1
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMiSSION WORKSHOP MEETING - January 11, 2010
The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday, January 11, 2010, at 3:00 p.m. in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baitimore Street, Hagerstown.
Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Drew Bowen, Sam Ecker (arrived at 3:50 p.m.) and Ex-Officio James Kercheval (arrived at 3:15 p.m.). Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Steve Goodrich, Planner Fred Nugent, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. Ms. Carolyn Motz, Director of the Hagerstown Regional Airport was also present at this meeting.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m.
MINUTES
Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 7, 2009 Workshop meeting as presented. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved.
Mr. Wiley made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 14, 2009 Workshop meeting as presented. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.
DISCUSSIONS Mr. Thompson announced that the training course required by the State of Maryland for Planning Commission members is now available on-line. Staff will provide the Commissioners with the website address and copies of available information in the near future.
Continued Discussions of the Proposed UGA Rezoning Mr. Anikis began discussions on the Airport zone relative to mitigation for wildlife attractants. He expressed his opinion that the proposed language and structure for wildlife mitigation is not helpful in soiving the issues for the County, the Airport or the agricultural community. He believes that the proposal pushes the problems into the future for others to deal with. Mr. Reiber asked how existing agricultural operations will be affected and if there are major issues currently at the Airport that are causing concern. Ms. Motz stated that annually she attends a Federal Aviation School at Penn State University, which highlights issues at airports across the country. Due to the liability at airports for injuries, death and property damage, the main topic of discussion during the latest class was bird strikes and wildlife mitigation. Ms. Motz stated that the Advisory Circular, which is referenced within the proposed text of the AP zone, was distributed to attendees and referenced frequently throughout the course of the class. The FAA stressed the importance of being active with people who create the laws and ordinances dealing with issues within the local communities. The goal is to ensure "at the very least, airport operators are on the notification list of the local planning board or equivalent review entity for all communities located within 5 miles of the airport, so they will receive notification of any proposed project and have the opportunity to review it for attractiveness to hazardous wildlife." Ms. Motz expressed her opinion that the Airport operator has the right to know if there are issues that could cause problems. She noted that it is not her intention to stop agricuitural operations and that she does not have any "veto" power. Ms. Motz stated that she has forwarded the proposed text to the biologist for the FAA Eastern Region for review to ensure that all requirements of the Advisory Circular are being met.
Mr. Goodrich reiterated that the Airport is only asking for the opportunity to review applications and, if necessary, to work with the applicant to find a suitable mitigation plan for potential hazards. Mr. Thompson pointed out that the FAA recognizes land use is a local issue. Mr. Goodrich stated that the amended regulations are designed to apply to new site plans and animal husbandry operations and does not affect current operations.
Mr. Anikis asked if new applications should be required to submit a mitigation plan as part of their proposal or should the Airport review the application first to determine if mitigation will be needed. Mr. Goodrich stated that not every proposal will require a mitigation plan; therefore, the application should be reviewed first to determine if mitigation is needed. There was a brief discussion regarding the current review process and communication between Staff and applicants. Mr. Anikis asked if a time limit should be imposed from the time the Airport has been notified of the proposed operation to the time the applicant is notified of the Airport's recommendations. Staff believes that if time limitations are set for the Airport, they should also apply to every review agency. Mr. Thom pson noted that the new development review process has been implemented and the Development Advisory Committee meets on a weekly basis to review new plans. Mr. Ditto, a member of the UGAAC, stated there is a 60 day time limit in the Animal Husbandry Ordinance for new animal husbandry applications to be reviewed and approved.
Mr. Goodrich stated that during the last Workshop meeting members asked Staff to contact the County Attorney's Office to determine if current or future Airport funding would be in danger if the County did not adopt the proposed zoning changes. Mr. John Martirano, the County Attorney, pointed out in conversations with Mr. Goodrich the following excerpts from the Advisory Circular: "The FAA
1 2 recommends that public use airport operators impiement the standards and practices contained in this AC" and "Airports that have received Federal grant-in-aid assistance must use these standards." Mr. Goodrich noted that grant assurances are attached to the funds that are received and list all the gUidelines that must be followed. Future grants will be linked to the requirements in the Circular. Mr. Martirano also pointed out the following criteria from the Advisory Circuiar that states, "Airports that have received Federal grant-in-aid assistance are required by their grant assurances to take appropriate actions to restrict the use of land next to or near the airport to uses that are compatible with normal airport operations. The FAA recommends that airport operators to the extent practicable oppose off-airport land use changes or practices within the separations identified in Section 1-2 through 1-4 that may attract hazardous wildiife." Mr. Goodrich noted that during the last Workshop, Commission members discussed a three mile radius versus the recommended five mile radius. Staff believes that the three mile radius would be non-compliant with the FAA recommendations.
Mr. Ditto stated that the Advisory Circular is referenced in the County's Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, he believes that it will become a legal document that must be complied with. He expressed his concern that this document will give the County the right to deny certain types of agricultural operations. in his final comment, Mr. Ditto asked the Planning Commission to remove the word "dlsapprove" from the proposed text relative to the Planning Commission's approval or disapproval of a site plan or animal husbandry operation. He noted that in the Animal Husbandry section of the Ordinance there can be no disapproval if all perimeters, setbacks, etc. are met.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends the language as proposed for the AP zone.
The Planning Commission began its review of Article 21A - ORT (Office, Research & Technology) zone. The ORT zone was recommended by the Comp Plan. It was drafted by attorneys for Allegheny Energy, adopted by the County, and applied to Allegheny Energy property to support their intention to develop a technology park. Staff is proposing a few minor modifications to the text. There was a brief discussion regarding government office buildings as a principal permitted use. The intent is not to distinguish . between government office buildings and other office buildings, but rather to eliminate government structures and facilities such as sewage treatment plants, communication towers, etc. Mr. Goodrich stated that "structures and facilities" is a very broad term and could include things that are not appropriate uses in the ORT zone. Mr. Kercheval made an inquiry regarding Section 21A.3(b), which lists permitted accessory uses provided that "no more than 5% of the total gross floor area of the bUilding is occupied by such uses, and further provided that no single commercial use occupies more than 3,000 square feet of adjusted gross floor area". Mr. Goodrich stated that these requirements would apply to a multi-use building where a portion of the first floor would house retail uses. Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that the 5% and 3,000 square foot limitations might need to be adjusted. Planning Commission members discussed this issue and asked Staff to check with other jurisdictions for feedback. Several alternatives were discussed including allowing the entire first floor for retail uses and eliminating the square footage limitation. There was discussion regarding limitations for one-story buildings. Staff will do some additional research to see if other jurisdictions have standards.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends eliminating the percentage and square footage limitations and adding language to Section 21A.3(b) to indicate this applies to multi-story structures.
Mr. Kercheval asked why Section 21A.1 (0) (satellite terminal stations and communications satellite systems) was eliminated from the text. Mr. Goodrich stated that is a recommendation of the UGAAC, which proposed that the uses in this section be added to the ORI zone. Mr. Ditto explained that when the UGAAC looked at the map and areas where ORT zoning might be appropriate, several areas were surrounded by dense population, dense development and businesses. The UGAAC believes that these areas were not appropriate for the ORT zoning and thus created the ORI zoning district. Mr. Goodrich stated that Staff recommended the ORT zoning for the former Allegheny Energy site and the UGAAC recommends the ORI zoning district for this same property.
Mr, Goodrich explained that a satellite facility that is only in the business of having satellites would not be permitted in the ORT zone. However, a permitted use that wouid need satellites as an accessory to its business would be permitted. There was a brief discussion citing various specific businesses that would be permitted in the ORT zone. Following discussions, Mr. Goodrich expressed his opinion that better clarification relative to permitted and accessory uses of satellite and communication satellite systems is needed. The Commission briefly reviewed the UGA map and proposed areas designated for the ORT zoning.
The Commission decided to review the ORI zone prior to making their recommendations for the ORT zoning district. Mr. Goodrich pointed out that the proposed ORI zoning district is a new district recommended by the UGAAC. He explained that the Committee believes there is too much difference between the ORI and the next industrial zone, which meant there was not enough control over uses. Mr. Goodrich noted that there have been discussions over the last several years relative to expanding the ORT zone to allow more industrial uses. Staff believes that by expanding the ORT to include more industrial uses it would delete the intent and ability to develop a technology park. The ORI zone ailows more industrial uses; however, there are specific standards that must be followed relating to noise levels, air pollutants, etc. Mr. Bowen asked why standards are proposed for this zone and not the other industrial zones. Mr. Goodrich stated it is a way to allow a lot of different industries, but still keep the
2 3 zone "clean and light" and compatible with the high-tech industries that are allowed, such as medical research. He noted that the performance standards are very similar to Frederick County's standards.
Mr. Kercheval questioned the proposed percentages (60% for manufacturing and 20% for warehousing) as presented in Sections 21 B.1.A(1 0) and (11). Mr. Goodrich noted there are similar restrictions for manufacturing (40%) and warehousing (20%) in the ORT zone. The UGAAC recommended that the restrictions should apply in the ORI zone; however, they believe that the amount of space for these activities should be larger. Mr. Goodrich stated that the restrictions support the high-tech research aspect and restrict too many industrial uses. Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that the percentages should be higher in these high-tech areas. Mr. Thompson explained that a representative from the County's EDC was present during the UGAAC discussions and had no objection to the percentages proposed.
Mr. Goodrich pointed out that the language with regard to the required performance standards, is the main difference between the ORI and the ORT zoning districts. Mr. Anikis expressed his concern with regard to the former Allegheny Power site. This site is currently zoned ORT; however, if the zoning is changed to ORI, Mr. Anikis believes this would have an impact on the nearby residential areas. He questioned buffering between the sites due to an increase in noise, lights, etc. on an industrial site. There would also be an increase in traffic, which could have an impact on Rench Road. Mr. Goodrich expressed his opinion that an ORT zone could produce the same amount of traffic. He pointed out that APFO requirements would need to be met, which would require a highway plan that would provide a road category that would be appropriate for the anticipated traffic issues. Mr. Thompson stated that the City and County, as well as the State, have been looking at transportation Issues within the growth area to develop a plan to determine where roads are needed and where rights-of-way would need to be acquired. Mr. Anikis recommended that in Section 21 B.9 (Design Standards) that the architectural treatment of buildings should be compatible with residential surroundings, as well as aesthetically pleasing from highways. There was a brief discussion regarding the proposed zoning on surrounding properties and buffer yard requirements.
Mr. Bowen stated that after reviewing the proposed ORI zone, he understands the difference between the ORT and ORI zoning districts. However, he believes clarification is needed regarding the use of satellite dishes. Mr. Bowen suggested that Section 21 B.3(B) should be changed to reflect the changes recommended in the ORT zone. He questioned Section 21 B.6 that states "No structure shall exceed 100 feet In height.. ..." Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that the height limitation is appropriate for the County. Mr. Reiber stated that he is not opposed to the 1OO-foot limitation and expressed his opinion that higher buildings create more safety concerns.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends no changes to the ORI zoning district with the exception of the architectural treatment of buildings as noted above.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends no other changes to the ORT zoning district with the exception of the percentage and square foot limitations as noted above.
The Commission began its review of the ERT zoning district, which was created in a cooperative effort between Staff and officials of the Hagerstown Community College (HCC). Mr. Goodrich stated that HCC representatives approached Staff prior to the rezoning of the UGA. HCC representatives stated that the role of the College is changing and requested zoning which would promote and allow for changes in the future. The proposed zoning allows the College's main purpose as a higher educational institution, but it also allows the College to be flexible and allow more services to be provided to the community, such as business incubation and business acceleration. Mr. Goodrich noted that as long as there is a link between the College and the business, the business is permitted to stay on the College campus. However, once the link has been broken the business should relocate. Mr. Wiley believes there are several businesses still operating on the campus without the link to the College. There was a brief discussion regarding this issue. Members expressed their concerns that the link between the College and businesses are not being enforced and are unfair to other businesses in the community. Mr. Thompson explained that when the College purchases additional land, a rezoning for the new property will be required to have it zoned ERT.
Mr. Anikis began a discussion regarding Section 21 C.1 0 regarding site plans. He asked if a master development plan has been prepared. Mr. Thompson stated that the College is working on a plan currently. Mr. Goodrich pointed out that there are strict design guidelines in the ERT zone designed to give the College flexibility on its campus but to provide protection for properties around the perimeter, which are mostly residential at this time. He noted that there are height limitation areas, which he briefly explained to the Commission. Mr. Goodrich gave a brief overview of other limitations within the ERT zone.
Mr. Wiley recommended that language should be added to the purpose section of the ERT zone stating that there will always be a significant link between the College and the business development and research technology. He stated that he "does not want a flimsy link" that may be allowing the businesses to stay when there is not an educational link to the College. Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that there should be a time limitation for the length of tenure for a business to be on the campus. Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that the issue should not be addressed through the Zoning Ordinance. He also questioned Staff to explain why an ERT zone is needed. Mr. Goodrich stated the request for an ERT zone came from the College and Staff was directed to work with the College to create the zone. Mr. Bowen expressed his opinion that from a land value standpoint, the College property will have little or no value in the future if it is zoned ERT. Mr. Goodrich stated that if the property is zoned for uses that would
3 4
allow research and technology development, there is a concern for the residential uses located adjacent to the College property. The link to the College would mitigate the uses and keep the intensity of the industrial uses to a minimum. Mr. Goodrich noted that it is not the intent of Staff to promote industry on the campus. Ms. Irvin-Craig, a member of the UGAAC, stated that it should be incumbent on the College to develop a policy to ensure there is the educational link to the businesses.
Mr. Goodrich read a passage of the proposed text from Article 21 C that states, "the zone is intended and designed to allow and promote nontraditional business uses that have a necessary link to the primary educational institution's education function and not as a mechanism for the institution to develop or sell properties for business uses not related to its educational function."
Mr. Wiley expressed his opinion that he is not opposed to a zoning district for the College. He believes that there will be significant changes to education in the future and having a zoning classification designated for the college will make the changes easier to deal with. Mr. Reiber does not believe that the Pianning Commission's should try to regulate the College through zoning.
• The Planning Commission recommends that Article 21 C, Section 21 C.O, paragraph 4 should read as follows: "The zone is intended and designed to allow and promote nontraditional business uses that have a significant link to the primary educational institution's education function and not as a mechanism for the institution to develop or sell properties for business uses not related to its educational function. It is iRteREleEi m!iJ:~!iljff!!iJ:~. that there will always be a significant link between the business development, research, technology and economic development activities and the educational function of the college or university.
VOTE: Mr. Bowen, Mr. Wiley and Mr. Ecker voted in favor of adding the word significant [as indicated above]. Mr. Reiber voted no. Mr. Anikis and Mr. Kercheval abstained.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends the proposed text and adoption of the ERT zoning district with the exception of the change noted above.
Mr. Goodrich began the review of Article 22 (Off-Street Parking & Loading) by stating that the BOCC recently adopted changes to this article of the Zoning Ordinance. The Pianning Commission also reviewed the changes and made their recommendations during a public meeting. Article 22 (Signs) was recently changed to address issues regarding outdoor advertising signs; therefore, Staff believes no other major changes are needed at this time.
Public Comment: Mr. Gerald Ditto commended the Planning Commission members on their attention to detail on many of the issues they have previously discussed. However, he is disappointed that the Commission has not addressed issues concerning agriculture and the unintended consequences as much as other businesses that the Commission has addressed.
Mr. Reiber began a discussion regarding the Airport property and asked if there are issues that the . Commission is not aware of at the Airport. Mr. Goodrich commented that the Advisory Circular recommends analyzing the environment around the Airport and identifying existing problems with hazardous wildlife and creating a process to eliminate those problems. Staff believes that the analysis should be done now to identify the problems and should be done separately from zoning. Mr. Thompson noted that a hazardous wildlife study was done in 2003. Mr. Ditto questioned how the proposed changes to the Airport zone will solve the existing problems. Mr. Goodrich stated it will not solve the existing problems; however, it will provide the County with a mechanism to identify problems in the future. Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that nothing is being done to solve the current issues. Mr. Bowen pointed out that the Advisory Circular and the proposed text are only asking for recommendations from the Airport Director and is not giving ultimate authority. Mr. Ditto reiterated his concerns that: the Advisory Circular states that the County "must comply" and the Planning Commission is being given the authority to "disapprove new animal husbandry operations", which is not part of the current Animal Husbandry section of the Ordinance. He believes that the word "disapprove" should be deleted from the proposed text. Mr. Ditto finalized his comments by stating that the Advisory Circular requires that operations shall have a wildlife plan; however, the County does not have written standards for applicants to follow.
NEXT MEETING
The Pianning Commission has scheduied its next Workshop on January 25, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. at the Administrative Annex.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Anikis adjourned the meeting at 5:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted,
4 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING - January 25,2010
The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday, January 25, 2010, at 3:00 p,m, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown.
Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley and Linda Parrish. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Steve Goodrich, Planner Fred Nugent, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
DISCUSSION
Continued discussion of the proposed UGA Rezoning
Mr. Goodrich began with an issue previously discussed regarding buildings in the ORT zone that wouid have restrictions on retail use on the first floor. Members expressed their opinions that the current numerical standards were too restrictive. Mr. Goodrich referred members to Article 21A.3 (Accessory uses). He cited standards from other jurisdictions including Frederick County and the City of Hagerstown. The Frederick County Zoning Ordinance references Accessory Uses in Commercial and Industrial districts, which states that 25% of the floor area of the first floor of the main building used for manufacturing, storage or distribution may be used for retail sales of the articles made on site. Mr. Goodrich does not believe this is a good example because it does not address the same issues. Frederick County does not have limitations in mixed use buildings where the majority of the building will be used for offices. In the Light Industrial zoning district in Frederick County, vocational or sports training . in health clubs or fitness centers are allowed in a mixed use building but they are not allowed to be the sole use in the building. Mr. Goodrich stated he could not find any other references in the Frederick County Ordinance.
Mr. Goodrich stated that the City of Hagerstown {City} Zoning Ordinance addresses the mixed use issue more thoroughly. The City has two mixed use zones, one in the downtown area and one is a neighborhood zone. The City limits the gross square footage of commercial uses in the neighborhood mixed use district to 15,000 square feet. In the mixed use neighborhood district, new construction of commercial use is limited to the first floor. In existing buildings, commercial uses may be located on upper floors; however, commercial uses cannot exceed 20% of the entire development. The City also has a Professional Office Mixed (POM) district and certain identified uses cannot exceed 25% of the gross floor area of the building or 20% of the gross floor area of a group of buildings. The POM district allows child or day care services, dry cleaning, fitness and recreational sport centers, restaurants, retail ,trade and specialty food stores. The City aiso has an Industrial Mixed Use district, which has the same limitations and uses as the POM district; however, a building devoted entirely to retail is not permitted. In the City's PUD zone, which is applied to an existing residential district, the least intense commercial uses are permitted. In a PUD which is applied to an existing commercial zone, the commercial uses are limited to those permitted in the base zone and the commercial uses may not exceed 10% of the entire tract of land. The City has a Conversion district, which is a special use zone that encourages the use of existing bUildings for redevelopment allows mixed uses. Commercial uses may not exceed 50% of the building space.
Mr. Goodrich noted that the purpose is to allow the employees of the professional offices access to commercial uses. Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that the first floor retail uses should not be limited in this zoning district. He also suggested that the second floor of multiple story buildings could be used for fitness clubs or day care services. Mr. Anikis asked what type of uses should be discouraged that would not support the zone. Mr. Goodrich stated that there is concern that uses could be incompatible or inconsistent with the overall intent of the zone, which is to provide a high concentration of employment. Ms. Parrish expressed her opinion that there should be some restrictions on the uses that would be allowed.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends that the numerical standards be eliminated from the ORT zoning district's accessory uses.
Commission members began a review of the accessory uses permitted in the ORT zoning district and the phrase "functionally similar". The Commission did not believe that any changes in the accessory uses should be made at this time.
The Commission began its review of Article 22, Division 10 (Lighting). Mr. Goodrich stated that there are currently no design guidelines for lighting in the County's Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the purpose for this section is to "encourage good lighting practices that promote safety, security and energy conservation by reducing the impacts of glare, light trespass and overlighting". The Commission reviewed each section of the lighting standards with Mr. Goodrich highlighting several important factors. Mr. Anikis asked for the definition of a footcandle. Mr. Goodrich stated that the term "footcandle" is somewhat obsolete and the current terms "lux and lumine" are more accurate. He noted that a 6
"footcandle" is the amount of a light that a candle would project onto a square foot of flat surface. Mr. Goodrich stated that during the public hearings staff will provide a physical representation of a footcandle. Mr. Reiber asked how lighting is measured. Mr. Goodrich stated a light meter would be used and if the lighting section is adopted, the County would need to purchase a light meter and Staff would need to be trained in the use of the meter. Following a brief discussion, Mr. Anikis suggested that staff shouid use the language used most often on plans today. Members discussed various ideas for illustrating lighting during the public hearings.
Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that Item D (Lamp Wattages) is design standards and not performance standards. Mr. Goodrich explained these standards are the most up-to-date standards used by other jurisdictions. Members discussed changes in the future that could be better for the environment and use of those improved materials. It was suggested that language should be added to allow for advances in technoiogy.
Mr. Anikis suggested that under the category "Measurements" the following text (shown in boid) should be added to no. 1 to read as follows: "Lighting levels are to be measured in footcandles with a certified calibrated direct-reading portable light meter." He also suggested under the category "Submittal Requirements" the phrase "lighting plan" should be changed to "photometric plan".
Mr. Thompson made an inquiry regarding the height limitations on parking lot lighting in residential developments with townhouses and/or apartment complexes. Mr. Goodrich stated there are some guidelines on parking lot lighting regardless if it is in commercial or residential areas. He noted that Staff will make sure there are provisions for parking lot lighting for residential areas.
Ms. Parrish questioned the restrictions on lighting and expressed her concern that the standards may be too restrictive in parking lots so that customers would not feel safe. Mr. Wiley asked if these standards would regulate only the lighting in commercial areas. He expressed concern for areas of residential development where lighting is very limited. Mr. Goodrich stated that the lighting standards would apply whenever a site plan is required, which would be for industrial, commercial and multi-family development. - Street lights in residential neighborhoods are controlled by the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Anikis suggested that the Sheriff's Department should review the standards from a safety standpoint. Members briefly discussed lighting in residential developments and the need for additional standards in the Subdivision Ordinance.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends that Staff review lighting standards from other jurisdictions with regard to residential areas and consider changes to the County's standards in the Subdivision Ordinance.
Commission members briefly discussed the time limitations for recreational facilities proposed by the UGAAC. Mr. Wiley noted that there may be special occasions when the time limitation would not be appropriate and suggested that special exceptions could be granted on a case-by-case basis. Members believe that would be appropriate for the professional baseball/football fields. However, they suggested . waiting for public comment on the other uses.
Members discussed sign lighting with specific attention on signs with LED lighting that continually change the message (example used was a sign on Leitersburg Pike). Mr. Goodrich believes that these types of signs would be prohibited under Section 22.105; however, this issue may need to be reviewed and changes made to Section 22.105. He believes that these types of signs should be prohibited in areas where they would be a distraction to motorists. There was a discussion regarding internally lit signs and temporary portable signs. Ms. Parrish used the sign at the Paramount Baptist Church as an example. Mr. Goodrich stated that the County is proposing language to regulate portable signs and vehicles being used as sign display areas within the sign section of the Ordinance. He believes that signs, as mentioned by Ms. Parrish, were inadvertently missed. He suggested that Staff shouid re-evaluate the Prohibited Lighting section and propose different language.
There was a brief discussion regarding Section 22.106 (Exempt Lighting) and the UGAAC's recommendation to remove "single and two family (duplex) dwellings" from no. 1. Mr. Goodrich noted that the reason for this recommendation was based on a specific incidence that was discussed. The UGAAC believes that residential uses should not be exempt from lighting standards. Mr. Wiley noted that site plans are not required for the residential uses specified in no. 1.
[The Pianning Commission took a five minute break]
The Planning Commission began its review of the proposed Landscaping, Screening and Buffers section of the Ordinance. Mr. Goodrich stated that the Comp Plan recommends improved standards for landscaping, screening and buffers. He highlighted important factors throughout a complete review of this section. Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that trees that are removed should be replaced with trees of the same kind and of a substantial size [I.e. do not remove a large tree and replace with a seedling]. Mr. Goodrich explained that materials that are removed are not always available for replanting. However, the proposed replacement materials should be comparable and will eventually produce the same type of forest cover. Mr. Reiber asked if landscaping could be credited toward forest conservation requirements. Mr. Goodrich stated that forest conservation requirements could be credited toward landscaping requirements; however, the landscaping gUidelines are designed more for aesthetic purposes. 7
Members began a discussion regarding the landscaping design standards, which are separated into three categories. Mr. Goodrich began with an explanation of the perimeter landscaping and briefly described different scenarios that would allow for each type of perimeter landscaping. Ms. Parrish asked if this would restrict the Commission from requiring additional landscaping. Mr. Goodrich stated that it would restrict the Commission; however, the proposed guidelines give developers a requirement that must be met. Members discussed making the guidelines the "minimum" guidelines that could be increased if the Planning Commission believes additional landscaping is appropriate and could be determined on a case by case review. Mr. Reiber questioned if the proposed guidelines are encouraging "going greener". Mr. Goodrich stated that maximum permitted impermeable surfaces have been reduced in several of the industrial districts, which would have that effect.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends that item G.1 and G.2 should be revised to include language that implies, "These are the minimum landscaping design standards. The Planning Commission may increase or reduce the minimum guidelines for landscaping".
Mr. Goodrich began reviewing the parking area landscaping requirements. He noted, "all off-street parking areas of 10,000 sq. ft. or greater shall have landscaped areas which constitute a minimum of 10% of total impervious area of the parking facility." This is an increase from the current 5% minimum. Ms. Parrish expressed her opinion that if the parking area is pervious there should not be any landscaping required for the parking area. Mr. Goodrich stated that the primary goal of the islands in the parking lots is to break up the massive expanse of macadam and provide shading to reduce the heat from the macadam and places for water run-off, etc. Pervious pavement provides infiitration; however, there is still a need to provide the aesthetic and heat reduction benefits of landscaping in parking lots. There was a brief discussion regarding the different types of pervious materials that can be used for parking areas. Ms. Parrish expressed her opinion that if the parking areas are permeable, the restrictions are unnecessary because they are moving towards a "green" environment. She also noted that permeable surfaces are more expensive to install and adding landscaping requirements increases the cost even more. Mr. Goodrich reiterated that the reason to have landscaping within the parking areas is to make it more aesthetically pleasing by breaking up the great expanse of a parking lot even if the surface is completely permeable. Mr. Anikis asked why iandscape islands would be required every 15 spaces. Mr. Goodrich explained that this is a guideline for developers. Mr. Thompson suggested adding language as previously discussed for Item G.1 and G.2 regarding minimum standards [see the Consensus decision above].
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends adding the above language for all of the landscaping design standards.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Goodrich discussed with the Commission different methods for reviewing the UGA map during the next meeting. He stated that the UGAAC discussed 37 individual sites at great length and included a map and a chart in its report to cover those areas. After a brief discussion, the Commission decided to use the UGAAC's individual sites recommendations and maps 1 and 2 in the book. There was a brief discussion regarding other areas in the UGA and the zoning on those properties.
The Commission discussed upcoming meeting dates and tentatively decided to meet on Monday, February 15th and 22"d from 3:00 to 6:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 8
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - February 1, 2010
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, February 1, 2010, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown.
Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Linda Parrish, Drew Bowen, 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 and Misty Wagner-Grillo, Planner Cody Shaw, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES
Ms. Parrish made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 7, 2009 regular meeting as presented. Seconded by Mr. Bowen. Unanimously approved.
Ms. Parrish made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 11,2010 workshop meeting as presented. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS
- MODIFICATION
Robert J. Hill, Quail Run PUD Lot 16 (SV-09-018) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a setback modification for property located on the east side of Grouse Lane North, Lot 16 in the Quail Ridge Subdivision. Quail Ridge was approved in the late 1980's as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The owner, Mr. Robert Hill, placed a 288-square foot shed four feet from the rear property line without a building permit. The minimum setback requirement is ten feet from the rear property; therefore, the owner is requesting the modification. The Washington County Division of Public Works Land Development Engineering has reviewed the request and submitted the following comment: "We will approve this request with the condition that the property owner is made aware that there is also a 8.0' drainage and utility easement along the rear of ALL lots in this development. Should the County need to utilize this easement for any of the intended purposes, it will be the property owners full responsibility to remove and replace any structure placed in this easement at their expense."
Discussion and Comments: Mr. Reiber asked if the drainage and utility easements are noted in the individual deeds. Ms. Kelly stated the easements are noted on the final plat. Ms. Parrish asked if the neighbors object to the placement of the shed and the modification request and asked if they were notified. Ms. Kelly stated that the neighbors were not notified and staff did not contact any of them. Mr. Wiley asked why the request was not submitted to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. Kelly stated that any modifications in a PUD must be approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Kercheval explained that a building permit is not required for structures under 200 square feet and during the building permit process, building setbacks are checked. Mr. Kercheval is not opposed to the modification; however, he believes that the property owner shouid acknowledge, in writing, that if the County needs to access the easement, he is responsible for the removal and replacement of any structures placed in the easement area at his own expense. The letter should also include that the structure will be removed in a timely manner for the County's access. Mr. Bowen asked if a building permit can be required and fees collected now. Mr. Kercheval stated that generally the Department of Permits and Inspections will require that a building permit be obtained and fees paid. However, he does not know the process that has been followed for this particular case. Mr. Thompson stated that structures constructed without a bUilding permit will have an investigation fee attached. Mr. Anikis requested that staff follow-up with the Permits and Inspections Department to determine if fees were paid and how this particular case was handled.
Motion and Vote: Ms. Parrish made a motion to approve the modification request contingent upon receipt of a ietter from the property owner, Mr. Hili, acknowledging his responsibility to remove the shed at his own expense and in a timely manner at such time the County needs access to the easement and pending application for a building permit.
Mr. Reiber requested that the motion be amended that staff notify the property owner of the approval contingency. Ms. Parrish amended the motion. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.
Thomas S. Michael (SV-10-003) Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a modification request from Mr. Thomas Michael. On July 15, 2003, Lot 2, which is 11.48 acres, was approved as a lot without public road frontage and the stipulation that the property not be transferred out of the family for 10 years without the approval of the Planning Commission. The property is located along the north side of Falling Waters Road off of Beagle Club Lane. The applicant is seeking permission to terminate the 10-year family member agreement due to financial hardship. The current 1O-year agreement does not expire until 2013. 9
Discussion and Comments: Mr. Kercheval asked how the property is currently accessed. Mr. Ed Schreiber of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, the consultant, stated there are two accesses to the property, one off of Falling Waters Road. Mr. Kercheval asked if there is a shared use agreement. Mr. Schreiber stated there is an existing right-of-way that establishes the ingress and egress easement; however, it does not mention joint use of the property in the deed. A legal description for the lane is not in the deed, but the subdivision plat that the right-of-way is shown on is mentioned. Mr. Kercheval asked if a family member still owns the lane. Mr. Schreiber stated that the property has been sold. Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that a legal description should be proVided in the deed. Mr. Kercheval asked that staff briefly review the deed to make sure that the purchaser has legal access to the drive. Mr. Lung stated that the County Attorney's Office couid review the deed to make sure that the current language guarantees the purchaser access.
Motion and Vote: Ms. Parrish made a motion to approve the modification request contingent upon a review by the County Attorney's Office to guarantee that the current document for the shared access is legally binding. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. Unanimously approved.
- PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS Tencay (PC-09-003) Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and comment the preliminary consultation for Tencay. The property is located along Leitersburg Pike south of Longmeadow Road. The developer is proposing five commercial lots for medical offices on 18.79-acres currently zoned RS - Residential Suburban. Under the current zoning, medical offices are not a permitted use; however, the developer is planning to apply for a Special Exception request through the Board of Zoning Appeals. Lot 1 is proposed as a dental office for Dr. Kramer, the contract purchaser. There are currently no plans for the remaining lands. Ms. Wagner-Grillo gave a brief summary of the comments received from the reviewing agencies. The Washington County Land Development Engineering office has requested that a traffic impact study coordinated with the Maryland State Highway Administration and County Engineering Department be completed. A State Highway Hydraulic Review will be required due to discharge into the future right-of-way. Accel/decel and by-pass lanes will be required. A second access will be required if the development generates over 25 peak hour . trips. The proposed roadway must be extended to the interim parcel line with a temporary T-turnaround. Commercial access through Rose Hill Manor will not be permitted. The access road through Lot 1 will be required to be extended into and provided for Lot 2 as part of the approval of Lot 1. The Maryland State Highway Administration will require a traffic study, sight distance evaluation and profile. The SHA Is concerned about the lack of adequate sight distance in both directions along MD Route 60. The Washington County Department of Environmental Management will require the development to connect to the existing water and sewer lines. The proposed sewer is associated with Rose HIli Manor and will be extended to the proposed development. The City of Hagerstown Water and Sewer Department will require a pre-annexation agreement to be signed to gain approval for water service. The Washington County Planning Department recommended that the applicant consider the rezoning process in lieu of the Special Exception request. Forty (40) parking spaces will be required for the medical use. Lot 2 does not have public road frontage and a panhandle' will be required for access. Forest Conservation requirements will be met utilizing the remaining lands for forest easements. As currently designed, the remaining lands will be landlocked and the Subdivision Ordinance requires fee simple road frontage; therefore, Staff recommended the use of a cul-de sac for access to the remaining lands. Staff also recommended no direct access to the lots from Maryland Route 60.
Discussion and Comments: Mr. Bowen asked for the status of the Special Exception request. Mr. Mike Battern of Fox & Associates, Inc., the consultant, stated that the request has not been filed to date. There was a brief discussion regarding the proposed rezoning of this property as part of the current comprehensive UGA rezoning. Mr. Lung stated that during the preliminary consultation, staff suggested that the developer request a commercial zoning for the property as part of the comprehensive UGA rezoning process. Ms. Parrish expressed her concern regarding the proposed entrance on MD Route 60 and future residential development. Mr. Battern stated that the residential traffic must be separated from the commercial traffic per comments from the County Engineering Department and that a turnaround must be provided. The remaining lands, if the zoning remains RS, would be connected to Rose Hill Manor. Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that the Forest Conservation Plan as proposed is appropriate for buffering from the residential development on adjacent property. He questioned Staff's comments regarding storm water management and forest retention. Mr. Battern stated that a drainage easement must be provided along the adjacent property for the future Rose Hill Manor development per the County Engineering Department. He noted that the forest easement cannot be located within the drainage easement. There was a brief discussion regarding the rezoning of the property and the Special Exception request.
- SUBDIVISIONS
Black Rock PUD, Phase IA (PP-09-002) Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval the preliminary plat for Black Rock PUD, Phase IA located along the north side of Mt. Aetna Road. The developer is proposing a total of 585 units on 220.11 gross acres currently zoned A(PUD) - Agriculture Planned Unit Development. Phase IA consists of 127 lots, Phase IB consists of 35 lots, Phase II consists of 220 lots and Phase III consists of 203 lots. Phase IA consists of 127 lots on 101.67 acres. In March of 2009, an extension was requested for the proposed community center site plan. The site plan has been redesigned due to a future collector road as requested by the County Public Works Department. The extension was granted and the phasing schedule was approved. An extension for the Black Rock Community Center is being requested again. Phase IA will have 28.08 acres of open space and Forest Conservation requirements will be met through retention and plantings throughout the development. Forest Conservation requirements for Phase IA are 23.79 acres. The 10
Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan has been deferred until the final plat. Public water and sewer services will be provided by the City of Hagerstown. Fire services will be provided by the Mt. Aetna Fire Department and ambulance services will be provided by the Community Rescue Service. Storm water management requirements will be met through several storm water management ponds throughout the development. Asphait walkways are proposed around the open space areas and will connect to the proposed community center. Sidewalks are also proposed. The County Land Engineering Department has limited building permits to 58 before improvements will be required to Mt. Aetna Road. After the road improvements are completed, Phase I will be allowed to continue as well as subsequent phases. Approvals are pending from the City of Hagerstown Sewer Department, Washington County Heaith Department and Washington County Soii Conservation District.
Discussion and Comments: Ms. Parrish made an inquiry regarding sidewalks in the proposed development. Mr. Sassan Shaool, developer, stated that sidewalks and walkways would be used throughout the development. There was a brief discussion regarding drainage on the site. Mr. Anikis asked about the historic structure located on Lot 27, which is proposed for retention. Mr. Shaool stated that the structure has been vandalized and burnt, but the structure will remain on a separate lot. Mr. Anikis made an inquiry regarding the relocation of the historic structure on Lot 25. Mr. Gordon Poffenberger of Fox & Associates, Inc., the consultant, stated that the structure will be relocated on the same lot outside of the drainage easement area.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the preliminary plat for Phase IA as presented contingent upon all agency approvals and to grant an extension to the site plan for the proposed community center. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved.
Barr Family LLC (5-09-062) Mr. Shaw presented for review and approval a waiver from the 50-foot agricultural land use setback for a dwellilng. The property is located along the northeast side of Fairview Road in Clear Spring (Tax Map 8, Grid 24, Parcel 134). The lot is 2.71-acres and is zoned A(R) - Agricultural Rural. In accordance with Section 5A.5 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission may increase the minimum setbacks up to 50 feet for properties adjacent to parcels that are actively farmed or parcels with an agricultural district designation. Staff has requested that any subdivision parcel next to a property with an agricultural use tax assessment to provide the 50-foot setback with the option to request a waiver from the Planning Commission. The proposed dwelling meets the minimum setbacks for the A(R) zone, which is 40-foot front yard, 15-foot side yard and 50-foot rear yard. The consultant provided a letter for the waiver request citing several factors to be considered in the Planning Commission's decision. Staff has no objection to reducing the agricultural setback from 50-feet to 15-feet for the proposed development.
Discussion and Comments: Mr. Reiber asked why the 15-foot setback was not considered when the development was originally platted. Mr. Lung stated that the lot was approved as a "not for development" parcel.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the waiver as presented. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. The motion passed on a 3-1-0 vote with Mr. Bowen, Mr. Wiley, and Ms. Parrish voting "aye", Mr. Reiber voting "no" and Mr. Kercheval abstained.
- SITE PLANS
Hagerstown Community College (SP-09-052) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for the proposed science and mathematics building at the Hagerstown Community College. The property is currently zoned RS - Residential Suburban. The proposed building will be 5 stories totaling 61,635 square feet of space. The existing science building will become a learning center. Public water and sewer will serve the site. The hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Lighting will be building mounted with pole lights surrounding the existing parking lot. Current parking spaces required are 1,437 spaces and the current parking provided is 1,603 spaces. A new wall mounted sign will be installed on the building. Concrete sidewalks and handicapped ramps will be installed from the parking lot to the proposed building and to the current walking area that serves the current classroom and science bUildings. Storm water management requirements will be met by b'lo-retention ponds. The front of the bUilding will have a stone plaza made of stone pavers and will include statues, sculptures, a fountain, benches, cafe table and chairs, bicycle rack, and planters. Evergreen and shade trees will be planted around the building along with ornamental grasses and perennials around the plaza and in the bio-retention ponds. Final approvals are pending from the County Land Development Engineering Department, Address, the City of Hagerstown Sewer Department, Washington County Soil Conservation District and the Washington County Health Department. A Forest Conservation Plan will be submitted at a later date; however, existing forest is proposed for retention on the existing acreage of HCC.
Discussion and comments: Mr. Reiber made an inquiry regarding the proposed master plan for HCC and the proposed expansion of the college with regard to traffic and safety issues. Mr. Thompson stated that the College is currentiy working on a master plan. He noted that currently there is a parking lot and an expansion to Kepler Theater proposed. Dr. Robert Spong, an HCC representative, made a brief presentation using a rendition of the campus development plan showing future bUilding sites, proposed buildings, and proposed entrances. This plan encompasses a 20 to 30 year time period. There was a brief discussion regarding future access points, sewer and water allocation, and solar powered energy for the college. 11
Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon all agency approvals. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. Unanimously approved.
D & G LLC (SP.09.049) Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a site plan for D & G LLC located along the south side of Mt. Aetna Road. The property is 2.09-acres in size and is currently zoned BG - Business General. There is an existing 900-square foot contractor's office building on the site. The owner is proposing a 1,400 square foot addition to the existing office. Hours of operation are Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. There are currently two employees No new signage or lighting is proposed. The site will be exempt from Forest Conservation requirements. Aii agency approvals have been received. Staff has requested additional screening through landscaping to be provided from the new addition to the adjacent property due to the size of the addition. The applicant is requesting a waiver from the additional landscaping request.
Discussion and Comments: Mr. Reiber asked why the applicant does not want to provide the additional landscaping requested by Staff. Mr. Ed Schreiber of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, the consultant, stated that the applicant does not believe the additional landscaping is needed. There is a warehouse located north of the applicant's property. Severai members expressed their opinions that the additional landscaping is not needed.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the site plan without additional landscaping requirements. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. The motion passed with Mr. Bowen, Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Wiley and Ms. Parrish voting "Aye" and Mr. Reiber abstained.
Dual Crossing (SP.09.032)
Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a site plan for Dual Crossing located at the intersection of Mt. Aetna Road and Dual Highway. The site is 1.5-acres in size and is currently zoned BL - Business Local. The owner is proposing to construct a three story 23,556-square foot building that is 50-feet in height. .Centra Bank will occupy the first floor, which is 5, 132-square feet, with four drive-through lanes. The second and third floors will be business offices, which will be 8,612 square feet in size. Eight employees are proposed for the bank and 40 employees are proposed for the offices. The hours of operation for the bank will 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Saturday. The hours of operation for the proposed offices will be 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Parking spaces required are 63 spaces and 80 parking spaces will be provided. Deliveries will be daily box trucks. The proposed sign will be 8 feet by 24 feet. Lighting will be building mounted. A photometric plan has been provided which showed no light trespass on adjacent residential properties or roads. Storm water management will be provided through on-site mechanisms. Public water and sewer will be provided by the City of Hagerstown. Fire service will be provided by the Funkstown Fire Department and ambulance service will be provided by the Community Rescue Service. Trash will be collected inside the building and picked up by a private trash hauler. No outside refuse service is proposed outside the building, which is noted on the site plan. Forest Conservation requirements will be met using the express procedure with a payment-in-lieu amount of $1 ,000.00. Landscaping will be provided throughout the parking area and around the bUilding. A double row of Red Cedar Green Giants planted along the western property line to buffer the existing residential uses is proposed. In July of 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed a site plan for a different use on this site and requested a 25-foot buffer from the residential property. In August of 2009, the current owner requested a reduction in the landscaping buffer because the proposed use is less intense. The Planning Commission granted the request contingent upon the neighbors agreeing to the proposed landscaping or a vinyl fence. A letter was received from the residential property owners dated July 17, 2009 stating that they would prefer the landscaping rather than the vinyl fence. Ms. Wagner-Grillo explained there were changes in the access to the property. Previously there was a restricted left hand turn onto Mt. Aetna Road; however, a right and left hand turn will be allowed onto Mt. Aetna Road with the stipulation, as requested by the County Engineering Department, that a condition be put on entrance permits for Mt. Aetna Road that a traffic study will be submitted that assesses the function of the Mt. Aetna Road entrance after 18 to 24 months in operation. If there are problems resulting from the left-hand turn, the developer will be required to modify the entrance and restrict the movement. The State Highway Administration access permit stipulates that if any commercial construction is performed on the adjacent property that is currently zoned residential the second entrance will need to be eliminated and an access easement must be obtained over the now residential property. Originally, the Sheriff's Department requested no left-hand turn from the site due to accidents, back-ups and the increased traffic anticipated with the new hospital and primary school. A concrete median is proposed that would prohibit left-hand turns onto Beverly Road. State Highway Administration and County Engineering Department approvals are pending.
Discussion and Comments: Mr. Reiber expressed his concern regarding the left-hand turn especially when the new hospital and new primary school opens. There was a brief discussion regarding the left-hand turn and decisions that led to the change from the original proposal.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon all agency approvals and the traffic study to be completed after the bUilding has been in operation for 18 to 24 months. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved.
Misty Meadow Farms, Inc, (SP-09-058)
Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval the site plan for Misty Meadow Farms located on the east side of Misty Meadow Road. The property is 31.2 acres in size and is currently zoned A(R) - 12
Agricultural Rural. The existing farm is currently in a Maryland Land Agricultural Foundation. Program (MALPF) easement. The owner is proposing a 3,150-square foot creamery with a drive-thru. Hours of operation are 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 11:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. Two employees are proposed. Two parking spaces are required and five parking spaces will be provided. The MALPF regulations require pervious surfaces for parking areas; therefore, pervious pavers are proposed for one handicapped parking space and one regular parking space. Additional parking spaces will be gravel. One building mounted sign is proposed, which is 32-square feet in size. Lighting will be building mounted. UPS delivery is anticipated. The site will be served by individual well and septic. Storm water management will be provided by an on-site mechanism. The site is exempt from Forest Conservation requirements. All agency approvals have been received.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved.
Mountainside Teleport (SP-09-042) Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a site plan for Mountainside Teleport located along the south side of Technology Boulevard in the Friendship Technology Park. The site contains 65 acres and is currently zoned ORT - Office, Research and Technology. The developer is proposing a 20,000 square foot addition to the existin9 data center, 79 new satellite dish pads and 18 equipment shelter buildings of various sizes. Nine new employees are proposed with the expansion. The new antennas on the satellites will range in height from 15-feet to 70-feet. The parking lot and access road associated with the data center will be reconfigured due to future proposed expansions of the data center. Several new storm water management facilities will be constructed to accommodate the addition. Additional gravel maintenance roads are proposed to access the dish sites. The existing data center is served by public water and sewer from the City of Hagerstown. The site is exempt from Forest Conservation requirements because the Zoning Ordinance exempts land that was previously zoned Planned Industrial. All agency approvals have not been received.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon all agency approvals. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. Unanimously approved.
- OTHER BUSINESS
Rosewood PUD Development Plan Revision
Mr. Lung began by explaining that a PUD (Planned Unit Development) is an overlay zone which requires a public hearing as part of the rezoning process. The Zoning Ordinance allows modifications to the design standards in a PUD; however, the Planning Commission must determine if the changes warrant another public hearing. Mr. Lung noted that commercial uses in a PUD are restricted to 10% of the gross tract area.
Mr. Lung stated that a PUD overlay zone was obtained for this property in 1995 and the Final Development Plan was approved in 1999. Phase I has been completed as well as several portions of Phase II. Plans for Phase III are currently under review by the various reviewing agencies.
The developer is proposing to eliminate four 12-unit apartment bUildings in Phase II-B and construct a 14,000 square foot with 4,000 square feet of mezzanine office bUilding. The proposed commercial area would increase the percentage of commercial area in the PUD from approximately 10% to 12% of the gross tract area.
Discussion and Comments: Mr. Sassan Shaool, developer, stated that the surrounding neighborhood has changed significantly over time and he believes that the proposed office building would be a more appropriate use. He noted that no residential development has occurred adjacent to the site so future buyers would be aware of the commercial development prior to buying or renting property in the area.
Members discussed the need for a public hearing for the change in use. Issues discussed included the increase in the percentage of commercial area from 10% to 12%, the fact that there Is no residential development currently adjacent to the site, and the changes in the surrounding neighborhood since the development plan was approved in 1999. Following these discussions, Mr. Wiley, Mr. Bowen, Mr. Reiber and Ms. Parrish expressed their opinions that a public hearing is not needed because there is not a substantial change in the percentage of commercial area. Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that generally a change In use would require a public hearing; however, because there is no developed land surrounding the site, he believes a public hearing is not needed for this change. Mr. Anikis questioned the need for another traffic study. Mr. Lung stated that a revised development plan is required and will be routed to all approving agencies for their review and approval. Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that a public hearing should be held to inform other commercial developers of Mr. Shaool's intentions.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to allow the developer to proceed without a public hearing because the land surrounding the proposed commercial site is undeveloped at this time. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved.
Comments after the vote: Mr. Kercheval suggested that a traffic study would be beneficial in determining turning movements and alignment at the intersection in the future. 13
FUTURE MEETINGS Workshop meetings have been scheduled on Monday, February 15th and Monday, February 22"d at 3:00 p.m. at the Washington County Administrative Annex.
ADJOURNMENT Mr. Bowen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. So ordered. Respectfully submitted, 14
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING - February 15, 2010
The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday, February 15, 2010, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown,
Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Drew Bowen, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michaei C. Thompson, Chief Planner Stephen T. Goodrich, Planner Fred Nugent, GIS Technician Meghan Hammond, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.
MINUTES
Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 25, 2010 workshop meeting as presented. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. Unanimously approved.
DISCUSSION
Continued discussion of the proposed UGA Rezoning
The Commission continued its review of the proposed text for the Landscaping, Buffering and Screening section of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Goodrich highlighted proposed screening requirements for outside storage. He briefly discussed proposed buffering requirements including modifications to the buffering requirements as regulated by the Planning Commission. There was a brief discussion regarding the use of white pines for screening. Commission members recommended that the use of white pines should not be suggested in the proposed text. The Planning Commission began its review of the proposed map zoning designations using the Site Recommendations spreadsheet found in the UGAAC's recommendations. The spreadsheet is comprised of the Staff's zoning recommendations and the UGAAC's zoning recommendations for various sites around the UGA. Mr. Goodrich explained that the UGAAC discussed 37 specific areas around the UGA. He further explained that Staff, when making their zoning recommendations, corresponded zoning classifications with the Land Use Plan incorporated in the County's Comprehensive Plan. Staff also considered the current zoning of the property and adjacent properties, new development proposais and other pertinent information when determining zoning classifications around the UGA. Mr. Goodrich stated that water and sewer availability was not considered to a great degree because it is assumed that public water and sewer would be available in the growth area. Commission members asked staff to provide a map showing the water and sewer service areas currently available. Mr. Goodrich stated that requests have been received from approximately 10 individual property owners requesting specific zoning classifications for their property. The Commission will review these requests following the review of the UGAAC's recommendations.
The Planning Commission began its review with Site 1, which the Land Use Plan (LUP) has designated for low density residential zoning. Staff and the UGAAC both recommended the RT (Residential Transitional) zoning designation.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission agrees with the proposed RT zoning for Site 1.
Mr. Goodrich moved on to Site 2, which the LUP designates for IF (Industrial Flex) zoning. Staff and the UGAAC both recommended the PI (Planned Industrial) zoning designation. Mr. Goodrich explained that this has been viewed as an extension of the Hopewell Valley industrial development south of US Route 40. He noted that there were previous discussions regarding the inclusion of this area in the UGA boundary. Staff finally decided that including the area and giving it an urban zoning classification would be the best indicator of the uses that would be appropriate for the area. The land is currently zoned for agriculture.
Discussion: Mr. Anikis began a discussion regarding the easternmost portion of Site 2, which is located between several residential areas. He expressed his opinion that McDade Road couid be the dividing line for Site 2 and this portion of Site 2 on the east side of McDade Road should be zoned for residential uses. Mr. Anikis noted that industrial uses could have a negative impact on the surrounding residential properties. There was a brief discussion regarding the easternmost portion of Site 2 in which members expressed their opinions that a residential use would be more appropriate for this area.
• Vote: The Planning Commission recommends changing the zoning of the easternmost portion of Site 2 (approximately 80 acres) to RT (Residential Transitional). Recommendation passed on a 4-0-1 vote with Mr. Anikis, Mr. Reiber, Mr. Wiley and Mr. Bowen voting "yes" and Mr. Kercheval abstained.
Site 3 is designated by the Land Use Plan as a mixture of residential and Industrial Flex zoning. In reviewing this site, both staff and the UGAAC recommended RT zoning due to the existing residential uses on adjoining properties. 15
• Consensus: The Planning Commission agrees with the proposed RT zoning for Site 3.
Site 4 is designated by the LUP for IF zoning. Mr. Goodrich stated that the Economic Development Commission recommended that the area should be zoned HI-1 (Highway Interchange 1) because both commercial and industrial uses would be permitted. However, the HI-1 zone is being re-written and will not include industrial uses. Staff recommends the IR (Industrial Restricted) zoning classification to allow for the industrial uses that the EDC would like to see located in this area. The UGAAC recommends the PI (Planned Industrial) zoning because the commercial uses would be permitted also.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends the PI zoning classification for Site 4.
Site 5 is designated by the LUP for low density residential zoning. Staff and the UGAAC recommend the RT zoning district.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends the RT zoning district for Site 5.
The LUP designates Sites 6 and 7 for IF zoning and Site 8 for high density residential zoning. Mr. Goodrich expiained that there was a great deai of discussion during the UGAAC meetings regarding these sites especially Site 6, which is the current location of Martin Elevator. One member of the UGAAC believes this site would be a good location for a bio-diesel facility. Site 7 is the current location of HUB Labels and several other small businesses. Site 8 currently contains residential properties. After lengthy discussions, the UGAAC recommended the IG (Industrial General) zoning designation for Site 6, ORI (Office, Research & Industry) zoning for Site 7 and RU (Residentiai Urban) zoning for Site 8.
Discussion: Mr. Goodrich explained the rationale used by the UGAAC when considering the zoning for these specific sites. Mr. Bowen asked if the ORT zoning as proposed by Staff would prohibit future operations on the property owned by Martin's. Mr. Goodrich stated that the ORT zoning could be prohibitive for the property as well as the ORI zoning depending upon emissions from future operations. He stated that some members of the UGAAC felt very strongly about limiting the future operations on this . site. Planning Commission members discussed consistency of zoning for the three properties, zoning that would be compatible with adjacent properties, zoning that would not prohibit future operations of Martin's Elevator, and uses that could benefit from the active railroad located on Martin's property. Members also focused on the residential zoning proposed for Site 8. They expressed concern with regard to a high density residential use located next to an industrial area. The property is currently zoned HI-2, which allows high density residential uses.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends the ORI zoning for Site 7 as proposed by the UGAAC.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends the IG zoning for Site 6 with the boundary changed to exclude the residential properties located along the east side of Maugansville Road and to the north of the existing driveway on the northern portion of the Martin's property.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends the RU zoning classification for Site 8 and include the residential properties along the east side of Maugansville Road.
Site 9 has been designated for IF zoning by the LUP. Staff and the UGAAC both recommended BG zoning for this site. Members discussed several businesses that are located further north along the east side of Salem Avenue (John Deere, Hoffman Meats, storage facilities). These properties are currently zoned RT (Residential Transitional). The businesses would be considered non-conforming uses, which would require a special exception from the Board of Zoning Appeals for any future expansions. There was a brief discussion regarding the changes in the area and several annexations that have taken place since the original zoning was placed on the properties.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends BG zoning for the businesses north of Site 9 along the east side of Salem Avenue and extending to the existing drive for the Hagerstown Soccer Club. The parcel behind Hoffman's Meats should keep the RT zoning due to the residential deveiopment being proposed on the property. All property owned by the Tri State Fellowship should be included in the BG zone.
Staff and the UGAAC recommend RT zoning for Site 10.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends the proposed RT zoning for Site 10.
The LUP recommends a business/commercial zoning classification for Site 11 and the Staff and UGAAC recommends the BG zoning classification. Mr. Goodrich explained that there was a lot of discussion regarding this site with regard to residential versus a business zoning. He noted that there is residential development and an elementary school in close proximity to the site. However, the location next to the interstate and access from the Valley Mall help influence the BG zoning classification.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends the proposed BG zoning for Site 11. 16
The LUP recommends a business zoning classification for Site 12. Staff is proposing the BG zoning and the UGAAC recommends the ORT zoning for Site 12. Mr. Goodrich explained the rationale for the UGAAC's recommendation, which included drainage and topographic issues and proximity to the interstate. The property contains approximately 32 acres and is currently zoned BG.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends the proposed ORT zoning for Site 12.
The LUP recommends a combination of residential and commercial uses on Site 13. Staff and the UGAAC recommend the RT zoning classification due to residential development currently in the area.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends the proposed RT zoning for Site 13.
ADJOURNMENT
The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 17
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING - March 1,2010
The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday, March 1, 2010, in Ihe Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown.
Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Drew Bowen, Clint Wiley, Linda Parrish, Sam Ecker (arrived at 4:25 p.m.) and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Stephen T. Goodrich, Planner Fred Nugent, GIS Technician Meghan Hammond, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m.
MINUTES
Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 25, 2010 workshop meeting as presented. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. Unanimously approved.
DISCUSSION
Continued discussion of the proposed UGA Rezoning
Mr. Goodrich began with a brief overview of documents he distributed prior to the meeting. The first document deals with proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments to Division II - Signs that will be discussed during the next workshop. The second document is relative to recycling facilities as currently addressed in the Zoning Ordinance and recommendations for proposed changes. The Commission . decided it would prefer to delay discussion until the next workshop. Mr. Goodrich noted that a map of existing sewer and water services in the UGA that the Planning Commission requested during the previous workshop was the finai piece of information in the packet.
The Commission continued its review of the proposed zoning in the UGA. Site 14 is located along the western edge of the Growth Area along Route 63 north of Williamsport. The Land Use Plan (LUP) recommends a low density residential zoning designation. Staff and the UGAAC recommend the RT (Residential Transition) zoning. This area is considered environmentally sensitive due to the floodplain associated with the Conococheague Creek, mining, and the former Redland Brick facility. Staff and the UGAAC also recommend that the UGA boundary should be adjusted in this area.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission agrees with the RT zoning and the boundary adjustment for Site 14.
Site 15 is located south of Sterling Road and north of Kendle Road. The LUP assigns an IF (Industrial Flex) classification. Staff recommends PI (Planned Industrial) zoning due to railroad access on the site. The UGAAC recommends RS (Residential Suburban) zoning because Site 16 is proposed for residential zoning and residentiai development of that site. Access to Site 15 (via Kendle Road) is not adequate for industrial traffic. Mr. Goodrich noted that discussions were heid with the UGAAC regarding the extension of Prosperity Lane to the south; however, the extension does not seem feasible because a railroad crossing would be reqUired to access the site.
Mr. Kercheval noted that the Washington County Economic Development Commission (EDC) supports the UGAAC's recommendation for RS zoning. He pointed out that the railroad would provide a natural boundary between current industrial uses on adjoining properties and proposed residential uses. Mr. Kercheval briefly discussed proposed roadway plans in the area. Members discussed safety concerns for industrial traffic accessing the site through residential development.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends RS zoning for Site 15.
Site 16 is designated in the LUP for low density residential zoning. Staff recommends RT zoning and the UGAAC recommends RS (Residentiai Suburban) zoning for the site. Mr. Goodrich stated that since the Staffs original recommendation, plans have been submitted to the Planning Department for the two properties designated as Site 16 (Brllner/Ebersole properties). After reviewing the proposed development plans, Staff has reconsidered its original zoning designation and now recommends RS zoning for the site also.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends RS zoning for Site 16.
Site 17 is designated in the LUP as IF. The land is currently zoned A (Agriculture). Staff is recommending ORT (Office, Research & Technology) zoning and the UGAAC is recommending the ORI (Office, Research & Industrial) zoning for the site. The ORI zone is a new zone proposed by the UGAAC for Washington County, which mirrors language from a Frederick County district. Mr. Goodrich stated that the ORI zoning designation allows a wider variety of industrial uses; however, it also has stricter performance 18 standards. He noted that railroad tracks running through the site make it a good location for industrial uses.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends ORI zoning for Site 17.
Site 18, which is the location of the Review and Herald Publishing and a vacant parcel owned by them, is designated in the LUP as IF. Staff recommended the aRT zoning; however, the current use is not a permitted use in the aRT zone. The UGAAC recommends ORI zoning, in which case the current use would be a permitted use. Staff has reconsidered its original recommendation after the creation of the proposed ORI zoning district and has no objection to the ORI zoning for this site.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends ORI zoning for Site 18.
Site 19 is north of 1-70, adjacent to Funkstown and south to Wagaman Road. It currently contains low density residential development and is on the edge of the Grow1h Area. The LUP recommends a low density residential zoning for this area. Staff recommends RT zoning and the UGAAC recommends RU (Residential Urban) zoning for the area closest to Funkstown. The UGAAC recommends the RT zoning for the property south of Wagaman Road.
Mr. Anikis expressed his concern regarding increased traffic in the area as density increases. Mr. Goodrich stated that the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance would put the burden on the developer to improve roads if they cannot accommodate the development being proposed. Commission members discussed the traffic issues and roadways within the area. They also discussed various scenarios relative to density within the proximity of Funkstown.
• Consensus: The Pianning Commission recommends RU zoning north of 1-70 at Funkstown, RU zoning south of 1-70 to Wagaman Road and RT zoning south of Wagaman Road.
Site 20 is located south and west of the interchange of 1-70 and US Route 40. The LUP recommends low 'density residential zoning for this area. Staff recommends RT zoning. The UGAAC recommends the RM (Residentiai Muiti-family) zoning because the site is located in close proximity to the interchange and proposed commercial deveiopment and because they believe there is a need for more multi-family residential development in the Growth Area. Mr. Goodrich expiained that RM zoning allows a maximum of 12 dwelling units per acre including apartments and townhouses.
Commission members discussed the close proximity to the interstate, future proposed commercial development planned in the area, and the diversity that the RM zoning would allow. Members discussed the possibility of changing the growth area boundary in this area. Mr. Wiley expressed his opinion that denser development should be located close to the interchange; however, he believes there needs to be a transitional area for density.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends RM zoning for Site 20.
There was no discussion on Site 21 because it has been annexed into the City of Hagerstown. Site 22 is located at the intersection of White Hall Road and Robinwood Drive, which covers a large area of the Black Rock Regional Park. There is currently low density residential development in the area; therefore, Staff recommends RT zoning. The UGAAC recommends RT zoning.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends RT zoning for Site 22.
Site 23 is located along US Route 40 at Hebb Road. Currently the site contains low density residential development and commercial development. The LUP designates low density residential zoning for this site. Staff recommends RT zoning and the UGAAC recommends RS zoning.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends RS zoning for Site 23.
Site 24 (Mount Aetna Farms) is located along Robinwood Drive and is currently owned by Diakon. The LUP designates low density residential development. Staff recommends RS zoning because there is residential development located to the south and east of the site. The UGAAC recommends aRT zoning. Discussions focused on future uses on the property, such as the possible expansion of the Village at Robinwood or businesses that could start on the HCC campus as incubators and relocate to the adjoining site, etc. Mr. Kercheval noted that the Village at Robinwood is planning to keep a portion of the property for expansion. Mr. Goodrich suggested that the owners should make a formal request for the zoning that would allow the proposed use on the portion of property they will be keeping.
Site 24 also includes the Hagerstown Community College. Staff and the UGAAC recommend the proposed ERT (Education, Research & Technology) zoning.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends aRT zoning for the portion of Site 24 that is not used by the Village of Robinwood for expansion. The Planning Commission recommends the proposed ERT zone for the Hagerstown Community College property.
Site 25 is located on the east side of Eastern Boulevard. The LUP recommends low density residential zoning. Staff recommends RS (Residential Suburban) zone and the UGAAC agrees with Staff's 19 recommendation. Mr. Goodrich noted that most of this area is currently developed with low density residential uses.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends RS zoning for Site 25.
Site 26 is located along the east side of Marsh Pike and the south side of Maryland Route 60. The alignment of the proposed Eastern Boulevard extension was undetermined at the time Staff reviewed this area. Mr. Goodrich showed members of the Planning Commission the proposed alignment, which goes outside the UGA. After the alignment and rights-of-way were determined, Staff reviewed the site again and now recommends BG and RS zoning for the site. The UGAAC agreed with Staff's proposal. Staff is also recommending an adjustment to the Growth Area boundary in this area.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends BG and RS zoning for Site 26.
Site 27 is located at the intersection of Marsh Pike and Longmeadow Road. Staff recommends RT zoning and the UGAAC recommends RS zoning for the site. After further review, Staff has reconsidered their original recommendation and believes that the RS zoning is more appropriate. Mr. Goodrich stated that the County has purchased land to the west of the Susquehanna Bank (located at this intersection) for road improvements. Suggestions have been made to Staff to consider a commercial zoning district to accommodate the bank, rearrangement of the bank parking lot, and improvements to the road intersection.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends RS zoning for Site 27.
Staff recommends RS zoning for Site 28. The UGAAC recommends BL and IG zoning. Mr. Goodrich stated that the existing uses (Long Meadow Fire Company, Hagerstown Kitchens, the nursery) are pre existing uses. He explained that Staff recommended the RS zoning to keep the businesses from expanding and encroaching on the residential neighborhood that surrounds them; however, after reconsidering the recommendation he believes that restricting the businesses may not be a good idea.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends BL and IG zoning for Site 28.
Site 29 is located at the intersection of Mt. Aetna Road and Robinwood Drive. The LUP recommended commercial zoning and Staff recommended BL zoning. However, since that time the land has been acquired by the Hospital. Mr. Goodrich noted that RS zoning would accommodate the hospital, which is a special exception use in the RS zoning district. Mr. Kercheval stated his opinion that the property owned by the Hospital should be rezoned to allow the Hospitai as a principal permitted use. Mr. Goodrich stated that the ORI or ORT zoning would allow the Hospital as a principal permitted use. The Planning Commission briefly discussed zoning designations that would allow both the Hospital and the new primary school being construction at the corner of Yale Drive and Mt. Aetna Road.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends ORT zoning for the area located between Yale Drive/Mt. Aetna Road/Medical Campus Road/Robinwood Drive, which includes Site 29.
Site 30 is located at the intersection of the proposed extension of Eastern Boulevard and Old Forge Road. Staff is recommending that the growth area boundary should be adjusted at this site and the zoning should be RT. The UGAAC agrees with Staff's recommendation. Mr. Kercheval asked that Staff discuss this site with the City of Hagerstown for future plans in the area.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission would like to Staff to discuss this site with the City of Hagerstown prior to making its recommendation on this site.
Sites 31 and 32 are proposed to be moved outside the Growth Area boundary because they are currently zoned 1M. Staff believes that industrial mining does not belong in the UGA.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission agrees with Staff's recommendation for Sites 31 and 32.
Site 33 is the site of the former Garden State Tannery. Staff originally proposed IG (Industrial General) zoning because it was compatible with the use already established. The UGAAC recommends IR (Industrial Restricted) zoning in an effort to lessen the effects of the industrial site. The Planning Commission discussed a zoning designation that would limit the disturbance of the ground in the area due to environmental concerns. Commission members discussed the differences in the IR and IG zoning districts and the benefits or hindrances of each zone. There were also discussions regarding the UGAAC's recommendations and the reasons for its decision to recommend IR zoning (Ms. Linda Irvin Craig was present from the UGAAC and answered questions).
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends the IR zoning for Site 33 following a 3-2-1 vote (Mr. Wiley, Mr. Bowen and Mr. Anikis voted yes for the IR zoning) (Ms. Parrish and Mr. Ecker supported PI zoning for the site) (Mr. Kercheval abstained from the vote)
Site 34 is located adjacent to Citicorp and is currently an undeveloped industrial park owned by CHIEF. Staff recommends ORT zoning and the UGAAC recommends ORI zoning.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends ORI zoning for Site 34. 20
Site 35 is located at the interchange of 1-81 and US Route 40 (near First Data). The LUP designates an IF land use and the Staff and UGAAC recommends ORT zoning.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends ORT zoning for Site 35.
Site 36 is located at the interchange of 1-81 and 1-70 (western quadrant) ali the way to US Route 11. A majority of the property is owned by Hopeweli Farms. The LUP recommends an IF category, Staff recommends ORT zoning and the UGAAC recommends ORI zoning. Staff based its recommendation on high visibility of the site from the interstate.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends ORI zoning for Site 36.
Site 37 is located at the intersection of Governor Lane Boulevard and MD Route 68. Staff recommends ORT zoning and the UGAAC recommends ORI zoning.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends ORI zoning for Site 37. ADJOURNMENT
The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted,
GeoraeAnifrs-,'-:C;:;h-a--;ir'--m-a-'-n------CL t'bvh' 21
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING PUBLIC MEETING AND REGULAR MEETING - March 1, 2010
The Washington County Planning Commission held a public rezoning meeting and its regular meeting on Monday, February 1, 2010, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown.
Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Linda Parrish, Drew Bowen, 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, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman George Anikis called the rezoning public meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
REZONING PUBLIC MEETING
RZ-10-001 - Map Amendment Mr. Goodrich presented for review and recommendation a map amendment for property owned by Christopher Horst located at 718 and 728 Antietam Drive. Mr. Goodrich entered the Staff Report and all related attachments for the record. The applicant is requesting the HP (Historic Preservation) overiay zone on two parceis of land that total .99-acres in size and are currently zoned RS (Residential Suburban). Mr. Goodrich explained that the overlay zone does not change the underlying zoning that controls the land use. He further explained that the HP overiay zone adds additional controis that govern the changes to the outside of historic buildings on the property. The HP zone is designed to retain the historic features or historic character of the buildings and insures that the changes, either restoration or new construction, are compatible with existing conditions. Property owners may be eligible to apply for property tax credits based on the amount spent for rehabilitation of the buildings within the HP zone. Mr. Goodrich stated that applying an overlay zone does not require proof of a change in the character of the neighborhood or a mistake in the original zoning of the property. Because the "change or mistake rule" does not apply to the HP overiay zone, there are qualitative criteria provided in the County's Zoning Ordinance by which the appiication should be judged. Mr. Goodrich noted that the 11 criteria elements are outlined in the Staff Report and the application must meet at least one of the criteria. He stated that Staff believes the application meets 5 of the 11 criteria listed including: 1) the property is listed in the Maryland Historical Trust's Inventory of Historic Places and the National Register of Historic Places; 2) the buildings retain significant character and value as part of the developmental history of Washington County; 3) the property is a good example of the cultural and economic heritage of the County; 4) the structures are a good and intact example of the signature stone construction in Washington County; 5) they are established visual features in the community due to their physical characteristics.
Comments: Mr. Anikis commended the property owners for preserving a valuable Washington County site, which he believes is one of only two structures left in the County that can be proven to have been in existence in the 1700's.
Mr. Horst, the applicant, spoke briefly to the Commission, and noted that as the property owner he fully understands the additionai controls that govern the HP overlay zone and believes that preservation of historic structures is worth the additional controls.
Motion and Vote: Ms. Parrish made a motion to recommend approval of the HP overlay zone to the Board of County Commissioners. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained. The public rezoning meeting was closed at 7:12 p.m.
MINUTES
Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 1, 2010 regular meeting as presented. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved.
Ms. Parrish made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 15, 2010 workshop meeting as presented. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved.
OTHER BUSINESS Westfields, Section 4 (PP-05-001) Mr. Lung presented, on behalf of Ms. Kelly, a request for a sidewalk modification for Section 4, Westfields. The applicant is requesting the deletion of a proposed sidewalk that encompasses an open space area surrounded by Misty Field Lane, Wissett Way and Westernberger Drive. There are no improvements proposed for this open space area and would provide green space only. The proposed sidewalk is approximately 766-feet in length. It is the developer's opinion that the sidewalk is redundant and has no direct benefit on pedestrian mobility through the subdivision. Bicycle or stroller access to the open space is not compromised since the concrete curbing within this section of the subdivision is of mountable design. The applicant is making this request to limit maintenance responsibilities of the HOA for sidewalk that is of little or no benefit to pedestrians in addition to reducing unnecessary impervious surface area. Mr. Lung 22 stated that the modification request was forwarded to the County's Land Development Engineering Department as part of the review process. A memo from the Engineering Department was distributed prior to the start of this evening's meeting to each Commission member. The memo states, "having sidewalks in this location provides a safe means of access to the Open Space for pedestrians. However, the decision to eliminate the sidewaik rests with the Planning Department and we will support their decision regarding this matter." Mr. Lung stated that the Planning Department staff supports the Engineering Department's comment.
Comments: Mr. Cvljanovich, representative of the consultant Davis, Renn & Associates, pointed out that residents would need to cross a roadway to access the specified location. He noted there are no crosswalks designated; however, the mountable curb would allow for access.
Mr. Jeremy Holder of Ausherman Development Corporation, owner, stated that the HOA will be responsible for the maintenance of the sidewalk. Obligations such as these ultimately affect the affordability of the annual assessment for the residents. He believes that there are other amenities that could provide more benefit for the community as a whole.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Wiley made a motion to approve the modification request as presented. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved.
Yogi Bear's Jellystone Camp Resort (SP-05-042) Mr. Thompson presented for review and approval a request from Yogi Bear's Jellystone Camp Resort to allow access to non-profit groups and schools to the water park facility when capacity allows. Since opening the water park in August 2007, the Camp has had numerous requests from various community organizations to have access for day use of the water park. As a condition of the original approval for the expansion project in 2005, only registered guests of Yogi Bear's Camp Resort would have access to the water park.
Comments: Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that group transportation should be provided since there is not a lot of parking for outside guests. Mr. Thompson noted that the storm water management area has reduced the capacity for campers.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Kercheval made the following motion "Yogi Bear is permitted to allow non-profit organizations to have use of the water park provided that the organizations use group transportation and do not create traffic issues accessing the property or operating within the campgrounds. The Planning Commission reserves the right to rescind this modification should complaints be made to the County". Seconded by Mr. Bowen. Unanimously approved.
UPCOMING MEETINGS
1. Planning Commission Regular Meeting, Monday, April 5, 2010, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Wiley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:35 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. So ordered.
Respectfully submitted, ~ GegeA~,LtChairman 23
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING - March 15,2010
The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday, March 15, 2010, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown.
Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Terry Reiber, Linda Parrish (arrived at 4:12 p.m.), Clint Wiley and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Pianning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Stephen T. Goodrich, Planner Fred Nugent, GIS Technician Meghan Hammond, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m.
MINUTES
Mr. Wiley made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 1, 2010 workshop meeting as presented. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. The motion passed with Mr. Reiber abstaining due to his absence at the March 1sl meeting.
DISCUSSION
Continued discussion of the proposed UGA Rezoning
Mr. Goodrich began discussions relative to 10 zoning requests, some received by citizens for specific zoning on their properties and others that staff believe need to be considered. A list of the requests was distributed to the Planning Commission members. The first site to be discussed is the current location of the Humane Society. Mr. Kercheval stated that he serves on a strategic planning committee for the . Society. The Humane Society recently purchased a parcel of land next to its existing site. The Committee expressed concern regarding the proposed zoning for the site and future expansion of the Humane Society. The Commission viewed a map of the two sites, which is currently proposed for IG zoning. Mr. Goodrich stated that the IG zone does not permit the current iand use. The BG (Business General) zoning district allows similar uses [as currently established by the Humane Society] as a permitted use; however, outside runways would be considered a special exception use. The property is currently zoned agricultural, which allows animal hospitals or veterinary ciinics as a permitted use and outside runways are allowed as a special exception use.
Mr. Goodrich noted that to avoid conflicts for the Humane Society in the future, the Planning Commission should recommend BG zoning for the two parcels or a text amendment for the IG zone that would make the use a permitted use in the IG district. Mr. Kercheval stated that one of the goals of the Humane Society is to develop a master campus plan. One idea that has been discussed is a veterinarian on site to help defray the costs of spaying and neutering animals and to administer services for sick animals. Mr. Goodrich noted that the current use would be allowed to continue as a non-conforming use, which may be able to expand with Board of Zoning Appeals' approval.
The Planning Commission discussed a text amendment to allow the uses as permitted uses in the IG zone. Ms. Parrish and Mr. Wiley pointed out that it would allow these uses in all IG zoned areas, some of which may not be appropriate for this type of use. Ms. Linda Irvin-Craig (a member of the UGAAC) was present at the meeting and stated that the UGAAC was told that the additional land would be used primarily for livestock rescue. In the IG zone, stockyards are listed as a special exception use. She noted this was the reason for recommending the IG zone on the Humane Society's property. Some members expressed their concern that if the IG zoning remains on the property, the Humane Society would need to go before the BZA for expansions, which could be denied.
Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that the Humane Society should not have to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals each time they want to expand their operations and the property should be zoned so that the Society is a permitted use. Mr. Reiber stated he is not opposed to the IG zone If the Humane Society has a way to expand in the future. Mr. Goodrich stated that other zoning districts have language that allow for "functionally similar uses" to be permitted. He suggested if the Commission keeps the proposed IG zoning on the property, the language for "functionally similar uses" should be added.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends the IG zoning as previously discussed and adding the ianguage for "functionally similar uses" to the IG zone.
The next site the Planning Commission discussed is located at the southwest quadrant of Maryland Route 63 and US Route 40 intersection. A representative of the owner, Byers, has approached Staff regarding the zoning on the property in order to plan for the future of the property. The property is currently zoned Agriculture. The Staff and the UGAAC recommended the RT zoning district and the Planning Commission previously agreed with that recommendation. The property is located on the outer edge of the UGA with residential development around it including Highland Manor and Powers Estates. Mr. Goodrich stated that the owner has requested HI-1 (Highway Interchange 1) zoning; however, this zoning category will be abandoned. The HC (Highway Commercial) zone would be similar to the HI-1 zone; however, the 24
industrial uses currently allowed in the HI-1 district would not be permitted in the HC zone. There was a brief review of the uses surrounding this site.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends the RT zoning for this site.
Mr. Goodrich began a review of the next site which is currently owned by Joel Knight located along the east side of Maryland Route 65, opposite St. James Village North's commercial area. The property is currently zoned Agriculture. Staff proposed RT zoning, the UGAAC proposed RU zoning and the Planning Commission previously proposed RU zoning, as part of a larger site. The owner, Mr. Knight through Derek Heckman, a real estate agent representing him, Is requesting a business zoning classification. There was a brief discussion regarding water service, which the City of Hagerstown currently says will not extend beyond Interstate 70 in this area. Mr. Goodrich noted that the RU zoning is basically limited to residential uses. Business uses would be a special exception use in the RU zoning. There was a brief discussion regarding State Highway Administration access requirements to the site for a commercial use. Access may be difficult due to the location of roads on the opposite side of MD Route 65 and sight distance issues.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends RU zoning for this site. Mr. Kercheval asked Staff to contact the City of Hagerstown to determine their intentions for water service in this area.
The next site the Commission discussed is the Turner's Skate-Bowl located along the southeast side of Virginia Avenue east of its intersection with Massey Boulevard. The owners through their real estate representative Lee Downey, have requested a zoning category to accommodate the current commercial uses on the property. The property is currently zoned RU and is surrounded by residential development. Mr. Goodrich noted there was recently some rezoning approved for BL (Business Local) zoning on nearby property. There is a mix of commercial and residential uses all along Virginia Avenue. Mr. Wiley expressed his opinion that the property should be zoned RU because if the commercial use changes, there could be the potential for more traffic-related issues and a commercial use that would not be compatible with the surrounding residential development.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends RU zoning for this site (Ms. Parrish, Mr. Wiley and Mr. Anikis support the recommendation and Mr. Reiber supports BL zoning).
The Planning Commission began discussions regarding a site along Robinwood Drive next to the Hagerstown Community College, owned by Schmidt and Folmer. Staff mistakenly included the property with property owned by the Hagerstown Community College and proposed ERT zoning for the site. The property is currently zoned RS and is surrounded by both residential and commercial development.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends BL zoning for this site.
Mr. Goodrich stated that the next site was discussed during a previous meeting. The Susquehanna Bank at the intersection of Longmeadow Road and Marsh Pike currently exists on the site. The Planning Commission recommended BL zoning for the site and to extend the zoning around the corners in order for the bank to expand in the future and for the County to obtain right-of-way for road improvements.
The next site is owned by Kurt Heckman and is located at 11842 Indian Lane. The property is currently zoned Agriculture. Staff is proposing RT zoning because of the existing residential development surrounding the site. The applicant is requesting RS or RU zoning, which allows denser development. There was a brief discussion regarding proposed roadway connections and a bridge over Antietam Creek.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends RT zoning.
Mr. Goodrich began discussions to expand the growth area boundary in the area of Cranberry Court. Currently the UGA boundary follows the floodplain. Staff believes, at a minimum, the boundary should follow the backs of the lots. However, the question remains If the boundary should be moved even further to include the area designated for forest mitigation for the subdivision. Mr. Thompson stated that the benefit for moving the boundary line beyond the forest mitigation area would be the potential for State funding for the proposed sewer line because it would be within the UGA. The property included in the boundary would be zoned RT, which is the same zone of the existing subdivision.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends the adjustment of the UGA boundary to include all of the property in the forest mitigation area and RT zoning for the property including the existing subdivision.
The next site the Planning Commission considered is located along Leitersburg Pike and is owned by Hunter Reserve LLC and Kramer. The property is currently zoned RS. Mr. Kercheval noted this is the site that was recently reviewed as a preliminary consultation by the Planning Commission for a commercial subdivision of property under contract by Dr. Kramer. During review of the preliminary consultation, it was noted that the owner wanted the property rezoned to a commercial zoning district and would make application to the Board of Zoning Appeals to allow the proposed use in order to move forward with his plans. The Commission recommended that the owner apply to the BZA for only the parcel he wanted to develop now and the remainder of the property would be considered during the UGA comprehensive rezoning. There was a brief discussion regarding access to the property from Marsh Pike. 25
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends BL zoning for the site.
The last site to be discussed is Hunter Hill Apartments located at 13300 Hunter Hill Drive. The property is currently zoned RS, which allows one and two family residential units. Mr. Goodrich noted that because the current residential units are apartments, the property should be zoned RM (Residential Multi-family). However, the property has been developed with apartments for more than 30 years and the zoning does not have to be changed in order for the current use to continue. Mr. Reiber asked if the zoning is not changed could the apartment complex expand. Mr. Goodrich stated that additional apartments would not be permitted under the RS zoning; however, he does not believe there is any additional property available for expansion.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends RS zoning for the site.
The Planning Commission began its review of proposed changes reiative to recycling facilities in the County. Mr. Goodrich noted that several weeks ago a recycling business was considering moving to the County. In referring to the County's Zoning Ordinance, Staff became aware that recycling facilities are not well defined, the use is not well defined, and the use is oniy permitted in the BG zoning district. Mr. Goodrich presented information to the Pianning Commission from the County's Zoning Ordinance and other jurisdictions. He noted that recycling is a special exception use in the BG zone, which does not seem to be an appropriate use for that zone because it is not a retail or commercial operation. Mr. Goodrich beiieves, that at a minimum, the use should be moved to a different zoning category. Commission members discussed the various types of recyciing, collection facilities, and disposal facilities.
Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that no more junkyards or saivage yards that call themselves "recycling centers" should be allowed in the County. He expressed his concern for these types of businesses in the County and the visual impact it has on the County. Mr. Anikis also believes that recycling centers should not be allowed to have outside storage. He expressed his support for recycling that benefits the environment. Mr. Goodrich stated that any recycling around the Airport could be a potential animal hazard and should be in an enclosed bUilding.
Mr. Wiley cited an example of a garage that accepts batteries for recycling, not as its main business but as a service. He expressed his support in allOWing these types of facilities to continue providing these services and questioned how the zoning regulations would affect them. Mr. Goodrich stated that consideration will need to be given to these types of facilities.
There was a brief discussion regarding standards in the State of Maryland for recycling facilities. Members believe they need more information and requested that Staff prepare more language for their review.
Mr. Goodrich began a review of proposed text changes to Division II - Signs. He noted that the proposed changes deal with specific probiems that have been experienced by Staff when issuing sign permits or signs being constructed without permits. The review began with Section 22.21 (c) regarding temporary informational or directional signs erected for the purpose of advertising a special event. Mr. Anikis asked how this would be enforced. Mr. Goodrich stated that enforcement would be complaint driven as it is now. Mr. Goodrich continued the review with Section 22.21(e) noting that the square footage for a temporary real estate sign designating the zoning classification of a parcel was increased from 20-square feet to 35 square feet. Mr. Anikis asked why the signs in Section 22.21(c) are not the same size and suggested that the size limitations should be uniform.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends a uniform sign size of 35-square feet.
The Commission continued with its review of the proposed text. Ms. Parrish made an inquiry regarding the number of real estate signs (in one place) that are posted on the weekends. Mr. Goodrich stated that these signs are being placed in the public right-of-way, which is illegal. Ms. Parrish expressed her opinion that the signs serve a purpose for the public, but she is opposed to the number of signs being posted. Mr. Wiley noted that the problem goes beyond real estate signs. There was a brief discussion regarding signs approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Anikis expressed his concern with regard to historic vlewsheds being protected from outdoor advertising signs. The Planning Commission completed its review of the proposed text without any further discussion or comments.
FUTURE MEETINGS
At the end of the next regular Planning Commission meeting, members should be prepared to discuss any individual areas where they see a problem with the zoning and Mr. Goodrich will present [to the extent that is possible to prepare] incorporated changes recommended by the Commission. A workshop is scheduled for April1g'h at 4:00 p.m. at which time the Planning Commission will complete its final review.
ADJOURNMENT
The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, G~"'a'-Irm-,G'-"::-=n"-~------26
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - April 5, 2010
The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, April 5, 2010, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown.
Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Linda Parrish, 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 Stephen T. Goodrich, Senior Planner Misty Wagner Grillo, Planner Sara Edelman, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES
Mr. Ecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 1, 2010 regular meeting as presented. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved. Mr. Reiber abstained because he was not present at the March 1'1 meeting.
Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 15, 2010 workshop meeting as presented. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS
- AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION DISTRICT APPLICATIONS
Ms. Edelman presented four Agricultural Land Preservation District applications for the establishment of 10-year agricultural districts. The applications have been approved by the Washington County Agricultural Land Preservation Advisory Board.
• John Schnebly (AD-09-003) - Property located along Fairview Road, Clear Spring (approximately 4 miles outside of the Town Growth Area of Clear Spring); 151.84 acres; predominantly cropland • Nicholas Hill (AD-09-005) - Property located along Big Spring Road, Clear Spring, 33.11-acres, which abuts a current agricultural district and therefore qualifies even though the property is less than 50-acres in size; predominantly cropland with some pasiure • Lois Stoner (AD-09-006) - Property located along Dam #4 Road, Clear Spring; 108.94-acres; predominantly cropland and woods • Knob Hall Farm (owned by Richard Seibert) (AD-09-010) - Property located along Barnhart Road; 153.66-acres; predominantly cropland
Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend approval of the applications for the estab lishment of 10-year agricultural districts to the Board of County Commissioners. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained.
-SITE PLANS Church of the Nazarene (SP-09-055) Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a site plan for the Church of the Nazarene located along the west side of Edgewood Drive on 3.55-acres. The property is currently zoned RS - Residential Suburban. Water and sewer service is provided by the City of Hagerstown. Storm water management is met through on-site mechanisms. The existing church is 6,600-square feet in size with 65 parking spaces. The owner is proposing two additions: Phase I is a proposed 9,050-square foot sanctuary addition and 58 parking spaces with 7 handicapped spaces; Phase II is a proposed 7,225-square foot gymnasium and 25 parking spaces for a total of 90 parking spaces. Parking required is 65 spaces, 3 handicapped accessible. The church currently has a seating capacity of 125 seats and with the proposed addition the seating capacity will be 325 seats. There are two existing signs and no additional signage is proposed. Lighting will be provided using existing pole and building mounted lights with additional building mounted lights. Services are held on Sundays and there is 1 employee. Landscaping is proposed around the building and parking areas using evergreens, small trees and shrubs. Forest Conservation requirements are being met through the express procedure with a payment in lieu in the amount of $2,308.68. All agency approvals have been received.
Discussion and Comments: Ms. Parrish made an inquiry regarding parking spaces and if the proposed parking will meet the new parking standards. Ms. Wagner-Grillo stated that the plan is being reviewed under the old parking requirements because it was submitted prior to the adoption of the new parking requirements. Mr. Adam Hager of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, the consultant, stated that there is a written agreement with the Brethren Mutuai Insurance Company (next door) for additional parking, when needed. Ms. Parrish expressed her opinion that the required parking spaces probably will not accommodate the Church's needs in the future. Mr. Anikis asked if the insurance company sells its building would the church have enough parking spaces to meet its needs. After a brief discussion, it is believed that the Church would have enough parking spaces to meet the requirements. 27
Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the site plan for the Church of Nazarene as presented. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved.
. UPCOMING MEETINGS
1. Planning Commission Workshop meeting, Monday, April 19, 2010, 4:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street 2. Planning Commission Regular meeting, Monday, May 3, 2010, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street
. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Anikis adjourned the regular meeting of the Planning Commission at 7:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, 28
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING - April 5, 2010
The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday, April 5, 2010, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown.
Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Linda Parrish, Sam Ecker, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Stephen T. Goodrich, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman George Anlkis called the workshop meeting to order at 7:14 p.m.
Continued Discussions of the Proposed Urban Growth Area Rezoning
- Proposed Text for Recycling Facilities
Mr. Goodrich began the workshop with discussions relative to proposed text to be added to the Zoning Ordinance with regard to recycling. Currently, recycling facilities are a permitted use in the Business General zoning district. Following discussions at the last Workshop meeting, Mr. Goodrich further researched recycling facilities in other jurisdictions including Los Angeies County, California, Denver, Colorado, Tampa, Florida, etc. Mr. Goodrich explained that he has written language to define recycling and recycling facilities, which he included In the member's Agenda packets. Staff recommends that recycling facilities should be a permitted use in the Industrial Restricted and Industrial General zoning districts.
Ms. Parrish asked If Staff has contacted Frederick County where recycling is currently in practice to seek . recommendations or changes they would make to their guidelines or policies. Mr. Goodrich stated he would contact representatives from Frederick County to discuss this issue.
Mr. Kercheval read the statement, "There shall be no waste products of any kind (solid, liquid, or gaseous) permitted on the exterior of the building or on the site. A recycling facility may be considered an accessory use on the site of a sanitary landfill." He questioned if the storage of materials at the landfill must be inside a building and noted that currently there are many items stored in piles outside (iron, appliances, wood, etc.). Mr. Goodrich stated that an adjustment could be made in the language relative to a recycling facility as part of a landfill.
Mr. Kercheval began discussions regarding outside dumpsters with regard to the language "no waste products of any kind". Mr. Goodrich stated that a dumpster for waste disposed by employees at a site should be viewed differently from a dumpster on a site where people can come to the facility and dump trash to be recycled. Trash to be recycled should be enclosed in a bUilding. Mr. Kercheval questioned the recycling dumpsters located around the County. Mr. Goodrich noted these dumpsters would be considered as a collection point, which is not included in the proposed definition and regulated by the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Goodrich noted that keeping the outside of a recycling facility as clean as possible makes the use more desirable around other industries.
Ms. Parrish expressed her opinion that more clarification is needed. Mr. Wiley expressed his opinion that the language used in the Denver Ordinance more clearly defines a recycling collection station. He believes that language to define a recycling collection station should be added to the proposed text.
There was a brief discussion regarding the licensing of recycling facilities. Mr. Anikls asked if requiring a license would deter businesses from locating in the County. Mr. Goodrich believes it would depend on several factors, such as the license fee, the process for obtaining a license, continuing Inspections, penalties, etc.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends the follOWing issues to be addressed in the proposed language: include language for recycling collection stations (see language from Denver); outside storage of recycling waste at a landfill; and talk to Frederick County with regard to changes or recommendations they would include in their Ordinance.
- Planning Commission member concerns of rezoning of properties
Mr. Anikis began discussions regarding halfway houses for recently released prisoners and/or drug addicts entering rehab. He noted that the City of Hagerstown recently held discussions regarding this issue and questioned where these types of facilities would be permitted in the UGA. Mr. Anikis recommended that Staff contact the City of Hagerstown to see how they are handling this issue.
Mr. Kercheval began a discussion regarding libraries in business/retail zoning districts. He noted that there have been recent discussions with regard to housing the public library temporarily in a building located In the PB district. However, according to the Zoning Administrator and the County Attorney's office, libraries are not listed as a permitted use in the PB zone and there is currently no ianguage in the PB zone for 29
"functionally similar uses". Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that libraries should be permitted in business/retail zoning districts. There was a brief discussion regarding appropriate zones for libraries.
Mr. Goodrich informed Commission members that there are two small parcels of land near the Airport that Staff recommends should be included in the UGA and should be assigned the Airport zoning. He stated the parcels are located east of US Route 11 and north of the extended runway. The proposai reflects the Airport Director and Advisory Commission's long range plans. Currently the properties are zoned agriculture and they are located outside of the UGA.
Mr. Anikis invited Mr. Jerry Ditto, a member of the UGAAC, to address the Commission with regard to the Airport Hazardous Wildlife Attractant Management Zone. Mr. Ditto began by referring to the "Alternative Proposal" that was included in the UGA Advisory Committee's Report to the Board of County Commissioners. He stated that zoning regulations have been written that incorporates the FAA Advisory Circular, which he believes is detrimental to agriculture. Mr. Ditto noted that 1/3 of the dairy farms in the County are iocated in the five mile radius around the Airport and would be affected by the zoning regulations. He noted that approximately ]I, of the five miie radius lies in Pennsylvania and 1/3 of the remaining area is within the UGA and the City of Hagerstown and questioned what measures are being taken to control hazardous wildlife in those areas. Mr. Ditto stated that the zoning regulations will affect animal agriculture at levels above 6,000 tons of manure generation. There are currently 7 dairy farms operating at or above the 6,000 ton limit. Mr. Ditto referenced sections from the Advisory Circular that recommends against agriculture within the five mile radius. He referenced sections from the Circular dealing with livestock operations within the separations and programs to reduce the attractiveness of sites that would attract bird species that are dangerous to aviation safety. Mr. Ditto pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance has standards for parking, lighting, landscaping, and industrial performance standards in the ORI zone. However, there is no performance standards for wildlife safety or bird attractions listed in the Circular or included in the zoning text of the Hazardous Wildlife overlay. Mr. Ditto asked how an applicant can prepare a plan or mitigate for wildlife hazards and apply for a permit without standards for guidance. In his opinion, "the Planning Commission would have to deny a permit based on the parameters listed in the FAA Circular". Mr. Ditto noted that proposed language states, "The Planning Commission has the power to ·approve or disapprove" a permit; and in his opinion, as currently written, is inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance in all other areas.
Mr. Ditto explained his "Alternative Proposal" to the Planning Commission. He stated that his proposal outlines a mechanism called a "working group" that can be instituted around the Airport within the five-mile radius to address wildlife concerns. He explained who would be involved in the "working group" and their responsibilities and procedures that would be followed. Mr. Anikis summarized Mr. Ditto recommendations as follows: delete the word "disapprove" as noted in the quote above, create a "working group", and to delete references to the FAA Advisory Circular in the Zoning Ordinance.
Discussion: Planning Commission members did not believe they were prepared to discuss the information at this time and requested additional time to review the information. This item will be discussed during the next Planning Commission workshop scheduled on April 19, 2010 at 4:00 p.m.
- OTHER BUSINESS
Long Range Transportation Plan
Mr. Kercheval gave a brief summation with regard to the Hagerstown Eastern Panhandle Metropolitan Planning Organization's (HEPMPO) Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The Plan is currently out for th public comment until April 16 • Comments can be submitted on-line at www.HEPMPO.com.Mr. Kercheval suggested some key elements that the Commission members may want to review including the "Unconstrained List of Projects". The list includes proposed road networks that would help alleviate congestion around the County with growth over the next 20 years. Mr. Kercheval gave a brief explanation relative to the creation of the list of projects including the ranking system and models used.
Mr. Kercheval noted that even though projects are listed in the Plan under those anticipated for funding, it does not mean that the projects will get funded. This list should not be confused with the County's Capital Improvements Plan. Mr. Kercheval briefly spoke to the Commission regarding lane miles for roads around the County and congestion issues on the interstates. He stated that, "based on a 1.1 % population growth in the County over the next 25 years, congestion is projected to decrease."
Mr. Kercheval noted there is a list of studies in the Plan, which includes the following studies for Washington County: Evacuation Plan, Regional Transit Study, Corridor Signalization Studies, Railroad Crossings Study, and Interstate Congestion Study. He briefly described the focus of each study and other issues that are discussed in the Plan.
- NEXT MEETING
The Planning Commission will hold a Workshop meeting on Monday, April 19, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. in the Administrative Annex. An agenda will be forwarded to members prior to the meeting. 30
- ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Wiley made a motion to adjourn the Workshop meeting at 8:47 p.m. Seconded by Ms. Parrish. So ordered.
Respectfully submitted, 31
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING - April 19, 2010
The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday, April 5, 2010, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown.
Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Linda Parrish, Sam Ecker, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Stephen T. Goodrich, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman George Anikis calied the workshop meeting to order at 4:05 p.m.
MINUTES
Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 5, 2010 Workshop meeting as presented. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved. Mr. Bowen abstained due to absence from the meeting.
Continued Discussions of the Proposed Urban Growth Area Rezoning
• "Alternative Proposal" for the Airport Hazardous Wildlife Attractant Management Zone
Mr. Anikis gave a brief overview of the April 5th Workshop and a presentation given by Mr. Jerry Ditto regarding his "Alternative Proposal" for the Airport Hazardous Wildlife Attractant Management Zone. Mr. Anikis referenced several goals and objectives from the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan, which includes "the promotion and balance of a diversified economy including agriculture." One objective of the Plan is "to maintain 50,000-acres of land in agricultural production with an emphasis on preserving . farming as a way of life and promoting the agricultural support industry." Another goal of the Comprehensive Plan is "to maximize opportunity for using the Airport to promote economic development. He expressed his concern with regard to the proposed language for the Airport district, which he believes creates a conflict between protecting the ag district and promoting the Airport. Mr. Anikis noted that the Comprehensive Plan for the County supports agriculture as a viable industry for Washington County.
Mr. Anikis expressed his concern that the proposed language references the FAA Advisory Circular, which does not contain supporting criteria by which the Airport Manager can base decisions for approval or recommend changes. He went on to discuss wildlife assessment areas and practices being used by other jurisdictions for controlling wildiife at airports. Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that the BOCC should direct the Airport Director to create a wildlife hazardous team that would work with the FAA to create a set of criteria for reviewing plans.
Mr. Ecker pointed out that until an assessment is done, nobody knows what kind of wildlife or attractants are present at the Airport.
Mr. Reiber believes that a joint study would be beneficial; however, consideration needs to be given to the growth of the Airport and the many benefits it has brought to the County [employment opportunities, the attraction of several carriers, the attraction of private investment]. He believes that a reasonable compromise is needed in order for the Airport and the agricultural community to co-exist. Mr. Reiber pointed out that Washington County has no control over the portion of the 5-mile radius that is located in Pennsylvania or the City of Hagerstown.
Mr. Bowen suggested removing the word "review" from the proposed language and inserting the word "notified". He believes a study is needed prior to changing the Zoning Ordinance reguiations. The Commission members discussed their interpretation of the word "review" and found they had varying opinions.
Mr. Wiley questioned amending the words as suggested by Mr. Bowen. He expressed concern that changes such as that could jeopardize FAA funding for the Airport. There was a brief discussion regarding the Airport Advisory Board and its membership. Mr. Wiley suggested that a representative of the agricuitural community should be appointed to serve on the wildlife hazardous team.
Mr. Bowen expressed his concern that according to the FAA Advisory Circular, "nothing" is allowed, including storm water management ponds, wetlands, waste water plants, recycling centers, golf courses, etc. He noted that the Circular specifically targets agriculture. Discussions focused on the location of airports and deveiopment that has occurred around them. Mr. Wiley questioned if the Airport should be included in the UGA. Mr. Goodrich stated that ideally airports should be located outside the urban areas; however, airports prOVide urban services and therefore need to be close by.
Mr. Thompson suggested that the zoning district that deals with wiidlife management could be put on hold until a study has been completed and criteria have been developed. Mr. Reiber suggested that the district couid be amended at a future date following the completion of the study. Commission members debated removing the proposed language for the AP/HW district. Mr. Reiber recommended discussing this issue with the BOCC to inform them of concerns with regard to the AP/HW district. 32
Members reviewed the map containing all of the Airport zones and discussed the function of each zone. Mr. Goodrich described the "biue area" depicted on the map and explained that this is the area most often over flown by airplanes coming and going from the airport. There are restrictions for this zone. In the rural area, residential density is restricted to one dwelling unit per 50 acres. In the urban area, there is prohibition on mixed use development within this zone. Members agreed that the AP, APia and AP/C zones are reasonable and appropriate.
Mr. Goodrich explained that it is not the intent of the AP/HW zone to be an absolute restriction on any use, but rather as a notification area. He further noted that the Airport needs to know what is happening in this area because it can affect incoming and outgoing flights and it gives them the opportunity to comment on any adverse effects caused by activities or development in the 5-mile radius area. Mr. Goodrich believes that the language of the Advisory Circular is being interpreted differently by each person. He stated that the proposed language, if adopted, would become effective at that point and would be used to monitor future development. It would not be retroactive and affect any current uses in the area. Mr. Thompson pointed out that the FAA clearly states that the County controls the land use. Mr. Anikis noted that the FAA also states that if their regulations are not followed, funding can be taken away. The Advisory Circular is not regulation.
The Commission reiterated their concerns regard'lng the AP/HW zone and requested that Staff share their concerns with the BOCC. Members discussed including the language for the AP/HW zone as part of the "blue box" or AP/C zone instead of the "yellow circle" or 5-mile radius. Members discussed presenting this idea during the public hearings to get public comment and possibly the FAA's comments.
Mr. Reiber believes that the 5-mile radius should be shown on the proposed map during the public hearing process. He expressed his concern that the FAA could withhold future funding if the 5-mile radius is not included as part of the proposed text and map amendments. He does not want to jeopardize any future funding for the Airport. Mr. Bowen believes that the 5-mile radius should be shown in order to let the farmers in the area know what the FAA is requiring and what is being discussed. Mr. Wiley expressed his opinion that the Airport Director's comments would be viewed like any other reviewing . agency and that the Planning Commission would have the final approval. Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that the Planning Commission should recommend that the BOCC appoint a wildlife hazardous team to develop the needed criteria. Mr. Reiber suggested that a formal request should be made during the next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Anikis suggested that the word "interim" be removed on page 5 in the phrase, "agriculture as an interim use".
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends removing the word "interim".
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends keeping Section 21.5 as currently written to be presented at the public hearings.
- Proposed Text for Recycling Facilities
Mr. Goodrich began with a review of the revisions being proposed for the text dealing with recycling facilities. He noted that he contacted Frederick County and made an inquiry with regard to any changes they would make as requested by Ms. Parrish at the April 5th workshop. Staff in Frederick County beiieve that their process is working well and would not recommend any changes at this time. However, one issue that needs to be addressed in the future is recycling of used oil in the production of biodiesel fuel. Mr. Goodrich stated that Frederick County does not permit the sorting of the collected waste stream for recycling. The sorting of collected waste can only happen at the landfill in a solid waste overlay zone.
Based on all the information collected, Mr. Goodrich proposed changes to the proposed text for recycling facilities. He briefly reviewed the proposed changes with Commission members with regard to this issue and other concerns related by the Commission at previous workshop meetings.
Mr. Goodrich stated that he has sent the proposed text to the Deputy Director, Cliff Engle, of Solid Waste for the County. He noted that several of the comments received from Mr. Engle should be included in the proposed text. Mr. Goodrich reviewed the recommendations with Commission members, which included: changing the term "sanitary landfill" to "permitted facHity"; the reference to "consumer goods" should be changed to "product"; in the list of items typically recycled several items should be added such as electronics, construction materials, fabric, etc.; collection stations should be operated by government agencies; allow recycling facilities in the PI zoning district.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends that recycling facilities be a permitted use in the PI zoning district.
• Consensus: The Plann',ng Commission recommends that recycling collection stations be considered as an accessory use and may be located in any zoning district in conformance to specific guidelines [as outlined in the proposed text and proposed definition].
- Review of Proposed Text Changes
Mr. Goodrich distributed the final draft of proposed text changes for several of the zoning districts. Before beginning review of the text changes, Mr. Goodrich noted that there were two issues ieft to discuss in the 33
BL zone. He noted that Staff proposed a limitation on sizes for some uses in the BL zone; however, the UGAAC recommended that the size limitations should be eliminated. The Planning Commission briefly discussed the size limitations, uses permitted in the BL zone and areas of BL zoned properties in the UGA.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends that there should not be any size limitations on uses in the BL zone.
The next issue Mr. Goodrich discussed with the Commission was funeral establishments as permitted uses in the BL zone. He noted that Staff recommended that funeral establishments should not be a permitted use and the UGAAC recommended that it should be a permitted use in the BL zone.
• Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends funeral establishments, schools for performing and visual arts, community meeting halls and self-storage mini-warehouses as permitted uses in the BL zone.
Mr. Bowen made an inquiry regarding the sidewalk and bicycle requirement within residential districts in the UGA. Mr. Goodrich stated that the language has not been added yet because the requirements could be affected by the road design guidelines that are still being developed. He believes that a companion amendment will be needed for the Subdivision Ordinance.
NEXT MEETING
After a brief discussion, the Planning Commission decided to schedule its next workshop meeting immediately following the May 3"' regular meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr. Bowen made a motion to adjourn the workshop meeting at 6:05 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. So . ordered.
Respectfully submitted, 34
WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING PUBLIC MEETING AND REGULAR MEETING May 3, 2010
The Washington County Planning Commission held a public rezoning meeting and its regular meeting on Monday, May 3, 2010, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown.
Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Drew Bowen, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Timothy A. Lung, Planner Cody Shaw, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman George Anikis called the rezoning public meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
RZ-10-002 (Text Amendment) - Board of County Commissioners Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation a proposed text amendment to amend Sections 11.1 Business Local and 12.1 Business General zoning districts to add libraries as a permitted use. The proposed text amendment would also affect the PUD (Planned Unit Development), PB (Planned Business) and HI-1 (Highway Interchange 1) zones because these districts reference the uses permitted in the BL and BG districts. Presently, libraries are permitted only by right in the C (Conservation), A (Agriculture), RR (Residential Rural), RS (Residential Suburban), RU (Residential Urban) and RM (Residential Multi-family) districts and by special exception in the BT (Business Transition) district. Section 22.12 of the Zoning Ordinance requires libraries to have one off-street parking space for every 400 square feet of gross floor area. This number is less than the one space for 200 square feet normally required for commercial retail space, which would facilitate the placement of a library in any new or existing buildings in the BL or BG .district as well as other commercial zones. Staff recommends approval of the proposed text amendment.
Public Comment: Ms. Mary Baykan, Director of the Washington County Free Library, was present at the meeting and offered the following comments. She noted that the current library downtown will be renovated and expanded, which facilitates the need for a temporary library space for the next two years. Various locations have been considered; however a particular site has been chosen that would accommodate the needs of the library and its patrons. Ms. Baykan noted that storefront libraries in retail areas are becoming very popular.
Mr. Thompson requested that the Planning Commission make its recommendation at this evening's meeting. No public comment was received prior to the meeting; however, if opposition to the proposed amendment is received prior to the BOCC public hearing, copies would be forwarded to members of the Planning Commission.
Comments: Mr. Anikis expressed concern regarding parking spaces in the shopping center where the temporary library would be located. Mr. Thompson stated there is currently vacant space in the shopping center and required parking for shopping centers is greater than the required parking for libraries. Mr. Reiber asked if changing the zoning districts would cause a problem in other areas in the County where libraries could be located. Mr. Thompson stated that there could be a potential problem in other areas; however, he believes the parking requirements could be met. Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that all the proposed zoning designations where libraries could be located are designed to meet higher volumes of commercial uses that generate a lot of foot traffic. These zoning districts also allow educational facilities and book stores. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to recommend approval of the text amendment to allow libraries in the BL and BG zoning districts, with the understanding that if any opposition is received during the comment period, the Planning Commission will be informed and may take further action. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. The vote was unanimous with Mr. Kercheval abstaining from the vote.
Mr. Anikis closed the public rezoning meeting at 7:15 p.m.
Mr. Anikis called the regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:15 p.m.
MINUTES
Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 5, 2010 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. Unanimously approved.
NEW BUSINESS
- MODIFICIATIONS Douglas Divelbiss (SV-10-007) Mr. Shaw presented for review and approval a modification request for Douglas Divelbiss for property located on the west side of Ashton Road [Tax Map 46, Grid 4, Parcel 374]. The proposed lot is 9.12-acres in size and is zoned A(R) - Agricultural Rural. The applicant is requesting a modification from Sections 405.11.G.1 and .5, which states that each lot must have at least 25-feet of road frontage and the length of a 3S
panhandle shall not exceed 400-feet. The applicant is proposing to create a building lot and remaining lands with 19.86-feet of road frontage for each. The remaining lands will have a panhandle length of 430 feet. Justification for the request is the existing irregular shape of the 16.37-acre that only has 39.72-feet of existing road frontage. The property is to be conveyed to the owner's sOn. In addition, the applicant through his consultant Frederick, Seibert & Associates, is requesting a reduction in the required 50-foot agriculturai land use side yard setback to a minimum of 15-feet.
Discussion and Comments: Mr. Schreiber of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, stated that there is an existing septic area and well on the property. He explained there was previously a trailer on the property that was removed approximately 7 years ago. Mr. Schreiber stated that the reduction in the width of the panhandles is requested due to a physical hardship of less than 25-feet of road frontage. There was a previous subdivision of the property in the early 1980's at which time the Health Department required each lot to be 150-feet wide at the building setback line. Mr. Schreiber stated that granting the modification would not create a condition which allows more lots or development. He stated that the applicant would keep the existing driveway in order to address storm water management issues as cited by the Washington County Engineering Department.
Mr. Bowen asked if the Divelbisses owned the property when it was previously subdivided. Mr. Divelbiss stated that his father owned the property at that time.
Mr. Reiber asked if the neighbors had a problem with the driveway width reduction. Mr. Divelbiss stated there is no problem with any of the neighbors. Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that there should be a shared driveway with a maintenance agreement between the property owners. Mr. Reiber asked if the well and septic area would be checked since it has not been used for 7 years. Mr. Schreiber expressed his opinion that the Health Department would require an inspection prior to issuance of a bUilding permit.
Mr. Anikis asked if the applicant has plans for the remaining lands. Mr. Divelbiss stated the land would be used for farming. Mr. Thompson stated that no further subdivision of the remaining lands would be allowed.
Motion and Vote: Mr. Kercheval made a motion to approve the modification request for a 430-foot panhandle, to reduce the 25-foot minimum requirement for public road access with a shared driveway for the two parcels [from Ashton Road to the eastern lot line of Lot 5] and a maintenance agreement signed by both property owners and to reduce the 50-foot minimum agricultural land use setback requirement to 15 feet on both sides. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. The motion passed with Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Wiley and Mr. Reiber voting "aye" and Mr. Bowen voting "no".
• OTHER BUSINESS
Capital Improvements Plan FY 2011·2016
Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation the FY 2011-2016 Capital Improvements Plan for consistency with the adopted 2002 Washington County Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Thompson noted that the CIP is approximately $55 million less than FY 2010. Both the overall 6-year CIP and the annual budget for 2011 have been reduced. He announced that a Poublic hearing to present the CIP will be held by the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, May 4 h at the Kepler Theater at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Thompson gave a brief summary of the CIP and highlighted a few details including funding for the Board of Education, road projects, etc. He reviewed the 12 visions for planning as set forth by the State of Maryland.
Mr. Kercheval briefly explained the process used by the County to determine the amount of funding for road projects in the CIP. There was a brief discussion regarding areas in the County where roads are inadequate to handle future development. Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that the funding for road maintenance, which is currently $3.5 million, is not adequate. Mr. Thompson explained that the CIP committee reviews road safety issues to determine if there are road projects that need to be moved ahead in the priority rankings. Mr. Reiber expressed his concern regarding the senior center On the campus of the Hagerstown Community College with regard to the volume of additional traffic accessing the campus and additionai traffic on Robinwood Drive. Mr. Anikis also expressed his concern regarding traffic issues on the entire Robinwood corridor and future development. Members discussed road improvements and the responsibility of developers to help fund roads and other infrastructure.
Mr. Kercheval distributed a spreadsheet showing school enrollment in the County and briefly explained how seat capacity is being addressed. Mr. Kercheval noted there are a few new elementary schools coming on line, there is an expansion planned for the E. Russell Hicks Middle School, and currently there are available seats in the high schools. There was a brief discussion regarding the effects of new development on the school capacity and how redistricting would affect various schools in the County.
Mr. Bowen suggested that the Planning Commission recommend to the BOCC that a project should be included in the CIP to address the overall transportation plans for Robinwood Drive I Hagerstown Community College. He cited several development projects that the Planning Commission has approved over the last several months along the Robinwood Corridor, such as the Hospital, a funeral home, the new primary school, etc. Mr. Bowen stated this area is seeing a lot of new development and he does not believe that transportation issues are adequately being addressed. Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that if a private developer were involved in projects, such as the senior center, they would need to make the necessary road improvements to address the traffic issues being created. 36
Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to recommend approval of the Capital Improvements Plan to the Board of County Commissioners because it is consistent with the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission requested that Staff inform the BOCC regarding its concerns that the CIP does not adequateiy address the transportation needs of the Robinwood corridor particularly the area around the Hagerstown Community College campus. The Planning Commission has reviewed multiple site plans for the area, including the Eastern Primary School, the Senior Center, a funeral home, two new buildings on the campus of HCC; however, corresponding funds are not shown in the current CIP to address the transportation needs associated with the new development. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained.
There was a brief discussion regarding future school sites. Mr. Thompson noted there is a committee that is reviewing land acquisition for schools and possible future sites.
Announcements
Mr. Thompson remin Mr. Thompson announced that the State of Maryland has made changes to the Forest Conservation Ordinance that will require changes to the County's FCO. One major change is the proposed fees outside the Priority Funding areas, which has been increased to $.36 per square foot. The language relative to spending the funds within a two year period has been removed. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Bowen made a motion to adjourn the regular meeting of the Planning Commission at 8:35 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. So ordered. Respectfully submitted, 0Lun-fl,A rL:---'-L,- _ Geo1geA;flkls, Chairman 37 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING May 3,2010 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday, May 3, 2010, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown. Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Drew Bowen, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Stephen T. Goodrich and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the workshop meeting to order at 8:35 p.m. MINUTES Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the workshop meeting held on April 19, 2010 as presented. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved. DISCUSSION - Continued discussion of the proposed Urban Growth Area Rezoning Mr. Anikis began by reminding Commission members that a consensus was reached during a previous workshop meeting to recommend to the BOCC to direct the Airport Director to create a Wildlife Hazardous Management Committee. This committee would be responsible for creating a set of criteria to be used when establishing a new business or expanding an existing business in or around the Airport. He noted that the Transportation Research Board, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, . recently released a document entitled Enhancing the Airport Land Use Compatibilitv. Mr. Anikis briefly summarized the document for the Commission members. He noted that the document contains information for management controis, which describe specific tree species, the maintenance of grass, prohibition of certain crops, elimination of standing water, and the use of repellants. Mr. Anikis believes that the Hagerstown Regional Airport Director shouid prepare a document detailing the type of criteria to be used to control hazardous wildlife by applicants or the Planning Commission when reviewing plans. Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that the FAA Advisory Circular provides the guidelines necessary for the Airport Director when reviewing plans and giving recommendations. Mr. Anikis reiterated his concern that there are no written criteria for the Airport Director to use when reviewing plans and submitting comments for plans being considered by the Planning Commission. He believes that an assessment needs to be done to determine issues with regard to hazardous wildlife and safety concerns currently at the Airport. Mr. Anikis expressed his concern that farmer's rights are going to be taken away because the Airport Manager disagrees with farmer's decision to plant more crops or to increase the size of his herd of cattle because it might cause a hazard to the Airport. Mr. Wiley noted that the farmer would not need approval to plant more crops and only under certain circumstances would he need approval to increase a herd of cattle. Mr. Goodrich stated that increasing a herd of cattle would not require approval unless the farmer is establishing an animal husbandry facility. Members agreed that factual justification would be required [from the Airport Director] before they would support the denial of any application to expand an existing business or allow a new business. There was a brief discussion regarding alternatives that an applicant would have if a plan was denied (i.e. Board of Zoning Appeals, Circuit Court). There was a brief discussion regarding the timeline currently proposed for adopting the UGA Rezoning. Staff is planning to finish review of the documents with the BOCC and to proceed with public information meetings in June. NEXT MEETING The Planning Commission decided to schedule its next workshop meeting on Monday, May 24th at 3:00 p.m. The Commission will review all of the proposed text changes during this meeting. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Bowen made a motion to adjourn the workshop meeting at 9:11 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. So ordered. Respectfully submitted, ~b(~' Geor e Ani IS, Chairman 38 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING May 24, 2010 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday, May 24, 2010, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown. Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval (arrived at 3:30; left at 4:45). Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Stephen T. Goodrich, Senior Planner Jill Baker, Planner Fred Nugent and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the workshop meeting to order at 3:00 p.m. DISCUSSION - Review of the Proposed Text Changes for the Urban Growth Area Rezoning Commission members began a review of the changes to the proposed text of the Urban Growth Area rezoning. Mr. Goodrich noted that the changes are based on discussions and recommendations of the Planning Commission at workshops during the past several months. He explained that the recommendations of the Urban Growth Area Committee have been incorporated in the text unless the Planning Commission specifically requested a change. The Commission began its review of the RT (Residential Transition) zone. The Planning Commission recommended that all development in the UGA have public water and sewer. However, following . discussions the Commission realized that it may not be possible for all development to have public water and sewer. Mr. Goodrich stated that a list of criteria has been created for the Planning Commission to consider when the use of public utilities would not be required. He further explained that the Planning Commission would be able to grant waivers on a case by case basis where public water and sewer does not have to be required. Mr. Goodrich reviewed these situations, which include the need to protect the environmental resources from pollution, the availability and proximity of existing water and sewer, the status of any plans for utility extensions in the area, etc. Any waiver to allow the use of a private on-site well or septic system is conditioned upon the agreement to abandon it when public facilities become available. Mr. Anikis expressed his concern regarding the reduction of minimum lot sizes and allowing more than one dwelling on the lot. He believes this could create a community-wide failure of septic systems. There was a brief discussion regarding the minimum lot sizes in the RT zone with private well and septic systems. Mr. Wiley expressed his concern regarding larger lot sizes within the RT zone where more density should be located. There was a brief discussion with regard to requiring citizens to connect to public water and sewer lines when they become available. • Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends no changes to the proposed text of the RT zone as presented. The Commission continued with its review of the RS (Residential Suburban) zone. Mr. Goodrich explained that the public water and sewer service language is the same as in the RT zone. He noted that the proximity to public water and sewer is greater in a denser district so the likelihood of getting public water and sewer is more. Therefore, there is less of a need to have the Planning Commission waiver as proposed in the RT zone. • Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends no changes to the proposed language of the RS and RU (Residential Urban) zones as presented. Mr. Goodrich continued with the BL (Business Local) zoning district. He verified that the changes previously discussed have been made, which included the elimination of size limitations and language was added regarding refuse collection. There was a brief discussion regarding permeable areas. Mr. Goodrich noted that the same paragraph was modified in another zone that says, "not including pervious pavement". • Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends excluding "permeable pavement" from the landscaping requirement in all zones. Mr. Goodrich noted that the criteria for a waiver from the public water and sewer service requirements are also in the BL zone. This was done because the businesses in this district are directed toward small neighborhoods, located on small lots, and could be in areas where public water and sewer are not available. • Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends including the waiver from the public water and sewer service requirements in the BL zone. Mr. Goodrich stated that the appropriate sections with regard to lighting, parking, landscaping, etc. were added in the text of the IR (Industrial Restricted) zone. He also noted that recycling facilities as a 39 permitted use was added. Mr. Goodrich noted that public water and sewer service shali be required in the IR zone without the possibility of waiver by the Planning Commission. Mr. Anikis asked if the 10 x 10-foot required pads for bus stops [RM zoning district] should be covered. Mr. Kercheval stated that he has taiked to the Board of Education regarding this issue. They [BOE representatives] do not recommend covering the pads because the bus stops can change frequently based on need. The Commission continued its review with the Mixed Use Floating zone. Mr. Goodrich reviewed ali the changes previously discussed. There was a brief discussion regarding the time limitation for the BOCC to render a decision on a Mixed Use Floating zone application (Page 7). • Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends that within 60 days after the BOCe's public hearing and after receiving the Planning Commission's recommendation, the BOCC shali render Its decision on a Mixed Use Floating zone application. [Clarification: both requirements must be met before the 60 day time period begins.] Mr. Goodrich briefly reviewed the "Dedication of School Sites" requirements on page 17 of the Mixed Use Floating zone that now reflect the Planning Commission's recommended changes. Mr. Anikis began a brief discussion regarding buffer requirements (page 13, F.1) for developments located adjacent to the Interstate. He expressed his opinion that landscaping and forest conservation areas do not adequately buffer the noise along interstate highways. Mr. Anikls expressed his concern for residential development against an interstate and questioned if the Planning Commission could deny a plan that includes the residential development against the interstate. Mr. Goodrich noted that placing residential development against a highway is not ideal; however, there are cases when it seems that it should be there because of other development around the parcel. Members discussed alternatives to the landscaping and forest conservation areas, such as noise barrier walis, building orientation, additionai insulation, specific types of windows, etc. They also discussed noise standards required in other zoning districts and using the same standards in areas of residential development. Some members expressed their opinions that the proposed language aliows the Planning Commission the ability to make recommendations and requirements to protect residential areas from the noise associated with major highways. The review of the proposed text moved on to the PB (Planned Business) zoning district. In response to the Planning Commission's previous recommendation to require a market analysis, Mr. Goodrich pointed out that concept plans in this district shali be accompanied by an analysis of the market and region to be served by the proposed development (page 4). He noted that the analysis is also required as part of the zoning application request (page 7). Mr. Anikis requested that Commission members consider adding language to Section 17.2.3.M (page 4) to address historic inventory sites on adjacent properties. Mr. Reiber and Mr. Wiley agreed to adding the language proposed by Mr. Anikis. • Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends the foliowing text in Section 17.2.3.M, "The location of historic inventory sites on the property and adjacent to the property". Mr. Goodrich briefly reviewed the changes to the PI (Planned Industrial) zone, which included removing the requirement to disaliow the outside storage of processed lumber at a sawmiii , the addition of text (page 4, paragraph 1) to require a preiiminary consultation on a subdivision of 4 or more lots, the addition of text to require screening at all times (page 12, item # 6), and the addition of noise standards (page 16). He noted that a change will be made to the text (page 16, item # 2) to clarify from where the maximum sound pressure level will be measured. Mr. Thompson reviewed the height requirements for bUildings and signs in Section 19A.6 of the HC (Highway Commercial) zone. For exampie, a logo or emblem (35-feet in height) erected on top of a hotel that is 60-feet high. There was a brief discussion with regard to the type of sign, the square footage of the sign, and what the sign is advertising. Mr. Goodrich stated that the current text for the 35-foot limit does not apply to a sign located on the building; however, the building height limit should include the sign on top of a building. Also, the sign on the bUilding can only advertise the use on the site. • Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends the addition of language to clarify that a sign wiil be aliowed on a bUilding or on top of the building; however, the total height of the building and the sign shali not exceed the building height requirement. (Section 19A.6) Mr. Goodrich informed Commission members that the BOCC wiil begin its review on Tuesday, May 25th with the Airport zone. He noted that a change was made on page 7, Section 21.46 - Design Standards with the first paragraph being replaced and ali design standards being specified in this section rather than being referred to as in another section of the Ordinance. Mr. Goodrich noted that the previously discussed changes in the ORT (Office, Research & Technology) zone have been made beginning on page 3, which deals with accessory uses in a multi-use, multi-story structure. Language was added for communications facilities, equipment and structures including satellite dishes on page 4, to address Planning Commission member's concerns. Mr. Anikis questioned the language on page 9 of the ORT zone dealing with detonable materials. After reviewing the proposed language in this section, it appears to be contradictory as currently written. Mr. Goodrich stated that most of the language was copied from another County's Ordinance and he would need to review and correct it as needed. 40 Mr. Goodrich pointed out that the Building Appearance Guidelines from the PI zoning district have been added to the ORI zone as recommended by the Commission. Mr. Goodrich stated that only minor changes were made to the ERT (Education, Research & Technology) zone as previously discussed. He noted that in Article 22, Division 10- Lighting, language was added on page 3, # 4 as recommended by the Commission. Mr. Goodrich briefly reviewed the other changes as discussed. On page 9, Section 22.106 - Exempt Lighting, item # 1, Mr. Goodrich asked Commission members for ciarification of their position with regard to deleting "single and two family (duplex) dwellings" as recommended by the UGA Advisory Committee. Members reviewed the minutes of the UGAAC meeting and Mr. Goodrich explained the reasoning of the UGAAC to delete the phrase. If deleted, exterior lighting could be reguiated and enforcement would be compiaint-driven. • Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends that the phrase "single and two family (duplex) dwellings" should be taken out, which removes it as an exemption from regulation. Members reviewed the recommended changes of Article 22, Division 11 as previously discussed, which inciuded adding the phrase on page 5, "The design standards noted herein are deemed to be minimum standards." [The Planning Commission took a five minute break.] Mr. Goodrich stated that the adopted Comprehensive Plan recommends that agriculture in the Urban Growth Area should be replaced with zoning that encourages urban development. Efforts have been made in the rural areas to encourage and preserve agriculture and its development. He stated that currently agricultural zoning is proposed to be eliminated in the UGA; however, agricultural uses will be allowed to continue on a small scale temporarily. A definition for "small scale agriculture" or "urban agriculture" has been discussed. Mr. Goodrich reviewed the initial proposed language dealing with agriculture in the UGA. He noted that during meetings with the UGAAC, discussions focused on the need to allow agriculture to continue and new animal husbandry facilities to expand or be established. Staff is now proposing that instead of past amendment proposals, the language in the current Ordinance dealing with agriculture should not be changed and should inciude animal husbandry facilities. Agriculture is currently allowed in the RR (Rural Residential) zone, but not in the RS (Residential Suburban), RU (Residential Urban) or the RM (Residential Multi-family) zones. Staff recommends that agriculture be permitted in all residential zones where it is not currently permitted. This would inciude animal husbandry facilities if they meet all requirements currently set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Goodrich distributed copies of the existing language that permits agriculture as well as animal husbandry facilities. He briefly reviewed some of the procedures and guidelines currently used. One significant change that Staff recommends is a minimum lot area requirement of 1-acre for any animal husbandry facility. The members present at the meeting concurred with Staff's recommendation for addressing agriculture. However, they would like to discuss the issue with more members present before making their final recommendation. Mr. Anikis suggested that an e-mail and the proposed language be sent to the members not present at today's meeting. ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ A;( Ger9!1tkis, Chairman 41 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING June 7, 2010 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, June 7, 2010, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown. Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Drew Bowen, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Linda Kelly and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Pianner Stephen Goodrich, Planner Fred Nugent and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. DISCUSSION Continued discussion of the Urban Growth Area Rezoning Mr. Goodrich reminded Commission members that the last Workshop ended with a brief discussion regarding agriculture in the UGA. He noted that the County's Comprehensive Plan (page 246) recommends that the agriculture zone should be eliminated in the UGA, which Staff has been trying to follow. However, foilowing public comment and Planning Commission members' comments encouraging the continuation of agricultural uses in some form in the UGA, Staff has reconsidered the recommendation of the Comp Plan and the method of implementation in the comprehensive UGA rezoning. Mr. Goodrich stated that Staff has developed a 7-step proposal to retain agriculture as a permitted use in the UGA. He showed members a map of all the land that is currently zoned Agriculture in the UGA, which is approximately 9,000-acres. By assigning new zoning designations to all of this land, agriculture would no longer be a permitted use. Mr. Goodrich explained that when the zoning designations are changed and agriculture is eliminated as a permitted use, it could continue as a non-conforming use (until the use has stopped for a period of six months). Mr. Thompson gave a brief explanation of Staff's reconsideration of the Comp Plan recommendation. Mr. Goodrich explained Staff's most recent proposal for keeping agriculture as a permitted use in the UGA. He stated that the definition of agriculture will not be changed. Agriculture would be included as a permitted use in the RT, RS, RU, RM, BL, BG, PB, HD, IR, IG and PI districts. Agriculture wili continue to be regulated as it is currently regulated in the UGA, using Section 22.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. One new requirement for agriculture will be a 1-acre minimum lot size for animal husbandry facilities only (the buildings that house animals or are used for waste management or storage). Mr. Goodrich began a discussion regarding the proposed treatment of agriculture in the IR, IG and PI zones as proposed by the UGAAC. The following text was recommended by the UGAAC and recently adopted by the Planning Commission: "Agriculture as defined in Article 28A and as regulated by this ordinance; provided that any buiidings or feeding pens in which farm animals are kept shall comply with the distance requirements of Section 4.9. Animal husbandry facilities and operations in existence on (date of adoption) are permitted. The expansion of an animal husbandry facility or operations that existed on (date of adoption) is permitted according to the gUidelines contained in Article 22, Division 9. The establishment of new animal husbandry facilities or operations where none existed prior to (date of adoption) is not permitted. Existing animal husbandry facilities or operations that ceased operations for 3 years or more prior to (date of adoption) are thereafter considered not existing and are not permitted to be re-established or expanded. The Planning Commission may grant one 2 year extension upon receipt of a written request from the operator." [to be referred to in these minutes as the "paragraph". Mr. Goodrich noted that the new proposal is somewhat different than the recommended text, in particular the setbacks and the treatment of new animal husbandry facilities. [The Chairman stopped the meeting at 7:00 p.m. for the regular Planning Commission meeting and resumed the Workshop meeting at 8:00 p.m.] Discussions continued on the proposed treatment of agriculture as described in the "paragraph" above. Mr. Goodrich noted that the above language is different from the way agriculture is treated currently. The first difference is the setbacks for the animal husbandry storage facilities. The second difference is that the establishment of new animal husbandry facilities has been banned. Under Staffs proposal, new animal husbandry facilities would be permitted if they comply with the Waste Nutrient Management Plans and required setbacks. Mr. Goodrich asked Commission members if they want to keep the proposed language as written in the UGAAC "paragraph" above, which would place some limitations on new animal husbandry facilities in the IR, IG and PI districts. Mr. Wiley expressed his opinion that there should be a prohibition on new animal husbandry facilities within the UGA and supported the "paragraph" as currently written above. Mr. Bowen concurred with Mr. Wiley's comment and supports the "paragraph" as currently written above. Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that if the "paragraph" above is used, it should be included in all zoning districts (not just the IR, IG and PI zones). Mr. Bowen and Mr. Wiley concurred with Mr. Kercheval. Mr. Reiber supports the 42 "paragraph" as written with limitations on animal husbandry facilities in the IR, IG and PI districts. Ms. Parrish concurred with Mr. Bowen, Mr. Wiley and Mr. Kercheval. Commission members held a lengthy discussion regarding agricultural uses in the UGA. Members expressed varying opinions with regard to the limitations that should be placed on agriculture and the ability of farmers to switch from crops to animal husbandry facilities. Some members believe that agriculture should not be encouraged or promoted within the UGA; however, they do not want to prohibit current agricultural uses from continuing. • Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends the following paragraph as proposed by Staff to be applied to all zoning districts, "Agricuiture, as defined in Article 28A except new animal husbandry facilities, as regulated by Article 22, Division IX and subject to minimum lot area requirements in Section 7.5." [Ms. Parrish, Mr. Bowen, Mr. Wiley, Mr. Anikis] [Mr. Reiber supports the "paragraph" as written for the IG, IR and PI zoning districts] ADJOURNMENT Mr. Bowen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:26 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. So ordered. Respectfully submitted, 43 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING June 7, 2010 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, June 7, 2010, in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown. Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Drew Bowen, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Linda Kelly 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, Planner Fred Nugent and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 3, 2010 regular Pianning Commission meeting and the May 3, 2010 Planning Commission Workshop meeting as presented. Seconded by Mr. Bowen. Unanimously approved. Ms. Kelly abstained because she was not in attendance at those meetings. Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 24, 2010 Planning Commission Workshop meeting as presented. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. Ms. Kelly abstained because she was not in attendance at that meeting. NEW BUSINESS -SITE PLANS Clear Spring Exxon Storage Addition Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a site plan for the Clear Spring Exxon Storage Addition located along the northeast side of Clear Spring Road. The property is 13.48-acres in size and is currently zoned HI-1 (Highway Interchange 1). The existing service station has an existing impound yard. The appiicant is proposing a 7,200-square foot impound storage building. The hours of operation are seven days a week from 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. One new employee is proposed. Building mounted security lighting is proposed and signage shall be bUilding mounted. One parking space will be provided for the new empioyee in front of the storage bUilding. Solid waste will be collected in an existing dumpster. The site is exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance and storm water management requirements. All agency approvals have been received. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. - OTHER BUSINESS Annual Report Mr. Nugent presented for review and adoption the 2009 Annual Report. He noted that the State of Maryland requested specific information including growth in the Priority Funding Areas (or growth areas). In Washington County new houses were being built in the rurai area; development was not taking place in the growth areas. Since the beginning of 2010, there are several developments that are becoming active again within the growth areas. Mr. Nugent proceeded with a brief review of the data in the report including culvert replacement, bank stabilization, on-going road pavement rehabilitation programs, etc. Discussion: Mr. Thompson stated that the Annual Report will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners on June 15'h However, in accordance with Article 66B of the State statute, the Annual Report must be adopted by the Planning Commission. Mr. Kercheval expressed his concern with regard to the reported percentage of growth in the rural areas. While the numbers are correct, they do not reflect any shift in policy of the county that would encourage growth in rural area. Mr. Reiber further suggested additional language be inserted in the report explaining that the lots developed were primarily existing inventory in the rural area prior to 2009 and were now being built out. Mr. Nugent stated the report explains the current economy is the primary reason for growth in the rural areas. He further stated additional language will be added to explain this and the large number of existing houses on the market and the number of lots available within the Growth Areas and the fact development and construction in the rurai areas is not as speculative. Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to adopt the Annual Report with the added ianguage to explain the 2009 housing starts. Seconded by Ms. Kelly. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval abstained. 44 Revision to Rosewood PUD, Phase II Mr. Lung presented for review a request from Washco Development for a proposed revIsion to the Rosewood PUD. A PUD overlay zone was obtained in 1995. In February, the Planning Commission approved a change to allow a proposed 12-unit apartment building site in Phase II-B to be replaced with a commercial area. This change increased the ratio of the commercial area from the normal 10% (as outlined in the PUD zone) to 12% of the gross tract area of the PUD. The applicant is now requesting a change to the PUD to allow 52, 3-story townhouses on 4.87-acres to be converted to professional/business use buildings ranging in size from 2,600-square feet to 6,000 square-feet. The public street, Capital Lane, would become a private street. This would increase the total commercial area in the PUD from 12% to 19.35% of the gross tract area. Section 16.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance states, "Minor changes in concept design may subsequently be approved by the Planning Commission without additional public hearing." The purpose of this request is for the Planning Commission to determine if the proposed change is "minor" and may proceed without a public hearing. Mr. Lung explained that the Commission has three options: (1) The Planning Commission could approve the change without a public hearing. The applicant would be required to follow the normal site plan review and approval process. (2) The Planning Commission could require a public hearing for the proposed change in order to notify the general public and neighboring property owners of the applicant's intent. The BOCC would grant final approval or denial of the change. (3) The Planning Commission could recommend that the applicant seek a rezoning of the property (separate from the PUD) that would permit the proposed use. The County is currently in the process of a comprehensive rezoning of the Urban Growth Area and there is a moratorium on piece meal rezonings in the UGA. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Bowen expressed his opinion that the proposed change would not require a public hearing. He believes that there would be less traffic for the proposed use than for . residential use. He also believes that business uses "pay for themselves". Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that the change that was approved in February was only a minor change. However, with the proposed change the commercial area would be almost doubled what is permitted in a PUD. Mr. Reiber stated that he is not opposed to the change, but he believes that a public hearing is necessary in order to comply with Zoning Ordinance regulations for a PUD overlay zone. Mr. Kercheval concurred with Mr. Reiber's comments. He believes that almost dOUbling the commercial space is not a "minor change". Mr. Wiley concurred with Mr. Bowen's comments. Ms. Kelly concurred with all comments. She pointed out that when the Planning Commission reviewed this area during its workshops on the comprehensive rezoning of the Urban Growth Area, the Planning Commission recommended a business zoning around this property. Mr. Lung noted that as part of the comprehensive rezoning process, individual property owners may request a specific zoning designation. However, the PUD overlay zone prevents this property from being rezoned during the comprehensive rezoning. Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that the requested change should be presented at a public hearing. He stated that the Planning Commission does not want to set a precedent by doubling the size of the commercial area. He also expressed his concern that the existing property owners may not want more businesses located in this area due to competition from other businesses. Mr. Sasson Shaool, Washco Development representative, stated that changes in the dynamics of the neighborhood dictates the proposed change. He expressed his opinion that the proposed use is "what the people want." Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to proceed with a public hearing on the proposed change to be schedule as soon as possible. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. The motion passed with Mr. Reiber, Mr. Kercheval, and Ms. Kelly voting "Aye" and Mr. Bowen and Mr. Wiley voting "No". Water and Sewer Plan Update Mr. Lung reported that the work on the Water and Sewerage Plan to bring it up to date to 2009 has been completed. The previous draft was updated to 2006; however, after review by the BOCC, Staff was directed to update the plan to 2009 data. He gave a few exam pies of changes that were necessary to update the plan. The Plan will be presented to the County Commissioners as soon as possible and then proceed to public hearing. Mr. Lung stated that all municipalities were given the opportunity to provide their most recent updated information including proposed capital projects. He also stated that once all the Water Resource Elements have been written and submitted by all municipalities, another update of the Water and Sewerage Pian will most likely be needed. Copies of the final draft were distributed to the Planning Commission members. Announcements Mr. Thompson stated that the certificates for the MDP test that all Commission members are to take before July 151 must be requested by Staff. He asked members to let him know when they have taken the course and he will request the certificates. 45 ADJOURNMENT Mr. Bowen made a motion to adjourn the regular meeting of the Planning Commission at 8:00 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. So ordered. Respectfully submitted, ~.. iLL~ Geg~ Chairman 47 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING July 12, 2010 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, July 12, 2010 in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown. Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Terry Reiber, Linda (Parrish) Kelly, 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, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr. Kercheval made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 7, 2010 regular Planning Commission meeting as amended. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 7, 2010 Planning Commission Workshop meeting as amended. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. Unanimously approved. Mr. Thompson requested that the revision to Rosewood PUD, Phase II that was discussed during the June 7, 2010 meeting, be added to this evening's agenda. NEW BUSINESS "- SITE PLANS Liberty Towers - Fairview Cell (SP-10-011) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for Liberty Towers Fairview Cell located along the north side of Fairview Road. The property is currently zoned A(R) - Agriculture Rural. The applicant is proposing to construct a 199-foot self-supporting lattice communications tower with a flat galvanized finish, which would include a 4-foot lightning rod. The area to be leased is approximateiy 10,000-square feet in size. A proposed 12-foot stone shale drive will be used to access the site from Fairview Road, which will be maintained by the applicant. The tower setback from the nearest property line is 135-feet. The reduced property line setback was granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals in November 2009. The tower will not require any lighting. The tower site is designed to have a co-location of 5 carriers in addition to County government rescue services. The proposed tower, four pads and two shelter sites will be surrounded by an 8-foot chain link fence. Forest Conservation requirements will be met by a payment-in-Iieu in the amount of $2,787.84. Minor revisions have been made to the plans and resubmitted to the Washington County Soil Conservation District, the Washington County Engineering Department, and the State Highway Administration. Approvals from these agencies are pending; all other agency approvals have been received. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Reiber asked what the normal property line setbacks are for cell towers. Ms. Kelly responded it is the height of the proposed tower, which in this case would be 199-feet. Mr. Kercheval asked if there is standard language to be included on site plans for the removal of the tower when it is no longer in service and also for the co-location of other carriers and the County's emergency services. Ms. Kelly stated there is no standard language. Mr. Anikis suggested that Staff work with the County Attorney to develop a standard note to be used on all site plans. Mr. Reiber expressed his concern that the setback has been reduced by more than 50-feet. Mr. Kercheval noted that the existing homes in the area are situated approximately 500 or 500-feet from the proposed cell tower site and the other two parcels are currently undeveloped. Mr. Mike Hoke, a representative from Liberty Towers, stated that due to the size of the parcel and the location of the proposed tower, the Board of Zoning Appeals granted the reduced setbacks. Also, there was no objection from any citizens to the request. Motion and Vote: Ms. (Parrish) Kelly made a motion to approve the payment-in-lieu and the site plan contingent upon a standard language note, as discussed, being added to the site plan and contingent upon all agency approvals. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved. • PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS Hagerstown Community College Master Facilities Plan (PC-1 0-001) Mr. Thompson introduced Dr. Guy Altieri and Dr. Robert Spong from Hagerstown Community College. Ms. Kelly presented the Master Facilities Plan for Hagerstown Community College that was discussed during a preliminary consultation on May 13, 2010. She noted that the Plan shows the existing and proposed facilities at the College, parking areas, forest retention area, projects currently under design, and adjacent land uses. The property is currently zoned A- Agriculture, RS - Residential Suburban and RS-PUD - Residential Suburban with a Planned Unit Development overlay. Ms. Kelly presented comments and points of discussion from the preliminary consultation. The City of Hagerstown Water and 48 Sewer Department stated that, depending upon build-out, a facility of this size will eventually exceed the current allocation of 24,000 gallons of water per day. At that time, further allocation will be required. The site is master-metered with an 8-inch water meter and the water system is private. The Washington County Soil Conservation District stated that, based on new storm water management regulations, steep slope areas must be avoided for proposed development. The removal of trees in the sensitive areas will not be permitted. The Washington County Engineering Department stated that a master storm water management plan will be required under the new storm water management regulations. A new traffic impact study will be required in the near future to specifically analyze Academic Boulevard and Robinwood Drive to assess the current and proposed level of service, as well as to attain a recommendation to determine when connections to the outparcels should be accomplished. Ms. Kelly reported, that as part of the UGA comprehensive rezoning, an ERT (Education, Research and Technology) designation has been recommended for this site. Any major changes to the concept plan, such as impacts to the Forest Conservation areas that have been set aside for the remainder of the deveiopment at the College, would require a new plan. Dr. Altieri began his presentation by stating that the HCC Board of Trustees recently adopted its Campus Development Plan, which was distributed to the Planning Commission members prior to the meeting. He briefly described information and projects that are inciuded in the Plan. Dr. Altieri described the layout of the campus and future plans for expansion. He discussed current projects that are moving forward and informed the Commission that a grant was recently awarded to the College from the Department of Labor for energy technology. The College is considering the ideal location for an energy house to be constructed in conjunction with local building contractors. A new parking area containing 450 parking spaces is currently under construction, the new STEM building construction wili begin in the next week or two, final approvals are pending on the addition to Kepler Theater, and minor renovations are underway on the campus quad area. A second entrance to the campus is being planned for the future and discussions are on-going with County staff. Dr. Aitieri stated that the College's enrollment was up 13% this summer and an additional 500 students are anticipated this fall over last fall's enrollment figures. Dr. Spong stated that the College is currently working with Triad Engineering on storm water . management calculations for the entire campus as discussed with the Engineering Department during the preliminary consultation. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Reiber made an inquiry regarding water capacity for emergency services to use on the campus. Mr. Billie Swailes of Triad Engineering, consultant, stated that there are 1O-inch water lines serving the site and booster pumps may be added as the campus continues to grow. Mr. Reiber asked if the construction of the energy house would be accelerated. Dr. Altieri stated that the construction would begin as soon as possible because it is a grant funded project. The structure is anticipated to be approximately 7,000 square feet in size. Mr. Reiber expressed his concern regarding the diversity in age groups accessing the campus from one entrance (with the new senior center being located on the campus). Mr. Thompson stated there is currently a project in the CIP for the second access point to the College campus. Mr. Joe Kroboth, Director of Public Works, stated that the BOCC budgeted $4.4 million in fiscal years 2011 and 2012 in conjunction with private sector partners and public sector funds to construct a second entrance into the College. The proposed entrance will be an extension of Varsity Lane and will connect with the College campus in the area of the new 450 car parking lot. The engineering on this project should begin this fall (September or October 2010) with construction anticipated to begin next summer if right-of-way negotiations are successful. Traffic studies indicate that a traffic light is warranted at the intersection of Varsity Lane. Mr. Reiber made an inquiry regarding a training facility for emergency services personnel and asked if this is a program being considered by the College. Dr. Altieri stated that a training facility is listed on the master list of projects in the Campus Facilities Plan. There are currently no facilities of this nature in Washington County and this is being explored for future development. Mr. Kercheval ciarified that the Master Facilities Plan will be used by the College as it moves forward in its development. This project should not be compared to the Master Plan for Fort Ritchie, which involves a lot of legal issues. Mr. Kercheval commended the College on the detail shown on the plan. He reminded everyone that, "as the College builds out, things can change and there are no legal requirements tied to this plan like there is with the Army at Fort Ritchie". Mr. Kercheval reminded the College representatives that there are other ways to meet Forest Conservation requirements, such as payment-in-lieu. He recommended that the proper buffers should be maintained around residential areas; however, he does not believe the College should tie up large pieces of property in forest easements because requirements can change in the future and could become a hindrance when expanding. Ms. (Parrish) Kelly asked College representatives If they have considered bicycle trails and pathways around the campus. Dr. Altieri stated that bicycie traffic has not been highly considered because the campus does not have dormitories and student parking is in close proximity to classroom bUildings. However, he agreed that this issue should be considered. Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that the College should prioritize its "wish list" of projects because certain projects would have an affect on parking, additional traffic, and water and sewer. He expressed his concern regarding water allocation from the City of Hagerstown. There was a brief discussion regarding the amount of water allocation currently being used by the College and strategies for working with the City for future allocation. Mr. Anikis also voiced his concern regarding traffic and a second access. During his final comment, Mr. Anikis advised HCC representatives to insure that the wind turbines associated with the new energy technology program are placed so there is adequate wind to run them. Mr. Thompson asked the Planning Commission to consider granting Staff the authority to approve site plans, if they are in compliance with the current Master Faciiities Plan. If major changes are made to the 49 Master Plan, the College would be required to update its Plan and resubmit it to the Planning Commission for its review and approval. Staff would report to the Planning Commission on all site plans approved. Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to authorize Staff to grant approval on site plans for HCC contingent upon the plans conforming to the Master Facilities Plan as presented. If the site plan does not conform to the Master Facilities Plan, the site plan must be presented to the Planning Commission for its review and approval. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved. - SITE PLANS (Continued) Hagerstown Community College Visual Arts Education Center (Kepler Theater) (SP-1 0-014) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for the Hagerstown Community College Kepler Theater located on the west side of the HCC campus, just off of Scholar Drive. The property is zoned RS - Residential Suburban. The College is proposing a 13,047 square-foot addition for a total square footage of 29,242. The site is currently served by public water and public sewer. Parking requirements are incorporated into the overall requirements of the HCC campus. There are 1,437 parking spaces required and 1,603 parking spaces are provided. There will be no new signage on the theater site. The estimated 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. Trash is collected inside the bUilding. Pole lights will be relocated and new bollard lights will be placed near the entrance. Forest Conservation requirements have been met by an overall Forest Conservation Plan for the campus. All agency approvals have been received except from the Washington County Soil Conservation District. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Thompson stated that the plans have been reviewed by Mr. Norman Bassell, Administrator with the Washington County Office on Disabilities Issues, for compliance with ADA requirements. A leller from Mr. Bassell has been forwarded to Dr. Spong and copies have been distributed to the Planning Commission members. Mr. Thompson stated that Dr. Spong has been in contact with the architect on the project and has assured Staff that all ADA requirements will be met. Ms. (Parrish) Kelly asked if there is a plan to Increase the handicapped parking or will it meet only the minimum guidelines. Dr. Spong stated that the spaces will be designed to accommodate the theater. However, the handicapped parking in the area of the proposed senior center and the amphitheater will be increased. Dr. Spong stated that HCC has always exceeded the required number of handicapped spaces across the campus. Dr. Altieri noted that additional temporary handicapped signs are used by campus security during special events. Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the site plan as presented contingent upon ali agency approvals. Seconded by Ms. (Parrish) Kelly. Unanimousiyapproved. Washington County Senior Center (SP-10-012) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for the proposed Washington County Senior Center located on the campus of HCC behind the existing ARC building on Hawk Drive. The property is currently zoned RS - Residential Suburban. A 24,000-square foot, 2-story community center with a gymnasium is proposed. The site will be served by public water and sewer. There will be two access points onto Hawk Drive via a private street, which is within the College campus. The proposed hours of operation will be daily from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. with extended hours for special events. Public transportation will be provided by the County Commuter. The number of employees will be 30 to 50 persons, which includes voiunteers. Parking spaces required is 60 spaces and 83 spaces will be provided, with three handicapped spaces. Freight and delivery will be a UPS truck and car daiiy. A dumpster with masonry enclosures will be located on the side of the building. Lighting will include pole mounted lights in the parking areas and building-mounted lights. Landscaping will be installed at the front of the site and throughout the parking area and around the bUilding. Landscaping materials to be used include: sugar maples, dogwood, ornamental pear and uchino cherry trees. Forest Conservation requirements have been met by approval of the overall Forest Conservation Plan for the HCC campus. All agency approvals have been received. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Anlkis expressed his opinion that the hours of the proposed Senior Center should be extended into the evening. It was noted that the hours could be adjusted once the center is open and it is determined how the center will be used and programs that will be offered. Mr. Kercheval stated that he would encourage the joint and shared use of the building with the College, especially since the College is open late in the evenings and on the weekends. He noted that the Senior Center will be owned by the County and that all utilities will be on separate meters and paid by the County. Mr. Kercheval is encouraging the use of MOU's for snow removal, lawn mowing, etc. Dr. Altieri briefly described agreements that have been discussed with the County. Mr. Thompson asked if the bUilding has been designed for future expansion. Mr. Gordon Poffenberger, representative from Fox & Associates, Inc., stated that the bUilding has been designed for future expansion without interrupting activities. Mr. Kercheval asked if there are sidewalks connecting the Senior Center to the amphitheater. Mr. Poffenberger stated there is a sidewalk connection. Dr. Altieri stated that other sidewalks connections to surrounding bUildings are aiso being considered, such as from the Senior Center to the ARC. There was a brief discussion regarding lighting and signs around the campus for the Senior Center. Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the site plan for the proposed Senior Center as presented. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. Unanimously approved. so OLD BUSINESS Rosewood PUD Revision Mr. Thompson reminded Commission members that a revision to the Rosewood PUD, which wouid approximately double the amount of commercial area, was brought before them on June 2, 2010. At that time, the Commission decided that the change was significant and required a public hearing. The public hearing must be a joint hearing of the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission. At this time a public hearing has not been scheduled. Mr. Sasson Shaool of Washco, the developer of Rosewood, was present at the meeting and addressed Commission members. He voiced his frustration because a public hearing has not been scheduled and aiso that he must follow the procedures for rezoning the property. Mr. Shaool requested that the Planning Commission reconsider the need for a public hearing. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that if a public hearing is not scheduled for this request, the Planning Commission would be setting a precedent for future developers that want to make major changes to PUDs. Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that the County is doing an "injustice to private business" by making it difficult to rezone the property and getting a public hearing scheduled. There was a brief discussion regarding the requirements to modify the PUD zoning of the property and Mr. Thompson's efforts to get a public hearing scheduled with the BOCC. Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion, that if a date for a ioint public hearing with the BOCC and t the Planning Commission is not scheduled prior to September 15 , the Planning Commission will contact the County Attorney's office to determine alternatives to move forward with the revisions for the Rosewood PUD as requested. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. The motion passed with Mr. Reiber, Mr. Ecker and Ms. (Parrish) Kelly voting "Aye" and Mr. Kercheval abstained. Town of Keedysville Annexation Reguest - Bostetter / Booster Pump Station ·Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation an annexation request for "express approval" from the Town of Keedysville for approximately 18.5-acres of land. The property is iocated on the east side of the current municipal boundary at the end of Main Street on both sides of Maryland Route 34. The Town is proposing to zone the property Suburban Residential upon annexation. The current County zoning on the property is P- Preservation (1 dU/30-ac.). Discussion and Comments: Mr. Thompson stated that in 2002 when the County was rezoning the rural area, the Town of Keedysville did not express interest in designating a growth area beyond their current boundaries. There was a brief discussion regarding the proposed zoning and its compatibility with the County's zoning that is currently on the property. Mr. Thompson noted that the Town has no other residential zoning designation that can be placed on the property. He stated that if the BOCC does not grant "express approval", the property cannot be developed for a period of five years. Mr. Anikis questioned the request for annexation and the need for a proposed pump station on a portion of this property, which is needed by the Town. Mr. Lung stated that the pump station is an immediate need of the Town and was identified in the update of the Water and Sewer Plan. Motion and Vote: Ms. (Parrish) Kelly made a motion to recommend "express approval" of the annexation to the Board of County Commissioners as requested. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. The motion passed with Mr. Reiber, Mr. Ecker and Ms. (Parrish) Kelly voting "Aye" and Mr. Kercheval abstained. City of Hagerstown Annexation -19330 Leitersburg Pike (A-2010-01) Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation an annexation request from the City of Hagerstown for property located at 19330 Leitersburg Pike (former Longmeadow Bowling Alley). The applicant is requesting C2 (Commercial General) zoning upon annexation into the City of Hagerstown. The property is currently zoned BL - Business Local under the County's zoning. Staff does not believe the C2 zoning is consistent with the BL zoning designation, but rather the BG (Business General) zoning designation. Mr. Thompson noted that since 2002 when the Land Use Plan was updated for the County, there have been many changes in the area including the Stone House Square Shopping Center, significant road improvements in the area, etc. He stated that under the C2 zoning designation, there are several uses that would be allowed including a nightclub, which is a specific concern noted by the City of Hagerstown Police Department. Discussion and Comment: Mr. Anikis noted that the lack of adequate parking is an issue on the site. Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that a commercial establishment wouid be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Ecker and Ms. (Parrish) Kelly concurred. Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend "express approval" of the annexation to the Board of County Commissioners as requested. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. The motion passed with Mr. Reiber, Mr. Ecker and Ms. (Parrish) Kelly voting "Aye" and Mr. Kercheval abstained. City of Hagerstown Annexation - Pangborn Corporation Mr. Thompson presented for review and recommendation an annexation request from the City of Hagerstown for approximately 6.55 acres of land located on the north and east side of the current municipal boundary (the former Pangborn Corporation). Currently, approximately 7.2 acres of the property is located within the municipal boundary and the building is split by County and City line. Under the City's zoning, a portion of the property is zoned N-MU (Neighborhood Mixed Use) and under the County's zoning, a portion of the property is zoned IG (Industriai General). The purpose of the request is 51 to annex the property under one jurisdiction. The applicant is requesting funding from the City's Economic Development Program upon annexation. Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend "express approval" of the annexation to the Board of County Commissioners as requested in order to continue redevelopment of the site. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. The motion passed with Mr. Reiber, Mr. Ecker and Ms. (Parrish) Kelly voting "Aye" and Mr. Kercheval abstained. Update on UGA Rezoning Public Information Meeting Mr. Thompson stated that the first public information meeting for the comprehensive rezoning of the UGA was held on July 15t at Hagerstown Community College. Mr. Anikis and Mr. Wiley were in attendance at the meeting. Mr. Goodrich gave a presentation of the current rezoning proposal to approximately 25 to 30. Mr. Thompson stated that several points of concern were raised during the meeting including: • the 5-miie radius for hazardous wiidlife around the Airport, including discussions regarding the Airport Director's authority • animal husbandry issues • questions about the fiexibility of the zoning around interchanges • questions about the 1-81/Showalter Road area where IR zoning is proposed • consideration of a TDR program for the County Mr. Anikis asked for clarification on the Planning Commission's recommendation regarding agriculture and animal husbandry in the UGA. His understanding was that people could still raise animais as long as the nutrient loading plan is followed. However, during the public information meeting, it was pointed out that structures to house the animals could not be built to house the animals, under the proposed language. Mr. Anikis believes that the Planning Commission should re-evaluate its current recommendation prior to the rezoning proposal being presented at a public hearing. . Mr. Anikis stated that the issue of TDRs was brought up during the public information meeting by Mr. Jerry Ditto. Mr. Ditto asked why the Planning Commission did not address the issue of TDRs, which were recommended by the Urban Growth Area Advisory Committee. Following the public meeting, Mr. Goodrich reviewed minutes of the Planning Commission's Workshop meetings and found the following documentation in the October 20, 2008 minutes. The minutes stated, "Mr. Goodrich stated that TDRs are not being considered in the rezoning proposal for the UGA because Staff has not been given a clear direction on TDRs by the County Commissioners". Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that Staff should make it clear during the information meetings that the Planning Commission is not addressing the issue because the County Commissioners have not made a decision on implementing a TDR program. Mr. Kercheval stated that when the TDR report was presented to the BOCC, there were several issues that needed to be addressed in order to implement a TDR program. He stated there were not enough Commissioners in favor of the program at that time. Mr. Kercheval expressed his concern that the public information meeting was conducted like a public hearing. He believes that a short presentation should be made to the public and then have stations set up around the room for people to visit and ask questions or make comments to the Staff. Citizens will be permitted to make their comments at public hearings that will be held at a later date. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Monday, August 2, 2010, 7:00 p.m., Public Rezoning Meeting and Regular Planning Commission Meeting, Washington County Court House, Room 1, 95 West Washington Street, Hagerstown ADJOURNMENT Ms. (Parrish) Kelly made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:35 p.m. So ordered. 52 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING August 2,2010 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, August 2, 2010 at 6:00 p.m. in the Washington County Court House, Room 1, 95 West Washington Street, Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Andrew Bowen, Linda (Parrish) Kelly, Sam Ecker and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planners Stephen Goodrich and Timothy A. Lung, Senior Planner Misty Wagner-Griilo, Environmental Land Planner Bill Stachoviak and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis cailed the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 12, 2010 regular Planning Commission meeting as amended. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. The motion passed with Mr. Reiber, Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Ecker, Ms. Keily, and Mr. Bowen voting "Aye" and Mr. Wiley abstained (due to his absence at the July 12'" meeting). NEW BUSINESS - SITE PLANS Knob Hall Winery (SP-10-024) Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a site plan for Knob Hail Winery located along the north side of Barnhart Road on approximateiy 173.05 acres of land. The property is currently zoned A(R) - Agricultural Rural. The applicant is proposing a 3,360 square foot wine production building with two employees. Hours of operation wiil be Monday through Saturday, 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. The winery retail area will be located in the existing barn, which is approximately 4,335 square feet. The hours of operation wiil be Monday through Sunday, 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., with 3 to 5 employees. A 16 x 20-foot stage is proposed for special events that will take place during the months of April through November. A maximum of 20 events per season wiil be permitted. Events will be scheduled during the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The total parking required is 129 spaces and 130 spaces will be provided. There will be g paved spaces around the production building and the existing barn and 120 overflow spaces will be provided for special events. One sign on the existing barn and one free-standing 50-square foot sign 8 feet in height is proposed. Building mounted motion detected lighting is proposed on the buildings and temporary lighting will be proVided for special events. Box trucks wiil make monthly deliveries to the production building and the existing barn. Catering trucks are anticipated during special events. The site is served by private well and septic. Storm water management will be handled by on-site mechanisms. Forest Conservation requirements wiil be met by retaining JI,-acre of existing forest on the remaining lands, which currently contain a forest retention area from the subdivision of lots 1-5. Some road improvements wiil be made on Faith Road to the entrance of the winery. Ail agency approvals have been received. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Anikis asked if a footpath would be provided (off the road) from the north parking iot adjacent to the road to the special events area. Mr. Seibert, the owner, stated that the referenced parking lot is not for special events but for access to the barn. However, a path will be provided. Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Solid Waste Management and Recycling Plan Mr. Stachoviak presented for review and a recommendation the Draft Solid Waste Management and Recycling Plan, which is a 10-year plan (2011-2021). The Solid Waste Management and Recycling Plan is one of several functioning plans required to be submitted to the State of Maryland on a periodic basis to coordinate specific actions and provide guidance for policies in the County's Comprehensive Plan. The goals, objectives and policies for solid waste management in Washington County are part of the overail goals discussed in the County's 2002 Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Stachoviak briefly reviewed the overall goals with the Commission. One specific objective to achieve Goal # 3 in the Comp Plan is to encourage recycling and resource conservation. The purpose of the Solid Waste Management and Recycling Plan is to establish County solid waste management and recycling policies, develop comprehensive goals relative to solid waste management and recycling through anticipation of future needs, address solid waste issues within the County and develop effective current and long range solid waste management and recycling plans and the intended related procedures. Mr. Stachoviak explained the process for developing the new plan and stated that a number of public input meetings were held in May 2009 in Boonsboro, Hancock, Smithsburg and Hagerstown with a total of approximately 35 citizens in attendance. The County's Solid Waste Department provided review and significant information in preparing the plan. 53 The Draft Plan was advertised for a 50-day review period in February 2010 and sent to County agencies, the City of Hagerstown, Maryland Department of the Environment, each of the municipalities, the Public Works Department, Solid Waste Advisory Committee, and the County Commissioners. Copies were also available for review at the public libraries and on the County website. Written comments were received and addressed in the Plan. The new plan updates data on recycling issues and waste flow from the previous 10-year plan and provides new information and the estimated life of the 40 West Landfill site. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Stachoviak noted that the Maryland Department of the Environment requires an update every 3 years. Mr. Bowen made an inquiry regarding the useful life expectancy of the landfill. Mr. Stachoviak stated that the current estimated landfill life based on the current fill rate is approximately 55 years. Mr. Reiber stated his opinion that there is not enough emphasis being put on recycling in the County. Mr. Stachoviak explained that the Plan is a framework to obtain the goals of the County in the next 10-years. The Plan does not detail how the goal should be accomplished. Mr. Reiber asked about the current recycling percentages. Mr. Stachoviak stated that current recycling is at 32%. Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that the document gives many facts and figures, provides links to the Comp Plan and meets the requirements set forth by the State; however, it is not user-friendly. He briefly described a few of the recycling programs that the County has initiated. Mr. Kercheval stated that the County Commissioners have discussed a curb-side recycling program; however, the costs involved outweigh the benefits received. He suggested simplifying readability of the document by highlighting important points in each chapter. Mr. Stachoviak suggested that Staff prepare an Executive Summary that could be understood more easily. Mr. Ecker asked how many acres are currently being used at the landfill out of the total 227-acres. Mr. Stachoviak estimated that approximately 50-acres are currently being used. Mr. Kercheval noted that the estimated life of the landfill will be determined by the rate of development. . Ms. Kelly requested that the Planning Commission receive copies of the public comment that has been received to date. Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that the $8.00 fee charged for the drop-off of electronics is discouraging recycling efforts. Mr. Stachoviak noted that there are other options for disposing of electronics, such as Best Buy. Mr. Anikis made an inquiry regarding construction waste that is taken to the landfill and asked if contractors are charged the same fees as citizens who drop-off recyclables. Mr. Kercheval stated that there are different rates for building debris, higher rates for more weight versus less volume, etc. Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that the County should have provisions for disposing of paint, paint thinner, etc. He expressed his concern that the recycling bins placed around the County at various locations should be increased or the frequency of pick-ups should be increased. He noted that severai locations where bins are placed are often full and overflowing. Mr. Kercheval stated that a new Recycling Director will be hired in the near future and noted that the job description for this position has been changed to include more availability of workers during peak recycling times (such as weekends). He talked briefly about the fees that are charged for recycling and why the County collects those fees. Ms. Kelly expressed her opinion that a link should be available on the County's main webpage to direct citizens where to take recyclables. She believes that it is too difficult and time consuming for people to research the places where the various recyclables can be disposed of. Mr. Stachoviak stated there is a link from the County Landfill's website listing public and private locations for disposing of recyclables. He suggested setting up the link from the County's main webpage in addition to the Landfill's website. Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend to the BOCC that the Solid Waste Management and Recycling Plan is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and that all comments made by Planning Commission members be forwarded to the County Commissioners. Seconded by Mr. Ecker. The motion passed unanimously with Mr. Kercheval abstaining from the vote. UGA Rezoning Public Information Meeting Mr. Goodrich stated that the second public information meeting for the proposed comprehensive rezoning of the UGA was held on July 21 'I at Springfield Middle School in Williamsport. A presentation of the current rezoning proposal was made to approximately 25 people and a brief session was held with Staff for individuals to ask questions regarding the proposed zoning on their property. Mr. Goodrich briefly reviewed the major points of concern expressed by those in attendance at the meeting. • Animal husbandry facilities being limited or prohibited in the UGA • The 5-miie radius for hazardous wildlife around the Airport, including discussions regarding the FAA and/or Airport Director's authority • The large area of proposed Planned Industrial zoning around the Huyetts area currently zoned Agriculture • Transferabie Development Rights There was a brief discussion regarding comments made by the City of Hagerstown in response to the proposed zoning changes and whether the Planning Commission should hold another workshop to discuss changes to the rezoning proposal prior to public hearings. Each member expressed their opinion regarding the need for a workshop and changing the document prior to public hearings being held. After each member expressed their opinion, it was decided that a workshop would be held prior to the public hearings. A date will be decided following the public rezoning meeting. 54 UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Monday, August 30, 2010, 7:00 p.m., Joint Public Hearing with the Board of County Commissioners, Washington County Court House, Room 1, 95 West Washington Street, Hagerstown ADJOURNMENT Mr. Bowen made a motion to adjourn the regular meeting at 6:58 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. So ordered. Respectfully submitted, Geo1g;A~-s,Lc~ha"'i"-'rm=aLn------CL>OA ILL; WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC REZONING MEETING August 2,2010 The Washington County Planning Commission held a public rezoning meeting on Monday, August 2, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in the Washington County Court House, Room 1, 95 West Washington Street, Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Terry Reiber, Ciint Wiley, Andrew Bowen, Linda (Parrish) Kelly, Sam Ecker and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michaei C. Thompson, Senior Planner Jill Baker and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. RZ-10-003 - Harold Walter Ms. Baker presented a rezoning request for Harold Walter, property located on the east side of Orchard Ridge Road and north of Millstone Circle. The applicant is requesting the RB-N (Rural Business-New) floating zone on 40-acres of property currently zoned EC - Environmental Conservation. A campground with 60 camp sites is proposed. Ms. Baker summarized several points documented in the "Staff Report and Analysis" prepared prior to this meeting. First noted was the steady increase in population in the area. Ms. Baker noted that no public water or sewer facilities are available in this area. The property is currently served by a private well and septic system, which services the existing dwelling. The applicant is proposing to add a second well in the area where a clubhouse is proposed, as well as septic reserve areas to handle the wastewater on site. The - Washington County Health Department has reviewed the application and stated, "The proposed use must be able to be served by an approved on-site sewage disposal system(s). A central holding tank is not approved for new construction and/or a new proposed use." The property would be provided emergency medical and rescue services by the Hancock Fire Company and Hancock Voiunteer Ambulance Company. The Hancock Fire Company reviewed the application and provided comments. In summary, the Fire Company recommended more emphasis being put on fire suppression due to the rural nature of the area and because there are no resources for additional water if needed for a large fire. Other points addressed were public transportation. There is no public transportation service to the property. Schools would not be impacted in the Hancock school districts since this is a proposed commercial use. Present and future transportation patterns were reviewed for this application. The subject property has frontage on Orchard Ridge Road and Millstone Circle. Millstone Circle is a narrow private road and has been gated to prevent pass through traffic. The Washington County Land Development Engineering Department has determined that no access would be permitted onto Millstone Circie due to inadequate width of the roadway. Orchard Ridge Road is classified as a local road on the Functional Classification Map in the Comprehensive Plan. Access to the campground and dwelling are proposed to be off of Orchard Ridge Road. Traffic counts were estimated in 2004 and approximated at 225 average daily trips. Information relative to road widths was reviewed" as it pertains to the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. Given the estimated peak hour trips, this development would require a minimum pavement width of 20-feet for the entire road network. Orchard Ridge Road varies from a low of 19-feet to 20-feet in width; therefore, the sections of road that are less than 20-feet would need to be upgraded to County standards. A sight distance review was performed for the existing driveway, which is proposed to be used for ingress and egress for the campground. In accordance with County standards, a sight distance of 390-feet in each direction is required. The sight distance to the north meets this standard; however, the sight distance south is approximately 350-feet. Storm water management for development on the site must comply with the County's Storm Water Management Ordinance. Ms. Baker noted that the "change or mistake" rule does not apply to the RB-N zoning classification; however, there is other criteria that must be met. In Section 5F.5(c) of the Zoning Ordinance, specific criteria is delineated "to assist the local elected body in determining whether or not a requested use meets the purpose and intent of the district." Ms. Baker briefly reviewed these criteria as well as criteria from Section 5F.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, which also applies to this application. Applicant's Presentation Mr. Jason Divelbiss, attorney for the applicant, began his presentation by indicating on a map the location of the property. He noted there is an old logging path in the middle of the property, which would be used to access the camp sites thereby keeping the campground use to the interior of the property. Mr. Divelbiss gave a brief background and history of the property. He stated that Mr. Walter purchased the property in September 2003, at which time the property was zoned Conservation. Copies of the zoning text from the Conservation zone (applicant's exhibit 1) were distributed by Mr. Divelbiss to the Planning Commission members. He noted that campgrounds, travel trailer parks, golf courses, summer or winter resort areas, country clubs and "similar uses for the purpose of preserving and enjoying the natural resources of the property" were a permitted use [by right] in the Conservation zone. It was noted that during the comprehensive rural rezoning in 2005, the zoning on this property was changed and the uses previously listed were eliminated as principal permitted uses. This change made it necessary for the applicant to obtain the RB-N zoning in order for the campground to be a permitted use. In April 2007, the applicant sought the RB-N overlay zone for this same property with a conceptual plan for 89 camp sites. The applicant's request was heard in June 2007 in a joint public hearing with the Planning Commission and the County Commissioners. In July 2007, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request; however, in August 2007, the BOCC, by consensus vote, objected to the request. After the consensus vote by the BOCC, the applicant withdrew his request with the intention of resubmitting at a later time with a revised preliminary site plan, which is currently under review. Mr. Divelbiss noted that only one structure is proposed (a clubhouse approximately 24 x 48 feet). An in ground pool is also proposed. Some of the camp sites will be rustic with no water or sewer hook-ups and some sites will have hook-ups available. The ratio of rustic sites versus the sites with hook-ups will be a function of the Health Department depending upon the number of sites that can be provided with water and sewer facilities. A second well is proposed on the site. The size, spacing and location of the camp sites will be determined by the existing terrain. The applicant does not intend to re-grade and flatten the entire site to accommodate uniform camp sites. Mr. Divelbiss distributed two photographs (applicant's exhibit 2) of the site to show the existing terrain of the property. Mr. Divelbiss discussed the operational plans for the proposed campground, which includes seasonal passes or memberships to individuals or families wishing to use the facility during the operating season and specific dates will be booked by advance reservation. The campground will be open for operation from April1't through October 31" each year. In accordance with Section 22.52 of the Zoning Ordinance, which regulates the travel trailer park use, no stays will extend for more than 30 days at a time. Mr. Divelbiss then addressed the criteria as set forth in Section 5F.3 of the Zoning Ordinance that must be met in order to establish an RB-N district, point by point. 1. "The proposed RB-N District is not within any designated growth area identified in the Washington County Comprehensive Pian." Mr. Divelbiss noted that the property is not located within a designated growth area. 2. "The proposed RB-N District has safe and usable road access on a road that meets the standards under the Policv for Determining Adeguacv of Existing Roads....." Mr. Divelbiss referred to comments received from Mr. Mark Stransky of the Washington County Land Development Engineering Department. He stated that the Engineering Department has indicated that the road access is or can be made a safe and usable access for the proposed use. Mr. Divelbiss believes that these issues can be resolved during the site plan process. Mr. Divelbiss stated that the Engineering Department has projected in excess of 25 peak hour trips for the proposed use. Based on information gathered from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, it is estimated that there will be fewer trips with a peak p.m. total of 22 trips, if all 60 camp sites are being utilized at one time. With regard to the sight distance issue when exiting the site to the south, Mr. Divelbiss stated that this would be further discussed and resolved with the Engineering Department. He noted that there is an alternative plan that could deal with this issue by providing a second access point further to the south on the property. 3. "On-site issues relating to sewage disposal, water supply, storm water management, floodplains, etc. can be adequately addressed." Mr. Divelbiss stated that there are two approved perc sites on the property and are shown on the preliminary site plan. The number of sites with water and sewer hook-ups will be determined by the Health Department. 4. "The location of an RB-N District would not be incompatible with existing land uses, cultural or historic resources, or agricultural preservation efforts in the vicinity of the site." Mr. Divelbiss noted that the potential incompatibility is reduced by the fact that the eXisting home on the property is the proposed area for check in and check out office. No new buildings will be constructed along the road where they would be the most visible. Mr. Divelbiss commented that there will not be a large sign erected on the property. No exterior lighting is proposed except a dusk to dawn light on the clubhouse. With regard to compatibility issues, Mr. Divelbiss stated that the applicant is proposing to proVide a fence along the south and east boundaries of the property in the wooded areas where forest is sparse in order to address concerns that campers could wander onto property owned by the hunting club. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Bowen asked what attraction the developer is going to use to attract people to the campground. Mr. Divelbiss noted the site is in a rural area and would be a place to "escape and get away" from the modern day amenities. In addition, Washington County is filled with historic sites, entertainment and eating establishments that campers can visit. Mr. Kerchevai questioned Mr. Divelbiss's opening remarks regarding the previous zoning on the property and the principal permitted uses at that time. Mr. Divelbiss stated his intention was to make the Commission aware of the history and background of the property and the owner's intention when he purchased the property to establish a campground at this site. His second point was to establish compatibility with the surrounding area because the use was a principal permitted use only a few years 57 ago. Mr. K~rcheval asked if the owner made his intentions known at the time of the comprehensive rezoning of the rural area in 2005, when the zoning on his property was changed. Mr. Divelbiss stated that no formal request was made at that time by the owner. Mr. Kercheval asked how the applicant intends to address the road issues with regard to meeting the requirements of the APFO. Mr. Divelbiss stated that with regard to the width of Orchard Ridge Road, the peak hour trips wiil be re-evaluated due to the discrepancy between the Engineering Department and the information from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. If 25 peak hour trips is applicable and the 20-foot width requirement is applicable, the applicant would seek a variance from the requirement through the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mr. Divelbiss expressed his opinion that widening Orchard Ridge Road and overlaying it would "result in unintended consequences". He believes that speeding would become an issue; and, secondly, the road improvements wouid be cost prohibitive for the proposed use. Mr. Kercheval questioned Mr. Divelbiss's comments regarding the Health Department determining the number of rustic camp sites and camp sites with hook-ups. Mr. Divelbiss gave a brief clarification. Mr. Kercheval questioned Staff regarding comments provided by the Hancock Fire Department regarding water for fire suppression. Ms. Baker stated that the applicant has not addressed this issue; therefore, an analysis could not be completed without knowing the applicant's intent. Ms. Keily asked if the applicant has considered the comments provided by the Fire Department with regard to fire suppression and what action will be taken. Mr. Divelbiss stated that he and the applicant will defer to recommendations by the reviewing agencies during the site plan process with regard to this issue. He expressed his opinion that the comments, though valid, are premature. Ms. Keily recommended that site security, litter, noise, etc. be addressed as plans progress. Mr. Divelbiss noted that the owner also lives on this property so these issues will be addressed. Mr. Anikis expressed his concern regarding the sight distance to the right when turning left exiting the property and the safety of travelers. He recommended that limiting the hours for entering and exiting the campground should be considered. Mr. Divelbiss stated that, at this time, there is no prohibition on days or times for campers to leave the site; however, the applicant would be open to the recommendations of the reviewing agencies. Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that the width of the road is a safety issue and . consideration should be given to adjusting the width of the road. Mr. Divelbiss stated that there is an excavation company on Orchard Ridge Road that currently traveis the road frequently with large pieces of equipment. He distributed photographs (applicant's exhibit 3) showing the types of equipment that is currently used by the excavating company that travels Orchard Ridge Road. Mr. Diveibiss reiterated previous comments made regarding the width of the road. Mr. Anikis asked if travel trailers or campers would be permitted to stay on the site during the off-season and how will occupancy of the campground be monitored during the off-season. Mr. Diveibiss reiterated that the applicant owns and resides on the property so he will be there to monitor the property during the off-season. Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that the fire suppression comments from the Fire Department need to be addressed. Mr. Divelbiss reiterated that fire suppression issues wiil be addressed through recommendations of the reviewing agencies during site plan design. Mr. Anikis asked if there wiil be staff at the camp ground trained in emergency medical services. Mr. Divelbiss stated that this issue was not considered, but he believes it is a good Idea. Mr. Anikis discussed water table levels and information that he obtained through the US Geological Surveys. Mr. Kercheval pointed out that the Staff Report and Analysis, with regard to peak hour trips, states, "The County Highway Adequacy Policy states that commercial developments generating between 16 and 25 peak hour trips require a minimum pavement width of 20 feet for ail the road segments within the road network." Public Comment - Supporting Comments Sam Strouth - 405 North Potomac Street. Hagerstown Mr. Strouth stated that he currently owns property across the street from Mr. Walter's business in Hagerstown. He stated that Mr. Waiter is a weil-respected, responsible member of the community, who takes great care of his business property. Mr. Strouth expressed his opinion that Mr. Walter will not let the property deteriorate and would not ailow anything that would detract from the value of his property or neighboring properties. Carol Moats. 9013 Siabtown Road. Hancock Ms. Moats stated that she is in favor of the campground. She expressed her opinion that if safety on the road is a factor, the school bus that she drives wouid not be permitted on the road. She also pointed out that two truck drivers live along this road and they drive tractor trailers on Orchard Ridge Road ail the time. - Opposing Comments Glenn Bond. 11037 Hopeweil Road. Hagerstown (representing the Western Maryland Sportsman's Club) Mr. Bond stated that the Western Maryland Sportsman's Club (WMSC) is opposed to the campground due to safety issues and loss of acreage due to State laws governing safety zones, and the potential for fires from campers. He stated that the WMSC has approximately 650 members, which could potentiaily use Orchard Ridge Road and he would like a traffic study performed beginning the middle of September through the end of January (hunting season). WMSC is concerned about the environmental impact on the surrounding area. Mr. Bond expressed concern regarding stream buffers that run through both the hunting club property and Mr. Walter's property. Mr. Bond stated that the proposed fence does not address safety concerns of the Club. He noted that expansion of the campground is also a concern. 58 George Crowder, 13514 Orchard Ridge Road, Hancock Mr, Crowder presented to Chairman Anikis [for the record] signed petitions from "Citizens Against Orchard Ridge Camp Ground" and a 4-page memo citing the group's objections to the camp ground. Mr. Crowder stated that there are no attractions in the immediate area that would "draw" peopie to the camp ground. He noted that there are currently 4 camp grounds within a 12-mile radius of Orchard Ridge Road (Fort Frederick, Happy Hills, Sonderosa, and 1 located in West Virginia that accommodates travel trailers). Mr. Crowder and Mr. Funk visited all 4 facilities, which they believe are compatible with their respective surrounding areas because they were buffered by game land, farmlands, or large open areas, He noted there are no rural residential developments surrounding the sites. Mr. Crowder stated that all facilities had less than half of their campsites occupied at the time, He discussed amenities available at these campgrounds that would attract campers, Mr, Crowder expressed his opinion that the campground would impact property values and increase taxes, He stated that a traffic count was performed during the past week by the County Engineering Department and distributed copies of the results to the Commission members. Rev, Jeffrey Hawbaker, 14128 Orchard Ridge Road, Hancock Rev. Hawbaker stated that he is the pastor at the church located at 13642 Orchard Ridge Road in Hancock. He expressed concern regarding the safety of his 4 children due to drivers speeding and the road surface conditions on Orchard Ridge Road, He also expressed his opinion that the County does not adequately maintain the road. Rev, Hawbaker expressed concern relative to the increased traffic that the campground would generate. There is currently an average attendance of 85 people on Sundays with 125 active parishioners, Roy Funk, 13719 Orchard Ridge Road, Hancock Mr, Funk expressed concern regarding camping trailers on the steep grade of Orchard Ridge Road. He addressed the adequacy of water in the area and runoff from the campground that could potentially pollute the water supply. Mr, Funk also addressed potential security problems and response times of the local and state police, He pointed out that Orchard Ridge Road is in close proximity to Pennsylvania and West Virginia state lines, where he believes that criminals could disappear very quickly from the area, Daniel Hixon, 13720 Orchard Ridge Road Mr. Hixon discussed the traffic counts performed by the County Land Development Engineering Department. He stated that according to the study, the average traffic count for Orchard Ridge Road is 573.9 cars per day, which is well over the estimates from 2004. ApproXimately 17 new houses have been constructed on Orchard Ridge Road since 2004. Mr. Hixon stated that Happy Hills was started in 1994 with 75 camp sites, and has expanded to more than 200 camp sites currently. He noted that the campground had 533 cars on the previous Saturday, Mr. Hixon stated that two wells are proposed for the site; however, he believes that both wells are in place. The well associated with the proposed campground is 175-deep and pumps at a rate at 25 gallons per minute, which he believes is not sufficient for 60 campsites. Vernon Poffenberger, 14003 Orchard Ridge Road, Hancock Mr. Poffenberger noted that the text of the RB-N district states, "to support businesses that support the agricultural industry/farming community, serve the needs of the rural resident population and provide for recreation/tourism," Mr, Poffenberger asked if the applicant must meet all of these criteria or just one of these criteria. Mr. Anikis stated it must meet any, but not all, of the specified criteria. Elaine Gangloff, 14642 Orchard Ridge Road, Hancock Ms. Gangloff quoted text from the Staff Report prepared in 2007, which states "Section 5F.3 states that the location of an RB-N District cannot be incompatible with existing land uses and it Is the purpose of zoning to establish a baseline of uses in each district to help property owners know what type of uses to expect in their community and to limit compatibility issues. The purpose of the Rural Business - New District is to create commercial opportunities in the rural area to fit in with the rural nature of the community in seeking establishment." She questioned the proposed campground and its compatibility with the surrounding area, The Staff Report also states, "There are going to be some inconsistencies between neighboring uses; however, zoning establishes a baseline," She expressed her opinion that this case involves a change in the baseline; therefore, to change the zoning in order to allow the possibility of more incompatible uses would seem illogical. Darlene Smith, 8238 Millstone Road, Hancock Ms, Smith expressed her concern regarding speeding traffic and the number of vehicles on Orchard Ridge Road, She expressed her opinion that the people using the campgrounds to "have peace and quiet will do so at her expense". Melanie Hixon, 13720 Orchard Ridge Road, Hancock Ms, Hixon discussed the traffic counts for the proposed campground and Happy Hills campground. She expressed her concernS regarding road adequacy issues, fire and emergency response times, water levels and adequacy, the placement of the second access and if it would cross the hunting club's property. Ms. Hixon expressed her opinion that it would be Incompatible to have a campground beside a hunting club and safety concerns regarding this issue. Donna Crider, 13514 Orchard Ridge Road, Hancock Ms. Crider expressed her concernS regarding traffic and safety issues, safety issues relative to wild animals, littering and pollution. She expressed her opinion that the community wants to "keep their peace and quiet". 59 Applicant's Response to Questions and Comments Mr. Divelbiss introduced the applicant, Mr. Harold Walter, Mr. Jay Hamilton, and Mr. Matt Cessna of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, consultant for the applicant. Mr. Divelbiss began his response by showing the audience where the proposed second access would be located. Next, he addressed safety issues relative to the hunting club and stated he does not believe that the camper's would pose any danger to the members of the club and pointed out that the hunting club would pose more possible danger to the campers. With regard to the traffic concerns expressed by Mr. Bond, Mr. Divelbiss pointed out that the club has 650 members, which generates a large amount of traffic; however, they are not responsible for any road improvements to Orchard Ridge Road despite the number of trips generated by this traffic. Next Mr. Divelbiss addressed the issue of expansion. He noted that the RB-N zoning designation that is being requested, if approved, would become the RB-E (Rural Business Existing) zoning. There are limitations in the RB-E zone with regard to changes and expansions of the use (Zoning Ordinance Section 5EA). Depending upon the proposed changes or expansion, re-approval is required. In response to comments regarding the attraction to the area, Mr. Divelbiss pointed out that many comments were made about the mountains, the animals, the peace and quiet. He believes this would be the attraction to the area. Mr. Divelbiss agrees that there are a number of residents in the area; however, he believes that the area is predominantly rural in character. The comparison of buffering between this campground and other campgrounds, Mr. Divelbiss stated he would defer judgment to staff, which determined that the campground is compatible and the buffering meets and exceeds the buffering requirements set forth by the County. Mr. Divelbiss expressed his opinion that the success of the campground is not relevant with regard to zoning. Regarding the amount of traffic on the roadway, Mr. Divelbiss stated that Rev. Hawbaker acknowledged approximately 85 parishioners that attend church on Sundays. However, no one mentioned the traffic generated by the church on Orchard Ridge Road. Mr. Divelbiss agrees that traffic issues are a concern and should be dealt with accordingly keeping in mind that not all 60 campsites would have campers coming and go'ing at one time [as the church does on Sunday mornings]. With regard to water issues, Mr. Divelbiss expressed his opinion "this is not an appropriate issue that should be speculated upon". He believes this is a technical issue that needs to be reviewed by a "defining authority". Mr. Divelbiss addressed the subject of criminals using the property. He reiterated that the business would be owner-operated and safeguards would be utilized. Operational issues and conditions would be noted on the site plan and enforced. Mr. Divelbiss corrected his previous statement that a second well is proposed on the site. He stated that the second well has already been drilled and is in place and pointed out both well locations. In conclusion, Mr. Divelbiss acknowledged that the concerns and desires of the community and neighbors should be recognized. However, he reminded the Commission that Mr. Walter is also a member of the community and deserves the same respect. Mr. Walter wants to protect his rights and to be permitted to use his property responsibly according to the rules and regulations in place. He understands and appreciates that the previous zoning no longer exists on his property, which permitted a campground. Mr. Walter is attempting to be responsive to the concerns raised by his neighbors during his previous attempt in 2007 to rezone the property. He has reduced the number of campsites and has spent more time focusing on water and sewer issues, traffic issues, and operational issues. The Chairman adjourned the rezoning public meeting at 9:00 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS Members discussed a meeting date for a Workshop to discuss issues reiative to the UGA comprehensive rezoning. Members settled on August 16th at 3:00 p.m. Ms. Baker noted that documents were distributed prior to the meeting. The first document was a letter from the Maryland Dept. of Planning regarding Washington County's Agricultural Land Preservation Program and the second document is proposed text amendments to the Comp Plan Priority Preservation Element. Ms. Baker requested Commission members to review the document and submit comments to her by August 30'h. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Reiber made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Bowen. So ordered. Respectfully submitted, h rLtJ~- Ge ge A kls, Chairman 60 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING August 16, 2010 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday, August 16, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Andrew Bowen, and Ex Officio James F. Kerchevai (arrived at 3:30 p.m.). Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Stephen Goodrich, Planner Fred Nugent and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Anikis cailed the meeting to order at 3:15 p.m. DISCUSSIONS Mr. Anikis stated that the purpose of this workshop meeting is to further discuss the issues relative to the proposed text regarding animal husbandry in conjunction with the comprehensive UGA rezoning. He read a portion of the UGA Advisory Committee's minutes from February 12, 2009, in which the Committee reached the following consensus, "The Committee wants to permit existing animal husbandry operations to expand; however, they do not want new animal husbandry operations where none existed before." He also referred to the Committee's minutes of March 5, 2009 in which the Committee reached the foilowing consensus, "The UGA Committee recommends that agricultural uses will not be a permitted use in the ORT and proposed ORI zoning districts; however, existing agricultural uses will be grandfathered in to both zoning districts." Mr. Anikls noted that 3 members of the UGA Committee represented the farming 'community and 2 of those members were present at both referenced meetings. Mr. Anikis stated that the Planning Commission discussed the recommendations of the UGA Committee and foilowed these recommendations when making its decisions regarding agriculture. However, he believes that the Planning Commission broadened the requirements of the agricultural areas. Where the UGA Committee recommended that agricultural/animal husbandry be grandfathered in, the Planning Commission recommended that the existing use should be a principal permitted use so there could be new agricultural activities in the UGA. Following the public information meetings and hearing input from the farming community, the Planning Commission received a letter from the Washington County Farm Bureau stating that during its October 2009 fuil membership meeting, a policy was adopted supporting fuil agricultural rights including animai husbandry in the UGA. Mr. Anikis then asked each member of the Planning Commission to express their opinions and views. Mr. Reiber began by clarifying the amount of acreage in the UGA currently zoned for agriculture and the districts where agriculture would be a principal permitted use. He noted that the proposed zoning in many areas of the UGA where agriculture is currently permitted would be changed to allow residential and commercial uses, thereby depleting the agricuituralland area over time. Mr. Goodrich clarified that during the public information meetings, members of the general public expressed their concerns that new animal husbandry facilities [structures that house animals and/or their waste] would not be permitted and would limit their intentions in the future. He noted that the agricultural zone is being eliminated in the UGA; however, agriculture wiil be a principal permitted use in many of the zones that are proposed to replace the agricultural zone but new animal husbandry facilities would not be permitted. Members discussed various scenarios where animals would be permitted and structures could be considered accessory uses. Mr. Wiley expressed his opinion, based on the letter received from the Washington County Farm Bureau, that the agricultural land on the perimeter of the UGA should be moved outside the UGA boundary. He also expressed his opinion that the Planning Commission is "trying to address the issue too soon, we have not heard from enough people to say we are doing it justice". Mr. Goodrich stated there would be several issues that would need to be addressed including: 1) would there be enough land available for future development and 2) would there be enough water and sewer capacity for development to continue in the future. He also noted that there was a lot of time and discussion during the adoption of the County's Comprehensive Plan when the UGA boundary was adopted. In fact, more land was placed in the boundary than was originaily proposed due to requests by landowners to be included in the UGA. Mr. Bowen expressed his opinion that Mr. Wiley has a logical idea. He asked if the limitations on animal husbandry was the biggest topic of concern during the public meetings or was it the fact that the agricultural zone was being eliminated. Mr. Wiley expressed his perception of the first meeting. He believes that people generaily did not understand the entire concept and they believe that the County is trying to do away with agriculture and put them out of business in the UGA. Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that people were generaily upset over the proposed language dealing with animal husbandry and that new animal husbandry would not be permitted. Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that Staff's last proposal to handle animal husbandry as it is handled today would aileviate the issue. He does not recommend changing the UGA boundary. He believes that there is vaiue in haVing land inside the UGA that has the ability to be developed at a higher level of residential or commercial density. Land that is currently being used for agriculture is a viable use for the good of the community and will be preserved for other development as the market changes over time. 61 Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that "the benefit far outweighs the very infrequent and small a"lount of incompatibility issues that occur." He recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Staff's last proposai to allow agriculture as it is currently regulated in the UGA. Mr. Anikis allowed a few questions and comments from members of the audience that were present at the workshop (Mr. Ron Leggett and Mr. Jerry Ditto). There was a brief discussion regarding the minutes that were referenced at the beginning of the meeting and the members that were present at the UGA meetings on those particular days. Mr. Bowen asked if Mr. Kercheval's proposal to accept Staff's proposed language would be acceptable to the farming community. Mr. Austin Abraham stated that Staff's latest proposal to allow agriculture as it is now would address his concerns. Mr. Goodrich stated that allowing agriculture as a principal permitted use in the replacement zones would make agriculture a permitted use in more areas than currently allowed. Mr. Bowen expressed his opinion that allowing agriculture in more areas is not good planning. Mr. Wiley expressed his opinion that taking the agricultural land out of the UGA would be less complicated than allowing more agriculture in the UGA zones. There was a brief discussion and difference of opinions voiced among members of the Commission reiative to allowing more agricultural uses in the UGA especially animal husbandry. Mr. Bowen expressed his opinion that the document, as currently written, should be the document that goes to public hearing and explain to the public that a different recommendation regarding agricultural uses may be forthcoming. He believes that changing the current document will cause a lot of confusion. Mr. Anikis polled Commission members to determine where each member stands on the issue being addressed. Mr. Bowen and Mr. Wiley do not want to change the document before it goes to public hearing. Mr. Reiber and Mr. Anikis believe the document should be changed prior to public hearing to reflect Staff's newest proposal to treat agriculture as it is currently being treated. There was a brief discussion regarding the time frame for public hearings. There was a brief discussion regarding Section 4.4 of the Zoning Ordinance which states, "Except for 'compliance with distance requirements set forth in ...... and requirements for animal husbandry facilities set forth in Article 2, nothing in this Ordinance shall prohibit the use of land for agricultural purposes or the construction or use of buildings or structures incident to the use for agricultural purposes of the on which said bUildings or structures are located." Mr. Goodrich stated that this section of the Zoning Ordinance would not be changed. There was a brief discussion regarding how the change would affect all areas of the UGA. Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to make changes to the proposed UGA zoning text amendments so that agriculture, as it is currently defined and regulated in the Zoning Ordinance, be included as a permitted use in districts that will replace the agriculture district in the UGA rezoning, the effect being that agriculture will continue to be permitted where and how it is permitted today. Seconded by Mr. Kercheval. The motion passed on a 3-2 vote with Mr. Reiber, Mr. Kerchevai and Mr. Anikis voting "Aye" and Mr. Bowen and Mr. Wiley voting "no". Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that the public needs to be aware of the concerns presented by Mr. Wiley. He believes that this issue needs to be publicized. Mr. Jason Divelbiss expressed his opinion that the Land Use chart will be useful in clarifying and distinguishing the uses permitted in each zoning designation. Mr. Abraham expressed his opinion that Staff should be clear on what is not being changed and that the Zoning Ordinance as written now allows the same uses. Mr. Anikis asked Commission members if they wanted to review the Airport overlay zone to determine if any changes are needed or wanted by the Commission. No discussion or action was taken on this issue. Mr. Thompson began a brief discussion regarding TDRs. Currently, TDRs are not included in the proposed changes; however, Mr. Murray [the County Administrator] has stated that TDRs will be discussed as part of the Water Resources Element. There was a brief discussion regarding the use of TDRs. UPCOMING MEETINGS There was a brief discussion regarding the agenda items for the August 30'h meeting. There will be a joint public hearing with the Board of County Commissioners for the Rosewood PUD and the Water and Sewerage Plan Update. Following a brief discussion, the Commission has decided to begin its regular meeting at 6:00 p.m. with the public hearing following at 7:00 p.m. Public Comment Mr. Ditto thanked the Staff and the Planning Commission for taking the time to reconsider its recommendation on agricultural uses in the UGA. He was discouraged that the Commission did not further discuss the issues at the Airport because he believes there will be "a lot of unintended consequences there". Mr. Ditto pointed out that the AP zone will grant approval or denial authority to the Planning Commission, which is not permitted in any other district except the Historic Preservation overlay zone. Mr. Leggett concurred with Mr. Ditto's comments [on behalf of the Farm Bureau]. He stated that the limitations within the 5-mile radius will affect agriculture. 62 ADJOURNMENT Mr. Reiber made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 5:05 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. So ordered. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~/0~' Ge~;s, Chairman 63 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - August 30, 2010 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, August 30,2010, in the Washington County Court House, Room #1, 95 West Washington Street, Hagerstown. Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Linda (Parrish) Kelly, Drew Bowen, Terry Reiber, Sam Ecker (arrived at 6:53 p.m.) and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval (arrived at 6:07 p.m.). Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Timothy A. Lung, Senior Planners Lisa Kelly and Jill Baker, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 2, 2010 regular meeting as presented. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 2, 2010 Rezoning Pubiic meeting as amended. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. Mr. Kercheval arrived at 6:07 p.m. NEW BUSINESS - MODIFICATIONS Jason Kennedy (SV-10-011) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a modification request to reduce the side yard setback requirement. The property is known as Lot 265B [a duplex lot] on the west side of St. George Circle in the St. James Village North PUD. St. James Village North is a Planned Unit Development that was developed and approved in the 1990's. The Washington County Zoning Ordinance requires that any variation in the approved layout of a PUD requires Planning Commission approval. The applicant is proposing to construct a one-car garage onto his duplex that would be B-feet from the side property line. The minimum requirement is 12-feet from the side iine. The Washington County Land Development Engineering Department has reviewed the appiication and take no exception to it. However, building and grading permits would be required and the appiicant must comply with the requirements set forth in the 2010 Storm Water Management, Grading, Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance. Discussion and Comments: Ms. (Parrish) Kelly asked if any of the neighbors commented on this request. Ms. Kelly stated that one person that owns adjacent property phoned Staff, but did not attend this evening's meeting. Mr. Reiber asked if there are any restrictions in the deed for the property. Ms. Kelly stated that a deed was not provided. Members expressed their concern regarding spacing between the duplexes. Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the modification request contingent upon Staff verifying there are no deed restrictions. Seconded by Ms. (Parrish) Kelly. Unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS - Proposed Comp Plan Amendments for Priority Preservation Element Ms. Baker reminded Planning Commission members that during the August 20d meeting, she briefly discussed proposed text amendments for the Comprehensive Plan's Priority Preservation Element. During this evening's meeting she distributed copies of maps associated with the Priority Preservation areas. Ms. Baker noted that in 2006, legislation was adopted under the Agricultural Stewardship Act, which provides guidance for counties in the State of Maryland to become more diligent in the effective spending of land preservation funds. It is the intent of the Act that counties estabiish goals and priorities for the effective and efficient use of land preservation funding. Staff previously submitted proposed text amendments, which were not approved by the State of Maryland. Two areas of concern cited by the State was the fragmentation of the priority preservation areas and related text. Ms. Baker briefly reviewed the maps with the Commission and changes made to the proposed text. A few comments have been received from members of the Commission with regard to adding language. Ms. Baker reviewed the proposed changes as suggested by Commission members. Discussion and Comments: Ms. (Parrish) Kelly asked if there is a "down-side" to being included in the Priority Preservation area. Ms. Baker stated that the purpose of establishing these areas is to define priorities in our easement spending. She noted that the highlighted areas have been unofficially designated as "targeted areas" for priority funding. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that Staff should proceed with the proposed text amendment as presented this evening [including the recommended changes] as discussed. 64 - Harold Walter - RZ-1 0-003 Ms. Baker presented for review and recommendation the rezoning request for Harold Walter, property located at 13169 Orchard Ridge Road. The request is to apply the RB-N (Rural Business New) overlay zone to an existing EC zoning district. A public meeting was held with the Planning Commission on August 2, 2010 at which time two people spoke in favor of the request and 10 people spoke in opposition of the request. Ms. Baker noted that during the public meeting, two pieces of correspondence were presented from the general public stating their opposition to the request and a petition signed by approximately 230 citizens opposing the request. Additional correspondence from citizens opposing the request have been received by Staff and forwarded to the Planning Commission members prior to this evening's meeting. Ms. Baker briefly summarized the areas of concern relating to the health, safety and compatibility of the request as expressed by the general public. One concern repeated many times was traffic and sight distance issues. Ms. Baker noted that the Land Deveiopment Engineering Department (LDED) reviewed the pians and submitted comments. They noted that a portion of Orchard Ridge Road leading to the proposed site does not meet minimum road width standards for the proposed use. During the public meeting, the applicant acknowledged the comment, and stated that the issue would be addressed during the site plan phase [if the rezoning is approved]. Another comment addressed by the LDED was the issue of sight distance. The applicant submitted an exhibit showing a proposed aiternative access for one-way in and one-way out. Ms. Baker stated that this issue would also be addressed during the site plan phase [if the rezoning is approved]. Ms. Baker stated that one of the Planning Commission members questioned how the sight distance requirements for the driveway were previously met. She has discussed this issue with the LDED and was told that the property was approved as a subdivision in 2003. At that time, sight distance requirements were different for residential versus commercial uses. Ms. Baker addressed the traffic counts that were received from opponents of the request during the public rezoning meeting. The counts were performed by the County's Engineering Department at the request of a private citizen. An analysis has not been 'performed on the traffic counts because certain procedures must be followed during a traffic analysis study. Ms. Baker explained some of the procedures that would be used in performing a traffic analysis study and also what information can be extrapolated from the traffic counts that were taken. The next issue to be addressed was fire suppression. The applicant noted that a swimming pool is proposed on the site that could help with fire suppression efforts. The applicant also noted that he would work with the fire department for alternatives. The public voiced concern regarding proximity to the existing hunt club, vagrancy and crime. Ms. Baker has researched some of the firearm laws In the State of Maryland pertaining to distances from other properties. According to Maryland State law, "It Is unlawful to hunt, trap or shoot wildlife within 150-yards of an occupied structure or camp without permission of the owner or occupant". She used a map to demonstrate the impacts of hunting on neighboring properties. With regard to vagrancy, Ms. Baker noted that the Zoning Ordinance sets limitations on the length of stays at a campground. Violations on limitations requirements would be complaint driven. Ms. Baker pointed out that any new development has the potential to encourage illegal activity. The Sheriffs Department did not provide any comments on the proposed use. Water and waste water concerns were also discussed during the public rezoning meeting. Ms. Baker stated that well permits are issued by the County Health Department and are also evaluated by the Maryland Water Resources Administration if more than 10 wells are proposed on the same parcel of land. Staff depends on the expertise of these agencies to determine if there is sufficient water quality and quantity in the aquifer and surrounding areas. Septic systems are also reviewed by the County Health Department. According to the applicant, two septic reserve areas have been perc tested and approved by the Health Department. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Reiber noted that the proposed use would be seasonal. With regard to the road width issue, he expressed his opinion that it is not fair to compare a skilled professional driver (such as a school bus driver) with drivers who would be pulling travel trailers. Mr. Reiber expressed concern for the proposed campground site; however, he believes that the road issues would be addressed at the appropriate time. Ms. Baker noted that traffic analyses do not consider the type of vehicles that are us'lng the roads. Ms. (Parrish) Kelly expressed her opinion that the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area. She expressed her opinion that it is the responsibility of the hunt club to protect the neighbors, which would allow the neighbors to use their property for the uses permitted. Mr. Anikis expressed his concern with the applicant's comment made during the public rezoning meeting that he would ask the Board of Appeals to waive the widening requirement for Orchard Ridge Road because it is a matter of public safety. He also expressed his concern for the neighbors directly across from the entrance and traffic related issues for entering and exiting the proposed site. He believes that a second access point would help to alleviate part of the problem. Mr. Anikis pointed out that the hunt club has more than 600 members with a hunting season that runs from September through April, which would generate more traffic than 40 campground sites. He also pointed out that rifle season for hunting does not begin until November, at which time the campground would be closed. Mr. Anikis recommended mediation between the applicant and neighboring property owners. Mr. Thompson noted that the public record will remain open until the Board of County Commissioners holds its public hearing. All comments made by the Planning Commission members will be forwarded to the BOCC. 65 Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend approval of the zoning request to the Board of County Commissioners. Seconded by Ms. (Parrish) Kelly. Comment before the Vote: Mr. Bowen strongly recommends that the applicant work with the neighboring property owners to resolve the related issues. His recommendation is based on compiiance with MOE requirements for testing of wells in and around the proposed site and he believes that the neighbor's cooperation will be needed. Vote: The motion passed with Mr. Reiber, Mr. Bowen and Ms. (Parrish) Kelly voting "Aye" and Mr. Kercheval abstained. Mr. Ecker arrived at 6:53 p.m. - Election of Officers Mr. Ecker nominated Mr. Anikis to serve as Chairman. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. Mr. Anikis nominated Mr. Reiber to serve as Vice-Chairman. Seconded by Ms. (Parrish) Kelly. Unanimously approved. ADJOURNMENT BEFORE THE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING Mr. Reiber made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 6:55 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Bowen. So ordered. AFTER THE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Anikis reconvened the regular meeting of the Planning Commission following the Joint Public Hearing with the Board of County Commissioners at 8:47 p.m. - RZ-10-004 - Rosewood PUD Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the change to the Rosewood PUO as requested. Seconded by Ms. (Parrish) Kelly. The motion passed with Mr. Reiber, Mr. Bowen, Mr. Ecker, Ms. (Parrish) Kelly voting "Aye" and Mr. Kercheval abstained. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Bowen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:48 p.m. Seconded by Ms. (Parrish) Kelly. So ordered. Respectfully submitted, 66 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING October 18, 2010 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday, October 18, 2010 at 3:00 p.m. in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Andrew Bowen, and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Pianners Stephen Goodrich and Timothy Lung, Planner Fred Nugent and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Anikis called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. without a quorum present. DISCUSSIONS Mr. Anikis announced that the purpose of the Workshop was to review comments received during two joint public hearings with the Board of County Commissioners regarding the comprehensive rezoning of the Urban Grow1h Area. He stated that two major issues were discussed during the public hearings, one was the differences between the HI-1 zoning and the proposed HC zoning and the impact this change would have on property values and uses currently existing on properties to be changed. The second major issue was the Airport Hazardous Wildlife zone. Mr. Goodrich distributed a list of discussion points that were brought to the attention of Commission members during the public hearings. He noted that obvious mistakes in property assignments were made on some properties and staff is in the process of correcting those mistakes. Mr. Goodrich stated that staff has tried not to create non-conforming uses when assigning new zoning designations; however, if zoning is based on the current uses on every piece of property, then zoning losses its effectiveness as a planning tool for the future. Mr. Kercheval expressed his concern with regard to the number of properties that would have non-conforming uses If the zoning is phanged. He believes that If a business use has been established on a property for quite awhile, the zoning should fit the use currently on the property. Mr. Goodrich noted that more than 20 formal requests for a change in zoning have been received since the public hearings and more are anticipated. Mr. Anikis began a discussion regarding the proposed elimination of the HI-1 zoning classification. He noted that on page 244 of the County's 2002 Comprehensive Plan, a new commercial district called Highway Commercial was recommended and that the district would be located along highway interchange areas that are devoted to commercial development. This district would replace the Highway Interchange 1 zoning classification. Mr. Anikis stated that in reviewing his notes taken during the adoption of the County's Comp Plan In 2002, he could not find any discussions regarding the replacement of the HI-1 zoning with the HC zoning. He also noted that he could not find any discussions on this subject with the UGA Advisory Committee. Mr. Goodrich stated that Staff did not discuss this issue with the UGAAC because its guidance is taken from the Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the HI-1 zoning designation allows a wide variety of uses; however, there can be conflicts between the industrial and commercial uses allowed in this district. Mr. Anikls questioned Staff "what would developer's lose" If the proposed HC zoning classification is adopted and the HI-1 zoning is eliminated. Mr. Goodrich briefly explained the differences between the HI-1 and the proposed HC zoning districts. He stated that the Industrial Restricted (IR) uses (i.e. light manufacturing) have been eliminated from the HC zone; however, the Office, Research and Technology (ORT) uses have been added to the HC zone. Commission members discussed the concerns expressed by property owners at the public hearings and the issue of flexibility in the HI-1 zone that is not available in the proposed HC zone. Mr. Kercheval favors a more flexible highway zone. Mr. Bowen concurred with Mr. Kercheval and he believes that the County is "taking too big a step in gelling away from the HI-1 zone" to a zone that is less flexible. He is in favor of reinstating the HI-1 zone on all properties currently proposed for the HC zone [if they were previously zoned HI-1]. Mr. Bowen recommends that the design standards specified In the proposed HC zone be added to the HI-1 zone. Mr. Kercheval recommends establishing the HI (Highway Interchange) zone, reinstating the IR uses, and adding the Design Standards (as suggested by Mr. Bowen). There was a brief discussion regarding Staff's concerns with the HI-1 zoning district. Staff noted that it was concerned with the appearance of properties around the Interchanges and also the mixture of traffic at the interchanges from industrial, commercial and employment uses. Mr. Goodrich noted that when the IR uses were eliminated from the proposed HC zone, more land was zoned IR in other places around the UGA. He then referred Commission members to charts he distributed at the beginning of the meeting comparing existing zoning and acreages to proposed zoning and acreages. Commission members briefiy discussed the charts and comparisons. Consensus of the members present: Eliminate the proposed HC zone, reinstate the HI-1 zone; reinstate the IR uses; keep the ORT uses In the HI-1 zone; put the HI-1 zone back on the parcels that were prevlousiy zoned HI-1 [with the possible exception in some areas after further study]; change the name of the zone to HI (Highway Interchange); and add the Design Standards. 67 Citizen Comments: Mr. Gerald Ditto was present at the Workshop and offered the following comments: "I am discouraged at the number of Planning Commission members here today making these decisions." He also expressed his disappointment that members are not considering the use of a TDR program. Members continued their review of the topics discussed during the public hearings. There was a brief discussion regarding the ability of infrastructure to handle increased density (schools, road, and water). Mr. Kerchevai expressed his opinion that the comments made with regard to recycling were very technical in nature and shouid be addressed by a meeting with the individuai who spoke at the hearing (a member of the Advisory Board). He expressed concern with regard to proposed ianguage dealing with outside storage of materials and the creation of non-conforming uses. Mr. Kercheval questioned the proposed text to allow churches in the Business General (BG) zoning district. Mr. Goodrich stated that the "functionally similar" language was added to the Special Exception language in the BG district. This would allow the Board of Appeals to allow a church in the BG zoning district. Mr. Thompson stated that the BL zoning district would also allow churches as a Special Exception use. There was a brief discussion by members to allow churches as a principal permitted use in the BG zone. This issue will be discussed at a later time when a quorum is present. Mr. Kercheval began a discussion regarding cemeteries. Mr. Goodrich stated that cemeteries are not a permitted use in any zoning district except the old Agricultural zone; however, cemeteries are an accessory use when operated in conjunction with a funeral home or a church. Cemeteries are special exception uses in the Environment Conservation (EG), Preservation (P), Rural Village (RV) and Agricultural Rural (AR) zoning district. Mr. Goodrich stated that the stand-alone cemeteries are located in the proposed HC (Highway Commercial) zone. Mr. Kercheval noted during the public hearings that Mr. Fred Frederick, of Frederick, Seibert & Associates discussed a nursing facility that would not be allowed to operate in the PI (Planned Industrial) zone. Mr. Goodrich stated that the nursing facility could make a formal request for a change in their proposed zoning that will be reviewed after the comment period has closed. Mr. Kercheval noted that a comment was made during the public hearings regarding the functionally similar language being added to more zoning district. Mr. Goodrich believes that the functionally similar language was included in all zoning districts. A comment was also made during the hearings regarding no drive-thrus or restaurants in the PI zoning district. Mr. Goodrich stated that the PI district restricts them to provide services for employees of the industrial uses in the district. Staff believes that drive-thru restaurants would draw traffic from other areas. Commission members began a discussion regarding property located at the corner of Showalter Road and US Route 11 (Colonial Restaurant). This property is currently zoned HI-1 and proposed to be changed to BL. Consensus of the members present: This property should be zoned HI-1. Mr. Anikis began a discussion regarding issues dealing with the Airport and the Hazardous Wildlife Attractant zone being proposed. He noted that a minority of the UGA Advisory Committee supported the establishment of a Wildlife Advisory Committee to evaluate issues related to hazardous wildlife at the airport. He reminded members that the FAA requires airports to perform a Wildlife Mitigation Program. Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that the Hagerstown Regional Airport should establish a Committee and that the Planning Commission should recommend that the BOCC direct the Airport Director to create this committee. Mr. Anikis stated that he has read the Part 139 - Airport Certification. He noted that the circular "requires airports to consider wildlife attractants within 10,000 feet of the airport" and it recommends that consideration should be given to areas within a 5 statute mile radius. Mr. Anikis noted that airports with no passenger flights are not required to have a wildlife mitigation plan. He stated that Part 139 also states, "These requirements vary depending upon the size of the airport and the types of flights available. The regulation, however, does allow FAA to issue certain exemptions to airports that serve few passengers yearly and for which some requirements might create a financial hardship." He expressed his opinion that some deviations from the requirements couid be requested. Mr. Bowen expressed his opinion that a committee should be formed to evaluate these issues and to abandon the five mile radius. He believes that the Airport Clear zone and Airport Overlay zone should be maintained. Mr. Kercheval expressed his concern for the properties adjacent to the airport property. He believes that there should be some review or some guidelines that should be followed. The Commission discussed the Airport Hazardous Wildlife Attractant zone and changing the five mile radius. There was also a brief discussion regarding the formation of an advisory committee and guidelines. Consensus of the members present: Eliminate the five mile radius requirement and substitute the Airport Overlay zone as the area that would require development review by the Airport Director or an advisory committee, if guidelines exist for the management of hazardous wildlife. The Commission began a discussion regarding Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that language should be added to the proposed text that states if a TDR program is established [within a specified number of years] the current zoning that exists prior to the proposed change is what should be used to determine property density. He briefly explained his concept. Staff discussed the problems they believe would be caused by implementing a TDR program and "going back in time" to determine a property owner's density. Mr. Bowen expressed his opinion that a TDR program should be implemented. It was suggested that the UGA rezoning should not be adopted until a TDR program is implemented. 68 Mr. Kerchev,,1 asked If language could be added to the proposed text to allow amendments or appeals to be filed for 6 months following the final adoption. This would only apply to areas where a mistake may have been made during the process. Mr. Thompson stated he would check on this issue. Mr. Anikis voiced his opinion that personalized letters should be sent to property owners when the final zoning is adopted. The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:10 p.m. 69 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING October 25,2010 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, October 25, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown, Maryiand. Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, and Andrew Bowen. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Pianners Stephen T. Goodrich and Timothy A. Lung, Senior Planner Jili Baker, Planner Fred Nugent, GIS Technician Meghan Hammond and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. OLD BUSINESS - Water and Sewerage Plan Update Mr. Lung presented for review and recommendation the Water and Sewerage Plan update. A joint public hearing of the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners was held on August 30, 2010. No public testimony was heard at the joint public hearing; however, comments from the Maryland Department of the Environment and Planning Commission Chairman George Anikis were heard at the hearing. Mr. Lung stated that he addressed several of these comments in his Staff Report; however, some of the submitted comments [in Staff's opinion] do not warrant modification of the text at this time. He briefly reviewed the changes that have been made since the public hearing. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Reiber expressed his concern with regard to the agreement between the Towns of Boonsboro and Keedysville and the State of Maryland. Mr. Lung stated that the Water Division of MDE requested clarification regarding the jurisdiction responsibie for the maintenance of the water system shared by the two Towns and that this issue has not been addressed. He noted that a representative from MDE was present at the public hearing; however, he did not make any comments at that time. Mr. Anikis believes that the Health Department does not adequately address issues relative to septic systems and wells on their website, such as how often homeowners should have their septic system pumped to keep it viable, what high nitrate levels in water means and why the water should be tested, etc.... Mr. Lung stated that he would discuss this with the Health Department. Motion and vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to recommend approval of the Water and Sewerage Plan update to the Board of County Commissioners. This action was based on a determination that the Plan is consistent with the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Reiber made a motion to adjourn the regular meeting of the Planning Commission at 4:13 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. So ordered. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~/LL- Geg~S, Chairman 70 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING October 25,2010 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday, October 25, 2010 at 4:00 p.m. in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Terry Reiber, Andrew Bowen, and Clint Wiley. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planners Stephen Goodrich and Timothy Lung, Senior Planner Jill Baker, Planner Fred Nugent, GIS Technician Meghan Hammond, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CAll TO ORDER Chairman Anikis called the meeting to order at 4:13 p.m. following the Regular Planning Commission meeting. DISCUSSIONS The Commission began with discussions regarding comments heard during the public hearings. Mr. Wiley stated that he has received numerous phone calls relative to the Airport Hazardous Wildlife Attractant zone and the elimination of the HI-1 zone. Mr. Reiber stated that the majority of concerns from citizens focused on the elimination of the HI-1 zone. He expressed concern with regard to changing the names of zoning designations and the effect on property values. Mr. Reiber was absent during the last workshop and expressed his support for keeping the HI-1 zone as discussed. Mr. Bowen stated that he has talked to a certified appraiser with regard to non-conforming uses with regard to property values. The appraiser told Mr. Bowen that, in general, it could have an affect on the property values if future expansions are proposed. Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends keeping the HI-1 zoning designation. The Commission discussed the Airport Hazardous Wildlife Attractant Management District. Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that the Hagerstown Regional Airport is a great economic tool and he believes there needs to be "harmony" between the Airport, wildlife and agricultural uses. He believes that the proposed five mile radius is too broad of an area and that the proposed Airport Overlay zone boundary is not enough protection from hazardous wildlife. Mr. Reiber believes there needs to be a compromise to address safety concerns as well as agricultural uses. He recommends a 10,000-foot boundary. Mr. Wiley expressed his opinion that the Planning Commission's original concern was the Federal funds that have been received for the Airport. He believes that the County Commissioners need to determine if funding is at risk and they need to set the appropriate guidelines with regard to the Airport. Mr. Anikis stressed that the Airport Circular "requires consideration of wildlife attractants within 10,000 feet of the Airport". He agrees with Mr. Reiber that the boundary should be extended to 10,000-feet. Mr. Bowen expressed his opinion that the Airport should not be given special consideration within zoning to comment on plans. Mr. Goodrich stated, for the record, that a copy of the Airport Manager's letter submitted as part of the pubiic comment was distributed to Planning Commission members prior to this meeting. This letter was received by the Planning Department on Friday, October 22, 2010. Mr. Anikis noted that the letter from the Airport states there is a Wildlife Mitigation Plan and requested that a copy be obtained for the Planning Commission. Mr. Goodrich believes that the Plan applies only to land owned by the Airport and is not applicable to private property around the Airport. Consensus: The Pianning Commission recommends the iimits of the Hazardous Wildlife Attractant Management District to be 10,000-feet from and parallel to both sides of the centerline of runway 9/27 and a distance of 10,000-feet from and perpendicular to the ends of runway 9/27 at the Hagerstown Regional Airport. Mr. Anikis began a discussion with regard to Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). Discussions were held during the last workshop meeting and it was suggested that the UGA rezoning should not be adopted until a TDR program has been implemented by the BOCC. Mr. Bowen expressed his opinion that a TDR program should be discussed and a final decision made by the BOCC because this was an issue that was brought up quite often during the public hearings. Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that the UGA rezoning should not be stalled until a TDR program is implemented. Ms. Kelly expressed her opinion that the Planning Commission should make a recommendation to support TDRs and that the BOCC should discuss a TDR program. However, she does not believe that the UGA rezoning should be tied together with the adoption of a TDR program. Mr. Wiley expressed his opinion that a TDR program should be considered and he concurs with Mr. Bowen that the UGA program should not be adopted until a TDR program is considered. He believes that the additional time needed wouid be worthwhile and noted that citizens commented during the hearing that this rezoning process was being "rushed". Commission members and Staff discussed the possibility of adopting the text and map amendments separately. 71 Mr. Thompson stated that Mr. Murray, the County Administrator, has indicated that TDRs might be discussed in conjunction with the Water Resources Element (WRE). He beiieves that a TDR program would be very limited based on calculations to provide water and sewer for each area. Mr. Murray has been researching the transfer of loading purchases, which he would be willing to discuss with the Planning Commission at another workshop. Mr. Anikis began a discussion about a TDR program that would identify sending areas. He gave an example and explained his idea further. Staff tried to explain the issues that could arise from developing a program without all components in place. Commission members and Staff discussed the process that would be necessary to implement a TDR program. Members discussed deiaying the adoption of the proposed UGA zoning until a TDR program is implemented. Questions were raised how this would affect the development community or how it would affect people trying to sell land. Mr. Jason Divelbiss was present at the meeting. He expressed his opinion that delaying the adoption of the zoning would affect the development community and cited an example for Commission and Staff. Staff began the next discussion with a brief summary of all comments received during the public review comment period. Approximately 170 letters and/or e-maiiswerereceivedduringthecommentperiod.1t was decided that all of this correspondence would be scanned and put on a CD for Commission members. Mr. Nugent distributed a table, which showed the number of contacts received and responded to by the Planning Department staff since the public hearings. The table also showed the number of people opposed to the proposed changes, concerns relative to water and sewer issues, etc. The Planning Commission briefly reviewed the chart. The next item for discussion was the proposed change back to the HI-1 zoning designation. Staff has begun to review all properties that are currently in the HI-1 zone and are requesting that the HI-1 zoning designation be left on their properties. Staff has re-evaluated the zoning map to determine if all properties should retain their original HI-1 zoning or if a zoning change would be more appropriate. Ms. Baker began a review of areas that Staff studied with regard to the HI-1 zoning. Ms. Hammond - displayed a GIS map to assist with the discussions. The first property is located at the Airport near State Line. The property is currently zoned HI-1. The portion of property located to the west of 1-81 is proposed for HC (Highway Commercial) and RT (Residential Transitional) zoning. After re-evaluation of this portion of the property, Staff is recommending the HI (Highway Interchange) zoning. On the east side of 1-81 [location of Citicorp and its day care facility], the proposed zoning is ORT. Ms. Baker noted that this area is an office type area and the current uses would be permitted in the ORT zone. However, Staff is not opposed to the HI zoning on this property. There are several properties in this area, which are proposed for the ORI zoning designation [currently zoned HI-1]. However, several property owners have requested the HI zoning and Staff is recommending the HI zoning on these properties. There were no objections from the Planning Commission members on Staff's recommendation. The next site is located in the area of Showalter Road, 1-81 and Maugans Avenue. This area is currently zoned HI-1. Staff is recommending that the area be zoned HI with the exception of the Maugansville Elementary Schooi property, which should have a residential zoning designation. The Planning Commission has no objection. The next site is a small triangular area close to Martin's Elevator. Staff believes this property should be zoned IG (Industrial General) because the HI zoning would make the use non-conforming. The next site is located along Salem Avenue [west of 1-81]. These properties are currently zoned HI-1; proposed zoning is BG. After receiving several comments and reviewing the area, Staff is recommending the HI zoning with the exception of a small area currently zoned HI-1, which has been annexed by the City of Hagerstown. Staff is recommending that this area [located at the back of Hager's Crossing] be zoned RT. The Planning Commission has no objection. The area to the west of 1-81 at US Route 40 and inciuding the area of Cedar Lawn cemetery, Staff is recommending the HI-1 zone. The next site is located at the intersection of US Route 40 and Western Maryland Parkway (First Data and Parkway Neurosciences) Staff believes that this area is intended to be an office park and not a commercial retail area. Therefore, Staff is recommending the ORT zoning district. The Planning Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation. [Mr. Bowen left the meeting at 5:55 p.m.] The next area reviewed is located at Huyetts Crossroads and MD Route 63. Ms. Baker noted that the area around the National Pike should be zoned BG (Business General). Several property owners have made comments that the area is inappropriately zoned (HI-1) for the businesses that exist. Staff believes that a mistake was made in the zoning and is recommending a commercial zoning based on the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. The area includes several businesses such as Resley Tire Company, a gas station, Del-Mar hotel, a liquor store, etc. The Planning Commission had no objections. Moving south from the previous site, the Commission reviewed the Newgate/Hunter's Green Business Parks and west of MD Route 63. Staff is recommending the HI-1 zoning designation. The next site begins at the bottom portion of the Hunter's Green Industrial Park and runs along 1-81. The proposed zoning is the ORI (Office, Research and Industry) zone. There has been a request from the Bowman Group for the HI-1 zone on this property. Access to these parcels is via inadequate roadways. There was a brief discussion regarding the HI-1 zone and improvements to the roadways that wouid be necessary to develop the property. The Planning Commission recommends the HI-1 zone. 72 The next property is south of US Route 11 at the Homewood Nursing Home. There are two areas [hatched area and red area]. The hatched area is proposed for HI-1 zoning [the nursing home] and the red area is proposed for PI (Planned Industrial) zoning. The Planning Commission concurs with Staff's recommendation. The next site is east of 1-81 and inciudes the Kohl's and Target shopping areas. Staff is proposing PB (Planned Business) and BG (Business General) zones using Cole Road as a dividing line. Currently, the HI-1 zoning is splitting parcels in this area. The BG zone would allow the existing shopping facilities and the existing hotels would be permitted in the PB zone. The Planning Commission has no objections to Staff's recommendation. Moving toward the Williamsport area where 1-81 comes into Washington County, the Commission reviewed the area southeast of 1-81. Staff is proposing that the properties located north of Spielman Road be zoned HI; properties north of the railroad [Gower's Feed Mill] be zoned HI; and properties south of the railroad be zoned ORI. The Planning Commission has no objections to Staff's recommendations. The Staff recommends the HI zoning for the Green Lawn Cemetery. The Planning Commission concurs. The next area to be reviewed is located in the area of Maryland Route 65 (north/south) with Downsville Pike to the left. The area encompasses East Oak Ridge Drive. Staff was recommending the IR zone for this area; however, since the Planning Commission has recommended retaining the HI zoning, Staff is now recommending the HI zone. By keeping the HI zoning in this area, it would address several formal requests received. There are two exceptions to Staff's recommendation; the first is a small area currently zoned HI-1, which is located north of Rench Road and south of the proposed relocation of Rench Road. A proposal from the property owner has been received for an apartment complex. Staff is recommending the RM zoning district. The next exception is the Review and Herald Publishing Company. They are requesting the HI zoning district on property currently zoned HI-2. The Planning Commission has no objections to Staff's recommendations. Ms. Baker noted that the owners of Clean Rock have requested the IR zoning, which Staff is recommending for this property. The Planning Commission has no objection. The next property is located at the 632 Venture Business Park (Health at Work location). Staff is recommending the HI zone. The Planning Commission has no objection. The next area to be reviewed is located at the intersection of Dual Highway and 1-70 interchange. The areas north and south Staff are recommending for the HI zone. The one exception is a smali area currently zoned HI-1, which follows a flood plain and splits a property boundary. Therefore, this area Staff is proposing the RM zoning. The Planning Commission has no objections to Staff's recommendations. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Anikis adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ I~c;, Geo\Jftikt, Chairman 73 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING November 1, 2010 The Washington County Planning Commission held its reguiar meeting on Monday, November 1,2010 at 7:00 p.m. in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Andrew Bowen, Linda (Parrish) Kelly, 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, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. NEW BUSINESS - MODIFICATIONS Griffith Farms LLC (SV-10-012) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a modification request for Griffith Farms LLC, which is proposing a 40 lot single-fam ily subdivision located along the southwest side of Monroe Road near Boonsboro. The property is currently zoned Agricultural (Rural). The developer is proposing to remove a short cul-de-sac and replace It with two panhandle lots [each panhandle would be 131 feet in length] as requested by the Washington County Land Engineering Department. The Subdivision Ordinance . requirements set forth in Section 405.11.G.2 allows four panhandles per development; however, per the Engineering Department's recommendation, this would create six panhandle lots. The Engineering Department does not believe that building the cul-de-sac, which would be maintained by the County, would be cost effective. Also, they commented that Lots 34 and 37 should each have their own driveway and should not share a driveway with Lots 35 and 36. Discussion: There was a brief discussion regarding the placement of the driveways and interference with the septic fields for each lot. Ms. Kelly pointed out each septic field on the plat provided by the consultant and stated that there could be other configurations. Mr. Schreiber of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, the consultant, stated that the developer would prefer to have one driveway serving all four lots [to provide a street appearance]. He suggested that Lots 34 and 35 share a common driveway along the property line as well as Lots 36 and 37. He noted that the septic areas could be moved if needed. Ms. Kelly noted that the plat was reviewed by Emergency Services and comments were received from the Director Kevin Lewis. Emergency Services expressed concern regarding the length of the panhandles and the width of the driveways. Mr. Lewis stated that there should be a minimum of 20-feet of unobstructed width with a 13-foot vertical clearance for access to the lots. Mr. Reiber asked if there would be a deeded right-of-way for the common entrance. Mr. Schreiber stated that a preliminary draft of the easements has been prepared. Mr. Reiber expressed his concern with regard to adequate access for emergency service vehicles to each property. He questioned the deviation from County requirements for a cul-de-sac with the replacement of panhandles. Mr. Kercheval expressed his opinion that the maintenance of a small public road for four lots would not be cost effective for the County. Mr. Ecker suggested that the two driveways be placed side by side in order to establish the 25 foot width recommended for emergency service vehicles. Mr. Bowen stated he has no objection to the panhandles; however, he understands Mr. Reiber's concerns with regard to access for emergency services. Mr. Kerchevai stated that he has no objection to the proposed panhandles because he believes it would be better for the County [without maintenance of a cul-de-sac]. He expressed his concern with regard to the development being served by well and septic when it is located adjacent to the Town of Boonsboro's sewer plant where health safety issues have been a concern in the area and other residents have been required to acquire public water and sewer. Mr. Schreiber noted there is a problem with annexation into the Town of Boonsboro. Mr. Lung stated that this property is located within the County's designated growth area and is zoned Agriculture [not Agricultural (Rural) as noted in the application]. He noted that the Town of Boonsboro modified its Comprehensive Plan and moved the property outside of its designated growth area. The Town of Boonsboro has reviewed the proposed development and sent comments to Staff stating that the Town is not interested in annexing the property and providing water and sewer services to it. Therefore, the proposed development must be served by well and septic. Ms. (Parrish) Kelly expressed her concern with regard to the combined length of the panhandle and driveway serving the lots and turn around areas for emergency vehicles. Ms. Kelly stated that Emergency Services indicated that if the travel distance is in excess of 300-feet in length, a turn around would be requested to allow for better ingress and egress. There was a brief discussion regarding the design of a turn around area for emergency vehicles and various options that the developer would be able to incorporate in his plans. 74 Motion and Vote: Mr. Reiber made a motion to approve the modification as requested contingent upon the panhandles meeting the standards set forth by Emergency Services for adequate ingress and egress [especially for Lots 35 and 36]. Seconded by Ms. (Parrish) Kelly. Unanimously approved. • Diakon Lutheran Social Ministries (SV-10-013) Mr. Lung presented for review and approvai a modification request from Subdivision Ordinance Section 405.11.B, which requires that all new lots have a minimum of 25-feet public road frontage. Diakon Lutheran Ministries owns approximately 222-acres of property located along the northeast side of Medical Campus Road, which is currently zoned RS - Residential Suburban. The applicant is proposing to subdivide 50-acres from the 222-acre tract to retain with their existing holdings (a retirement community). Diakon is currently negotiating the sale of the remaining acreage with the Hagerstown-Washington County Industrial Foundation (CHIEF). Mr. Lung explained that the 222-acre parcel currently has only 25 feet of public road frontage from Medical Campus Road that will be retained with the 50-acre tract. There is a recorded easement for the extension of Yale Drive into the remaining lands. Public road frontage to the remaining lands is proposed in the future. Mr. Lung stated that the Washington County Land Development Engineering Department and Planning Department staffs have no objection to the modification at this lime. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Thompson noted that Mr. Kroboth of the Washington County Department of Public Works has been working on plans to extend road frontage to the remaining lands at possibly two locations, Hagerstown Community College and Varsity Lane in the Rosewood PUD. There was a brief discussion regarding the proposed plans for road frontage. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the modification request as presented. Seconded by Mr. Wiley. Unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Monocacy Ringgold Carroll Power Line Conversion Project Mr. Thompson presented information regarding the Monocacy Ringgold Carroll transmission line that runs through Frederick, Washington and Carroll counties. Under Section 4.8 of the Zoning Ordinance, overhead electric transmission lines of 69.0 kv or more shall be submitted, before beginning construction, to the Planning Commission for review. He noted that an application has been fiied to increase the transmission line from 138 kv to 230 kv. Single metal poles will be used, which are approximately 28-feet higher that the current wooden structures. A schedule for review of the application before the Public Services Commission will begin on February 4, 2011 and hearings will be held March 22 nd thru 25th in each of the three counties. Comments and Discussion: Mr. Anikis asked if the taller poles would have a negative impact on the historic structures within the viewshed of the transmission lines. Mr. Thompson stated that staff indicated the historic structures within a % mile radius of the transmission line path. Ms. (Parrish) Kelly expressed concern regarding any developments in the area and the radiation levels the lines would produce. No formal action is required and the Commission did not see a reason to submit further comments. Staff will continued to track in the event something changes. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Bowen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:48 p.m. Seconded by Mr. Reiber. So ordered. Respectfully submitted, ~ Geot:;:;!;, ChairmanILL,' 75 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING November 1, 2010 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday, November 1, 2010 in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Andrew Bowen, Linda (Parrish) Kelly, Sam Ecker and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Stephen Goodrich, Senior Planner Jill Baker and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:48 p.m. DISCUSSIONS Mr. Goodrich began the meeting by presenting additional information as requested with regard to the Airport Hazardous Wildlife Management zone. He distributed copies of the Airport's current Wildlife Hazard Management Plan. Mr. Goodrich briefiy summarized the Plan for Commission members. He noted that an assessment was performed in September 2010, which is currently under review by the FAA and could warrant changes to the current Plan. There are two parts to implementing the Plan - the first is to eliminate habitat for animals at the Airport and the second part is to respond immediately to wildlife spotted on the Airport property. Permits [with very specific limitations] are required from the State and Federal governments to deal with wildlife. The Plan details the training of personnel, supplies that should be kept on hand to deal with wildlife, equipment to maintain vegetation around the Airport, vehicles and weapons to be used. The Plan also requires a periodic evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the Plan and the criteria to be used during the evaluation. Mr. Goodrich reiterated that in the proposed - amendments to the AP district, only development that requires permits would be reviewed by the Airport Director. Mr. Goodrich distributed a compact disc to each Commission member that contained copies of all public comment that was received following the public hearings. Also included on the disc is the map indicating ali sites of specific zoning requests. Mr. Goodrich stated that the Highway Interchange 1 (HI-1) zoning district was proposed to be changed to Highway Commercial (HC) as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan. The permitted industrial uses were proposed to be removed and Office, Research and Technology (ORT) uses as well as improved design gUidelines were proposed to be added. All currently zoned HI-1 properties would be assigned a new zoning category. Following the public hearings, the Planning Commission [by consensus] decided to amend the HI-1 zoning designation and incorporate the following: change the name to Highway Interchange, retain the Industrial Restricted (IR) uses, incorporate the ORT uses as proposed, and incorporate the improved Design Guidelines as proposed. Ms. Baker began a review of the properties currently zoned HI-1. During the previous meeting, the Commission agreed by consensus that all of the properties proposed to be changed from HI-1 to a different zoning category should revert back to the HI-1 zone. Ms. Baker noted that there were 77 formal requests received for properties that are currently zoned HI-1. Only three of these requests were for a zoning designation other than the HI-1 zoning. The first request (# 75 on the chart) was from Clean Rock Properties, Ltd. for property located along Oak Ridge Drive. A formal request was made to change the zoning to IR and Staff recommends the change. The second formal request (# 83 on the chart) was from Erie Indemnity Company for property located along the north side of Breeze Hill Road. Erie Indemnity Company requested the ORT zoning designation; however, the proposed HI zone wouid include ORT uses and would provide greater flexibility. Therefore, Staff is recommending the HI zone. The third formal request was from Adna Fulton (# 88 on the chart) for property located along the Downsville Pike. Mr. Fulton is requesting the BL zoning designation and Staff is recommending the HI zoning designation. The HI zone would allow BL uses more flexibility. Mr. Goodrich spoke to the Commission regarding a change to the UGA boundary (# 25 on the chart), which was discussed by Mr. David Netz [property owner] during the public hearings. He noted there were several boundary changes proposed in this area (around Kemps Mill Road) because the Growth Area boundary sliced through 15 different properties. Mr. Goodrich explained that Mr. Netz's property is currently zoned A (Agriculture); however, the Agriculture zoning is being eliminated in the Growth Area. The property is proposed for RT zoning, which is the lowest density zoning permitted. However, Mr. Netz is opposed to the RT zone because he would no longer be permitted to park his tractor trailer on Kemps Mill Road (it is not permitted in the RT zoning district). During a brief discussion, it was determined that the parking should not be an issue if Mr. Netz is parking on his own property as he stated during the public hearing. Mr. Kercheval distributed a chart that he prepared regarding the number of development rights in various zoning districts. He briefiy reviewed the chart with the Commission. 76 ADJOURNMENT Mr. Reiber made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. So ordered. 77 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING November 22,2010 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday, November 22, 2010 in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Andrew Bowen, Linda (Parrish) Kelly (arrived at 4:45 p.m.), and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Stephen Goodrich, County Administrator Greg Murray, Director of Environmental Management Julie Pippel, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. DISCUSSIONS Mr. Murray began by distributing copies of information that he compiled as part of the Water Resources Element entitled "Available Load Allocations". He briefly summarized the information for Commission members. Mr. Murray began by discussing and explaining that a Transferable Deveiopment Rights Program (TDRs) would allow non-UGA properties to sell development rights to a UGA property that allows a greater density than allowed by the zoning for that property. Since the original proposal for TDRs in Washington County, the State of Maryland passed legislation requiring local jurisdictions to develop a Water Resource Element. "The purpose of the Water Resource Eiement is to ensure that future county and municipal comprehensive plans reflect the opportunities and limitations presented by local and regional water resources. WREs are intended to improve local jurisdictions contribution to the protection of State land and water resources; to the protection of public health, safety and welfare; and to meeting 'Iocal and State smart growth policies." Mr. Murray stated that this requirement forced evaluation of the loads associated with each type of land use and lim ited the loads that can be generated by specific categories. This limiting requirement negated the value of TDRs and replaced them with a calculation that defines totai land use allowable loads and available Tradable Load Allocations (TLAs). The load allocation shows what load a current type of land use has, what type of load a receiving stream needs, and whether a load trade is possible given the total load requirement for that category of land use. Mr. Murray briefly explained the development of the WRE and Staff's review of the Total Maximum Daily Loads Documents (TMDLs) prepared by MDE for water bodies in Washington County. Currently, there are three sediment TMDLs for Washington County water bodies - the Antietam Creek Watershed and the Conococheague Creek Watershed are approved TMDLs, and the Upper Potomac River Watershed is under review by the EPA for approval. The conclusion of each of these TMDLs is that the County's sediment loading exceeds the amount the stream can receive and meet its water quality standards. Sediment appears to be the greatest limiting factor impacting growth in Washington County. Mr. Murray provided several charts for the Commission outlining the sediment TMDLs for each of the water bodies in Washington County. He briefly reviewed the charts with the Commission. Mr. Murray reviewed calcuiations that show what it will take, based on existing zoning, to build out the Urban Growth Area inside and outside the City of Hagerstown. In reviewing the analysis performed by Staff, in order to develop the UGA as proposed, approximately 2400 development rights from other watersheds is needed thereby making TLAs necessary. Mr. Murray discussed many variables, assumptions, and scenarios that could affect the County's TMDLs. The Commission began its review of the chart listing 167 formal requests for changes in proposed zoning. Mr. Goodrich explained that Staff has reviewed all of the individual requests and prepared recommendations for zoning designations. For purposes of these minutes, a copy of the chart will be attached. Discussions on particular sites and formal actions by the Commission will be recorded in the minutes. The Commission discussed formal request # 20 for property located at 19461 Leitersburg Pike. This property is located at the intersection of the proposed extension of Eastern Boulevard and Leitersburg Pike. The exact alignment of the proposed road has not been determined. Mr. Goodrich explained that Staff has proposed three different zoning categories and showed Commission members how Staff determined where each zoning district would be located on the property. There was a brief discussion regarding comments submitted by the City of Hagerstown regarding the proposed zoning. Mr. John Urner, attorney for the property owner Holcim US, Inc., explained that the property owner would like to have the entire parcei zoned BG because the road network is not definitively established yet. Therefore, he believes that the parcel should not be split zoned. Mr. Goodrich stated that Staff believes that the property boundaries should adjust as the road alignment adjusts. If the properties are zoned with one zoning designation, there are problems with incompatible uses next to each other. Mr. Urner pointed out that a regional park is proposed to the east of this property, which could attract a large number of people and traffic. He believes that the BG zoning would allow more uses to accommodate the people using the proposed park facility. Mr. Anikis pointed out that the City of Hagerstown is proposing medium density residential zoning on this property, if it is annexed. 78 • Consensus: After considering various scenarios for the proposed road aiignment an.d the potential for annexation of the property, the Planning Commission is recommending the BG zoning designation for this entire property. [Mr. Bowen left the meeting at 6:05.] Formal request # 130 [on the chart] is for property located at 830 Beaver Creek Road. The owners have requested HI-1 zoning and Staff is proposing the ORI zoning designation. There is currently a tree service business on the property. Staff is proposing the ORI zoning designation because the property is close to the interstate and would be consistent with the City of Hagerstown's proposed zoning in this area [if the property is annexed into the City}. The existing tree service would be a permitted use in the HI-1 zone; however, it would be a non-conforming use in the ORI zone but it wouid be aiiowed to continue and expand. • Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends the HI-1 zoning designation. ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m. Respectfuiiy sUbmitteg,..._:/ ~. T6rry ~ [ er, Vice-Chairman 79 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING November 29,2010 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday, November 29, 2010 in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Andrew Bowen (arrived at 4:45 p.m.), Linda (Parrish) Kelly, and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval (arrived at 5:35 p.m.). Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planner Stephen Goodrich, Planner Fred Nugent, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 4:35 p.m. DISCUSSIONS The Commission continued its review of the chart of formal rezoning requests. For purposes of these minutes, a copy of the chart will be attached. Discussions focusing on particuiar requests and formal actions by the Commission will be recorded in the minutes. Mr. Goodrich began a discussion regarding formal requests # 125, 141, 3 and 17 from the Artz family members. He gave a brief explanation regarding the background on these properties. During the 1990's, several of the properties that were zoned Agriculture were rezoned through formal rezoning applications at the owner's request. Also, at that time the UGA boundary was not well defined in this area and some properties were inside the UGA and other properties were outside the UGA. Since then, the UGA boundary has been better defined and Includes all of the properties. The current owners of the property . are now requesting the Agricultural zoning be put back on the properties. However, the agriculture zoning district is being eliminated in the UGA. One option would be to remove all of the properties from the UGA and zone the property agriculture, which has changed since the original agriculture zoning that was on the properties. However, Staff does not recommend this option due to the existence of public facilities in this area and because this area is "well-embedded" in the Urban Growth Area. Staff is proposing a variety of different zoning designations on the various properties as shown on the chart. Mr. Goodrich noted that the owners can continue farming on the properties. • The Planning Commission reviewed each of the individual properties and agreed with Staff's recommendations for each property. The Commission began a review of formal request # 138 for Mountainside Teleport Corporation located at 17625 Technology Boulevard. Mr. Goodrich stated that ORI zoning is proposed for this property. Mountainside Teleport is not opposed to the zoning change; however, they have proposed text amendments for the ORI zoning designation that would provide additional protection for their property from the effects of adjacent uses. The proposed text amendments will be discussed at a later time. Mr. Goodrich began a review of formai requests # 136, 137 and 165. Staff is proposing the ORI zoning designation on all of these properties and the owners have requested HI-1 zoning, which would provide more flexibility. Staff continues to recommend the ORI zoning because the properties are located along the interstate and they are part of the Friendship Technology Park, which the ORI design guidelines will produce the kind of visual appearance that is attractive to the County along the interstate highway. • The Planning Commission recommends the ORI zoning as proposed by Staff. In reviewing formal requests # 161,162 and 163, Mr. Goodrich reminded the Commission that during its initial review of these properties, it was decided that these properties should retain a residential zoning because of the surrounding residential neighborhood. It was also discussed that while there are commercial uses currently on the property, a business zoning category would open the door for other types of businesses. Staff believes that a business zoning classification wouid be appropriate. There was a brief discussion with regard to the current uses surrounding the property and within the general vicinity. • The Planning Commission recommends BL zoning for these properties. The Commission reviewed formal requests # 151, 152, and 153 for Tayior Farm. All properties are currently zoned RR (Rural Residential). The owner is requesting a zoning classification that would allow commercial or industrial deveiopment [no specific zoning ciassification requested]. Staff is proposing the ORI zoning designation for formal requests # 151 and 152 because the property is adjacent to railroad tracks and an existing industrial park. Staff is proposing RT zoning for request # 153 because it is adjacent to residential development. There was a brief discussion regarding the formal requests for #151 and 152 with regard to residential versus business/commercial uses and location in ciose proximity to the interstate. Mr. Thompson stated that a localized transportation plan is currently being discussed, which could change the road network in this area. This is a concern for the property owner and one reason a request for commercial zoning was made. 80 • The Planning Commission recommends the RT zoning for aii three requests (Vote: Linda, Clint and Drew - yes). Mr. Goodrich moved on to formal request # 139 for the Bowman Group. Staff is proposing the PI zoning designation; the owner has requested the HI-1 zoning designation. The property is currently zoned PI, is located within an established industrial park, and includes a variety of uses aiiowed under the PI zoning. • The Planning Commission recommends the PI zoning. The Commission reviewed formal request # 166 for property located along Spielman Road. Mr. Goodrich explained that the property owner did not receive a formal notice of the proposed rezoning change due to the methods the computer used to identify parcels to receive notices. He explained that the UGA boundary does not follow the property line in this location. Staff is proposing the ORI zoning because of the property's location close to the interstate, which would provide a more attractive appearance from the interstate. There was a brief discussion regarding the zoning of surrounding properties and existing zoning on this property. • The Planning Commission recommends the HI zoning (Vote: Drew, Linda, and Clint - yes). In reviewing formal request # 5, Mr. Goodrich explained that this property is shown as a common area on tax maps, but listed as a future commerciai development area on plats of the property. The applicant is requesting the HI zoning designation; however, the property is part of a residential development. Therefore, Staff believes that a BL zoning designation would be more appropriate because it is intended as a commercial area for the deveiopment. • The Planning Commission recommends BL zoning for this property. The Commission began its review of formal requests # 27, 33 and 24. Both properties are proposed for the BG zoning designation. Mr. John Urner, attorney for both applicants, was present at the meeting and opposed the proposed BG zoning designation. He explained that the applicants are asking for the BL . zoning, because the BG zoning designation has more restrictions that couid limit the development potential of the properties in the near future. Mr. Urner explained that the proposed text amendments which would require public water and sewer facilities on BG zoned properties could stail any development on these properties indefinitely. Mr. Goodrich also expiained that the proposed public water and sewer requirements could be waived in the BL zoning districts. He noted that several requests were received to amend the public water and sewer requirements to include waivers to all zoning districts. Staff believes there might be situations in which the Pianning Commission would want to waive the requirement in aii zoning districts. Therefore, Staff is proposing to make the requirement part of the general requirements section of the Zoning Ordinance instead of having the waiver provision in all zoning districts. • The Planning Commission recommends BL zoning for formal requests # 27, 33 and 24. Upon completion of the formal requests for site specific rezoning, Mr. Goodrich distributed a list of additional issues that were included in the written comments and requests received in response to the proposed UGA rezoning. The first comment to be addressed was in regard to foiiowing up on a Board of County Commissioners condition on approval of the Rural Area rezoning to develop a TDR program. Mr. Goodrich stated that a consultant was hired in 2005 to perform a TDR study for the county, which took approximately one year to complete. The study was presented to the BOCC in both a preliminary and final report. The BOCC did not take any action foiiowing the final report. Staff believes efforts have been made to foiiow up on the condition except BOCC approval. Mr. Anikis began a discussion regarding the comment that "the definition of recycling is too narrow". He recommended that the BOCC should direct the Solid Waste Advisory Committee to review the recycling proposai and make amendments. Mr. Goodrich stated that the Director of the Landfiil [who is a member of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee] submitted comments with regard to the recycling text. Mr. Kercheval suggested that Staff proceed with getting the Committee to review the proposed text and make comments. The next comment to be addressed was "Hagerstown's concern for areas that are proposed to be rezoned inconsistently with the City's Comprehensive Plan." Mr. Goodrich stated that by the Planning Commission's recommendation to retain the HI zoning district, five of the six areas of concern have been addressed. The last area of concern was discussed by the Planning Commission during its last meeting for property located at the intersection of the proposed Eastern Boulevard Extension {formal request # 20]. The next comment to be addressed was to "aiiow clustering in the "R" zones". Mr. Goodrich stated that clustering is already aiiowed. Mr. Goodrich then addressed the comment with regard to churches being a permitted or special exception use in the BG zone and to add "community meeting haiis" from the BL zone to BG so there is a functionaiiy similar use to compare when a church is requested as a special exception under the "functionaiiy similar clause". Staff does not object to adding community meeting hails as a permitted use in the BG zone so there is a similar use to compare if a church requests a special exception under the "functionaiiy similar clause". The next comment that the Commission discussed was the opposition to the elimination of some manufacturing uses in the Airport district. The uses proposed for elimination are not airport related uses 81 and include the following: clothing and shoe manufacturing, manufacturing of musical instruments, mold, rubber, and novelties, and manufacturing of merchandise from previously prepared materials, etc. Mr. Goodrich explained that the request is from the owner of buildings in the Airport district, who does not want to be restricted in the types of uses that could locate in these buildings. Staff recommends the elimination of non-airport related uses in the AP zone. Mr. Goodrich explained that the if any of these types of manufacturing uses are currently operating in the AP district, they would be a non-conforming use in the district; however, they would be allowed to continue. Mr. Jason Divelbiss, attorney for the property owner opposed to the change, was present at the meeting. He stated that his client has more than 400,000 square feet of space to be leased and believes that the change would severely limit the potential to lease the space. • The Planning Commission recommends that the current uses listed in the AP zone should not be eliminated. Mr. Goodrich discussed the requirement for public water and sewer in the HI or IR districts and the need for the waiver provision. Staff is concerned that there may be areas on the fringe of the UGA that are zoned HI or IR that would not have access to public facilities, which could prohibit economic development in the County. He stated that Staff does not want to encourage growth in the UGA without public facilities; however, it would be for the good of the County if the Planning Commission could provide a waiver for the requirement. Mr. Kercheval gave an example of property where development potential exists, but the City of Hagerstown is denying access to public facilities. The Commission discussed other options that a developer would have if a waiver provision is not offered in these districts. Mr. Bowen expressed his opinion that the waiver provision should have a standard set of criteria that must be met before a developer applies for a waiver from the public facilities requirement. Mr. Goodrich pointed out that there is a list of subjects that should be considered by the Planning Commission before granting a waiver. • The Planning Commission recommends that the waiver provision should be included in all zoning districts. Next the Commission discussed lighting requirements. Comments were submitted stating that the lighting requirements should not be applicable to one and two family dwellings. During previous discussions, the Planning Commission purposely eliminated the exception to the lighting requirements for one and two family dwellings. Mr. Goodrich noted that if it is not reinstated, it will be very difficult to monitor and enforce consistently; it will be on a complaint driven basis. • The Planning Commission did not change its previous recommendation. The final comment for review was a request from Mountainside Teleport located in the Friendship Technology Park. This property is proposed for ORI zoning. Mountainside Teleport is not opposed to the proposed zoning; however, they are requesting additional text for the ORI district in order to protect the existing uses and to protect them from interference from new uses allowed in the ORI district. Specifically, they are concerned with noise from emergency generators, vibration, smoke, glare, radiation, satellite sky and receptor viewshed obstructions, and procedures for determining compliance. Mr. Goodrich noted that several properties surrounding the Mountainside Teleport property are also proposed for the ORI zoning designation. Staff expressed some concern with regard to placing restrictions on the surrounding properties. Ms. Nancy Reglan, attorney for Mountainside Teleport, was present at the meeting. She stated that due to the vital importance of services rendered by Mountainside Teleport, it is imperative that services are not interrupted at the facility. Ms. Reglan explained that there are covenants on properties located within the Friendship Technology Park that protect Mountainside Teleport; however, development on properties outside the Park that we proposed to be zoned ORI need to have specific performance standards. • The Commission tabled further discussion and a decision on the revised text until the next meeting. ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 7:25 p.m. Terry R 82 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING December 6,2010 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, December 6, 2010 at 7:00 p.m. in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiiey, Andrew Bowen, Linda (Parrish) Keily, Sam Ecker and Ex-Officio James F. Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C. Thompson, Chief Planners Timothy A. Lung and Stephen Goodrich, Senior Planner 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. Reiber made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 16, 2010 Planning Commission Workshop meeting, the August 30, 2010 regular Planning Commission meeting, the October 25, 2010 regular Planning Commission meeting, and the November 1, 2010 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented. Second by Ms. Kelly. Unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS -SITE PLANS 'Shah Investments (SP-10-034) Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a site plan for Shah Investments for property located along Oak Ridge Place. The applicant is proposing a 6,000 square foot research and development office/warehouse on 2.67 acres of property currently zoned IT - Industrial Transitional. The hours of operation will be Monday through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. with 6 employees. Site lighting will be provided by building mounted lights. A photometric plan was completed showing minimal light trespass on adjacent roadways and buildings. The proposed signage will be building mounted. Daily box truck deliveries are proposed. Six parking spaces are required and 10 parking spaces will be provided. Forest conservation requirements wiil be met through a 0.59 acre conservation easement on existing forest located on the property and a payment in lieu in the amount of $392.04. Landscaping will consist of a mixture of trees and shrubs around the building. Approval from the Washington County Land Development Engineering Department is pending; all other agency approvals have been received. Discussion and comments: Mr. Kercheval asked if there was public water or a well to serve the property. Ms. Wagner-Grillo stated that well and septic serve the property. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon final approval from the Washington County Land Development Engineering Department. Second by Mr. Reiber. Unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Ms. Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a revision to the site plan for Dual Crossing located at the intersection of Mt. Aetna Road and US Route 40. The site plan was approved in July 2009 with a proposal that ail solid waste would be collected inside the building. The developer is now requesting an outside dumpster on the property to be located near the transformer in the northeast corner. A site plan previously presented for a fast food restaurant on the same property proposed a dumpster in this same location, which the Planning Commission did not approve and asked the developer to move. The current consultant on this project, Frederick, Seibert & Associates, was made aware of this requirement and the dumpster location was moved. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Wiley stated that the Planning Commission was concerned with the dumpster in the northeast corner due to the close proximity to residences. Mr. Schreiber, a representative of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, stated that most documents at the proposed bank would be shredded and would be picked up during the day. He believes that trash pickup would be less frequent for the proposed bank than for a fast food restaurant. Mr. Wiley expressed his opinion that the frequency of trash pickup is not the issue but rather the potential for noise in the middle of the night. Mr. Anikis asked what has changed in the design of the building that now requires an outdoor trash facility. Mr. Schreiber stated that the building was to be LEED certified; however, as the development of the building has occurred, the building cannot be LEED certified. It Is now a matter of convenience to have the trash facility outside of the building. There was a brief discussion regarding various locations for the dumpster and time limitations for trash removal. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the revision to the site plan to locate the dumpster in the northeast corner of the property [next to the transformer] with restrictions that no trash will be picked up between the hours of 11 :00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. Second by Mr. Reiber. The motion passed 83 with Mr. Bowen, Mr. Reiber, Mr. Kercheval, Mr. Ecker and Mr. Wiley voting "Aye" and Ms. Kelly voting "No". Motion: Mr. Reiber made a motion to recess the regular Planning Commission meeting at 7:20 p.m. to continue discussions of the comprehensive rezoning of the Urban Growth Area and to reconvene the regular meeting following the workshop. Second by Mr. Bowen. Unanimously approved. Mr. Anikis reconvened the regular Planning Commission meeting at 8:10 p.m. Urban Growth Area Rezoning Recommendation Mr. Reiber made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners adoption of the Urban Growth Area comprehensive rezoning with all zoning and text changes and recommendations made by the Planning Commission and that the ORI (Office, Research & Industry) district inciude additional Performance Standards as recommended in a formal request from Mountainside Teleport and also to include the 650-feet restricted radius from the boundary of existing or planned teleports. Second by Ms. Kelly. Unanimously approved with Mr. Kercheval abstaining from the vote. Mr. Anikis announced that Ms. Kelly has tendered her resignation from the Planning Commission. He also announced that this is Commissioner Kercheval's last meeting. Mr. Thompson presented a Certificate of Appreciation to Commissioner Kercheval for his years of service as the BOCC Ex-Officio and to Ms. Kelly for her years of service as a Planning Commission member. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Bowen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Second by Mr. Reiber. So ordered. ResP~l~.~~itted, //;:~~•.--/ T~lk=Chairman .. 84 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING December 6,2010 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop on Monday, December 6, 2010 in the Washington County Administrative Annex, 80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown, Maryland, Members present were: Chairman George Anikis, Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Andrew Bowen, Linda (Parrish) Keliy, Sam Ecker and Ex-Officio James F, Kercheval. Staff members present were: Planning Director Michael C, Thompson, Chief Planner Stephen Goodrich, and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard, CALL TO ORDER Following a vote to recess the regular Planning Commission meeting, Chairman George Anikis called the workshop meeting to order at 7:20 p,m, DISCUSSIONS The first item to be addressed was the location of one of three parcels, which were part of a formal rezoning request [Planning Dept request # 8] by BP Landco LLC, Parcel 1059 could not be located during the previous week's meeting and was tabled for discussion, This parcel is located along Virginia Avenue in the vicinity of the Greensburg Farm Market The current zoning Is BG and Staff Is recommending the BG (Business General) zoning remain on this parcel. The Planning Commission concurred with Staffs recommendation, Mr. Goodrich moved discussions to the list of additional issues presented to the Planning Commission at its November 29'h workshop meeting, He noted that the Planning Commission's recommendations were 'added to the list and briefly reviewed them, Mr, Goodrich stated that additional comments from the Soiid Waste Advisory Committee would be forthcoming following its next regular meeting [scheduled for later this week], He noted that Mr. Cliff Engie, Deputy Director of Washington County's Solid Waste Department, and also a member of the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, preViously prOVided several comments that were incorporated in the document The next item of discussion was in regard to proposed text amendments requested by Mountainside Teleport Ms, Nancy Regelin, attorney for Mountainside Teleport, and Mr. Philips, a technician for Mountainside Teleport, were present at the workshop, The Mountainside Teleport property is currently zoned ORT (Office, Research & Technoiogy) and is proposed to be zoned ORI (Office, Research and Industry), which will allow a wider range of industrial uses, The ORI zone is also proposed to be assigned to other properties in the vicinity, Members viewed a map showing all the properties covered by covenants in the Friendship Technology Park, Mr. Wiley asked how much of a buffer is needed for Mountainside Teleport Ms, Regelin stated that Mountainside Teleport is requesting additions to the Performance Standards that would include radiation, viewshed, and airborne vibration, She explained the reasons for the requested changes and how they would impact Mountainside Teleport, There was a brief discussion regarding the effect these changes would have on other properties zoned ORI and proposed uses on surrounding properties, Mr, Kercheval expressed his opinion that adding standards for radiation and airborne and ground vibrations could be helpful for other businesses in areas zoned ORL He briefly discussed the height restrictions with regard to teleports, Mr, Kercheval believes that a radius could be established around teleports to insure the viewshed is maintained around existing operations, The radius would not need to be applied to all ORI zones, Ms, Regelin stated that the distance is approximately 650 feet from the edge of the teleport depending on the direction and elevation, Mr. Kercheval suggested adding language that states, "any building within 650-feet of an existing or planned area for a teleport", There was a brief discussion regarding the effects on neighboring properties and the distance from property lines that must be maintained in order to meet the viewshed requirements, Consensus: The Planning Commission recommends to the BOCC to consider all text amendments proposed by Mountainside Teleport and that the ORI Performance Standards should include air vibrations, radiation and height restrictions for land within 650-feet radius from the boundary of existing or planned teleports, Mr. Anikis asked Staff to prepare a map to visualize the 650-foot radius, Mr, Kercheval also asked Mountainside Teleport to provide documentation supporting the requirement for the 650-foot radius, ADJOURNMENT Mr. Anikis adjourned the workshop meeting at 8:10 p,m, Respectfull sUbmitted,,_~--, er, Vice-Chairman