprehensive Plan. The property is currently zoned RU - Residential Urban. The applicant is requesting an R-2 zoning classification upon annexation into the City which is consistent with the adopted County Comprehensive Pian.
Mr. Wiley made a motion to recommend that the proposed zoning designation is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan for Washington County. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained.
51. Lawrence Cement Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a request from St. Lawrence Cement to remove the 1M industrial Mineral overlay from a portion of their land. A subdivision plat has been submitted from St. Lawrence Cement to convey approximately 35.36 acres of property to Mr. Jamie Snyder. The property is located on the north side of Old Forge Road near the intersection of Antietam Drive and Old Forge Road. When the Comprehensive Rezoning of the Rural Area was done, this property was taken out of the Growth Area and was given an underlying zoning of Agricultural Rural. The Ordinance prohibits residential development in the 1M overlay zone. Section 15.3 allows the Board of County Commissioners, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, to restore the land to Its previous classification upon written request from the landowner.
Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners removal of the 1M overlay zone. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained.
Election of Officers Mr. Thompson stated that the Planning Commission by-laws require an election of officers in June for the upcoming year.
Mr. Kercheval made a motion to elect Mr. Anikis as the Chairman and Mr. Reiber as the Vice Chairman for the upcoming year. Seconded by Linda Parrish. Unanimously approved.
- UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Joint Rezoning Hearing, Monday, June 12, 2006, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Court House, Court Room #1, 95 W. Washington Street 2. Regular Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, July 10, 2006, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 W. Baltimore Street
- ADJOURNMENT Mr. Wiley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. So ordered.
Respectfully Submitted, 'i. 1
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING - May 22, 2006
The Washington County Planning Commission and Planning Staff held a workshop meeting on Wednesday, May 22, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. in the Washington County Administrative Annex, Conference Room #1,80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown, Maryland.
Planning Commission members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Bernard Moser, Terry Reiber, Linda Parrish, Sam Ecker, Clint Wiley and Ex-Officio, James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planners Stephen T. Goodrich and Timothy A. Lung, Planner Sara Henke and Administrative Assistant Debra S. Eckard. Also present was: Greg Murray, Director, Department of Water Quality; Gary Rohrer, Director, Department of Public Works; Terry McGee, Director, Engineering Department, and John Latimer, Chief, Department of Emergency Services.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m.
DISCUSSION
Mr. Thompson stated that several amendments are needed for the Subdivision Ordinance. Staff is reviewing and prioritizing issues that need to be addressed in a timely manner. One issue of concern is obtaining from developers adequate property for open space areas, school sites, park sites, etc. Several policies and regulations would need to be reviewed and updated concurrently.
Sewer Capacity Mr. Moser began a discussion regarding sewer capacity issues. Mr. Murray stated that currently there is approximately 1.66 EDU's available per acre for vacant land to be built out within the Urban Growth Area. . There is approximately 32,000 EDU's outside the corporate boundaries inside the Hagerstown Growth Area. Each town has its own analysis. The County currently has a 20-year build out plan that allows 1,000 EDU's per year. He stated there needs to be a change in the philosophy for the County's future. We need to identify the areas that would best be served by available EDU's, when to use the allocation, and determine how much of the allocation would be used for commercial and residential uses. The Department of Water Quality and Planning Department need to work more closely in determining how much capacity is available each year and the areas where it is available. The determination of use should be based on the Commissioner's yearly objectives. Mr. Rohrer stated that the County should begin working with the City, businesses and other interested parties to determine how much of the allocation should be reserved for certain kinds of industries that the County would like to attract. Mr. Murray stated that the County is encouraging the Towns (i.e. Boonsboro, Smithsburg, etc.) to correct problems with their sewage systems in order to continue with their proposed town annexations. Mr. Moser believes the County needs to develop plans to stay ahead of growth rather than catch up with growth. He expressed his concern regarding higher density deveiopment and the issues facing the County in regard to sewer allocation.
Mr. Murray stated that the MDE has formed a committee to develop ways to trade capacity with other communities. He suggested that trading capacity might be found in the non-point agricultural initiatives in the tributary strategies versus the public initiatives for public treatment plants. The MDE is currently considering requiring all new septic systems to have an offset in nutrients loading and for each County to form a committee to report septic loading issues to the MDE. Mr. Murray stated that by 2010, all new septic systems should be the enhanced type that reduces nitrogen like a treatment facility. Nitrogen levels would be cut in half so Instead of putting in 25 to 30 pounds per year per household you are putting in 6 pounds per year per household.
Mr. Kercheval inquired if there are issues that should be addressed when updating the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Murray stated that from a subdivision perspective, the development should have some type of a dry system or monies should be set aside in an escrow account so public sewer systems can be provided at some point in the future when private systems fail. Currently, there are approximately $120 million in Washington County that would be a liability if you would have to put in public systems. He also stated that many of the County water systems are smaller groundwater systems. The MDE estimates that the recharge rate in Washington County is approximately 300 gallons per day per acre. If septic systems require an acre lot, the recharge into the acre versus what you are taking out is sufficient. However, a higher density area with a groundwater system would not have a sufficient recharge rate. Water capacity would be based on how much water to permit versus how much growth is allowed on the system.
Mr. Rohrer recommended considering inflow and infiltration issues as part of the Adequate Public Facilities agreement process. If a developer is proposing a subdivision in an area where a network of lines with I&I problems, the County could deny approval of the project until the problems are resolved or until the developer agrees to participate in mitigation. Mr. Murray stated that I & I is not long term sustainable without continuous remediation; however, it does allow capacity to be brought with the developer. With the Capacity Management Plan, there is an infrastructure development fee of $1,000 per EDU that each developer pays. If the developer builds a pumping station to serve their development, the cost of the pumping station is subtracted from their development fee. The next developer that does not 2
need to build a pumping station, their fees are used to build downstream infrastructure for I & I projects. This is a long-term mitigation process that is funded as growth occurs.
In conclusion, Mr. Murray stated that all departments related to utilities and the Planning Department need to work more closely to determine long-term objectives and to focus on the capacity that is available now and in the future.
Traffic Issues Mr. Anikis began a discussion regarding traffic issues in the County. He made an inquiry why traffic studies are required so early in the development process and stated his opinion that the quality of the studies is poor and done without logic or consistency. Mr. McGee stated that traffic studies are not required early in the development process. The Engineering Department can estimate the amount of traffic that would be generated from a particular development based on the exact number of units, the type of units and the size of any commercial, industrial or manufacturing facility. He stated they prefer to see traffic studies before final approval when the developer has determined exactly what the proposed development would look like. The Engineering Department must agree with the traffic study and will not grant final site plan or final plat approval until such time. The time to have traffic studies completed varies depending on the particular type of development from a zoning perspective. He also stated that there are two different levels of studies. Most traffic impact studies are site specific and can sometimes be prepared for several developments together. Transportation planning is another level of study that looks at the county as a whole to determine where growth should occur and how to make the road infrastructure work.
There was a brief discussion regarding the Robinwood corridor. The City and County will need to work together to address issues of concern. One area of concern is the Edgewood Drive/Route 40 intersection. A new intersection may be needed and would be developer driven.
Mr. McGee noted that when reviewing developments, there are several factors that his department takes . into consideration. For example, more than one access point is recommended to spread out traffic and for safety reasons. They recommend connectivity between developments whenever possible.
Fire and Emergency Services Mr. Anikis began a discussion to determine how the Department of Fire and Emergency Services tracks the manpower and facilities provided by the volunteer fire companies. Mr. Latimer noted that currently there are only five fire companies in Washington County with some level of career or paid staff. However, there are currently no emergency medical services in Washington County that are completely volunteer services. Last year approximately 15,000 of the 21,000 were calls for emergency services. The issue of how to service the large number of emergency calls is a priority and is being reviewed at this time. The level of efficiency and needs would then be reviewed and discussed for fire related issues. The study would include how many fire stations and emergency stations are needed, the number of staff, how many ambulances and reserve ambulances are needed. After the studies are completed, the County Commissioners will determine the fee structure and how to finance their needs.
There was a brief discussion regarding the need for property for new fire stations and ambulance facilities. At some point in time, developers may be required to provide acreage for these facilities. There is a component in the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance to help provide some of these facilities also. Mr. Latimer stated that a four to five acre parcel would be needed for a combination fire/ambulance facility that would include training facilities and could be used for fundraising events. Smaller parcels could be used to accommodate a facility for only one use. There was some discussion about setting up a program similar to the Forest Conservation Fund to allow developers to contribute land on site or to make a payment in lieu to help purchase land from another developer for public uses.
There was a brief discussion regarding the preparation of an Emergency Services Master Plan that could be made part of the Comprehensive Plan for the County. The Master Plan would indicate the areas that need fire and emergency facilities to improve response time and adequately serve the County. Response times are currently recorded and indicate sufficient deficiencies at points west and south of Hancock and the 18 miles between Hancock and Clear Spring. Based on the number of calls recorded, the EMS in southern Washington County is the most efficient.
Some members expressed concern with regard to the current and proposed development in the Williamsport area. Mr. Latimer stated that currently there are two fire stations with ambulance services within 2 miles of each other in this area. Members would like to see a report showing the current number of calls per year, response times, where the stations are located, etc. for the entire County. There was a brief discussion about creating a questionnaire for fire companies and rescue services to assess each development with regard to the adequacy of roads, water supply, etc. as part of the review and approval process.
PUD Issues Mr. Thompson began a discussion regarding planned unit developments and the variations from County to County and State to State. In Maryland, Frederick and Montgomery counties mandate school sites. In Frederick County school sites are mandated on PUD's over 500 units. The size of the site varies depending on the type of units, the size of the development, etc. Ms. Henke stated that Montgomery County has four or five different types of PUD's. The Planned Neighborhood zone is associated with 3 school sites. and requires a minimum of 450 eiementary school students from the development and therefore determines the size of the PUD and the acreage reqUired. Other courties In Maryland purchase land needed for school sites. Frederick County requires pubiic use sites to be dedicated for developments with over 1,000 dwelling units. Most of the counties that allow PUD's also allow commercial units to be built within the PUD's after a predetermined number of dwelling units have been built.
There was a brief discussion regarding commercial units within the PUD's. The space needed for commercial units varies depending on the size of the development. It is also difficult to determine where the commerciai units shouid be placed in the development since most PUD's would not be large enough to financially support the commercial uses. If the commercial space is placed on the interior of the development, additional traffic would be entering and exiting the development and could become a potential problem. By placing the commercial space on the edge of the development, it is less convenient for the residents of the development that you are trying to serve.
Ms. Henke stated that most Counties require open space with recreational amenities; however, the amenities are not specified in County policies. Members discussed the time frame in which the amenities should be built.
There was some discussion that PUD's should be classified as low, medium and high density and a determination should be made where each classification of density should be located within the Growth Area. It is important to remember that PUD's allow for flexibility of design and housing types. St. Mary's County requires a total area of open space per dwelling unit and required developed recreation area per dwelling unit.
ADJOURNMENT Chairman Anikis adjourned the meeting at 4:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, L 4
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - JULY 10, 2006
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, July 10, 2006, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown.
Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Linda Parrish, Bernard Moser, Sam Ecker, Terry Reiber, Glint Wiley and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Timothy A. Lung, Senior Planners Lisa Keliy Pietro "nd Misty Wagner-Grilio, Associate Planner Sara Henke, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman George Anikis calied the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES
Mr. Ecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 5, 2006 Regular Planning Commission meeting as amended. Seconded by Mr. Wiiey. Unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS - Variances Glendon L. and Laura L. Eby (SV-06-023) Mr. Lung presented for review and recommendation a variance from Subdivision Ordinance Section 405.11.B to create a new lot without public road frontage. The property is located along the east side of Maryland Route 60, Leitersburg Pike at the Pennsylvania state line. The site is approximately 94.57 acres in size and is zoned A- Agriculture. In 1998, the Joseph M. Weisenbaugh Farm was subdivided to settie an estate that created a 37.96-acre parcel 10 and a 94.88-acre parcel 64. Both parcels are encumbered by a permanent agricultural land preservation easement which stipulates that no development can ever take place on this property. Parcel 10 was sold to the Touhey's who were not farmers and Parcel 64 was sold to the Eby's who are farmers. Parcel 10 was subsequently purchased by the current owners the Schindel's who are farmers. The Schindel's wish to purchase the Eby parcel and consolidate the farm back to its original configuration. At the present time, the Schindel's only have resources to purchase 45 acres of the Eby parcel leaving 50 acres on the south side of Rocky Forge Road with sole access via Rocky Forge Road which is a private road. Access to the remaining 50 acres would remain unchanged. Approval of the variance would permit ali of the farm buildings to be situated on one parcel under one ownership due to the fact that the previous subdivision separated the loafing sheds from the house, barn and outbuildings. The State has submitted a letter stating that they have no objections to this subdivision.
Mr. Moser made a motion to grant approval of the variance. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.
Washington County Department of Water Quality (SV-06-02B) Ms. Pietro presented for review and approvai a variance from Subdivision Ordinance 405.11 .B to create a new lot without public road frontage. The site is located approximately 1500-feet east of the Greencastle Pike and is situated on a 119-acre tract owned by Bowman LLC. The property is currently zoned HI-1. The Department of Water Quality Is proposing to create a 7,500-square foot lot for the Cedar Springs Pump Station. The proposed building would be 560-square feet. The pump station would connect to the public sanitary sewer system behind Federal Express. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a special exception along with a waiver for the buffer yard requirements within the past 30 days.
Discussion: Mr. Mark Bradshaw, Department of Water Quality, stated that the property would be accessed by Halfway Boulevard through the property owned by Bowman LLC. Access easements would be reconfigured as Bowman develops the land. Documents dealing with the access easement for the actual sewer line and the permanent access easement have been prepared by the County Attorney's office and have been forwarded to Bowman.
Mr. Reiber made a motion to grant approval of the variance. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained.
- Subdivisions Emerald Pointe PUD, Phase I (PP-OS-009) Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval the Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan for Emerald Pointe PUD, Phase I. The property is located along the east side of Marsh Pike and is zoned NPUD - Agricultural/Planned Unit Deveiopment. The Planning Commission approved the final development plan in April 2004. The developer is proposing 40 5 semi-detached lots and 14 single-family lots on approximately 15.4 acres. The minimum lot size for the single-family lots is .21 acres and the semi-detached lots would be a minimum of 5,800 square feet. The open space comprises 1.02 acres. New public streets will be constructed to Emerald Pointe Drive and will connect with Marsh Pike. All iots would be served by public water provided by the City of Hagerstown and public sewer provided by Washington County; however, the City of Hagerstown's treatment plant wouid service the refuse. The Homeowner's Association would maintain all open space areas. Sidewalks would be constructed along the interior streets and along Marsh Pike. The proposed build-out of Phase I is two to three years. Storm water management would be provided by a storm water management pond. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements would be met by the on-site planting of trees. Approval from the Washington County Soil Conservation District is pending. All other agency approvals have been received. ..
Comment: Ms. Pietro noted that the Forest Conservation plantings would be completed in stages as required by each phase of the development.
Discussion: There was a brief discussion regarding water and sewer allocations from the City and County. Sewer allocation would be determined during the final plat approval process. An annexation agreement is not required because the property is located in the Joint Service Area. There was a brief discussion regarding the amenities proposed for this development and the phasing schedule for completion of these amenities. The phasing schedule should be submitted as part of the final plat process for Phase I. Mr. Crampton, developer, stated that the amenities would be completed near the end of Phase I.
Commission members made an inquiry regarding the number of senior housing units proposed for the development. Mr. Crampton stated that Phase I would be age restricted housing. Proposed housing in subsequent phases would be determined depending upon school capacity issues.
Ms. Parrish made an inquiry regarding entrances to the development. One entrance will be constructed off of Marsh Park and a second entrance will be constructed off of Long Meadow Road during Phase 3 of the development.
Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan as presented. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved.
Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat as presented. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.
OTHER BUSINESS RZ-06-008 - Joel A. Knight Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and recommendation the rezoning request for Joel A. Knight. The property is located along the east side of Sharpsburg Pike. The site is approximately 1.18 acres and is currently zoned A- Agriculture. The applicant is requesting a change in zoning to BG - Business General.
Comments: Mr. Anikis stated that he did not believe Mr. Knight presented a case reiative to a change in the neighborhood or a mistake in the original zoning of the property. Mr. Anikis noted that the surrounding area is primarily residential and farmland with only a small area that is commercial at the entrance of St. James North. The properties east of the subject parcel are residential and adjacent properties are zoned Agriculture.
Mr. Moser concurred with Mr. Anikis's comments. The commercial area was developed to serve the St. James PUD. Mr. Moser expressed concern for the intersection of St. James and College Road and the problems that would be created by the BG zoning of this property.
Mr. Moser made a motion to recommend denial of the rezoning request to the Board of County Commissioners based on the applicant's failure to prove a change in the neighborhood and the request is not consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved. Mr. Reiber and Mr. Kercheval abstained.
RZ-06-009 - Pennsylvania Avenue 2003, LLC Ms. Henke presented for review and recommendation the rezoning request for Pennsylvania Avenue 2003, LLC. The property is located approximately 1,000-feet east of the intersection of US Route 11 and North Pointe Drive. The site is approximately 0.47 acre and is currently zoned RS - Residential Suburban. The applicant is requesting a change in the zoning to BG - Business General based on a mistake in the original zoning of the property. Staff believes the applicant should have presented a case for a change in the character of the neighborhood rather than a mistake.
Comments: There was a brief discussion regarding the requested zoning and the opinion of several members of the Planning Commission that a case can be made based on a change in the character of the neighborhood. 6
There w,,"s also a brief discussion regarding storm water management issues that need to be addressed in the immediate area surrounding the subject property. The Engineering Department has been contacted regarding these issues.
Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request to the Board of County Commissioners based on a change in the character of the neighborhood. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimousiyapproved. Mr. Kercheval abstained.
Comment: Mr. Kercheval made a request to have the Engineering Department determine the need of any future right-of-ways associated with this area.
RZ-06-010 - Text Amendment Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation the Text Amendment to Sections 6.1(f), 6.20),6.5, 7.2(c), 7.5 and 21.A.1(c) of the Zoning Ordinance. The Text Amendment proposes to delete the references to "Class A" and "Class B" hospitais.
Discussion: There was a brief discussion regarding the definition of "hospital". In the future the definition may need to be revised and updated; however, a public hearing would be required prior to such changes.
Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend approvai of the text amendment as presented to the Board of County Commissioners. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained.
City of Hagerstown - Shaool Annexation (A06-03) Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation the City of Hagerstown Shaool Annexation. The property is located along the east side of Eastern Boulevard across from Hillside Manor. The property is approximately 5.948 acres in size. The developer is proposing 26 semi-detached dwelling units. The applicant is requesting an R-1 (residential) zoning upon annexation into the City and Staff has determined that the request is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Comments: Mr. Thompson suggested as part of the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners that appropriate right-of-way dedications, if necessary, or potential participation by the developer in the upgrade of Eastern Boulevard in that particular area should be required. Also, the Planning Commission's comments and concerns regarding access to Eastern Bouievard, as part of the Preliminary Consultation review, should be forwarded to the City of Hagerstown.
Discussion: There was a brief discussion regarding the access onto Eastern Bouievard. Planning Commission members are concerned that there is only one access to the development; however, they do not believe there should be a second access onto Eastern Boulevard. They believe the developer should consider a way to provide a second access from Antietam Drive and would prefer that there is no access from Eastern Boulevard. Members also expressed concern regarding safety issues for school-aged students and a bus stop along Eastern Boulevard for this development.
Mr. Moser made a motion to recommend that the proposed zoning designation is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan for Washington County; however, the Planning Commission does have safety concerns regarding the access onto Eastern Boulevard and a bus stop for school-aged students along Eastern Boulevard Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained.
Edgewood Drive/Route 40 Improvements Update
Mr. Thompson presented an updated production schedule for the Edgewood Drive/Route 40 intersection improvements as provided by Mr. Gary Rohrer, Director of the Department of Public Works. The tentative schedule is as follows: Semi-Final Review (65% for US 40/Edgewood and 30% for section up to Mt. Aetna Drive) to be completed by January 2007; Final Review (90%) to be completed by May 2007; Advertisement (Production) to be completed by August 2007; and Notice to Proceed for Construction to be completed by November 2007. There was a brief discussion regarding funding for this project.
Subdivision Development Review Process Mr. Thompson began a brief discussion regarding a poiicy to determine how developments would be approved to move forward in the future once school capacity issues are resolved. One concern expressed by Commission members is developments that have received final approval based on age-restricted units.
FUTURE MEETINGS 1. Regular Planning Commission meeting, Monday, August 7, 2006, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street ) ) i ) Q$: :I> 0.:-' 0 CD <- ~$: 0 p. '"3 S1 o· ::> ~ 0 '" %c :3 5' CD :Il CD 5' CD :-' (f) o ) ) •I 8 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - AUGUST 7,2006 The Washington County Planning Commission heid its reguiar meeting on Monday, August 7, 2006, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown. Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Bernard Moser, Sam Ecker, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planners Stephen T. Goodrich, Timothy A. Lung, Senior Planners Lisa Kelly Pietro and Misty Wagner-Grillo, Associate Planner Sara Henke, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 22, 2006 Planning Commission Workshop meeting as amended. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. Unanimously approved. Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 10, 2006 Regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS Mt. Aetna Subdivision Update (PC-06-004 and PC-06-00S) Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented an updated concept plan for Lots 32-34 and Lots 35-39, Mt. Aetna Subdivision iocated along the south side of Mt. Aetna Road. In May of 2006, a concept plan was presented to the Planning Commission at which time the Commission recommended that the design include plans to eliminate the proposed cul-de-sac by connecting the two proposed roads. The developer has revised the concept plan to eliminate the cul-de-sac and connects the new proposed road to Easterday Court. Discussion: Mr. Moser made an inquiry regarding the proposed future road on Lot 28. The developer, Mr. Easterday, stated that he is proposing to rezone Lot 28 in order to further subdivide that lot to help offset the costs of constructing the new road. He stated that the proposed road will be constructed when other issues (such as schools) are resolved with the County. No action required. NEW BUSINESS -VARIANCES Tyler H. Priest (SV-06-030) Ms. Henke presented for review and approval a variance from Subdivision Ordinance 405.11.G.5 to allow a panhandle length greater than 400-feet. The property is located along Reidtown Road and is located in the Airport Overlay zone. The applicant is proposing a panhandle length of 1, 144-feet to create a new lot. The two existing lots were created without public road frontage on a panhandle of approximately 380-feet. The Engineering Department has some concerns regarding storm water management issues. Discussion: Mr. Moser made an inquiry regarding the applicant's hardship for the variance request as required by the Subdivision Ordinance. Ms. Henke stated that the applicant has not established an extraordinary hardship and states only that he wishes to create a new lot. Comments: Mr. Moser expressed his opinion that the panhandle length is excessive and that required criteria as stated in the Subdivision Ordinance has not been met. Mr. Reiber does not believe that the applicant has met the criteria for an extraordinary hardship. He also expressed concern regarding the geographic iocation of the subject property to the airport. Mr. Kercheval expressed his concern for possible future land acquisition issues related to the airport. Mr. Moser made a motion to deny the variance request. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved. - SUBDIVISIONS Shenandoah Estates, Lots 1-13 (PP-OS-OOS) Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval the preliminary plat for Lots 1-13, Shenandoah Estates located along the north side of Bakersville Road approximately two miles west of its intersection with Sharpsburg Pike. The property is zoned A (R) - Agricultural Rural. The developer is proposing to create 13 single-family lots in sizes ranging from 2 to 20 acres on ,~.- -= 9 approximately 66.8 acres. Lot 1 has an existing farmhouse and barn with access to Bakersville Road. All lots will be served by individual well and septic. A new pUblic street called Shenandoah Court will serve the proposed lots. There are existing floodplains and wetlands on the site. Forest Conservation requirements will be met by 8.6 acres of forest retention and 5.49 acres of forest plantings. Approvals from the Washington County Engineering Department and the Washington County Soil Conservation District are pending. Details regarding a flood plain study for the site are required prior to these approvals. Comment: Mr. Mark Felton of Triad Engineering, consultants, provided the following comments regarding the flood plain study. The Engineering Department has requested that an analysis be performed on the FEMA flood plain line and the 100-year flood plain iine with regard to the proposed house on Lot 2. Discussion: Mr. Anikis made an inquiry regarding the clearing of existing forest on Lot 2 and the clearing of land where Bakersville Road enters Shenandoah Estates. Mr. Taylor Oliver, developer, stated that the forest on Lot 2 will be cleared to allow for the proposed house and septic area and the clearing at the entrance is to accommodate the storm water management area. Comment: Mr. Moser expressed his concern regarding Bakersville Road. Mr. Kercheval stated that Bakersville Road is proposed for Widening to 18-feet. Mr. Oliver stated that this development will be participating in the proposed overlay of Bakersville Road. Mr. Wiley made a motion to grant preliminary plat approval contingent upon approval from the Engineering Department and the Soil Conservation District. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Unanimously approved. Mr. Reiber made a motion to grant approval of the Forest Conservation requirement as presented. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved. Tammany Heights North, Section IV (PP-06-001) Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval the preliminary plat for Tammany Heights North, Section IV. The property is located east of 1-81 and south of 1-70 along Custer Court and is zoned HI-2. The developer is proposing to create 11 single-family and 6 semi-detached lots on a total of 27 acres. The average proposed lot area is 13,677-square feet. All lots will be served by public water and public sewer and will access Custer Court. Sidewalks will be installed. Blue spruce trees will be planted along the 1-81 boundary to provide screening. Forest Conservation requirements will be met by payment in lieu in the amount of $4,007.52. Approval from the Health Department is pending. All other agency approvals have been received. Discussion: Mr. Downey, developer, has offered to donate a 1.04-acre parcel of property from this subdivision to the County for a park site. The subject site is under review by various County agencies and the agreement must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Comments: Mr. Anikis expressed his concern regarding the noise from 1-81. He believes the developer should consider the installation of a sound barrier along this area. Mr. Reiber made a motion to grant approval of the payment in lieu to meet the Forest Conservation requirement. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved. Mr. Wiley made a motion to grant approval of the preliminary plat contingent upon approval from the Health Department. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. -SITE PLANS C. R. Semler, Inc. (SP-06-016) Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval the site plan for C. R. Semler, Inc. The property is located along the west side of Route 66, Mapleville Road, between Cavetown and the 1-70 interchange and is zoned RR - Residential Rural. The owner is proposing to construct a 10,000 square foot manufacturing shop addition and an 8,000-square foot storage building. The total site is 19 acres. A private well and septic are currently on the site. There are currently 25 employees and no additional employees are proposed. Parking spaces required and provided are 25 spaces. The hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and Saturday, 7:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Solid waste is collected in a private dumpster on the site. Freight and delivery is three per week. No additional signs are proposed. Lights will be building mounted. This site is eligible for the express procedure to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements and the owner has paid $1,132.56 to meet this requirement. All agency approvals have been received. Discussion: There was a brief discussion regarding the business as a non-conforming use in its designated zoning district and intensification of the use versus expansion of the use. Comments: Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that there should be screening between the existing homes and business structures. Mr. Kercheval and Mr. Wiley expressed their opposition 10 to Mr. Reiber's recommendation because the business existed prior to the construction of the house. Mr. Kercheval made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Comment before the vote: Ms. Reiber encouraged the owner to consider screening between the residences and the business structures. Mr. Moser expressed his opinion that the property should be rezoned to conform to the existing use of the property. The motion passed with Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Wiley and Mr. Moser voting "Aye" and Mr. Ecker and Mr. Reiber voting "Nay". Firestone, Lot 8, Valley Mall (SP-06-042) Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval the site plan for the Firestone Tire Center located on Lot 8, Valley Mall, along the north side of Cole Road. The property is zoned PB - Planned Business. The developer is proposing to construct a new Firestone Tire Center on .99 acres. Access will be off of the interior mall access road. Public water and sewer will serve the site. The developer is proposing 10 service bays along with a customer service center. Twelve employees are proposed. Hours of operation will be Monday through Sunday, 6:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Parking spaces required Is 32 spaces and 41 spaces are provided. A 10-foot by 45-foot loading area is proposed in front of the bays. Freight and delivery will be one per week. A screened dumpster will be provided for solid waste disposal. There will be three building mounted signs on three sides of the proposed building. Lighting will be building and pole mounted. There is an existing fire hydrant in the northeast corner of the property and a proposed hydrant along Cole Road. Landscaping will be located around the building and throughout the parking lot and will include burning bush, locust, yew, juniper, Hugo pine, daylilies and Japanese maple. The Forest Conservation Ordinance requirement was satisfied in 1998 for the entire Valley Mall area. Approvals from the City of Hagerstown Water Department and the Washington County Health Department are pending. All other agency approvals have been received. Mr. Reiber made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon approval from the City of Hagerstown Water Department and the Washington County Health Department. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Unanimously approved. - PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS Ira K. and Virginia Drury (PC-06-007) Ms. Pietro presented for review and recommendation the preliminary consultation for Ira K. and Virgin'la Drury. The subject site is located along the east side of Walnut Point Road, about 1/3 of a mile south of its intersection with National Pike (Route 40). The total tract area is 103 acres. The property is located within the Urban Growth Area and is currently zoned A- Agriculture. The concept densities are based on what is proposed when lands within the Urban Growth Area are reclassified to a classification permitting density of four units per acre. The developer is proposing to construct a total of 298 units that would include single-family homes, townhomes and duplexes. The Engineering Department offered the following comments during the preliminary consultation. A Traffic Impact StUdy that will include road adequacy and stopping sight distance will be required. A second access to the development will be required. The number of proposed cul-de-sacs will not be allowed due to maintenance issues. A less circuitous route out to Trickling Springs Lane is recommended. Closed street sections with curb and sidewalk will be required. The Department of Water Quality will require a separate lot for the pumping station for this development. The State Highway Administration recommended a traffic study for the following intersections: Maryland 63 at Trickling Springs Lane, U.S. 40 at Walnut Point Road East, U.S. 40 at Maryland 63, and 1-70 at Maryland 63. The study would need to include a sight distance analysis at the US 40 intersection with Walnut Point Road. The Board of Education stated that this development is within the Conococheague Elementary, Clear Spring Middie and Clear Spring High school districts. The Conococheague Elementary School is currently over capacity and the additional enrollment generated by this development could not be accommodated at the high school. The Planning Department recommended the installation of streetlights for a development of this size. Ms. Pietro recommended that the townhouse lots bordering the single-family lots should be moved and driveways should not have direct access onto Wainut Point Road. She also recommended that no afforestation should be placed on the townhome or duplex lots due to the size of the lots. In the future, if the zoning allows townhouse units, tot lots and teen lots will be required. Comments: Mr. Moser expressed his concern regarding sewer capacity issues and the access for this development onto Walnut Point Road. He also believes that the proposed density is too high for this area and this issue will need to be evaluated if and when the Urban Growth Area is rezoned. Mr. Ecker concurred with Mr. Moser's concerns. 11 Mr. Reiber expressed his concern regarding school capacity issues. Mr. Wiley inquired when the traffic impact study would be completed. Mr. Frederick, consultant, stated that the Washington County Engineering Department and State Highway Administration will work with the consultant to develop the scope of work required for the traffic impact study. Mr. Kercheval does not support any access points onto Wainut Point Road. He supports the Pianning Staff comments regarding the placement of the townhouse units and connectivity to Trickling Springs Road. Mr. Anikis expressed his concern regarding sewer allocation and traffic calming issues. He also believes more tot lots and amenities are needed for a development of this size. No action required. - FOREST CONSERVATION Mr. Goodrich presented for review and recommendation candidate sites proposed for the use of Forest Conservation P.I.L. funds received through mitigation to meet Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements. Mr. Eimer Weibley, District Manager for the Washington County Soil Conservation District, presented the following candidate sites. The first site is owned by Mr. Jeff Rubino and is iocated at 12767 Ailanthus Drive, Hagerstown. The subject site is located in the subdivision of Cedar Hills East. The Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements for this subdivision have been met by the deveioper and there are no sensitive areas located on the site. Mr. Weibley and Mr. Goodrich do not recommend this site for approvai due to future maintenance issues and the iack of sensitive areas on the site. The second candidate site is owned by Mr. Robert Ellis and is located at 14805 Weller Road, Hancock. There are currently 216-acres of existing forest and 104-acres of new forest to be planted. Mr. Weibley recommended planting the most sensitive areas first beginning with the stream area and the adjoining field and to continue planting the remainder of the property and finally purchase the easement on the existing forest. The iast site is owned by Lee and Linda Hutson and is located at 3825 Resiey Road, Hancock. This property consists of steep slopes and a small portion of Munson Spring Branch and is located in close proximity to another property that is currently in this program and under easement. Mr. Weibley recommended the purchase of an easement on 87-acres on this property. Comments: Mr. Reiber expressed his concern that most of the easements are being purchased in the same general area. Mr. Weibley stated that there are easements in various areas throughout the County. Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the Ellis and Hutson properties as candidate sites for the Forest Conservation program. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained. OTHER BUSINESS McCB, LLC Mr. Thompson presented for review a request from McCB, LLC to remove the 1M Overlay zone from a 20-acre parcel located along Western Maryland Parkway. In 1973 when the Washington County Zoning Ordinance was adopted, the property was given a zoning classification of 1M, which was a Euclidean classification rather than an overlay zone at that time. When the 1M overlay is removed, there is some question regarding the underlying zoning classification on this parcel. Ms. Henke stated that the surrounding properties are currently zoned "IG" - Industrial General, "1M" - Industrial Mineral, and "IR" - Industrial Restricted. Mr. Urner, attorney for the applicant, stated that in 1973 when this parcel was zoned, there was an active quarry site east of the property. Sometime in the early 1980's, the Zoning Ordinance was amended and the 1M zoning designation became an overlay zone and the Euclidean zoning was repealed. At that time, an underlying zoning classification should have been given to the property. In 1979, the Comprehensive Pian removed this site as a mining site. In 2002, the Rural Policy Area was established and again changed the "1M" zoning classification. At that time, the County did not include properties with the "1M" zoning classification in the Urban Growth Area. The 2002 Comprehensive Plan classified the property a land use of Industrial General. The applicant is requesting the "1M" overlay be removed and the underlay zone be established as Industrial General. 12 Comments: Mr. Thompson stated that Staff believes this request should proceed through the rezoning process to establish the underlying zone for the property. Mr. Moser believes a public hearing is required to establish the zoning classification. Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that the iogical zoning classification would be Industrial General. Mr. Kercheval believes that the "1M" overlay zone shouid be removed; however, a public hearing is needed to establish the underlying zoning designation. Mr. Moser made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners the removal of the "1M" overlay zone. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Additional Planning Commission Meeling Mr. Thompson stated that a second Planning Commission meeting will be needed in October to make recommendations for the rezoning cases that will be heard at the Joint Public Hearing on September 18, 2006. The rezoning cases should be brought before the Board of County Commissioners for their decisions prior to the elections in November. Recommended dates for the additional meeting are October 91h and October 161h A final decision on the date will be announced during the September 11, 2006 meeting. Claggell's Mill Preliminary Plat On September 13, 2004, the Pianning Commission approved the preliminary plat for 238 units in Claggett's Mill located along Poffenberger Road. The developer proposed a mitigation plan to the Board of Education to address school issues. However, the Board of Education has rejected the plan for failure to comply with their Mitigation Plan requirements. Final approval of the mitigation plan will be determined by the Board of County Commissioners. Preliminary plat approval is valid for a period of two years. The developer has submitted the final plat for approval. Section 315 of the Subdivision Ordinance states, "Within two years after approval or conditional approval of the preliminary plat, the developer or subdivider may submit the final plat for subdivision or any part thereof. However, upon the request of the subdivider, an extension may be granted by the Commission for one 12-month period. If the extension is not granted and if the final plat has not been filed within 24 months, the proposal shall be considered null and void and no further action taken." The developer is requesting an extension of the preliminary plat approval. Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve a one 12-month extension for the preliminary plat approval of Claggett's Mill. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Unanimously approved. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Regular Planning Commission meeting, Monday, September 11, 2006, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street 2. Joint Public Hearing, Monday, September 18, 2006, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Court House, 95 West Washington Street ADJOURNMENT Mr. Moser made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m. So ordered. Respectfully submitted, a~/JJ~' Ge.rge Arlikis, Chairman 13 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - September 11,2006 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, September 11, 2006, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown. Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Linda Parrish, Bernard Moser, Sam Ecker, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Timothy A. Lung, Senior Planners Lisa Kelly Pietro and Misty Wagner-Grillo, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 7, 2006 regular Planning Commission meeting as amended. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS - Variances Gary Blair Gibson (SV-06-034) Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a variance to remove the 10-year immediate family member restriction on a previously approved subdivision plat. In 1998 a subdivision plat was approved for Todd Easterday, et al. for Lots 1 - 4. Prior to the subdivision approval, the Planning Commission granted a . variance to allow a panhandle exceeding 400-feet for Lots 3 and 4. At the time of the approvals, the applicant (Mr. Easterday) claimed that Lots 1-3 were intended for immediate family members and Lot 4 contained an existing dwelling. The variance was granted without any conditions restricting the lots to immediate family members. The 10-year immediate family member restriction was placed on the plat because, at the time, there was a road adequacy issue for Greenbriar Road. Based on Section 4.1.2 of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, widening of the road is exempted if the lots are to be conveyed to an immediate family member. According to Mr. Gibson's letter, (the current owner), Mr. Easterday sold the lot to him on January 20, 2005 and he is not an immediate family member. According to Mr. Gibson's hardship letter, employment constraints prevent him from building a home on this lot and he is forced to sell it. Mr. Gibs.on wishes to remove the 10-year family member restriction so the lot may be sold without any encumbrances. The plat was approved on August 3, 1998 and there are approximately 2 years remaining on the restriction. Based on today's standards, the Engineering Department has stated that Greenbriar Road is adequate and meets the County's standards. Therefore, they have no objection to the removal of the restriction in question. Mr. Lung stated that according to assessment records, the current owners of Lots 1 and 2 may not be immediate family members of the Easterdays. Discussion: There was a discussion regarding the restriction placed on the lots that was noted on the plats and that it should have been recorded on the deed of conveyance. Mr. Kercheval noted that in a discussion with the County Attorney, this restriction should have been found during the title search of the property when it was sold. The County Attorney also stated that when selling the property outside of the immediate family, the seller could be subject to a fine based on our Subdivision Ordinance of not less than $200.00 and not more than $1,000 for each day in violation. Comment: Mr. Kercheval stated his opinion that he is not against the variance based on the Engineering Department having no objections and their opinion that Greenbriar Road is adequate. However, he wouid like staff to investigate the sale of this and other lots in this subdivision to non-family members and give the Planning Commission an update as to any violations of the County's Subdivision Ordinance that may have occurred, as well as recommendations for any citations or fines. Mr. Reiber concurs with Mr. Kercheval's comments. Mr. Kercheval made a motion to approve the variance based on information provided by Staff regarding the adequacy of Greenbriar Road and to waive the two-year restriction limit. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. The motion passed with Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Reiber, Mr. Wiley, Mr. Ecker and Ms. Parrish voting "Aye" and Mr. Moser voting "Nay". - Preliminary Consultations Hickory Estates (PC-06-008) Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and comment a preliminary consultation for Hickory Estates located along the west side of Hickory School Road. The property is zoned HI-2 - Highway Interchange 2. The developer is proposing 65 town homes on approximately 8.54 acres. The Washington County Department of Water Quality stated that the sewer lines must be relocated and manhole #57 has an eXisting service iateral across this property that will affect the location of the storm water management pond. The City of Hagerstown Water Department stated that an annexation review would be required. The State Highway Administration and the Washington County Engineering Department would require a 14 traffic impact study, that would include the intersections at Hickory School Road and US Route 11, US Route 11 and BoWer Avenue and US Route 11 and Massey Boulevard. The Engineering Department also stated that they would not allow 65 units to be served by only one access. A second access would be required to US Route 11. Ms. Wagner-Grillo stated that all requirements outlined in Section 22.6.1 of the Subdivision Ordinance must be addressed on the preiiminary plan. The plans should also include parking, sidewalks, play areas, setbacks, building height, etc. The developer is proposing to retain existing forest on-site to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirement. Hickory Elementary School is currently over-capacity and a school mitigation plan will be required prior to site pian approval. Comments: Mr. Anikis recommended a second access and a traffic impact study. Mr. Moser recommended sidewalks and street iighting. Mr. Kercheval recommended that the developer should consider some screening at the back of the development. No action required. - Subdivisions Interfaith Housing of Western Maryland (PP-05-011) Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval the preliminary piat for Lots 1-10 for Interfaith Housing of Western Maryland located along Cascade Road and Maryland Route 550 in Cascade. The property is zoned RV - Rurai Village and contains 3.7 acres. The developer is proposing 10 lots ranging in size from Y2 to 1 acre. The Washington County Department of Water Quality will provide water and sewer service. Lots 1 - 8 will have shared driveways off of Military Road and Lots 9 and 10 will have access from Cherry Lane. The developer is proposing to retain a 2.21 acre easement to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirement. Cascade Elementary, Smithsburg Middle and Smithsburg High schools would serve this development. A mitigation plan would be required prior to final plat approval. All agency approvals have been received. Discussion: Mr. Moser made an inquiry regarding basements due to wetlands located on the property. The developer stated that no basements are proposed. Mr. Anikis made an inquiry regarding a note on . the plat under the Sensitive Area Notice that the property owner is required to maintain in perpetuity vegetative ground cover. Who will manage and oversee the vegetative ground cover? Mr. Thompson stated that if the property owners would apply for any type of permit or a zoning certification, the grounds would be checked by the Permits Department. Mr. Anikis noted that the developer would be required to seek approval from the Historic District Commission regarding the exterior appearance of the homes since the development is within a rural village. Mr. Moser made a motion to grant preliminary plat approval. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved. Hunter's Green Business Park II, Lot 7 (PP-06-008 and S-06-105) Mr. Lung presented for review and approval the preliminary plat and final plat for Lot 7, Hunters Green Business Park II. The property is located west of 1-81, east of Maryland Route 63 and south of US Route 40 in the Hopewell Valley development area. The developer is proposing a 142.67-acre industrial parcel. At this time, there is no development plan submitted with the plat. The property is zoned IG - Industrial General. The site is made up of pieces of two parcels, one parcel owned by George Keener and the other owned by the Hagerstown-Washington County Industrial Foundation. The developer will be responsible for constructing approximately 1500-linear feet of road (Newgate Boulevard extended). The site will be served by water from the City of Hagerstown and sewer from the Washington County Department of Water Quality. There are flood plains identified on the site. The County's Comprehensive Pian shows the flood plains as a greenway through the Hopewell Valley area. It is the County's intent to leave this area in its natural state with flood plains, natural forest and for additional foresf plantings to perhaps provide some recreation/walking paths. The Forest Stand Delineation pians shows existing forest on this property and the Forest Conservation worksheet indicates that 28.34 acres of total conservation would be required. The developer is proposing to retain 1.04 acres, an additional 10.5 acres will be planted, and the remaining 16.8 acres of forest conservation would be handled through payment-in-lieu in the amount of $73,180.80. Justification for the use of P.I.L. was explained in a letter prepared by the consultant to the Planning Commission. A site plan will be required prior to any development on this lot. Approvals from the Washington County Engineering Department and the Soil Conservation District are pending. All other agency approvals have been received. Mr. Kercheval made a motion to approve the deveioper's proposai to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirement as presented including the payment-in-lieu of 16.8 acres in the amount of $73,180.80. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. Mr. Reiber made a motion to grant preliminary and final plat approval contingent upon all agency approvals and the developer granting an easement on the flood plain and buffer area to protect the future greenway and to allow the County to construct a pathway through the greenway area. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved. - Site Plans Sheets at Huyells Crossroads (SP-06-034) Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a site plan for Sheetz at Huyetts Crossroads. The property is located along the north side of the intersection of US Route 40 and Maryland Route 63. The site is 3.52 acres and is zoned A- Agriculture. The deveioper is proposing to replace the existing Sheetz 15 store with a new Sheetz store and a car wash. The existing area of the store is 3,500 square feet and the proposed new area with the car wash is 5,710 square feet. The new building and canopy will be 22-feet in height and the car wash will be 11-feet in height. Signage is freestanding. Building and pole mounted lighting is proposed. Hours of operation will be 24 hours per day. Parking spaces required are 35 spaces plus 2 handicapped spaces and 59 spaces and 2 handicapped spaces will be provided. There will be four employees per shift with 3 shifts per day. Weekly deliveries are anticipated to remain the same with gas tankers coming every other day and on Saturday and Sunday and tractor-trailer deliveries are two times per week. Proposed Larger Drive will be constructed with the Sheetz store to provide access from US Route 40. Water service will be provided by the City of Hagerstown and the Washington County Department of Water Quality will provide sewer service. The car wash will not be constructed until adequate public sewer facilities are available. The site qualifies for the express procedure to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirement and will be met by payment in lieu in the amount of $1,655.00. Trees and shrubs will provide landscaping along the parking areas. All agency approvals have been received. Comments: Mr. Moser expressed his opinion that screening should be provided along the road between the Sheetz store and the proposed Powers Estates subdivision. Mr. Frederick, consultant, stated that the owner wouid be willing to provide additional screening to the west of the property. There was a brief discussion regarding the additional screening, safety issues, and proximity to the storm water management pond. Discussion: The existing drive provides access to Shifler Equipment Rental and Lager Drive will connect to Powers Estates and will be a County road. Mr. Kercheval noted that due to long-term sewer capacity limitations within the County, the County would only support the construction of the carwash if a water recyciing system is installed. Mr. Reiber made a motion to grant preiiminary/final site plan approval contingent upon the developer working out a plan with Staff for screening on the north side of the property. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Discussion before the vote: By consensus, the Planning Commission members do not support any screening on the northeast corner of the property due to traffic safety issues. Mr. Reiber's motion passed unanimously. Everly Plaza (SP-06-038) Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval the site plan for Everiy Plaza located along the west side of Greencastle Pike north of Everly Road. The site is approximately 2.28 acres and is zoned Hi-1 Highway Interchange 1. The developer is proposing a 17,000 square foot retail shopping center. The building height will be 15-feet. Parking spaces required is 94 spaces and parking provided will be 95 spaces including 4 handicapped spaces. Hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Signage will be building mounted. Lighting will be building and pole mounted. Water service will be provided by the City of Hagerstown and the Washington County Department of Water Quality will provide sewer service. The site quaiifies for the express procedure to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirement and will be met by payment in lieu in the amount of $1,437.00. Landscaping will be provided. All agency approvals have been received. Comments: Mr. Kercheval expressed his concern regarding the entrance and exits close to the intersection and if there may be a problem in the future. The County will reserve the right to resolve traffic issues and may cause some iimits on the entrance and exits. Mr. Moser made a motion to grant preliminary/final site plan approval. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved. Dot Foods Inc. Expansion (SP-06-048) Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval the site plan for the Dot Foods, Inc. expansion which has been designated by the Washington County Economic Development Commission as a fast track project. The property is located along the south side of Elliott Parkway. The parcel area is 17 acres and is zoned IG - Industrial General. The developer is proposing numerous additions. The existing building is 160,000 square feet. The additions would include a 62,000 square foot dry warehouse, a 42,000 square foot freezer, a 1,600 square foot maintenance addition, a 1,000 square foot break room, and a 2,400 square foot truck maintenance garage. The total building area would be approximately 280,000 square feet. There are 60 employees. There are 44 parking spaces required and 111 passenger vehicle spaces will be provided including 3 handicapped spaces and 38 tractor-trailer spaces. Deliveries will be 9 per day. Water service will be provided by the City of Hagerstown and the Department of Water Quality will provide sewer services. Lighting will be pole mounted. The developer is requesting to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirement by payment-in-lieu of $13,895.00. Approvals from the Engineering Department, Department of Water and Quality, Health Department, Soil Conservation District and the Permit and Inspections Department are pending. All other agency approvals have been received. Mr. Moser made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon all agency approvals and the payment-in-lieu to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirement. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. 16 Hagerstown Community College (SP-06-004) Ms. Pietro presented for review and approvai the s',te plan for the Scholar Drive and Career Studies building expansion at the Hagerstown Community College. The site is located along the northwest side of Robinwood Drive. The campus is 312 acres and Is zoned RS - Residential Suburban. The site plan shows the proposed renovation of the career studies building that will include classrooms, faculty offices, science labs, a conference center, computer center and cafeteria. The last section of Scholar Drive is proposed to be constructed around the north end to provide better traffic circulation on campus. Proposed renovations will include providing additional parking spaces, one new parking lot and three revised parking lots. There are currently 517 parking spaces provided and 642 spaces are proposed. Public water and sewer will serve the site. The hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and Saturday, 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Freight and delivery will be two small trucks per day and one tractor-trailer per month. The developer is proposing Bolyard iighting along the walkways, lighting throughout the parking lot and streetlights. Bio-retention areas will provide storm water management for the site. There is a proposed sidewalk, dining plaza, entry plaza, and a dining terrace with landscaping. Solid waste removal is a proposed dumpster In the northwest corner of the lot. Total new building area wili be 887,332 square feet. Signs will be building mounted and there is an existing freestanding sign. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance to exceed the 600 cubic yards of fill material in the 100-year flood plain for the construction of Scholar Drive in March 2006. The Maryland Department of the Environment, Water Management Administration has reviewed this project for construction and granted approval in April 2006. The developer proposes to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements by retaining 3.6 acres of existing forest. Landscaping will be provided using ornamental grasses, boxwood, holly and trees including Maple, Birch, Oak, Poplar and Magnolia. All agency approvals have been received. Mr. Reiber made a motion to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. Unanimously approved. Mr. Moser made a motion to grant approval of the Forest Conservation Plan to retain existing forest on .site to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirement. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. Elmwood Farm (SP-06-029) Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a site plan for temporary and permanent propane gas facilities at Elmwood Farms. The site is located along the north side of Lappans Road and is zoned Agriculture. The developer is proposing to place a temporary propane facility in the central area of the development between Lots 112 and 114. The area is .46 acres and there will be six 1,000 gallon storage tanks enclosed by a 6-foot high chain link. Access will be onto proposed Ripple Drive. Twelve arborvitae are proposed to provide screening. The permanent propane facility will be located on a .83 acre parcel located in the northwest corner of the development and will have access onto Kendle Road and will be surrounded by a 8-foot high chain link fence with black vinyl. A 60,000-galion storage tank is proposed. Thirty-one 6-foot high arborvitae will be planted around the site and proposed gravel placed around the tank. Deliveries will be 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. during the week and will occur one time per month during the winter months. The facility is proposed to be constructed after the 125'h lot has been developed. All agency approvals have been received. Discussion: Mr. Moser made an inqUiry regarding the construction of the permanent facility immediately and eliminate the temporary facility. Mr. Nouse of Thompson Gas stated the decision to build the temporary facility is influenced by economics. Mr. Poffenburger of Fox & Associates, conSUltant, stated that the permanent facility is located in proposed Section 5 of the subdivision. The roads to proposed Section 5 of the development need to be built across the floodpiain and would require a lot of infrastructure to be completed. Mr. Moser agreed with the economics of building the permanent facility at a later time; however, when other temporary structures have been proposed in other developments there have been problems regarding the construction of the permanent facility. Mr. Moser aiso noted that lines could be run down Kendle Road. Mr. Reiber made an inquiry regarding a partnership between Thompson Gas and the developer. Mr. Nouse stated that Thompson Gas would own the facility and the site where the facility is located in addition to all the gas lines within the development. The temporary site would be removed when the permanent facility is operational. Mr. Kercheval inquired about the build-out of the development. Sections 1 and 2 have been recorded with approximately 70-80 lots available. Mr. Moser expressed his concern regarding safety issues for the temporary propane facility between two residences on Lots 112 and 114. Mr. Nouse stated that a distance of 25-feet is required from the temporary site to the residences; however, 50-feet is required for the permanent facility. Mr. Moser expressed concern regarding the maintenance of the facility once it is installed. Mr. Nouse stated that the PSC will conduct an annual audit for erosion control, a leak survey, etc. and they will visit the facility and review all documentation regarding maintenance of the facility. Mr. Moser requested Thompson Gas to provide updates to the Planning Commission regarding the maintenance issues of the facility. There was a brief discussion regarding the deadline for completion of the permanent storage facility. A decision was made between the Plannin~ Commission and Mr. Nouse that the permanent storage facility would be completed by the time the 125 h house is constructed. Mr. Kercheval discussed using a date for the completion of the permanent storage facility versus using a certain number of houses. 17 Mr. Kercheval recommended allowing Staff the authority to work with the developer for completion of the permanent storage facility. Mr. Anikis recommended allowing Staff to work with the developer to design a timetable for the completion of the permanent facility based on either the number of lots or a date and Staff would present the timetable at the October Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Reiber suggested using a percentage of houses to be completed to determine when the permanent facility should be completed. Mr. Kercheval made a motion to approve the temporary facility in the location proposed by the developer and give Staff the authority to approve the time when the permanent facility is required to be completed by working with the developer on a date not to exceed the completion of the 125'h building lot. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Discussion before the vote: Mr. Moser stated his opinion that completion of the 1251h building lot seems too high. He is also concerned with safety issues regarding the placement of the temporary facility between the two lots. He believes that a 30% to 40% completion of houses would be more appropriate for the completion of the permanent facility. Mr. Kercheval's motion failed with Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Reiber and Mr. Wiley voting "Aye" and Mr. Moser, Ms. Parrish, Mr. Ecker and Mr. Anikis voting "Nay". Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the temporary facility and that the build-out of the development must not exceed 30% to 40% prior to the permanent facility being completed and operational. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Discussion before the vote: There was a brief discussion regarding the 30% to 40% build-out. Mr. Moser clarified the 30% to 40% would be the number of the building permits issued on approved lots. Mr. Kercheval recommends that a time limit should be established with the developer. Mr. Kercheval pointed out the fact that the road system within the entire development would need to be constructed in order to construct the permanent facility and does not believe this is economically feasible for the developer. Mr. . Moser stated that the gas lines could be run down Kendle Road to the permanent facility. Mr. Moser's motion failed with Mr. Moser, Ms. Parrish and Mr. Ecker voting "Aye" and Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Wiley, Mr. Reiber and Mr. Anikis voting "Nay". Mr. Kercheval made a motion to approve the temporary facility as presented on the site plan and with the permanent facility to be constructed and operational by the completion of the 1251h lot and a date to be approved by the Staff as determined by the Staff and the developer. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. The motion passed with Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Reiber, Mr. Wiley and Mr. Anikis voting "Aye" and Ms. Parrish, Mr. Moser and Mr. Ecker voting "Nay". Ringgold Church of Christ (SP-06-040) Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a site plan for the Ringgold Church of Christ located along the west side of Barkdoll Road and is zoned RV - Rural Village. The site plan shows the expansion of the Ringgold Church of Christ. The proposed building would be used for church services, a multi-purpose use, and classrooms. The proposed building area is 29,500 square feet and the proposed future expansion is 9,990 square feet. The total acreage of the site is 10 acres. The site will be served by individual well and septic. Lighting will be pole mounted within the parking lot. No new signs are proposed. Trash collection will be inside the facility. A bio-retention pond will provide storm water management. Parking spaces required is 206 spaces and parking provided is 209 spaces. There will be 6 employees. The hours of operation will be all day Sunday, Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and Saturday 7:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Landscaping will include Red maple, Dogwood, Redbud, Weeping Cherry and Red Pine trees. The Forest Conservation Ordinance requirement will be met by retaining 2.08 acres of existing forest on-site. All agency approvals have been received. Comments: Mr. Anikis noted that the developer will be required to seek approval from the Historic District Commission regarding the exterior appearance of the Church since it is located within a rural village. Mr. Kerchevai made a motion to grant site pian approval. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Thompson stated that it will be necessary to hold a special meeting for the Planning Commission to consider the rezoning cases that will be heard at the Joint Rezoning Hearing scheduled on September 18, 2006. Following a brief discussion, members agreed to hold the special meeting on Monday, October 16, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. Mr. Thompson announced that the State of Maryland's Secretary of Planning, Audrey Scott will be attending the Board of County Commissioners meeting on September 261h for anyone interested in attending. 18 UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Joint Public Hearing, Monday, September 18, 2006, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Court House, 95 West Washington Street 2. Regular Planning Commission meeting, Monday, October 2, 2006, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street ADJOURNMENT Mr. Wiley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. So ordered. Respectfully submitted, ~ 19 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - October 2, 2006 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, October 2, 2006, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown. Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Linda Parrish, Bernard Moser, Sam Ecker, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Timothy A. Lung, Senior Planner Lisa Kelly Pietro, Associate Planner Sara Henke, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of September 11, 2006 as amended. Seconded by Mr. Parrish. Unanimously approved. Mr. Thompson stated that Staff has been investigating Mr. Kercheval's request regarding the sale of lots to non-family members for Lots 1-4 in the Todd Easterday subdivision. Staff has contacted the County Attorney's office and has reviewed the subdivision plat. The family member restriction applies to three of the lots within the subdivision; however, the parcel containing an eXisting structure was exempt from the restriction. It appears that all of the lots were sold in 2002 or early 2005. The County Attorney's office will continue to investigate the issue and an update will be given to the Planning Commission in November. OLD BUSINESS Emerald Pointe, Phases I and II (DP-04-001) Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval the revised Preliminary/Final Development Plan for Emerald Pointe, Phases I and II. The developer is proposing to add more duplex lots and eliminate some of the single-family lots. The developer believes there is a higher demand for the duplex lots for the "empty nesters" or senior market. Discussion: Mr. Townsley of Fox & Associates, Inc., consultant, noted that changes in the flood plain line and grade constraints on the property as well as the storm water management pond may affect the design of future phases and"further adjustments may be necessary. To date, two single-family lots and three townhouse lots have been eliminated. Changes to the plans reflect seven additional lots; however, there are only two additional lots in the overall density that was proposed and approved in the original Final Development Plan. The proposed changes will effect Phase I only. Mr. Wiley made a motion to approve the revised Preliminary/Final Development Plan for Emerald Pointe Phase I with the understanding that the overall density will not increase. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS - Variances ~ Douglas Weaver (SV-06-038) Ms. Henke presented for review and approval a variance to Subdivision Ordinance Section 405.11.G.5 to allow a panhandle length of 850-feet for property located at 8785 Jordan Road, Fairplay. The applicant is proposing to create a lot around the existing farmhouse to give to his son. The existing house is located 1,150-feet from Jordan Road and the minimum panhandle length is predicated by the existing conditions. The topography is generally flat in this area. No comments have been received from the fire company that serves this area. Mr. Reiber made a motion to grant approval of the variance. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved. - Subdivisions Westfields - Section 4 (PP·05·001) Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval the Preliminary Plat for Section 4, Westfields located along the west side of the Sharpsburg Pike and is zoned Agriculture. The developer is proposing to create 63 single-family lots and 68 semi-detached lots for a total of 131 lots. The total acreage for Section 4 is 47 acres and the remaining land is 251 acres. Public water and sewer will serve the site. All lots will access a new public street. The developer is proposing several open space areas and will be maintained by the Westfields Homeowners Association. Sidewalks will be installed along all lot fronts. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements will be met by planting approximately 3 acres of trees on-site and retaining 10.4 acres of existing forest. All agency approvals have been received. 20 Discussion: Mr. Reiber made an inquiry regarding school capacity issues. Ms. Pietro stated that school capacity issues are handled during the final plat stage. She also stated that a school site has been approved for this development. Mr. Thompson stated that current school enrollment numbers have not been received from the Board of Education. Mr. Jeremy Holder from Ausherman Development Corporation presented a progress update of the Westfields development. Upon completion, the development will be a total of 773 lots containing single family and semi-detached homes or duplexes. Preliminary approval has been granted for Sections 1, 2 and 3. Sections 1 and 2 have been designed, constructed and completed. Since 2004, development has been stopped and negotiations with the Board of County Commissioners have resulted in an APFO Agreement that details the developer's final plans. The agreement includes the dedication of a 15-acre school site, the construction of road extensions to access the school site, and an advance of $4.5 million in excise taxes toward the construction of the school. In return, the Board of County Commissioners agreed to grant approval of the project using a phasing plan as follows. The developer may not record any approved lots in 2005 and 41 approved lots were recorded early in 2006. The infrastructure for those 41 lots is being constructed at the present time and the developer will be applying for building permits in the near future. The developer will not record any new lots in 2007 and any building permits not obtained for the 41 lots may be obtained in 2007. The developer will also pay the $4.5 million advance excise tax fees in 2007. In 2008, the developer may record up to 346 lots. They may proceed with the permitting of a maximum of 100 lots in 2008, 2009 and a maximum permitting of 60 lots per year thereafter. The developer has also agreed to construct the storm water management facility that will feed the regional drainage area for the school site by the fall of 2007. They have also agreed to construct all utilities to the school site by next spring. Paving of the roads will be completed in the next few weeks. Sections 1 and 2 contain 112 lots, Section 3 contains 184 lots, Section 4 contains 131 lots, Section 5 contains 69 single family lots and Section 6 would be single-family lots. Discussion: Mr. Anikis made an inquiry regarding the permanent propane facility. Mr. Holder stated that the temporary facility wouid service the first 153 lots. The permanent facility must be constructed and operational prior to the permitting of the 1541h lot and should occur by 2008. Mr. Anikis made an inquiry regarding guidelines for recreational facilities. Mr. Holder stated that there is a guideline for acreage dedication; however, there are no guidelines regarding how the acreage is used. The deveioper stated that they have prepared a plan they believe is appropriate for a development of this size. The amenities plan includes a tennis court, basketball court, tot lots and a swimming pool. Additional amenities were planned where the proposed school site is now shown. The Board of Education is planning for playing fields adjacent to the school, a tot lot facility, and a basketball court that may be used jointly with the development. Mr. Anikis noted that State House Bill 1141 (TMDL - total maximum daily load of nutrients) would be in effect by 2009. This Bill may effect the computations of nutrients and run-off management. Mr. Holder stated that the County's agreement with Ausherman acknowledges that they cannot deny sewer capacity to this development. Mr. Moser made a motion to grant Preliminary Plat and Preliminary Conservation Plan approval for Section 4, Westfields. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. - Site Plans f Westfields Community Recreation Area (SP-OS-027) Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a site plan for the Westfields Community Recreation Center located within the Westfieids development along the west side of Sharpsburg Pike. The property is zoned A - Agriculture. The developer is proposing to construct a community recreation building on 6.2 acres. The site will include a pool house and community meeting building, a 4,800-square foot swimming pool, a wading pooi, a tot lot structure, pre-teen structure, swings and spring animals. They are proposing a timber border surrounding the tot lot area with trash receptacles and benches. They are also proposing tennis courts and a basketball court. Paved walking paths will connect all of the areas with the development. Public water and sewer will serve the site. There will be two full-time and two part-time employees. The hours of operation will be 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., 7 days per week. Signs will be placed at the entrance and lighting will be pole mounted and building mounted. Parking spaces required is 49 spaces and parking provided will be 49 spaces. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a reduction in number of parking spaces from 64 spaces to 49 spaces in 2004. The projected daily use is 50 per day and may vary depending on the seasons of the year. Freight and delivery is bi-weekly. A private contractor for the residential area of the development will handle solid waste. Trash receptacles will be placed throughout the recreation facility and will be collected and held in a building to be picked up by the private contractor. Maintenance for the recreation facilities will be the responsibility of the Westfields Homeowners Association. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements have been met and approved under the final plat phase for Section 2. Discussion: Mr. Moser made an inquiry regarding the timeline for the development of the amenities. Mr. Holder stated that an agreement between the County and the developer needs to be agreed upon. At this time, the Homeowners Association does not have the funding to support the maintenance of the amenities and at least 300 homes need to be built before the swimming pool could be built and maintained. The developer is proposing to open the tot lot next spring. There are a few open space areas that can be used immediately. 21 Mr. Moser stated that he would like to see more than the tot lot constructed prior to the 300'h house being built. Mr. Holder explained that it would not be feasible to construct other amenities on the site at this time due to grading and accessibility issues. Mr. Thompson recommended that Mr. Holder present an update after the annual Westfielcfs Homeowner's Association meeting. Mr. Anikis recommended that a phasing plan based on marketing projections be presented to the Commission. There was a brief discussion regarding the construction of amenities based on the appiication of building permits and the types of amenities that would be constructed. Mr. Moser made an inquiry regarding the drainage issue at the sewer pumping station on Route 65. Mr. Holder stated that the developer and the State Highway Administration have met and resolved this issue. Ausherman Development Corporation will install multiple cuiverts under the sewer pump station access and the parcei immediately downstream from this development. Mr. Reiber made a motion to grant site pian approval for the Westfields Community Recreation Center. Seconded by Mr. Wiiey. Unanimousiyapproved. US Cellular (SP-06-050) Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval the site plan for a cellular tower for US Cellular Hagerstown North. The site is iocated along the west side of Mack Truck Road and is zoned IG - Industriai General. The applicant is proposing to construct a 160-foot monopole tower with a 12 x 20-foot sheiter and two additional shelters are proposed in the future. The tower will be located on a .79-acre parcel owned by the City of Hagerstown that also includes an existing water tower. The facility will be an unmanned site. A technician will access the property 1 to 2 times per month unless there is equipment failure. Access road maintenance will be the responsibility of US Cellular. The tower will be designed for connection with at least three additional wireless carriers and will be made available to any licensed entity provided they obtain the required permits. No lighting is proposed for the site. A six-foot high fence will surround the site and a sign will be affixed to the fence. There are no overhead or underground transmission lines to conflict with the tower. In March 2006, the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance from the minimum 160-foot setback from a property ilne to 15.9-feet and from a minimum of 360-feet from the closest "R - Residential" district to 275-feet. The site is exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements due to the disturbance being less than 40,000-square feet. All verbal approvals have been received. Discussion: Ms. Parrish made an inquiry regarding clearance from the Airport. Ms. Debra Crowley, consultant for US Cellular, stated they have received FAA approval. Mr. Moser made a motion to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved. Fairhaven Homes (SP-06-053) Ms. Henke presented for review and approval the site plan for Fairhaven Homes, Inc. garage. The property is located along Westfield Drive and is zoned HI-2 - Highway Interchange 2. The applicant is proposing an 8-bay garage to serve 8 residential elderly housing units. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance from the 20-foot yard setback requirement to a 6-foot yard setback. Discussion: Mr. Anikis made an inquiry regarding additional lighting. Mr. Frederick, consultant, stated that there will be building mounted lights on the garage; however, no additional pole lighting is proposed. Mr. Reiber made a motion to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved. Locust Hill Greenhouse (SP-06-052) Ms. Henke presented for review and approval the site plan for Locust Hill Greenhouse. The property is located along the east side of Ashton Road north of Clear Spring Road and is zoned RB-E, Rural Business Existing. The applicant is proposing two additional sheds for equipment storage and a proposed temporary house trailer that will be used until their permanent home is constructed. The proposed storm water management pond is located on the adjacent property that is owned by Mr. Martin's father. Hours of operation will be 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. Four seasonal employees are proposed. Health Department approval is pending. All other agency approvals have been received. Discussion: Mr. Reiber made an inquiry regarding the storm water management pond located on the adjacent property. Mr. Frederick, consultant, stated that there are no legal documents for this pond since the property is within the family. Mr. Reiber expressed his concern about future ownership of the property. There was also a brief discussion regarding the temporary house trailer that is proposed. Mr. Ecker made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon Health Department approval. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. - Forest Conservation Gardenhour Estates (FP-06-003) Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval the Forest Conservation Plan for Gardenhour Estates. The property is located along the south side of Eagle Nest Road and east side of Bradbury Avenue north of Smithsburg and is within the Town limits. The applicant is proposing 29 residential lots on 25 acres. The total Forest Conservation Ordinance requirement for this site is 3.68 acres. Approximately 3.52 acres is 22 proposed for planting in priority areas and the remaining .16-acre requirement would be met by payment in-lieu. The payment-in-lieu would be approximately $700.00. Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the .16-acre payment in lieu fee to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirement. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Thompson presented regular Planning Commission meeting schedules, Workshop schedules, and Joint Rezoning Hearings for 2007. Mr. Kercheval arrived at 8:30 p.m. Mr. Thompson announced that the Maryland State Secretary of Planning was present at the Board of County Commissioners meeting on Tuesday, September 26'h. She commended Staff on the agricultural preservation efforts in Washington County. There were also discussions regarding Rural Legacy funds that have been received by the County. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Special Planning Commission meeting, Monday, October 16, 2006, 1:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street 2. Regular Planning Commission meeting, Monday, November 6, 2006, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street ADJOURNMENT Ms. Parrish made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. So ordered. Respectfully submitted, /,/1,,t'·· a~A.r~ Ge~ge-Artikis,Chairman 23 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING - OCTOBER 16,2006 The Washington County Planning Commission held a special meeting on Monday, October 16, 2006, at 1:00 p.m. in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown. This meeting was held to consider testimony heard at the Joint Public Hearing held on September 18, 2006 and make recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners for the following cases: RZ-06-014, SO-06-002 and WS-06-001. Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Linda Parrish, Bernard Moser, Sam Ecker, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planners Timothy A. Lung and Steve Goodrich, Senior Planner Lisa Kelly Pietro, Associate Planner Sara Henke, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS RZ-06-014 - McC,B,LLC Ms. Henke presented for review and recommendation rezoning case RZ-06-014 for McC,B,LLC. The property is located along the east side of Western Maryland Parkway and south of Enterprise Lane and is currently zoned Industrial Mineral Overlay. The applicant is requesting a change in zoning to IG Industrial, General. In 1973, the property was owned by Martin Marietta Materials and was being mined. At that time, the subject property was given a zoning designation of Industrial Mineral. In 1983, the Industrial Mineral zoning designation was repealed and made into an Industrial Mineral Overlay (floating zone) and no underlying zoning designation was given to the site. The applicant had requested that the 'Planning Commission remove the Industrial Mineral Overlay zone; however, there is no underlying zoning designation at this time so the Planning Commission decided that this case should go to public hearing. The applicant presented their case during the Joint Rezoning Hearing that a mistake was made by the County since the Euclidian Industrial Mineral zone was replaced by the Industrial Mineral Overlay fioating zone and an underlying zone was not established for the property. The applicant believes that the void of no underlying zoning should be settled by assigning the Industrial General district in order to be consistent with 75% of the surrounding neighborhood and the Comprehensive Plan designation Industrial Policy Area. The applicant defined the neighborhood to further clarify their request and showed the existing neighborhood has industrial identity. The only access to this neighborhood is by Western Maryland Parkway and Hump Road. Discussion: There was a brief discussion regarding a legalized agreement with Mr. McCleary to allow the County a right-of-way for access to water from the quarry for emergency purposes. Mr. Greg Murray, Director of the Washington County Department of Water Quality, stated that he recommends a dry hydrant be placed on the property to help emergency services. He also stated that a water withdrawal permit and a use and appropriation permit from the State would be necessary to pump water from the quarry. Ms. Parrish made a motion to recommend approval of the rezoning request to the Board of County Commissioners with the stipulation that a legalized agreement is obtained from Mr. McCleary to allow the County and the City a right-of-way for access to water from the quarry for emergency situations. Seconded by Mr. Moser. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained. SO-06-002 - Text Amendment to Subdivision Ordinance Ms. Pietro presented for review and recommendation proposed text amendments to update the Subdivision Ordinance with the addition of a Remaining Lands definition and with amended policies and verbiage adopted by the Planning Commission and the State of Maryland. Sections of the Subdivision Ordinance that would be affected by the changes are as follows: Section 202.48.1, Section 308.2K, Section 318.2L, Section 310, Section 318.4A and Section 308.2A. Mr. Moser made a motion to recommendation approval of the Subdivision Ordinance text amendments to the Board of County Commissioners. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained. WS-06-001 - Text Amendments to Water and Sewer Plan Mr. Lung presented for review and recommendation the proposed text amendments to the Washington County Water and Sewerage Plan. Mr. Lung distributed copies of the proposed revisions to Tables 3 and 9 as discussed during the public hearing process. Mr. Lung stated that this Amendment is the Department of Water Quality's comprehensive update information for the Water and Sewage Plan. No changes have been made to the service area maps or service priority designations. Mr. Murray, Director of the Washington County Department of Water Quality, stated that the population projections generated were based on the original information that was included in the text amendment. 24 The 5, 10 and 20 year planning periods matched the capacities listed in the original text amendment so the only additional populations correspond to the capacities were already listed during the original presentation. Comments: Mr. Murray stated that the Maryland Department of the Environment has reviewed the text amendment. He also noted that Washington County would be In the forefront for text amendments that would incorporate the environmental initiatives related to Chesapeake Bay initiatives. Mr. Ray Andersen of the Maryland Department of the Environment commended the Staff for their efforts to provide timely amendments to the Water and Sewer Plan to keep up' with all of the changes as they relate to activities within the County. He sees Washington County moving forward and playing an important role in becoming a more urbanized system within the State. Discussion: There was a brief discussion regarding the sewer capacity plan and population projections through the year 2020. Projections were based on a growth rate of 4% in the Urban Growth Area which would equate to approximately 1,000 EDU's per year that would include residential as well as industrial uses. Mr. Moser made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed text amendments to the Water and Sewerage Pian. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained. Keep Tryst Road Mr. Anikis began a discussion regarding the October 25, 2006 Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. Mr. Thompson presented a brief explanation regarding an item of concern that will be heard at this meeting pertaining to a 23+ acre parcel of property located on Keep Tryst Road in Sandy Hook. In July 2006, Mr. Thompson received a letter from an attorney representing the owners of the proposed Potomac Overlook development requesting an interpretation of what they mayor may not do with this particular piece of property. The property has been rezoned on several occasions and after several discussions in 2003 by ·the Board of County Commissioners the Rural Village zoning designation was placed on the property with the stipulation that only 9 lots could be developed. The applicant was given a five-day period to challenge the BOCC's decision; however, he agreed to this zoning designation and the 9 lot stipulation. The applicant and his attorney now do not agree with the BOCC's decision. Their position is that the Rural Village zoning in 2003 was not in effect and did not exist and could not take effect until July 2005 when the rural zoning was adopted. Since the BOCC did not put any conditions on the Rural Village zoning when it was adopted, the 9-lot limit does not apply in this case. Mr. Thompson stated that he replied to the letter in September 2006 stating that the property does have the Rural Village zoning designation and is limited to the maximum 9-lot density. He stated that the applicant could have challenged the decision in 2003 and since he did not he agreed to the conditions set forth in the agreement with the BOCC. The applicant and his attorney disagree with Mr. Thompson's decision and have filed an appeal with the Board of Zoning Appeals to try to increase the density of the development. Mr. Kercheval presented additional information for the Planning Commission's benefit. Prior to the proposed residential development plan, there was a motel located on the property that was zoned Conservation. The applicant wanted to expand the motel and requested the BG zoning designation. The BOCC granted the request with the stipulation that it must remain a motel. Due to various problems, the developer was unable to expand the motel and proposed the residential development for 20+ lots. According to the County Attorney, the previous BOCC that made the stipulation that the structure must remain a motel did not have the authority to place such a condition on the property. When the applicant proposed the residential subdivision, there was a lot of opposition from residents in the area. When reViewing the new request for the residential development, technically the BG zoning with the condition should not have been done and the property would still be zoned Conservation. The Conservation zoning would have allowed for 1 house per 3 acres and approximately 8 houses would have been allowed. The BOCC believed that a reasonable compromise was to allow a 1:3 density which would be consistent with other areas in the neighborhood. This request came during the rural rezoning process and the property would have been zoned for a 1:20 density. The County Attorney recommended the Rural Village designation so the zoning would remain effective when the rural rezoning plan was adopted. Therefore, the BOCC adopted the Rural Village designation with the stipuiation for a maximum of 9 lots. Discussion: There was a brief discussion regarding the extension of the Sandy Hook Rural Village and Priority Funding Areas. By consensus, the Planning Commission would like a representative from Staff to attend the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Moser made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 2:05 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Parrish. So ordered. Respectfully submitted, (j~ /lJc,,' Gedige Anrkis~ Chairman 25 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - November 6, 2006 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, November 6, 2006, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown. Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Linda Parrish, Bernard Moser, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planners Stephen T. Goodrich and Timothy A. Lung, Senior Planners Lisa Kelly Pietro, Misty Wagner-Grillo and Jill Baker, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. MINUTES Mr. Moser made a rnotion to approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of October 2, 2006 as amended. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the minutes of the Special Planning Commission meeting of October 16, 2006 as amended. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS Lots 1-4, Todd Easterday Update Mr. Thompson distributed a copy of a letter dated July 2004 to Mr. Easterday regarding this property. The family member restriction was not part of the Planning Commission's motion for approval of these lots; however, the restriction was noted on the subdivision plat. Mr. Thompson recommended that the restriction be removed from the plat to correct the problem and to avoid any confusion in the future. However, Mr. Easterday did not submit a new plat. Regarding the enforcement issue, Mr. Downey of the County Attorney's office offered the following comments. Violations of the Subdivision Ordinance are considered a misdemeanor and prosecution of any misdemeanor must be instituted within one year of the commission of the offense. The time limit for this offense has elapsed. Mr. Downey recommended a change to the Subdivision Ordinance because civil enforcement actions have a three-year limit for prosecution. NEW BUSINESS - Variances Walter Cox, Parcel D, Lot 12 (SV-06-039) Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a variance from Subdivision Ordinance Section 405.11.G.2 and 5 to create a fifth panhandle with a length of 1617-feet. The property is located along the east side of Chestnut Grove Road. The property is zoned EC - Environmental Conservation. Total acreage of the site is 17.21 acres. The applicant is requesting to create a fifth panhandle that is 1617-feet in length. Lot 12 and Parcel D were combined in Plat Folio 7057 and a variance was granted for the panhandle of Lot 12 on May 5, 2002. The applicant's ciaim for hardship is to allow access to the property. The Engineering Department reviewed the variance and they have no opposition because it is an existing driveway; however, storm water management issues would need to be addressed during the replat stage. The Potomac Valley Fire Department serves this area and stated they are not opposed to the variance; however, it would be virtually impossible to get fire and emergency apparatus to the home if there is snow or ice. Discussion: Mr. Anikis and Mr. Moser expressed their concern regarding the length of the panhandle for fire and emergency services. Mr. Moser also expressed concern for one gravel lane that services three or four lots and believes this creates confusion for emergency personnel when responding to a call. Mr. Reiber expressed his concern regarding the length of the panhandle, accessibility of water for fire services and the accessibility of an adequate road or driveway for the emergency equipment to access the property. Mr. Cox explained that after he purchased the property, he discovered that the property line was vacated between the two parcels and he would like to re-establish the property line for his son and himself. Mr. Cox stated he would provide pull-off areas for emergency equipment. Mr. Kercheval made a motion to grant the variance request contingent upon Mr. Cox working with Staff and the Engineering Department to provide a turn-around and pUll-off areas constructed to meet County Engineering standards. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Mr. Kercheval's motion passed with Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Reiber, Ms. Parrish and Mr. Wiley voting "Aye" and Mr. Moser voting "Nay". 26 - Site Plans Interstate Warehouse (SP-06-056) Ms. Pietro presented for review and approval a site plan for Interstate Warehouse located along the west side of Greencastle Pike (Maryland Route 63) and north side of Trickling Spring Lane. The property is zoned HI-1 - Highway Interchange 1. The developer is proposing to construct a 12,OOO-square foot warehouse on an existing 6.3-acre parcel. A site plan was approved for the existing warehouse in 1997 and 2001. Public water and sewer currently serve the site. No signage is proposed. There are existing pole-mounted lighting in the parking lot and building mounted lights will be added. The existing dumpster will serve for solid waste disposal for both buildings. Hours of operation will be 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. The proposed number of total employees is 11. Deliveries are two to three tractor-trailers per day. Eleven parking spaces are required and 13 parking spaces are provided. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements have been addressed on the previously approved site plan in 2001 by forest plantings. Existing trees are located on the front and side property lines and a flower bed is proposed in front of the new building. Storm water management requirements will be met by the use of rain gardens. All agency approvals have been received. Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the site plan. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. - Forest Conservation Woodland Station Mr. Goodrich presented for review and approval a request to use the payment-in-lieu to meet the Forest Conservation requirement for the Woodland Station development located on the north side of Cave Hill Road, in the Town of Smithsburg. This property has recently been annexed into the town limits of Smithsburg. The Town of Smithsburg does not have its own Forest Conservation Ordinance; therefore, the County administers those requirements for them. The site is approximately 4.5 acres and is zoned Town Residential. The developer is proposing to construct a 1O-Iot single-family residential development with lots ranging in size from approximately 11,000 square feet to 18,000-square feet. A proposed 450-foot long interior street will serve the development. Public water and sewer from the Town of Smithsburg will serve the site. A storm water management pond is proposed to meet storm water management requirements. There is approximately 4/10 of an acre of existing forest on the site on the western side of the property that was identified as having a moderate retention priority. There is a tree line along the western and northeastern property line that does not qualify as forest. The developer is not proposing to retain any forest on-site and, therefore, a mitigation requirement of 1.1 acres is required. A payment-in-lieu in the amount of $4,781.60 has been requested by the developer to meet the Forest Conservation requirement. Comments: Mr. Randy Litwin with Development Associates spoke to the Commission members on behalf of Datt-McCune-Walker, Inc. (DMW). He explained that due to the density of the site, the size of the lots and the amount of grading on the site, there is very little of the existing forest that can be retained on the site. DMW contacted the Town of Smithsburg to work with them to create an off-site planting area within the Town of Smithsburg. However, the Town and DMW have not been able to locate an area large enough in the Town to fit the definition of a forest. Therefore, DMW is requesting the payment-in-lieu to meet the Forest Conservation requirement. Discussion: Ms. Baker spoke on behalf of the Town of Smithsburg. She stated that the Town acknowledged the restraints that the development would have due to the topography of the site. The Town and DMW have worked together to locate an area for off-site planting; however, they have not found an area large enough to meet the mitigation requirements. Ms. Baker believes the Town does not have any objection to the payment-in-lieu. Comments: Mr. Moser stated that he would like the municipalities to submit their comments regarding the Forest Conservation issues in their respective towns. Discussion: There was a brief discussion regarding plantings in the storm water management areas. Mr. Goodrich explained that the Department of Natural Resources recommends plantings in the pond and have initiated pilot projects throughout the State. Recently, the Washington County Engineering Department and DNR agreed to some pilot sites within the County. Plantings will not be allowed on the berm around the pond. Mr. Moser made an inquiry regarding the clearing of the property. Mr. Litwin stated that there will be a substantial amount of cut; however, there will be good screening between the properties and they will make every effort to retain as many trees as possible. Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the payment-in-lieu to meet the Forest Conservation requirement for Woodland Station. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Regular Planning Commission meeting, Monday, December 4, 2006, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street ~;;: :r> Q.:' 0 CD <- ~ 0 CD c:: •Q.. =CD '< :IJz 3 s: OJ m Q. Z CD -I OJ 3 So 0" ::J 0 gOJ 0 c: 3 g. (f) 0 N " 28 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - DECEMBER 4, 2006 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, December 4,2006, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown. Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Linda Parrish, Bemard Moser, Terry Reiber, Ciint Wiley and Ex-Ofticio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Timothy A. Lung, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the minutes of the Regular Planning Commission meeting of November 2, 2006 as presented. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS - Update on US Route 40 and Edgewood Drive Intersection Mr. Gary Rohrer, Director of the Washington County Public Works Department, provided a brief update regarding the US Route 40 and Edgewood Drive intersection project. At this point in time, the project is through the preliminary engineering and design. Utility work details and land acquisition negotiations will begin after the first of the year. The total cost of the project is approximately $12 million. Construction costs will be approximately $6.3 million with $450,000 to $500,000 in project design. Right-of-way costs . along Edgewood Drive and US Route 40 will be approximately $3.2 to $3.25 million. Staff is currently working with the Maryland State Highway Administration to design modifications for the section of roadway from Mt. Aetna Road to Edgewood Drive. The cost for this part of the project is approximately $1.25 million. Mr. Rohrer briefiy described the design layout at the intersection and the various tuming and through lanes that will be added. This project should go out to bid around December of 2007 and the estimated completion of this project is a 15 to 18 month period. Funding for the project is 50% State Highway, 30% County and 20% City of Hagerstown contributions. Comments: Mr. Anikis requested updates on a quarterly basis and asked Mr. Rohrer for another update in March of 2007. Mr. Moser made an inquiry regarding developer participation for the cost of the project. Mr. Rohrer stated that developers have contributed indirectly through APFO agreements. The Hospital's APFO agreement calls for a contribution of $1.75 million. - COPT - Update on Fort Ritchie Mr. Rand Griftin, President and CEO of COPT, narrated a power point presentation regarding an update on plans for the Fort Ritchie property. He began his presentation by stating that COPT is a Maryland based company headquartered in Columbia, a New York stock exchange company and the largest owners of oftice space in Maryland. Fort Ritchie contains approximately 591 acres of land with a large portion of the property preserved with trees and approximately 350 acres of developable land. COPT's vision is "to create a community where you live, work and play in an environment that inspires success". This regional project will take 12 to 15 years to complete. There are approximately 1.7 million square feet of commercial space and 673 units of residential development proposed. The proposed mixed commercial space could include coftee shops, printing shops, retail shops, and educational facilities that would support the overall community. The ofticer's club is proposed for restaurant use. The community area will include a new regional community center with meeting areas, a weight room, basketball and volleyball courts, and a computer library. The generai oftice area would include three oftice buildings. Mixed residential units are proposed along the lake in the general oftice area. There will be a restricted area with secured buildings surrounded by a rod iron fence and a gated entrance. Mr. Griffin presented a proposed development timeline, current project activity update and leasing opportunities within the project development area. He also requested the County's cooperation in ''fast-tracking'' some of the projects when they are submitted for review and approval. COPT is projecting the creation of more than 4,500 permanent jobs from this proposed development project. Discussion: Mr. Anikis made an inquiry regarding the fire and rescue services in the area. Mr. Griffin stated that a fire and police facility is proposed. Mr. Latimer from Fire and Emergency Services will work with COPT to address issues regarding these services. There was a brief discussion regarding the road network within the development. 29 - Todd Easterday, Lot 31, Ml. Aetna Subdivision Mr. Thompson presented for review and approval a variance for Todd Easterday on Lot 31, Mt. Aetna Subdivision, Mr. Easterday is requesting the removal of the ten-year family member restriction from the subdivision plat. Mr. Kercheval made a motion to grant approval to remove the ten-year family member restriction. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS - PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS PC-06-009 - Williamsview Mr. Lung presented for review and comment a preliminary consultation for Williamsview. The developer is requesting the Planning Commission's approval to use the clustering provisions of Division VIII, Section 22.81 of the Zoning Ordinance. The property is located in the Growth Area along the north side of Kendle Road and is zoned A - Agriculture. The developer is proposing 209 single-family residential lots on 137.7 acres with a minimum lot area of 14,000-square feet. Mr. Lung presented three concept plans, provided by the developer, entitled "Preliminary Consultation Plan", "Standard Plan - No Cluster", and "Revised Cluster Plan". Mr. Lung began his presentation using the "Preliminary Consultation Plan" that was used during the preliminary consultation and is the basis for the summary that was provided to Commission members. This concept plan proposes 209 residential lots utilizing the cluster provision of the Zoning Ordinance, which allows for the reduction of lot size, not to exceed the density that could have been achieved using the standard lot size. In Agricultural zoning within the Urban Growth Area where public water is available, the minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet. This plan proposes a single access onto Kendle Road with two stubs into the adjoining property to the north owned by Britner. The Engineering Department found this plan unacceptable for the following reasons: two entrances are required for a development of this size, a traffic study is required and too many cul-de-sacs are proposed. The . Planning staff offered the following comments: there are no provisions for sidewalks, street lights or pedestrian access proposed; the scattered distribution of the open space areas does not provide connectivity or any real benefit to the community as a whole; and there is a lack of consideration for the eXisting forest located on the property (40 acres of forest is shown, however, only 7.4 acres are proposed for retention). The "Standard Plan - No Cluster" is based on a 20,000 square foot standard lot size and was prepared as requested by Staff to verify that the property could support the proposed 209-lot yield. The "Revised Cluster Plan" was prepared based on comments received during the preliminary consultation. This plan shows a second access point onto Kendle Road and the stubs going onto the Britner property are shown as cul-de-sacs. No cul-de-sacs have been eliminated or connected as through streets as recommended during the consultation. The new plan does not address any other comments made during the consultation and has not been routed to other reviewing agencies for their comments. At this point in time, Staff cannot endorse this plan because they do not believe it meets the intent of the cluster provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. Cluster developments are generally intended to reduce the amount of infrastructure required and to retain as much existing forest and sensitive area as possible. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Lung noted there are several options for eliminating the number of cul de-sacs proposed. Mr. Feaga, the developer, stated he believes the use of cul-de-sacs is a fad and most people prefer liVing in or around the cul-de-sacs. He noted that during the consultation, in his opinion, there were two main objections for the use of cul-de-sacs: snow removal and cars parked on cul-de-sacs. The developer stated they would be willing to mandate a two-car garage and a two or three car parking pad on each unit. Mr. Moser made an inquiry regarding safety issues with regard to fire and emergency services. Mr. Rutter, developer representative, stated that he believes cul-de-sacs provide a faster response time for emergency services. Mr. Kercheval expressed his concerns regarding the open space areas and the lack of forest retention. He does not believe that the small open space areas are beneficial to the overall development. The developer stated that they purposely designed the dedicated open space so that as many lots as possible would have trees in their yards and the dedicated open space could be controlled and protected by a Homeowner's Association. Mr. Barkley, attorney for the developer, stated that they believe large open spaces are dangerous and tend to draw the wrong type of people into those areas. There was a brief discussion regarding the requirements for Forest Conservation and how the developer intends to address this issue. Mr. Anikis expressed his concern regarding the traffic issues on Bower and Virginia Avenues. He expressed his opinion that the people currently living in these areas should not have their quality of life significantly impacted by traffic issues that are currently unresolved. Mr. Feaga stated that he has met with Mr. Wolford, State Highway Administration, regarding these issues. The developer recognizes their responsibility for resolving these issues as well as school capacity issues in conjunction with the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. Mr. Anikis made an inquiry regarding the Historic District Commission's comments for additional buffering to protect historic inventory listings. Mr. Lung stated that he would receive verification on these comments from Mr. Goodrich. 30 Mr. Moser stated his opinion that he concurs with Stafl's comments and would like to see changes to improve the cluster concept plan. He also believes more open space areas would lend itself to a better quality of life for the peopie living in the development Mr. Anikis also would like to see additional open space areas. Mr. Barkley stated that there is no economic benefit for the developer to reduce the size of the lots in this deveiopment He believes the cluster concept plan provides more open space than the conventional concept plan, is more aestheticaiiy pleasing and does not detract significantly from the economic interests of the developer. By consensus, the Planning Commission members expressed their desire to see a revised cluster concept plan that includes more open space and more forest retention. They would like to see the revised plan presented in conjunction with the proposed concept plan for the Britner property. - SUBDIVISIONS Maugans Avenue LLC (S-06-082) Mr. Lung presented for review and approval the preliminary/final plat for Lot 1A, Maugans Avenue LLC located on the south side of Maugans Avenue west of the 1-81 overpass. The property is zoned HI-1 Highway Interchange 1. This is a subdivision of a 2.59-acre parcel that was approved in 1992 known as Lot 1. The subdivision creates the new Lot 1A that contains 1.4 acres with 1.18 acres of remaining lands. An existing entrance onto Maugans Avenue wiii provide temporary access until Label Lane is constructed. Label Lane is a relocation of Shawley Drive to be completed in the future by another developer to address APFO requirements. A storm water management easement is provided on the remaining lands parcel. Public water and sewer serve this site. Aii agency approvals have been received. This site is eligible for the "express procedure" to meet the Forest Conservation requirements with a payment in lieu in the amount of $914.76. Discussion: There was a brief discussion regarding the construction of Label Lane and right-of-ways required in the future. Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the preliminary/final plat for Lot 1A, Maugans Avenue LLC. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. - SITE PLANS New England Motor Freight (SP-06-057) Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a site plan for New England Motor Freight located the west side of Newgate Boulevard. The site contains approximately 40 acres and is zoned HI-1 - Highway Interchange 1. The developer is proposing to construct a 100' x 800' building with 142 dock doors, a 50' x 80' office building and a 112' x 90' maintenance building. There are 220 trailer parking spaces and 170 truck tractor parking spaces proposed in a lighted and fenced compound. A separate parking area for employees is also proposed. Usage is 25 to 50 trucks per day proposed on a 24 hour per day, 7 days per week operating schedule. There are 100 warehouse employees and 10 office employees proposed. A significant amount of landscaping is proposed along the frontage of Newgate Boulevard, around the employee parking area, around the office building and scattered around the storm water management area. The State Highway Administration requested a traffic study, which has been submitted to them. Mr. Wolford, SHA, indicated no major issues are anticipated and recommendations may include the re timing of the traffic signal at Halfway Boulevard. Approval is pending from the City of Hagerstown Water Department and Washington County Health Department Mr. Lung stated that he requested clarification that the landscaping proposed under the Aiiegheny Power easement is acceptable to them. The plan has been routed to their Greensburg office and approval is pending at this time. Mr. Lung stated that he has also requested a photometric plan for the proposed lighting. The plan proposes 30-foot pole mounted lighting. Clarification for the fueling station associated with the proposed maintenance building has been requested for the location of the fuel storage tanks and if a canopy would be placed over the fueling dispensers. Aii other agency approvals have been received. The subdivision plat that created this lot was approved in April 2006 and included approval of the Forest Conservation Plan for payment in lieu for 7.31 acres (approximately $32,000). Mr. Moser made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon approval from the State Highway Administration, City of Hagerstown Water Department, Washington County Health Department, Aiiegheny Power (landscaping approval), and Staff approvals for the photometric plan and fuel storage tank location. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. - ANNEXATION REQUESTS Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation seven annexation requests that are currently before the Town of Boonsboro. The properties contain approximately 813 acres. Article 66B and Article 23A of the Annotated Code of Maryland requires the Board of County Commissioners to determine if the requests are consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. If the requests are not consistent with the County's Plan, the BOCC is required to give "express approval" for the requests in order that they may be developed differently than designated in the Comprehensive Plan. This course of action does not stop the annexation and the Town may proceed with the annexation, if they so desire. These requests were filed prior to October 1, 2006 when House Bill 1141 went into effect which changes the criteria for reviewing plans for annexation. Staff has not received any development plans for the proposed 31 annexations, The annexation requests are scheduled for a public hearing with the Town of Boonsboro on December 18, 2006. 1) Alternate US 40 (Old National Pike), 94.36 acres, Located along the southwest and northeast sides of US Alt. 40, north of Maryland 68; Proposed Zoning: TR (Town Residential) and GC (General Commercial), Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial; Staff believes this request is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan. 2) Austin Flook, 41.64 acres, Located along the south side of Maryland 68, west of US Alt. 40; Proposed Zoning: MR (Multi-family Residential) and GC (General Commercial); Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial and Low Density Residential; Boonsboro's Town Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential. The Boonsboro Bypass (Warrior Boulevard) is proposed to run through this property when constructed. Based on the Town's designation, the developer could do multi-family development at 3,600-square feet per unit and could yield approximately 11 units per acre. "Express Approval" by the BaCC is required to move this annexation forward without putting the five-year waiting period on this annexation. 3) Eleanor Lakin, 70.25 acres, Located west of US Alt. 40, north of Maryland 68; Proposed Zoning: TR (Town Residential); Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Residential; Boonsboro's Town Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential; The proposed zoning would allow single-family and two-family dwelling units requiring lot sizes consistent with the two to four unit area. Townhouses and apartments are permitted only by special exception. If the proposed site is developed other than the single-family and two-family units, "Express Approval" would be required by the BOCC. Staff is recommending buffering between the existing and proposed commercial sites and the residential development. 4) TT & K, LLC, 213.3 acres, Located west of Graystone Hills, north of Potomac Street (Maryland 34) and west of Main Street; Proposed Zoning: TR (Town Residential), MR (Multi-family Residential), and GC (General Commercial); Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Residential; Boonsboro's Town Plan Designation: High Density Residential; "Express Approval" from the BOCC is required because the density under the Town's designation could be significantly higher. 5) King Road Associates, LLC, 388.32 acres, Located south of Potomac Street (Maryland 34, east and west of King Road; Proposed Zoning: TC (Town Center, GC (General Commercial) and TR (Town Residential); Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Residential; Boonboro's Town Plan Designation: TC (Town Center) and GC (General Commercial). The Town Center would be a continuation of the Town's core areas and would permit higher densities than currently permitted under the County's Comprehensive Plan. 6) Curtis and Stacy Shepherd, 5.51 acres, Located along the east side of King Road, south of Potomac Street (Maryland Route 34); Proposed Zoning: TR (Town Residential); Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Residential; "Express Approval" would be required by the BaCC. A subdivision plan has been submitted to the Washington County Planning Department to subdivide the property into three lots. The Planning Department has been advised that if the annexation moves forward, the owners will withdraw the subdivision request. 7) Dean, Ringley, Courtney, 35.8062 acres, located along the northwest side of Mapleville Road (Maryland 68), east of Alternate 40; Proposed Zoning: MR (MUlti-family residential); Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Residential; A public hearing was previously held on this property and the Town is scheduled to vote on this annexation at their Town meeting this evening. The proposed development is multi family with primariiy senior family housing. "Express approval" would be required from the BaCC. Mr. Thompson stated that there may be an issue with public water and sewer. Staff did not believe there were sufficient taps available to service the entire area at the densities proposed under the proposed zoning; however, with the removal of the Stiles property annexation there should be enough capacity to service for the entire area. Mr. Thompson also stated that all annexed properties would be subject to the provisions of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance under the Town's regulations. The Town's regulations are consistent with the County's regulations with regard to schools and roads. School capacity issues will need to be addressed before any development moves forward. Comments: Mr. Moser expressed his concern regarding water and sewer capacity issues in comparison to the densities proposed by the annexations overall. He also expressed concern with traffic issues related to the proposed Boonsboro Bypass (Warrior Boulevard) and school capacity issues. Mr. Moser believes there is a discrepancy on the map in areas designated #1 and #5. Mr. Flook owns property behind the residential properties located along Alternate 40 west of Maryland 68 and the funeral 32 home. The Town Plan designates this portion of the Flook property for medium density residential; however, the annexation request proposes General Commercial. This request is not consistent with the County or Town Plans. The existing residential properties along Alternate 40 are being proposed for TR - Town Residential. Mr. Moser believes the request should be an SR designation. The County's Plan for the TT & K property designates a low residential density. Their request is for a high-density residential and commercial designation. He believes this request is not consistent with the County or Town Plans. If this property is not annexed into the Town's Growth Area, the property could be developed under the current zoning of Agriculture at a ratio of 2:1. Mr. Moser stated he does not believe the request for King Road Associates LLC is consistent with the County's Plan. He also believes there may be an issue with the maintenance of King Road. Mr. Thompson stated that he has discussed this issue with Mr. Rohrer, Department of Public Works. Mr. Rohrer indicated that improvements to King Road will be required as the development moves forward. There was a brief discussion regarding water and sewer capacity issues. Mr. Meyers, Town Planner of Boonsboro, stated that the annexations will hinge upon the wastewater treatment plant. Without new development, taxpayers will be burdened by the expense of updating the sewer system and construction of the new treatment plant. Several developers are committed to paying money in advance for the treatment plant. Mr. Anikis made an inquiry regarding the vacant land that is being annexed and will not be capable of obtaining sewer capacity. Mr. Meyers believes that the developers know the problems and have accepted the fact that not all of their land can be developed. There was also a brief discussion regarding the process the Town is using to estimate the allocations that each developer could receive for residential as well as commercial development. Mr. Kercheval made an inquiry regarding the phasing of development in conjunction with school capacity issues. Mr. Meyers believes they can work with developers in meeting the APFO agreements for schools. Mr. Moser expressed his opinion that these requests are being "rushed through" to meet the January 1, 2007 deadline established by House Bill 1141 for annexing properties under the previously used gUidelines. Mr. Anikis concurred with Mr. Moser's opinion. Mr. Reiber stated his opinion that the change in guidelines is forcing rushed deadlines for individuals and government entities to meet. There mayor may not be sewer capacity, school capacity issues will be handled through APFO requirements, and the biggest issue is water capacity. He agrees with Staff's recommendations and believes the Planning Commission should make a recommendation one way or the other especially since the Town supports the annexations. Mr. Kercheval recommended that the Town should determine now how they are going to handle water and sewer capacity issues. A plan to deal with school capacity issues also needs to be determined to fit into the County's CIP plans. Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners "express approval" of the aforementioned annexation requests consistent with staff recommendations. Seconded by Mr. Moser contingent upon the Planning Commission members concerns being presented to the Board of County Commissioners. Concerns to be presented to the BOCC: The amount of land proposed for annexation at this time; annexing the properties without knowing the type of development and densities proposed for each property; water and sewer capabilities; impact on the schools; if the Town cannot provide the services, where does this put the County in dealing with these issues. The motion passed with Mr. Moser, Mr. Reiber and Mr. Wiley voting "Aye" and Ms. Parrish voting "Nay". UPCOMING MEETINGS Mr. Thompson announced that "Commissioner 101" training will be held for the new County th Commissioners on Monday, December 11 , from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. He also announced a meeting with th the TDR consultant on Wednesday, December 6 , from 1:00 to 3:00 p.m. Both meetings will be held in the Administrative Annex, Conference Room #1. Regular Planning Commission meeting, Monday, January 8, 2007, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street ADJOURNMENT Ms. Parrish made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. So ordered. Respectfully submitted, 2 r1kf. r nikis, Chairman