Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013 Minutes164. WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION January 7,2013 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,January 7,2013 at 7:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Dennis Reeder,Clint Wiley,Sassan Shaool,Andrew Bowen,Sam Ecker and Ex-officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Stephen Goodrich;Parks and Environmental Planner Fred Nugent;Director of Plan Review &Permitting Jennifer Smith;and Deputy Director of Plan Review &Permitting Tim Lung. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Wiley distributed copies of the November 5,2012 minutes with proposed changes regarding comments made during discussions of the text amendment for RZ-12-002.These changes are being proposed based upon notes he made after listening to the audio recording of the November 5th meeting. Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 5,2012 meeting as amended by Mr. Wiley.The motion was seconded by Mr.Shaool and unanimousiy approved. Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 19,2012 workshop/special meeting as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Shaool and unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS -SUBDIVISIONS .Sunset Meadows,Section B,Phase B-1 (PP-09-003) Mr.Lung presented for review and approval an extension request for the review of the preliminary pi at for Section B,Phase B1,Sunset Meadows.This is an 11 lot subdivision located along the north side of Maryland Route 57 west of Hicksville Road and is currentiy zoned A(R)-Agricultural Rural.Mr.Lung noted that the subdivision has been taken over by a new owner/developer.Several outstanding comments from ·the Health Department,Soil Conservation District and County Engineering Department must be addressed by the developer before the plat can be further reviewed and approved.A storm water management waiver was granted for the subdivision,which requires final approval prior to May 4, 2013.If the May 4th deadline is not met,the subdivision would need to be re-designed to meet all new storm water management regulations.Mr.Lung briefiy discussed the effects that the Sustainable Growth and Preservation Act of 2012 would have on this subdivision and future phases,if any. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Bowen stated that he is not opposed to the extension;however,he noted that the Planning Commission has not historically granted extensions on a project more than one time,especially if work is not progressing on the project. Mr.Shaool asked for clarification of the date that the applicant is requesting for preliminary plat approval. Mr.Felton of Triad Engineering,Inc.stated that the request is for an extension until October 1,2016. Mr.Reiber asked if APFO (Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance)requirements have been met.Mr.Lung stated that it has not been met;however,the previous owner had been in negotiations with the County Attorney's office to develop an acceptable mitigation plan. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to grant a two year extension for the review of the preliminary plat for Sunset Meadows,Section B,Phase B1 to May 4,2015.The motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder and unanimously approved with Mr.Shaool abstaining from the vote. OTHER BUSINESS Sustainable Growth and Preservation Act of 2012 Update Mr.Goodrich stated that the Board of County Commissioners did not approve the Tiers Designation Map on December 18,2012.This means that no more than seven (7)lots on private septic systems will be allowed throughout the County.The Health Department will be responsible for implementing the Act and the final approval/disapproval of potential lots.During the BOCC's public hearing for the Tiers Map,one property owner recommended making changes to County regulations to allow "clustering".Mr.Goodrich explained this proposed concept to Commission members.Staff has been instructed by the County Commissioners to begin working on this concept.Mr.Goodrich noted that the clustering of lots is currently allowed per regulations in the Zoning Ordinance and has been in effect since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1973.He further expiained that there is no discussion of "ciustering"in the Subdivision Ordinance,with the exception of its definition.Staff is proposing to keep the concept of moving lot rights from one parcel to another as suggested during the public hearing,as well as creating guidelines and definitions for clarity purposes. 165. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Bowen asked who would be responsible for the open space created by the ciustering.Mr.Goodrich explained there could be various scenarios and gave a brief explanation of each. Mr.Goodrich noted that 12 counties in Maryland adopted a Tiers Designation Map and 11 counties did not.Commissioner McKinley stated that the County Commissioners were skeptical about the Tiers Map due to the "borrowing value"of farmland that farmers would lose by being designated in a Tier 4. Forest Conservation Amendments In 2008,the State of Maryland made amendments to the State Forest Conservation Act,which in turn means Washington County needs to amend its local ordinance.One such amendment was the "payment in lieu of"mitigation fee from 10 cents per square foot to 30 cents per square foot.The previous Board of County Commissioners opposed the fee increase,which prevented adoption of many other amendments. The previous Board appointed a study committee to review the entire Forest Conservation Ordinance to determine if additional changes were needed.The Committee made recommendations for additional changes.Mr.Goodrich presented a list of potential amendments to the Commission members and highlighted a few of significant importance. Discussion and Comment:Mr.Shaool expressed his opinion that it is hard to meet the requirements of the Ordinance by planting trees because the survival rate is difficult to meet and maintain.He aiso believes that many of the conservation easements within developments are often "mowed down"after they have been established.Mr.Shaool expressed his opinion that more effective ways to administer the Ordinance should be considered whereby developers would get more credit toward Ordinance requirements. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Monday,February 4,2013,7:00 p.m.,regular Planning Commission meeting,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown,Maryland .ADJOURNMENT Mr.Bowen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:00 p.m.So ordered. RespectfujJ>tsupmitted, //.7 ../i __-j ."./_A~....-:?,--::...-I/~,~----./ 166. WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION February 4,2013 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,February 4,2013 at 7:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Dennis Reeder,Clint Wiley,Sassan Shaool,Andrew Bowen,Sam Ecker and Ex-officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Stephen Goodrich;Director of Plan Review &Permitting Jennifer Smith;Deputy Director of Plan Review &Permitting Tim Lung;and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr.Goodrich requested that the Black Rock PUD (DP-05-001)be removed from this evening's agenda. MINUTES Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 7,2013 meeting as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder and unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS •SITE PLANS Rosewood PUD,Phase II-B (PSP-12-002) Mr.Lung presented a revision to the preliminary plat/site plan for Phase II-B of the Rosewood PUD.He began by giving a brief history of this phase of the development.Due to changes in the neighborhood and marketing changes,the developer has made several revisions to the overall Rosewood PUD plan.A revised final development plan was approved by the Planning Commission in October 2012,which changed areas previously approved for residential use to commercial/office uses.Mr.Lung reviewed the changes that were approved on the Final Development Plan for this phase,which includes the following: •Proposed lot 18 -change proposed development of apartments to an 18,000 square foot office/retail building •Proposed lot 19 -change proposed development along Capitol Lane from residential townhouses to 8 medical office buildings ranging from 4,000 to 4,500 square feet in size and the conversion of Capital Lane from a public street to a private access.This change reflects a reduction in the front yard setback along Varsity Lane from 40-feet to 35-feet. •Remove proposed residential townhouse lots proposed along O'Neal's Place East.This area will now be developed for commercial use in Phase III. •Proposed lot 20 -Construct a 20-unit apartment building on a 1.79 acre lot.This apartment complex will not be age-restricted,and therefore,school mitigation must be addressed per the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance prior to final plat approval or construction. •Includes previously approved residential townhouse units along O'Neal's Place West (unchanged from previous plan). •Proposed lot 17A -Includes a revised design for a convenience store on approximately 1.5- acres. •Proposed lot 17B -Includes a revised design for a 40,500-square foot retail/office strip center and a 3.600-square foot bank. •Includes revisions to several forest conservation areas to reflect revised building locations and site design.The final Forest Conservation Plan must be approved during the Final Plat approval process. Health Department approval is pending until sewer and water allocation forms are received from the City of Hagerstown Water &Sewer Department.The Division of Plan Review &Permitting is continuing to work with the consultant on a few minor issues.All other agency approvals have been received. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Reiber made an inquiry regarding traffic issues and the progress of Robinwood Drive improvements in this area.Mr.Lung stated those issues are handled through the Division of Public Works,but it is his understanding that plans have been approved for the intersection at Varsity Lane and along Robinwood Drive that are the responsibility of the developer.Ms.Smith believes that the developer's plans have been approved and bonded. Ms.Smith stated that there will be some minor changes needed for storm water management during phase III. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the preliminary plat/site plan for Phase II-B for the Rosewood PUD contingent upon approvals from the Washington County Health Department and the Division of Plan Review and Permitting.The motion was seconded by Mr.Wiley and unanimously approved.Mr.Shaool abstained from all discussions and the vote for approval. 167. OTHER BUSINESS Proposed Clustering Amendment Mr.Goodrich reminded Commission members that the Board of County Commissioners did not approve the Tiers Designation Map on December 18,2012.During the BOCC's public hearing for the Tiers Map, one speaker recommended making changes to County regulations to allow "clustering",which would give property owners the ability to move subdivision rights from multiple parcels to one parcel in order to preserve land.Mr.Goodrich noted that the clustering of lots is currently allowed per regulations in the Zoning Ordinance and has been in effect since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1973.He further explained that there is no discussion of "clustering"in the Subdivision Ordinance,with the exception of its definition.Staff began working on the "clustering"concept;however,because the Septic Bill placed a seven lot limit on all lands that would be served by septic systems Staff does not believe the concept would work.The "clustering"concept would only be effective if a Tiers Designation Map was adopted. Staff will continue to work on the amendment because the status of the Septic Bill is uncertain.There is currently proposed legislation that could repeal the Bill.Also,Washington County could adopt a Tiers Designation Map at some point in the future. Modification of Planning Commission Policy #19 Ms.Smith presented a proposed modification to Planning Commission Policy #19,which currently allows the Planning Director/Executive Director the ability to approve residential subdivisions up to five (5)lots. On December 18,2012 the Subdivision Ordinance was modified to change the definition of a minor subdivision from five (5)lots to seven (7)lots.The proposed change would amending Policy 19 by granting the Executive Director the ability to approve residential subdivisions up to seven (7)lots instead of five (5)as previously provided for under Policy 19,when there is no significant infrastructure improvement required (Le.building roads,major water or sanitary sewer line extensions,etc.). Motion and vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to amend Planning Commission Policy #19 to grant the Executive Director the ability to approve residential subdivisions up to seven (7)lots instead of five (5)as previously provided for under Policy 19,when there is no significant infrastructure improvement required (Le.building roads,major water or sanitary sewer line extensions,etc.).The motion was seconded by Mr. Ecker and unanimously approved. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Monday,March 4,2013,7:00 p.m.,regular Planning Commission meeting,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown,Maryland ADJOURNMENT Mr.Reeder made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:30 p.m.The motion was seconded by Mr.Ecker. So ordered. Respecjfolly.s,ubm itted , ..-~ /Ter~~man 168 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION March 4,2013 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,March 4,2013 at 7:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Dennis Reeder,Clint Wiley,Sassan Shaool,Andrew Bowen,Sam Ecker and Ex-officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Stephen Goodrich;Director of Plan Review &Permitting Jennifer Smith;Deputy Director of Plan Review &Permitting Tim Lung;Chief Planner Jill Baker;Senior Planner Lisa Kelly;and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 4,2013 meeting as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Wiley and unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS •FOREST CONSERVATION Breeze Hill Mr.Goodrich presented a Forest Conservation Mitigation Proposal from the Hagerstown-Washington County Industrial Foundation (HWCIF)for property located at Breeze Hill Drive.HWCIF is preparing a plan to accomplish the forest conservation mitigation for its entire industrial park located on Breeze Hill Drive (aka Airport Industrial Park).It has been determined that 11.29 acres is the total planting requirement for this site.Since HWCIF is proposing to meet the obligation by placing existing forest that is off of the development site under easement,the retention requirement doubles to 22.58 acres.They are also proposing to remove 2.80 acres of existing forest that is currently under a retention easement on this site that was mitigation for previous development,which must be replaced.Therefore,the total off- site retention needed is 25.38-acres.The existing forest area proposed to be put under a protective easement as mitigation for development on the Breeze Hill site is located in the Town of Hancock's Kirk Woods Park.Staff expressed concerns with regard to this proposal as follows: •There is no delineation of the site that will be in the easement available for review prior to a decision. •There is no relationship between the forest proposed for protection and the area being developed.Typically,retention is within the same watershed as the forested area being removed. •The forest that is being protected is within a Town park where there is very little threat of removal.Therefore,there is no net gain in forest protection.When using this method,the State of Maryland Forest Conservation Act states,"Acquisition as a mitigation technique of an off-site protected easement for existing forested areas not currently protected in perpetuity". Applicant's Response:Mr.Steve Cvijanovich of Renn Engineering,representative for HWCIF,noted that Mr.Phil Ridenour,Director of the Hagerstown Regional Airport,reviewed the applicant's proposal and made the following comments:"It is the opinion of the Hagerstown Regional Airport and FAA that land use practices that attract or sustain hazardous wildlife population on or near the Airport can significantly increase the potential for wildlife strikes.We support your proposal to remove the trees in the vicinity of Breeze Hill Drive and provide a reforestation effort at a location away from the Hagerstown Regional Airport.We are charged with doing what we can do to limit the amount of wildlife attractants on and around the Airport.Due to the fact that the trees are located in the vicinity to the approach end of our runway 20,it creates bird strike issues as wildlife fly to and from the trees.We certainly have no opinion on where the reforestation can take place,but recommend that it be at least five miles from the center of the airport."Mr.Cvijanovich noted Kirk Woods Park is not currently under any type of easement and could be subject to a timber harvest.He believes that placing the easement on this property would permanently protect the forest. Comments and Discussion:There was a brief discussion regarding the payment-in-Iieu amount for this property and if it would be feasible to receive the money and try to purchase park land somewhere in the County. Mr.Bowen expressed his opinion that mitigating the off site retention away from the Airport is a good idea. Mr.Reiber expressed concern with regard to the amount of acreage of forest to be removed.He asked if smaller trees or shrubbery could be planted on the site.He expressed his concern that the retention area is being moved to a site that would not provide any benefits to the area surrounding the proposed development.Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that more than one municipality should receive the benefits from the proposal and the amount of forest to be removed should be reduced.Mr.Cvijanovich noted that HWCIF typically subdivides property to suit a specific business interested in a particular site. 169 There is not an interested party at this time;and therefore,it is possible that not all of the trees would be removed at this time.However,HWCIF wants to have the ability to move forward as quickly as possible when someone is interested in the property.Mr.Cvijanovich noted that the County currently does not give credit for street tree canopy. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the mitigation proposal as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder and unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Black Rock P.U.D.(DP-13-001) Mr.Shaool recused himself from the vote for this agenda item. Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a revision to the development plan for the Black Rock Estates PUD located along the northeast side of Mt.Aetna Road.The plan is being revised to show the relocation of the community center,clubhouse and pool from Phase I to Phase III.The developer is proposing to subdivide the acreage previously proposed for these facilities into seven single family lots. Phase IA and IB would contain a total of 169 lots if the proposed relocation is approved.Approval is pending from the City of Hagerstown Water and Sewer Department,Addressing,the Washington County Health Department and the Division of Public Works.Ms.Kelly explained that Phase I is moving ahead; however,the County is proposing a major collector highway that could affect other phases of the development.The alignment and location of the proposed road has not been finalized at this time. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Shaool further explained the issue relative to the proposed County road.He also briefly discussed the funding of the community center,clubhouse and pool. Mr.Wiley asked if the clubhouse and pool would be separate from the majority of the homes by the proposed road.Mr.Shaool stated that the clubhouse and pool would be centralized to the majority of the development. Mr.Bowen asked what the Comprehensive Plan indicates for the zoning of the properties located to the northeast of the development.He expressed his opinion that there should be more connectivity within the surrounding areas and all phases of the subdivision. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reeder made a motion to approve the revised development plan as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr.Ecker and unanimously approved with Mr.Shaool abstaining from the vote. Proposed Text Amendment -Limited Transferrable Development Rights Program Ms.Baker presented for discussion a proposed text amendment for a Limited Transferrable Development Rights program.She reminded Commission members that because the Septic Tiers Map was not adopted by the County Commissioners,a'subdivision is limited to a maximum of seven lots.The purpose of the text amendment is to provide a mechanism for adjoining properties with a singular ownership to effectively "cluster"multiple lot development rights into one existing parcel of record for the purpose of residential development. Discussion and Comments:There was a brief discussion regarding rural to rural and rural to urban development rights and how the program would basically work.There was a brief discussion with regard to individuals and not corporations being eligible for the program.Members believe that more research should be done on this issue.There was a brief discussion regarding the maximum lot size for transferred lots [2-acres]. Proposed Text Amendment -Official Zoning Map for Washington County,Maryland Ms.Baker presented for discussion a proposed text amendment to clarify a decision made as part of the Rural Rezoning adopted in July 2005 by the County Commissioners.At that time,it was determined that the official zoning maps for Washington County would be maintained in a digital format by the GIS staff in the Department of Planning &Zoning.Language is also being proposed in this text amendment to clarify when the zoning layers may be changed and by whom and the difference between official and unofficial copies. Town Growth Areas Ms.Baker informed Commission members that letters have been sent to the Towns of Hancock,Clear Spring,Smithsburg and Boonsboro in an effort to begin the rezoning process within those towns'growth areas.Ms.Baker briefly described how staff will proceed with the zoning process and the anticipated timeline for instituting the proposed changes.The towns of Williamsport and Funkstown and the City of Hagerstown were all completed as part of the Urban Growth Area rezoning that was adopted in July 2012. Proposed APFO Amendment Mr.Goodrich presented a proposed text amendment for the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) to incorporate a change in the definition of a minor subdivision.He reminded Commission members that the definition of a minor subdivision was changed by the County Commissioners in December 2012 from five (5)lots or less to seven (7)lots or less. 170 UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Monday,April 1,2013,7:00 p.m.,Regular Planning Commission meeting,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown,Maryland Mr.Goodrich noted that the Planning Commission Public Rezoning Meeting will also be held on April 1st prior to the regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT Mr.Ecker made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m.So ordered. 171 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION April 1,2013 The Washington County Planning Commission held a public rezoning meeting and its regular meeting on Monday,April 1,2013 at 7:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown,Maryland. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Andrew Bowen,Sam Ecker and Ex-officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Stephen Goodrich;Deputy Director of Plan Review &Permitting Tim Lung;Chief Planner Jill Baker;Senior Planners Cody Shaw and Lisa Kelly; and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. PUBLIC REZONING MEETING CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the Public Rezoning meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. -Text Amendment -Washington County Official Zoning Map (RZ-13-001) Ms.Baker presented for review and comment a text amendment to Section 3.1 of the Washington County Zoning Ordinance.She explained that in July of 2005,the County completed a Comprehensive Rezoning of the rural areas of Washington County.As part of the adoption of this amendment,the Board of County Commissioners agreed that official zoning maps for the County would be maintained digitally in the GIS system by the Department of Planning.While the verbal decision was made and documented as part of the County Commissioners'meeting held on July 26,2005,an official text amendment was never initiated for the Zoning Ordinance.The purpose of this amendment is to update language pertaining to the implementation and maintenance of the Official Zoning map for Washington County,Maryland. There were no public comments for the record either in support of or against the proposed amendment. -Text Amendment -Washington County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APF-13-001) Mr.Goodrich presented for review and comment a text amendment to Sections 2.3.12.1,4.1 and 5.2 of the Washington County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.The purpose of this amendment is to change the definition of a minor subdivision from five (5)lots or less to seven (7)lots or less to maintain consistency with the Washington County Subdivision Ordinance.Mr.Goodrich reminded Planning Commission members that the definition of a minor subdivision [from five (5)lots or less to seven (7)lots or less]in the Washington County Subdivision Ordinance was changed in 2012 to correspond with'the intended adoption of a Tiers Map for the Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012. The County Commissioners did not adopt the Tiers Map.Mr.Goodrich noted that he has reviewed subdi- vision activity for the past three years [2010,2011,2012]and only one additional application out of approximately 80 applications would have been exempted from adequacy test requirements due to this change. There were no public comments for the record either in support of or against the proposed amendment. The Chairman closed the public rezoning meeting and opened the regular meeting at 7:10 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 4,2013 meeting as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Ecker and unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS -MODIFICATIONS Bruce M.Nicely (SV-13-001) Mr.Shaw presented for review and approval a modification request from Section 405.11.G.5 of the Washington County Subdivision Ordinance,which states that the maximum length of a panhandle shall not exceed 400-feet in length.The property is located at 1817A Hoffmaster Road in Knoxville,Maryland [TM 85,G 18,P 107].The property is 3.4 acres in size and is zoned EC -Environmental Conservation. The applicant is requesting a panhandle length of 586-feet,a remaining lands panhandle in excess of 1,000-feet and a septic reserve area to be located off-site on a neighboring parcel.Mr.Stransky of the Division of Plan Review &Permitting has reviewed the application and provided the following comments: •There is an existing concrete driveway that provides access to Lot 1.The slope of the driveway exceeds 20%.Access to the remaining lands will require an extension of that driveway or a separate new driveway.The slope of the driveway extension or new driveway will exceed 20% for most of its length.Therefore,any driveway extension or new driveway for the remaining lands should be paved and such requirement must be noted on the final plat. •Any extension of the existing driveway on Lots 1 and 2 will require an access easement to the remaining lands. •Any driveway extension or new driveway will require storm water management and a drainage system to control storm water runoff.Such steep slopes will make it very difficult to satisfactorily address those requirements. Mr.Lewis,Director of the Washington County Division of Emergency Services has reviewed the application and provided the following comments: •Access for emergency responders,ingress,egress and evacuation shall be provided for all buildings. •Roads shall be designed and constructed to allow evacuation simultaneously with emergency response operations. •Roads shall not be less than 20-feet of unobstructed width with a 13.5-foot vertical clearance. •Roads shall be designed,constructed and maintained to accommodate the load and turning radius of the largest apparatus typically used to respond to this location •Dead-end roads in excess of 300-feet in length shall be provided with turnouts and turnarounds as approved by the AHJ. •Maintaining both the unobstructed width and vertical clearance are paramount. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Ecker asked how much acreage would make up the remaining lands. Mr.Shaw stated there would be 15.68-acres remaining behind Lot 1.Mr.Lung stated that the remaining lands could be developed in the future,which concerns staff due to safety issues and the slope of the access. Mr.Bowen expressed his concern with regard to the length of the panhandle for the remaining lands due to fire safety issues and access to the property.Mr.Reiber also expressed his concern regarding fire safety issues and addressing comments provided by the Division of Emergency Services with regard to turnarounds and turnouts. Mr.Russ Townsley of Fox &Associates,Inc.,the applicant's consultant,stated that Mr.Nicely (owner of Lot 1)and his son (owner of Lot 2)jointly own the property in question.Mr.Nicely intends to create a lot around his house in order to obtain a separate deed for his property.Mr.Townsley stated that the owner of Lot 2 would have a deeded easement to cross the panhandle for Lot 1 to access the panhandle for the remaining lands.He noted that there is no further development planned for the property and the owners would be agreeable to a note restricting future development being placed on the subdivision plat.Mr. Reiber would like a restriction in the deeds that no further development can occur on the remaining lands. It was noted that typically a note is put on the plat and the plat is referenced in the deed. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the modification request with the condition that a note is added to the plat that there will be no further subdivision of the remaining lands in the future. The motion was seconded by Mr.Wiley and unanimously approved. SUBDIVISIONS -Emerald Pointe PUC.Section 2.Phase II-B (PSP-12-005) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval the subdivision plat for Emerald Pointe PUD,Section 2, Phase II-B,Lots 163 -176 located along the east side of Marsh Pike.The developer is proposing 14 single-family dwelling units.The property is currently zoned RT(PUD)-Residential Transitional (Planned Unit Development).Lot sizes will range from 9,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet.The total acreage of this section of Emerald Pointe is 4.5-acres.All lots will be served by public water and public sewer and have access onto Onyx Drive,a public street to be maintained by the County.All agency approvals have been received.Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements were addressed during the development of Phase I. Motion and Vote:Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the subdivision plat as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Bowen and unanimously approved. SITE PLANS -Cornerstone Community Church (SP-12-035) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for the Cornerstone Community Church located along the south side of Beaver Creek Road.The property is 3.28-acres in size and is currently zoned RV -Rural Village.The site has an existing barn located on it,which was previously a gift shop,and will now house the church offices and storage area.The owner is proposing to construct a 3,000-square foot 2- story addition to the barn to expand the church offices and for the church sanctuary.A grass parking area and gravel driveway is also proposed.The owner was granted a variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals in September of 2012 allowing for the placement of a grass parking area with gravel instead of a stable dust-free parking area.The site will be served by well and septic.Seating capacity in the proposed church is 269 people.The hours of operation will be 9:00 a.m.to 1:00 p.m.on Sundays and Wednesday evenings.There will be one employee.Parking required is 54 spaces and 64 spaces will be provided. There will be four (4)paved handicapped spaces.There will be a sign on the building and there will be pole and bUilding mounted lights.New plantings will be placed in two (2)bio-retention ponds.Forest Conservation requirements will be met by the payment in lieu of planting method in the amount of $1,045.44 because the site meets the express procedure requirements.All agency approvals have been received. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Wiley asked if the lighting would be directed downward.Ms.Kelly stated the lighting would be box-style,down-directed lights. 172 173 Motion and Vote:Mr.Wiley made a motion to approve the site plan as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Ecker and unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS •Proposed Text Amendment for the Rural Business zone Ms.Baker presented for consideration and discussion a proposed text amendment for the Rural Business zoning districts.There are currently two Rural Business zoning districts [Rural Business -Existing (RB- E)and Rural Business -New (RB-N)].During the Comprehensive Rural Rezoning in 2005,properties where businesses existed were assigned the RB-E designation.While recognizing that the rural areas need to have businesses to sustain the rural community,the County wanted some control over the intensity of those uses.To date,there has only been one property that has requested the RB-N district. Ms.Baker noted that there have been some problems during the past several years with the Rural Business zones,such as: •It is difficult for property owners with land that is zoned RB-E to remove the district once the business has ceased to exist because this is a Euclidean zoning district and there is no underlying zone. •In the State of Maryland,a change in the character of the neighborhood or a mistake in the original zoning must be proven in order to change the zoning of a parcel of land. •Tracking issues related to the expansion of business can be very cumbersome. Staff is proposing to repeal,in its entirety,the Rural Business -Existing Euclidean zone.Properties currently zoned RB-E would need to be rezoned with a designation of Agriculture,Environmental Conservation,Preservation or Rural Village.In addition,the Rural Business -New zoning district would be renamed Rural Business,would become a floating zone,and would be applied to the existing RB-E properties.Therefore,if a business would close,the property owner could request the floating zone to be removed and the zoning would revert back to the underlying zone.A public hearing would not be required for this process.Ms.Baker noted that the list of uses for the Rural Business zone is not proposed to be changed.Staff has considered some minor changes to the setback requirements, parking,hours of operation,sign age,lighting,and outdoor storage. Discussion and Comments:Members expressed concern with regard to the proposed changes for hours of operation.Mr.Wiley expressed his opinion that consideration should be given to existing businesses and how the proposed changes would affect them.Ms.Baker briefly reviewed the expansion and change of use criteria and asked Commission members to carefully review this section.She also reviewed the home occupation and resident business definitions.She noted that the current floor space requirement is too small and changes are proposed. Further discussions will be held at the May meeting with regard to the proposed amendment. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Monday,May 6,2013,7:00 p.m.,Regular Planning Commission meeting,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown,Maryland ADJOURNMENT Mr.Ecker made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:10 p.m.The motion was seconded by Mr.Wiley and so ordered by the chairman. Re~ Te'r~ 174. WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION May 6,2013 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,May 6,2013 at 7:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown,Maryland. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Andrew Bowen,Dennis Reeder,Sass an Shaool,and Ex-officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Stephen Goodrich;Deputy Director of Plan Review &Permitting Tim Lung;Chief Planner Jill Baker;Senior Planner Lisa Kelly;and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 1,2013 meeting as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder and unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS Text Amendment -Washington County Official Zoning Map (RZ-13-001) Ms.Baker presented for review and recommendation a text amendment to Section 3.1 of the Washington County Zoning Ordinance that was presented during a public rezoning meeting on April 1,2013.The purpose of this amendment is to update language pertaining to the implementation and digital maintenance of the Official Zoning map for Washington County,Maryland. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the text amendment (RZ-13-001)as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved with Commissioner McKinley abstaining from the vote. Text Amendment -Washington County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APF-13-001) Mr.Goodrich presented for review and recommendation a text amendment to Sections 2.3.12.1,4.1 and 5.2 of the Washington County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance that was presented during a public rezoning meeting on April 1,2013.The purpose of this amendment is to change the definition of a minor subdivision from five (5)lots or less to seven (7)lots or less to maintain consistency with the Washington County Subdivision Ordinance. Motion and Vote:Mr.Wiley made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the text amendment (APF-13-001)as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Bowen and unanimously approved with Commissioner McKinley abstaining from the vote. NEW BUSINESS -SITE PLANS Lakeside Park Community Center (SP-12-021) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for a proposed community center,sates office and swimming pool at Lakeside Park located along the south side of Bentwood Drive.The property is currently zoned RU -Residential Urban.The developer is proposing to construct a 5,000 square foot building that would house the sales office,swimming pool and community center.These facilities would be limited to those persons living in the Lakeside community;there would be no outside memberships. There will be three full time employees.The maximum capacity of the community center will be 154 people and the maximum capacity of the swimming pool will be 70 people.The hours of operation are proposed as follows:the sales office will be open year-round,Monday through Friday,9:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.;the community center will be open 7 days per week from 10:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.;and the swimming pool will be open May through September,7 days per week from 10:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.Public water and public sewer will serve the site.Parking spaces required for the site is 20 spaces and 23 spaces will be provided including two handicapped spaces.Building mounted lights and one pole mounted light will serve the site.A development entrance sign and building identification sign is proposed.The swimming pool area will be enclosed with a 5-foot high,gated chain-link fence.A 6-foot high wooden privacy fence will be constructed adjacent to the site and the existing single-family residences.Landscaping will be placed around the building,around the entrance sign,adjacent to the SWimming pool and along the front and side property lines.Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements were addressed during the site plan process for this entire section of Lakeside.All agency approvals have been received. Discussion and Comments:Commissioner McKinley questioned the configuration and depth of the pool.The developer,Mr.Wyman,stated that the swimming pool would be 5-feet deep and diving would be discouraged. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reeder made a motion to approve the site plan as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Wiley and unanimously approved. 175. OTHER BUSINESS Proposed Text Amendment for the Rural Business zone Ms.Baker reminded Commission members that during the April 1st meeting,a discussion was held regarding a proposed text amendment for the Rural Business zoning districts. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Bowen would like staff to identify,on a map,all of the properties currently zoned Rural Business.He asked approximately how many properties currently have this zoning and where they are located.Ms.Baker stated there are probably more than 250 properties with this zoning designation and they are scattered across the County.Mr.Goodrich noted that the Rural Business districts were designed to accommodate small businesses in the rural areas. Mr.Wiley expressed his concern with regard to limiting the hours and days of operation and how property owners would respond to these changes.There was a brief discussion regarding the proposed changes in days and hours of operation and the reasons for the proposed changes.Mr.Shaool expressed his opinion that the business owners know the days and hours that would be best for their respective businesses.Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that the days of operation should not be restricted.He suggested that consideration should be given to the distance between neighboring properties and a business in order to control noise and lighting issues.Commissioner McKinley believes that an hourly restriction would be better than a daily restriction.There was a brief discussion regarding the proposed setbacks and associated uses.Staff will review these proposed changes and bring this item back for further review at a later date. Proposed Text Amendment for a Limited Transferable Development Rights program Ms.Baker reminded Commission members that a proposed text amendment for a Limited Transferrable Development Rights programs was discussed during the March 4th meeting.The purpose of the text amendment is to provide a mechanism for adjoining properties with a singular ownership to effectively "cluster"multiple lot development rights into one existing parcel of record for the purpose of residential development.She noted that because the Septic Tiers Map was not adopted by the County Commissioners a subdivision is limited to a maximum of seven lots,which would hinder this program. During the March 4th meeting,Commission members discussed the proposed language relative to corporations and limited liabilities not being allowed in the program.After discussing this issue with the County Attorney's office,staff will be removing this language from the proposed text.Ms.Baker stated that the proposed text amendment will be heard by the Planning Commission at a public rezoning meeting in October. Town Growth Areas Rezoning Ms.Baker stated that she has met with the towns of Hancock,Boonsboro,Clear Spring and Smithsburg with regard to rezoning the areas around each town's growth area.She would now like to discuss the proposed changes with the Planning Commission to gain their input.Mr.Goodrich stated this would include changes to individual properties.Following a brief discussion,Planning Commission members decided they would like to hold a workshop in June to discuss the proposed changes. ADJOURNMENT Mr.Reeder made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:53 p.m.The motion was seconded by Mr.Bowen. So ordered. 176 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION June 3,2013 The Washington County Planning Commission held a public rezoning meeting and its regular meeting on Monday,June 3,2013 at 7:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown,Maryland. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Andrew Bowen,Dennis Reeder,Sassan Shaool,and Ex-officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Stephen Goodrich;Deputy Director of Plan Review &Permitting Tim Lung;Chief Planner Jill Baker;Senior Planner Lisa Kelly;and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC REZONING MEETING RZ-13·002 -Text Amendment -Washington County Zoning Ordinance Ms.Baker presented for review a text amendment application to amend Articles 18,21 and 28A of the Washington County Zoning Ordinance.She briefly explained the proposed changes to amend Articles 18 (Section 18.2)and 21 (Sections 21.42 and 21 .43)to correct an error related to Solar Energy Generating Systems and Article 28A related to the definition of "Recycling Facilities". There were no public comments either in favor of or against the proposed text amendment. Chairman Reiber closed the public meeting at 7:04 p.m. REGULAR MEETING Mr.Shaool recused himself from the Planning Commission in order to present a request for Washco Development to add an agenda item relative to the Rosewood Planned Unit Development (PUD)located along Robinwood Drive.By consensus of the Planning Commission members present,this item was added to the agenda under Other Business. MINUTES Mr.Reeder made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 6,2013 meeting as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Bowen and unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS MODIFICATIONS Black Rock PUD (SV-13-004) Mr.Shaool recused himself from the discussion and vote on this agenda item. Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a modification request for Black Rock PUD,Lots 406 -412. She noted that during the March 4,2013 Planning Commission meeting,a revision to the development plan for Black Rock Estates PUD showing the relocation of the community center,clubhouse and pool from Phase I to Phase III was presented and approved.A revised plat has been submitted to the Division of Plan Review &Permitting,which shows seven (7)lots,four (4)lots along Sasha Boulevard and three (3)lots to the rear of the property (Lots 10,11,and 12)that are panhandle lots.The property is currently zoned RT(PUD)-Residential Transitional Planned Unit Development.The developer is requesting a modification from Section 405.11.A.2 of the Subdivision Ordinance which states that a maximum of four (4)panhandle lots are permitted on an original tract of land.There are currently four (4)existing panhandle lots in this subdivision and the request would allow 3 more panhandle lots. Motion and Vote:Mr.Wiley made a motion to approve the modification request as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder and unanimously approved with Mr.Shaool abstaining from the vote. SUBDIVISIONS Emerald Pointe PUD.Section 4.Phase I (PSP-13-001) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval the preliminary plaVsite plan for Section 4,Phase I of the Emerald Pointe PUD located along the east side of Marsh Pike.The property is currently zoned RT(PUD) -Residential Transitional (Planned Unit Development).The developer is proposing the creation of 18 townhouse lots on 4.5-acres of land.All lots will be served by public water and public sewer.Access will be via a newly constructed public street (Diamond Point Drive).There will be 36 parking spaces provided by way of driveway parking (2 vehicles per driveway)and another 18 parking spaces will be provided in an overflow parking area.A mailbox cluster will be provided in the parking lot for the townhouse residents.The Forest Conservation Ordinance requires .42-acres of forest for this section,which will be planted in a future section of the development (as shown on the approved preliminary/final Forest Conservation Plan).All agency approvals have been received. ..... 177 Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the preliminary plaUsite plan for Section 4, Phase I of the Emerald Pointe PUD as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Wiley and unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Extension Request for Arnett FarmlWal-Mart Preliminary Plat (PSP-10-001) Mr.Shaool recused himself from the discussion and vote on this agenda item. Mr.Lung presented a request for an extension of the approval/disapproval of the preliminary plat for Arnett Farms/Wal-Mart.He explained that Section 310 of the Washington County Subdivision Ordinance states that "upon written request from the developer,the Planning Commission or its designee,the Planning Director,may extend the time for approval or disapproval of a preliminary plat for a period not to exceed two years.The granting of any subsequent extensions shall be at the sole discretion of the Planning Commission."In June of 2012,this plat reached its two year review time limit.The Planning Commission at its regular meeting on June 4,2012 granted a one year extension with an expiration of June 4,2013.Mr.Lung noted that comments from the reviewing agencies have been submitted to the consultant and the consultant has submitted revised drawings to address those comments.These revisions must be routed to the approving agencies.The consultant is requesting a 90-day extension, which would be retroactive to April 12,2013.This would be a tight time frame in which to have the plan ready for final approval by the Planning Commission in July 2013.Therefore,Mr.Lung suggested that if the Planning Commission does approve the extension,it should be for a period of 120 days,not 90 days. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Reiber asked for verification of the appropriate date from which the extension will begin (April 12,2013 or June 4,2013).Mr.Lung stated that he would verify the date. Mr.Reiber asked if all concerns of the State Highway Administration have been addressed.Mr.Lung stated that those concerns are still being addressed and a meeting is scheduled with the State Highway Administration,the consultant (Bohler Engineering)and staff later in the week.He also noted that changes in the design were submitted with the last revisions and briefly discussed the proposed changes. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to grant a 120 day extension of the preliminary plat for Arnett Farms/Wal-Mart.The motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder and unanimously approved with Mr. Shaool abstaining from the vote. Proposed Text Amendment for the Rural Business zone Ms.Baker reminded Commission members that there have been discussions during the past several months regarding a proposed text amendment to the Rural Business zone.She presented a map showing the locations of the properties in Washington County that are currently zoned RB (Rural Business).Ms.Baker pointed out that the current bulk requirements are being used to evaluate the intensity of a business. Discussion and Comments:There was a brief discussion regarding the expansion of an existing ..... business and the grandfathering of existing business with regard to the proposed requirements. Ms.Baker stated that another proposed change is the definitions for "home occupations"and "resident business".She noted that there has been an increase in home occupations in the County.Currently,the Zoning Ordinance limits the area for a home occupation to 15%of the floor space of a dwelling or accessory structure.The proposed text would allow 2,500 square feet of floor space in the dwelling or accessory structure for a home occupation.If the proposed text for a home occupation is adopted,a Zoning Certification would be required,not a Rural Business zoning overlay.Currently,a resident business is limited to 25%of the dwelling or accessory structure floor space.The proposed text would allow 5,000 square feet of floor space in the dwelling or accessory structure for a resident business.The resident business allows two non-resident employees. Consensus:Planning Commission members do not want the hours of operation to be restricted. The proposed changes to the Rural Business zone will be heard by the Planning Commission at a public rezoning meeting in October 2013. Consensus:The Planning Commission wants staff to mail a notice of the proposed changes and public rezoning meeting,as well as the County Commissioner's public hearing,to all property owners whose property is zoned RB. Town Growth Areas Rezoning Ms.Baker announced that a public workshop meeting for the Planning Commission will be held on Monday,June 24,2013 at 3:00 p.m.at the Washington County Administrative Annex.Agenda packets will be mailed to members later this week. Election of Officers Mr.Bowen nominated Mr.Terry to continue as Chairman for the upcoming year.The motion was seconded by Mr.Shaool and unanimously approved with Mr.Reiber abstaining from the vote. 178 Mr.Reeder nominated Mr.Wiley to continue as Vice-Chairman for the upcoming year.The motion was seconded by Mr.Bowen and unanimously approved with Mr.Wiley abstaining from the vote. Rosewood Planned Unit Development Mr.Shaool recused himself from the Planning Commission to participate as the developer in this request. Mr.Lung presented a request from Washco Development.He explained that as various sections have been approved at the plat stage,some of residential units have included an age restriction.The fact that these units are age-restricted is not reflected on the development plan;however,the restriction is noted on the approved plats and site plans.Mr.Lung noted that one of the components of higher density residential development is the provision of appropriate amenities for the residents,which include play lots or tot lots.Since some of the residential units were age-restricted,the amenities provided were adult exercise areas.Due to conditions in market changes and a recent legal finding that you can not age- restrict rental units based on HUD Guidelines,the developer has submitted a request to remove the age- restriction from the approved units and future units.Consequently,the development plan will need to be revised to add the play lotsltot lots.The developer is requesting the Planning Commission's approval of a revised development plan to change the adult exercise areas to play lotsltot lots.Mr.Lung explained that the developer will need to go before the County Commissioners to work out an APFO (Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance)mitigation plan for school capacity issues since these units will no longer be age- restricted. Discussion and Comments:Commissioner McKinley recused himself from the discussion and the vote because the issue of school mitigation must be presented and approved by the County Commissioners in the future. Mr.Reiber expressed concern with regard to removing the age-restriction without a public hearing if this was part of a public hearing before. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the changes as requested.The motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder and unanimously approved with Mr.Shaool and Commissioner McKinley abstaining from the vote. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Monday,June 24,2013,3:00 p.m.,Planning Commission Workshop meeting,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown,Maryland 2.Monday,July 1,2013,7:00 p.m.,Regular Planning Commission meeting,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown,Maryland Comments:Mr.Reiber expressed his concern with regard to proposed changes in the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance mitigation process recently discussed by the Board of County Commissioners.The proposed changes have not been presented to the Planning Commission for its review and comments. Mr.Reiber noted that the Planning Commission was "heavily involved"in the past in the mitigation process.Mr.Goodrich noted that he was given direction by the County Administrator to prepare a mitigation outline and present it to the County Commissioners in a short amount of time;however,there was no purposeful attempt to exclude the Planning Commission.He stated that staff is working on the formal presentation for the County Commissioners,which will be presented in early July.It is staff's intention to present the proposed changes to the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on July 1st. ADJOURNMENT Mr.Bowen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m.The motion was seconded by Mr.Wiley and so ordered. 183 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION July 1,2013 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,June 3,2013 at 7:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown,Maryland. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Andrew Bowen,Dennis Reeder,Sam Ecker,and Ex- officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Stephen Goodrich;Director of Plan Review &Permitting Jennifer Smith,Deputy Director of Plan Review &Permitting Tim Lung;Senior Planner Lisa Kelly;and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 3,2013 meeting as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder and unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS Text Amendment -RZ-13-002 Mr.Goodrich reminded Commission members that the proposed text amendment for Articles 18,21 and 28A of the Washington County Zoning Ordinance was presented during a ,public rezoning meeting on June 3,2013.The proposed changes would amend Articles 18 (Section 18.2)and 21 (Sections 21.42 and 21.43)to correct an error related to Solar Energy Generating Systems and Article 28A related to the definition of "Recycling Facilities". Motion and Vote:Mr.Reeder made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the proposed text amendment as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Bowen and unanimously approved with Commissioner McKinley abstaining from the vote. NEW BUSINESS MODIFICATIONS Estate of Alice C.Marquez (SV-13-005). Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a modification request from Sections 318.i and 405.11.b of the Washington County Subdivision Ordinance for the Estate of Alice C.Marquez.The property is located along the northeast side of Cohill Road and is currently zoned A(R)-Agricultural Rural.As a result of the Last Will and Testament of Alice C.Marquez,a 62 acre tract of land is being subdivided between her heirs.Proposed Parcel A would contain 32 acres of land and would be conveyed to William David Cohill,Mary Catherine Gargano and Jane Marie Scibilia;the remaining lands would contain 30 acres of land and would be conveyed to Nancy Cohill Manuel.Both properties are currently being farmed and would remain as an agricultural use.The applicants are requesting the lots to be created using the Simplified Plat process;however,the Subdivision Ordinance does not allow the creation of a stand-alone lot for agricultural purposes only.Proposed Parcel A would be created without any public road frontage, which is also not permitted by the Subdivision Ordinance.Access to Parcel A would be over an existing lane that is currently owned by other family members.The remaining lands would have access onto Cohill Road. Presentation:Mr.William Young,attorney for the Estate of Alice C.Marquez,submitted an exhibit for the Planning Commission to consider as part of this request.Mr.Young gave a brief presentation explaining the intent of the Last Will and Testament for the Marquez estate and the intent of the heirs to continue to farm the property. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Bowen asked why Parcel A is being created without public access. Mr.Young stated that under the terms of the Will,there is no other option.There would also be tax issues involved in such a transfer.Mr.Bowen expressed his concern with creating a lot without public road frontage.Mr.Schreiber of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,consultant for the applicant,stated that there is an existing lane that provides access to this parcel.A deeded right-of-way will be recorded with the subdivision of this land. Mr.Reiber concurred with Mr.Bowen's comments regarding the creation of a lot without public road frontage. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the modification requests as presented subject to a deeded right-of-way for Parcel A.The motion was seconded by Commissioner McKinley and unanimously approved. Potomac Overlook (SV-13-00S)and (PP-OS-003) Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a preliminary plat and a modification request for the Potomac Overlook subdivision located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Keep Tryst Road and Sandyhook Road.The property contains a total of 24 acres and is currently zoned RV -Rural Village. When the property was rezoned in 2003,the Board of County Commissioners placed a condition on the rezoning approval that restricts the number of lots that can be created on the property to a maximum of 184 eight.The developer is proposing the creation of eight (8)single-family lots that range in size from approximately Y:z acre to 1 acre.There are 16 acres of remaining lands and a Y:z acre parcel for storm water management that will be conveyed to the County.The developer is proposing two new public streets that will be constructed by the developer and turned over to the County.The proposed lots will be served by public water and public sewer that will be provided by the County from the Sandy Hook system. A storm water management pond will be provided.Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements will be met by a combination of on-site planting and on-site retention for a total of 4.7 acres.The design of the subdivision results in several double frontage lots.Section 405.11.0 of the Washington County Subdivision Ordinance prohibits double frontage lots except when certain conditions are met.Lots 4,5 and 6 meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance because they abut a major thoroughfare (Keep Tryst Road)and they have existing vegetative tree cover which provides a buffer.Lot 1 is considered a corner lot.Lots 2 and 3 are considered double frontage lots and do not meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance.A screen planting will be provided along Alta Vista Drive along the back of Lots 2 and 3.Staff has no objection to the approval of the modification request.If the preliminary plat is approved,a final subdivision plat will be required to be submitted within two (2)years of the preliminary plat approval.Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance requirements related to school capacity issues will be addressed at the final plat stage.All agency approvals have been received. Discussion and Comments:There was a brief discussion regarding the access for Lots 2 and 3.Mr. Lung stated that the approved access location [which will be onto the interior street]will be shown on the final plat with a note that restricts access to the thoroughfare for those lots. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reeder made a motion to approve the modification request as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Ecker and unanimously approved. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the preliminary plat for Potomac Overlook as presented.The motion was seconded by Commissioner McKinley. Amended Motion:Mr.Bowen amended his motion to request that the access locations for Lots 2 and 3 be addressed as part of the final plat.The amended motion was seconded by Commissioner McKinley and unanimously approved. SITE PLANS Pinesburg Quarry (SP-13-009) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval the proposed expansion of the Pinesburg Quarry located along the south side of the WilliamsporUClear Spring Road (Route 68).The property is currently zoned 1M -Industrial Mineral.The 77 acre parcel was rezoned from Agriculture to Industrial Mineral·in June 2011 (RZ-07-007).Extraction operations are restricted to the hours of 6:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.on Saturdays.There will be no direct access from the 77 acres to any public roads.Truck traffic exiting to the north will proceed to Maryland 68 via Bottom Road and vehicles exiting to the south will access Bottom Road.There will be no structures or housing for power driven or power producing machinery located on the site and all existing structures will be removed.The operation is exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.There will be no new signage on the expansion site.Blasting will not be closer than 500-feet to an occupied structure.The applicant is proposing a buffer from 150-feet to up to 400-feet around the excavation area.A 20-foot berm will be constructed in the buffer area to screen operations.There will be a 100-foot planting buffer along Route 68,which will include 330 staggered white pines.A 6-foot security fence with barbed wire will be placed around the expansion perimeter.All agency approvals have been received. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the site plan with all conditions set forth by the Board of County Commissioners during the rezoning in 2011.The motion was seconded by Mr.Ecker and unanimously approved. Westfields Day Care Center (SP-13-004) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for the Westfields Day Care Center located along the west side of Sharpsburg Pike.The property is currently zoned RT -Residential Transitional.The developer is proposing an 8,700-square foot single story day care center on a 2.6 acre parcel.Morning Walk Drive will provide access to the site.The site will be served by public water and public sewer.The hours of operation will be from 6:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.Monday through Friday.The estimated usage is 138 children and 17 staff members.Parking spaces required is 28 spaces and 37 parking spaces with 2 handicapped spaces will be provided.Solid waste will be collected in an enclosed masonry dumpster located in the parking lot.One monument sign will be located on the right-hand side of the entrance. Lighting will be bUilding and pole mounted.A 4,800-square foot outside play area will be enclosed by a 4- foot fence.Sidewalks will be provided in front of the building and along the entrance which will connect to the sidewalks located within the development.Landscaping will include dogwoods,maples,shrubs and ornamental grasses.A landscaping buffer of arborvitae will be provided between the parking area and the townhouses per requirements set forth in the Washington County Zoning Ordinance.Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements were preViously addressed.All agency approvals have been received.The State Highway Administration has approved the site plan concept conditional upon the traffic signal being installed and operational before the Use and Occupancy permit is issued for the day care center. Motion and vote:Mr.Reeder made a motion to approve the site plan as presented and contingent upon the traffic signal being installed and operational before the Use and Occupancy permit is issued per the 185 request of the State Highway Administration.The motion was seconded by Mr.Ecker and unanimously approved. WalmartlArnett Farms (PSP-1 0-001) Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a preliminary subdivision plat and site plan for WalmartlArnett Farms located along the west side of Maryland Route 65 (Sharpsburg Pike),south of Col. HK Douglas Drive.The total property involved in this application is 49.38 acres.There is an existing residential structure and agricultural structures on an existing previously created lot.The remainder of the site is undeveloped.Lot 1 was previously created and contains Arnett Sales and Service.The property is currently zoned HI -Highway Interchange/RU -Residential Urban/RM -Residential Multi- family.The preliminary subdivision plat will create three new commercial building lots [Lots 2,3 and 4). The proposed Walmart will be located on Lot 2,which contains 21.87 acres.Lot 3 contains 12.78 acres and Lot 4 contains 6.22 acres.A proposed storm water management outparcel [Parcel A)contains 3.17 acres and is located at the far southern end of the property.There will be a series of new public streets with right-of-way dedication to be involved as part of the subdivision plat.The developer is proposing to meet Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements [7.14 acres]through a payment-in-lieu.All three of the proposed new lots will have access to Col.HK Douglas Drive or Arnett Drive.All proposed building lots will be served by public water from the City of Hagerstown and public sewer from Washington County.A site plan will be required prior to any development on Lots 3 and 4 and the remaining lands.A final subdivision plat for recordation must be submitted within two years from the date of preliminary plat approval.The proposed Walmart will consist of retail sales,grocery and a seasonal garden center.The total building square footage is 155,405-square feet;the building height is 40-feet.The proposed internal roads will be private roads.Parking required is 735 spaces and 736 parking spaces will be provided, which will include 18 ADA handicapped spaces.There will be 27 bicycle parking spaces provided via a bicycle rack.Interior green space required in the parking lot is 5%or 16,935-square feet;however,10% or 34,977-square feet of planted material is proposed.Deliveries,loading,and collection and storage of waste and recyclables will occur at the rear of the building.The building will be opened 24-hours per day, 7 days per week.The total impervious area of the site is approximately 60%;90%is the maximum allowed by the Zoning Ordinance.Storm water management will be addressed using micro bio-retention areas located within the green space inside the parking lots as well as a large storm water management pond.The Zoning Ordinance requires screening for adjoining residential uses along Maryland Route 65, which will be achieved by a combination of vegetative plantings and a 6-foot high board-on-board fence. An additional buffer area of plantings will be prOVided for the eXisting residential development to the south.A photometric lighting plan has been provided showing zero light trespass onto the adjoining residential properties.The proposed lighting meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.Light fixtures in the parking lot will be 35-feet high,down-directed cut-off fixtures.Building mounted lighting will also be down-directed.Two pylon signs are proposed;one sign to be located at the intersectiol)of Arnett Drive and Maryland Route 65 and one sign to be located at Col HK Douglas Drive.The Zoning Ordinance allows a maximum signage area of 300-square feet per sign;however,the Planning Commission may increase the area by 10%.The developer is requesting an increase to 325-square feet per sign,which is less than 10%.This increase would allow for the single support structures to accommodate the Walmart sign as well as future tenants on the undeveloped lots.There is a proposed water allocation of 3,200 gallons per day.Sewer pump station upgrades will be required for the existing pump station that serves this area,which will require approval by the Board of Zoning Appeals because sewer pumping stations are considered a special exception use. Ms.Smith gave a brief summary regarding the traffic impact study that was performed as required by the State Highway Administration on Maryland Route 65.The scope of the traffic study and proposed improvements go from the Rench Road intersection on Maryland Route 65 to north of the 1-70 interchange on Maryland Route 65.The traffic impact study reviewed current traffic counts,incorporated a 2.5%growth factor each year to the year 2035,projected traffic from already approved developments, and projected traffic from this project.Ms.Smith reviewed each of the proposed improvements being required by the State Highway Administration. Introduction of Consultants:Mr.Tom Kline legal counsel representing Walmart.Mr.Joe Calogerrci representing The Traffic Group who has been working with the State Highway Administration as well as the County and Federal government relative to traffic related issues.Mr.Mark Joyce of Bohler Engineering who is the lead civil engineer on the project. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Ecker asked if other future development along both sides of Sharpsburg Pike was calculated in the traffic study.Mr.Calogerro responded that calculations were included in the study for a 6,500 square foot restaurant,a 4,500 square foot restaurant,a 6,000-square foot fast food restaurant,and a drive-in bank.Mr.Ecker asked if other development beyond the Walmart or across Maryland Route 65 was included.Mr.Calogerro stated that development beyond this area would be part of any new development and future traffic studies.Ms.Smith noted that each development and its impact would be considered separately and a new traffic study would be required.If more improvements are needed,those developers would be responsible for them. Mr.Bowen complimented the applicant on the thoroughness of the application and materials submitted for the Commission's review. Commissioner McKinley asked how much divided highway is being added on Sharpsburg Pike and how many businesses will be affected.Mr.Calogerro stated it would affect businesses from Col.HK Douglas Drive and north;however,a portion of this area is already divided.He noted that there have been 11 traffic studies completed since 2008 on this corridor. ., 186 Mr.Reiber asked if the traffic study considered the amount of traffic already accessing Col HK Douglas Drive on a daily basis as well as the traffic that will be generated by the Walmart store.Mr.Calogerro responded that all those factors were taken into consideration and the proposed road improvements reflect all the conditions along Col HK Douglas Drive. Staff Recommendations:Mr.Lung addressed the staff's recommendations as follows: •Mr.Lung addressed the applicant's request to meet Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements using the payment-in-lieu method.He stated that staff does not support a total payment-in-Iieu proposal.Article 10 of the Forest Conservation Ordinance outlines a preferred sequence of techniques and areas for mitigation.The use of payment-in-Iieu is the lowest priority in the sequence.Mr.Lung noted that the previously approved subdivision plat that created Lot 1 and Tract 3 required 5.06 acres of forest conservation,which was to be achieved by establishing 3.61 acres of on-site planting and a 2:1 off-site planting area.He noted that these areas were never planted.With the submittal of the subdivision plat for Lots 2 -4,the developer re-calculated the forest conservation requirements accounting for the additional development.The developer is proposing to eliminate the previously established on-site planting area and also eliminate the previously approved off-site planting area and replace them with a payment-in-lieu.It is Staff's opinion that the developer has not adequately exhausted all of the 10 higher priorities for addressing Forest Conservation requirements before the payment-in-lieu.On-site forest conservation is the first priority and should be integrated in the initial site footprint at the beginning of the process.Mr.Lung noted there is no existing forest on the property and there are no environmentally sensitive areas,but there is priority area on-site because there are adjoining residential land uses where the Forest Conservation Ordinance encourages forest conservation. Mr.Tom Kline,counsel for Walmart,responded to staff's comments by noting that there were certain constraints on the site.He reiterated that there is currently no forest on the site.It was also noted that there will be a significant amount of environmental features on the site and open space.The designated storm water management area will be approximately 150-feet wide by gOO-feet long.There are also significant open space areas around the building.In total,there will be approximately 10 acres of land that will not be developed.The parking lot landscaping areas will be enhanced,as previously discussed. Additionally,there are sustainable features that will be incorporated into the new buildings. •Residential area buffer yards must be designed per the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and provide effective screening. •Mr.Lung explained that the existing business on Lot 1 that fronts MD 65 will be affected by both the proposed subdivision and the proposed MD 65 improvements.The proposed subdivision will reduce the setback previously approved under the previous subdivision of this lot.The reduced setback will require Board of Zoning Appeal approval for this reduced setback.The proposed improvements on MD 65 will result in a channelized entrance into Lot 1.The effect of this plan will be to require reconfiguration of the existing parking provided on this property.Therefore,it is recommended that a site plan showing how lot 1 will be reconfigured to meet the reduced setback (approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals)and reconfigured parking be required. •The remaining lands created per this subdivision will require setbacks in accordance with the RU zoning requirements.These setbacks must be shown on a revised preliminary plat submittal prior to approval. •The existing residential structures on proposed Lot 3 will require demolition.It is recommended that this be made a condition of the preliminary plat approval.The final plat will not be approved until this demolition has been permitted,completed and had a final inspection. •In order for this site to be served with public sewer,upgrades to an existing pump station are necessary.These upgrades will require a zoning appeal by the Board of Zoning Appeals.It is recommended that approval of this appeal be made a condition of approval of the preliminary plat/site plan. •An addendum to the Traffic Impact Study is necessary based on comments from the Washington County Division of Public Works.It is recommended that approval of the preliminary plat/site plan be conditional on the approval of the addendum to the Traffic Impact Statement by DPW. •Approval of the preliminary plat/site plan has not been received from the Maryland State Highway Administration.It is recommended that approval of the preliminary plat/site plan be conditional on the approval of the State Highway Administration. •There are a number of minor housekeeping items not affecting the design of the site that will need to be addressed on a revision prior to final approval of the preliminary plat/site plan. •All approving agencies have reviewed the plans and have no objection to the conditional approval of the plan.Any remaining comments that need to be address have no significant impact on the overall design of the site;therefore,staff recommends that they be granted the authority to approve the preliminary plat/site plan at such time that all of the referenced conditions are met and all agency approvals received. •Staff recommends approval of the increase in the signage square footage as requested by the applicant. Mr.Lung noted that after the plan was initially submitted,the Division of Plan Review &Permitting received 42 postcards from a group named Sharpsburg Pike Residents for Smart Growth entitled "Open Letter to Federal,State and Local Planning Officials·and states,"As taxpayers and voters in Washington County,we believe the Walmart Supercenter on Sharpsburg Pike will increase traffic and the need for road improvements.We believe the 1-70 interchange should be reconstructed before any new development is approved and taxpayers should not be held responsible for any traffic improvements r 187 needed for this proposed development including the 1-70 interchange. Please require Walmart to make the necessary improvements before submittal." Comments:Mr.Reiber recommended that the developer reconsider the proposed payment-in-Iieu to meet Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.He believes consideration should be given to on-site planting in the open space areas. Motion and Vote:Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the preliminary plat/site plan contingent upon the developer meeting all of the conditions as outlined in the staff's recommendations.The motion was seconded by Mr.Bowen and unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS The Townes at Rockspring (PSP-06-002) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval an extension request for the Townes at Rockspring (PSP-06- 002)located along the east side of Hickory School Road.She noted that Section 310 of the Washington County Subdivision Ordinance states,"upon written request from the developer,the Planning Commission or its designee,the Planning Director,may extend the time for approval or disapproval of a preliminary plat for a period not to exceed two years.The granting of any subsequent extensions shall be at the sole discretion of the Planning Commission." Discussion and Comments:Mr.Chris Bell of Hekbel LLC,owner of the property and the Crosspoint Shopping Center,explained that a residential developer had the property under contract prior to the downturn of residential development in 2008.According to Mr.Bell,the State Highway Administration reviewed the previously submitted plan and subsequently required road improvements to Hickory School Road and the intersection with Route 11.At this point,the developer dropped the contract on the property and the project.Mr.Bell stated that there is again development interest in the property. Therefore,Hekbel LLC is requesting an extension of three years in order to allow enough time to work with the State Highway Administration to resolve road improvement issues and hopefully find a new developer. There was a brief discussion regarding the length of the requested extension and the dates of the various approvals that are needed. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve an extension for the preliminary plat/site plan for the Townes at Rockspring until May 4,2017.The motion was seconded by Mr.Ecker and unanimously approved. Emerald Pointe PUD Revision (DP-06-002) Ms.Kelly presented for review a modification request of the previously approved Emerald Pointe PUD. She noted that in 2004 the first development plan was submitted and approved.A revision to this development plan was submitted and was approved by the Planning Commission in April 2007.This plan included 267 dwelling units,2.9 acres of commercial area with development and a retirement living center with 12 cottages on 8.32 acres of land located at the intersection of Marsh Pike and Leitersburg Pike. The developer is proposing to revise the development plan as follows: •Elimination of the 9,000 square foot commercial building from the interior area of the development •Expansion of the community center to include additional amenities for the residents of Emerald Pointe and surrounding community including outdoor recreational areas,tennis courts,and a restaurant/cafe area •New commercial area (in lieu of the interior commercial area)at the corner of Marsh Pike and Maryland Route 60 to replace the previously planned/approved retirement living center •Revision of phase lines to reflect existing recorded plats and approved preliminary plats (future phase lines are approximate and subject to change based on future sales) Ms.Kelly explained that the Zoning Ordinance states,"minor changes to the PUD development plan may be approved by the Planning Commission.Where there is a question about the degree of change being major or minor,the Planning Commission shall make the determination."Action required from the Planning Commission is to determine if a public hearing should be required for this revision. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Jason Divelbiss,attorney for the developer Paul Crampton,addressed the Planning Commission members regarding procedural changes since there is no longer a PUD zoning classification in the Washington County Zoning Ordinance.According to the language in the Mixed Use zoning district,PUD zones approved by the BOCC "shall maintain their validity after adoption of the Mixed Use District.Subsequent plan reviews and approvals of development plans,subdivisions and site plan shall comply with the requirements of Article 16 as they were at the time of the PUD zoning approval." There was a brief discussion regarding the proposed commercial area and the principal permitted uses that would be allowed.Mr.Crampton briefly discussed the elimination of the previously approved retirement living center and the lack of interest in such a project at this time,and the additional amenities being proposed. Commission members discussed the traffic concerns and possible requirements of the State Highway Administration as well as the County with regard to road improvements. Terry'Reiber,Chairman 188 Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to recommend that the revisions to the development plan for the Emerald Pointe PUD be presented at a public hearing.The motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder and unanimously approved. Planning Commission Annual Report Mr.Goodrich presented,on behalf of Mr.Fred Nugent,the Annual Report for 2012 which will be submitted to the Maryland Department of Planning as required by State law.The Report covers development activities,various Ordinance amendments and the result of changes to overall development patterns in the County,changes to the Comprehensive Plan,new road construction and new school activity, The Commission accepted the report as written. Proposed Adeguate Public Facilities Ordinance Mr.Goodrich presented for review a draft of the proposed Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance amendments that would create an Alternate Mitigation Contribution.This proposal is a method for developers to pay a standardized contribution for school improvements when their subdivision and site plans cannot meet the school adequacy standards of the APFO but do not exceed 120%of capacity.It is an alternative for the complicated process of proposing (by the developer)and approving or disapproving (by the County Commissioners)a mitigation proposal to address the inadequacy of the affected schools. Mr.Goodrich briefly explained the formula that would be used and how it would be applied in determining the mitigation needed to meet APFO requirements. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Monday,August 5,2013,7:00 p.m.,Regular Planning Commission meeting,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown,Maryland ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. 189 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION August 12,2013 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,August 12,2013 at 7:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Dennis Reeder,and Ex-officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Stephen Goodrich and Director of Plan Review &Permitting Jennifer Smith. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr.Reiber commented that the meeting is a week later this month due to the lack of quorum for the regularly scheduled meeting on August 5,2013.He expressed his concern regarding attendance especially since meeting schedules are distributed at the beginning of each year and meetings are generally held on the first Monday of each month.He believes this is a disruption to the citizens of the County and shared his hope that this will not occur in the future. MINUTES Mr.Reeder made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 24,2013 workshop meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr.Wiley and unanimously approved. Commissioners McKinley made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 1,2013 regular meeting as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder and unanimously approved. Chairman Reiber changed the order of the meeting in order to address the business of parties in attendance. NEW BUSINESS -Brook Lane Hospital (SP-13-005) Ms.Smith presented,on behalf of Cody Shaw,a site plan for Brook Lane Hospital for a building addition, an expansion of the parking area,and improvements to the access road.The property is located along the south side of Brook Lane Drive and is currently zoned RB-E (Rural Business -Existing).The site will be served by private water and private sewer.The property is accessed from the Leitersburg-Smithsburg Road.The developer is proposing storm water management to be handled by porous pavers and a micro bio-retention facility.Improvements to the entrance at the Leitersburg-Smithsburg Road will include striping to direct traffic,which will improve sight distance.All agency approvals have been received. Motion and Vote:Mr.Wiley made a motion to approve the site plan as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder and unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS -APF-13-002 -School Mitigation Mr.Goodrich presented a text amendment to the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance for an Alternate Mitigation Contribution.which is a standardized method of mitigating when schools are inadequate for new development.This would be a substitute for the current mitigation method in which a developer creates his own mitigation plan for approval by the County Commissioners.The proposed formula could be used to determine a developer's contribution based in part on some variables directly related to the particulars of his development.The proposed formula would be used when anyone of the three types of schools [elementary,middle or high]in the developer's area is determined to be over its state-rated capacity (elementary 90%;middle and high 100%).Once a school goes over 120%of its state-rated capacity,the proposed formula could not be used and the developer would need to create a mitigation plan for approval by the County Commissioners.The proposed formula would expedite the mitigation process for developers.Mr.Goodrich reviewed the proposed formula for the Alternate Mitigation Contribution (AM C),which is [(A/BxC)xDxE=AMC].He then explained each component of the formula as follows:"A"is the average cost of a school seat;"B"is the expected lifespan of school or seat;"C"is the pupil generation rate attributable to the type of dwelling units proposed;"D"is the years a student spends in the school (e.g."6"for an elementary school,"3"for a middle school and "4"for a high school);and "E" is the number of dwelling units per type (Le.single,family,apartment,and/or town home),proposed in the new development. Mr.Goodrich noted that as part of the amendment to incorporate the school mitigation into the APFO.it is also proposed that the exemption for age-restricted development be removed from the APFO School Mitigation.He noted the various reasons for proposing the removal of the age-restriction.Mr.Goodrich stated that this issue was met with controversy during the public hearing before the County Commissioners.Mr.Wiley stated he is in favor of removing the age-restriction.He expressed his opinion that age-restriction has become a loophole that allows developers to develop property without having to pay the mitigation. , 190 Mr.Goodrich briefly reviewed the other proposed changes to the APFO in Article 5.In Section 5.5(b),the period of time between the test for adequacy and Planning Commission approval has been changed from six (6)months to 1 year.In Section 5.5(d),the proposed language will allow the subtraction of certain students from the adequacy test.Section 5.6 creates the option to use this form of mitigation. Discussion and Comments:Commissioner McKinley questioned if mitigation should occur at the middle and high school level if only the elementary school is over capacity. Mr.Reeder asked how age-restriction would be addressed.Mr.Goodrich stated that if the text amendment is adopted and the age-restriction language removed,there will be no issue.He briefly explained requirements for age-restricted development.Mr.Reiber stated that he is in favor of the proposed APFO school mitigation amendment,with the exception of removing the age-restriction.Mr. Goodrich clarified that there could still be age-restricted development,but it would not be exempt from mitigation.Mr.Reeder expressed his opinion that the proposed formula is fair for all developers.There was a brief discussion regarding the review process of the APFO and how often it should be reviewed to keep up with current costs. Motion and Vote:Mr.Wiley made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed amendment as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder.The motion passed [by a show of hands]with Mr. Wiley,Mr.Reeder and Mr.Reiber voting "Aye"and Commissioner McKinley abstaining. Amended Motion and Vote:Mr.Wiley amended the motion to recommend that a full review of the APFO take place at the end of the second year of each term of County Commissioners.The amended motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder.The motion passed [by a show of hands]with Mr.Wiley,Mr. Reeder and Mr.Reiber voting "Aye"and Commissioner McKinley abstaining. ADJOURNMENT Mr.Wiley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:23 p.m.The motion was seconded by Commissioner McKinley and so ordered by the Chairman. 191 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION September 9,2013 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,September 9,2013 at 7:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Dennis Reeder,Sam Ecker,Sassan Shaool,and Ex- officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Stephen Goodrich,Director of Plan Review &Permitting Jennifer Smith,Deputy Director of Plan Review &Permitting Tim Lung,Senior Planner Lisa Kelly and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Reeder made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 12,2013 regular meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner McKinley and unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS SUBDIVISIONS Claggett's Mill (PP-13-002) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval the preliminary plat for Claggett's Mill,Lots 1-264 located along the north and south sides of Poffenberger Road.The property is currently zoned RU -Residential Urban.The development is made up of two parcels with the parcel on the south side of Poffenberger Road consisting of 110 acres of land and the parcel on the north side consisting of 102 acres of land,for a total of 212 acres.The Claggett's Mill subdivision [originally County file #S-04-061]was approved in 2007 for the entire development.As a result of the Urban Growth Area rezoning which was adopted in July of 2012,the Claggett's Mill property was re-c1assified from Agriculture to Residential Urban.The zoning change permitted a reduction in the minimum lot size from 20,000 square feet to 7,500 square feet.The developer has reduced the lot size of several of the lots on the south side of Poffenberger Road and has reconfigured the development plat going from the original 238 lots to a total of 264 lots.The design now includes cul-de-sacs instead of a through street on the south side of Poffenberger Road.All lots would be served by public water and public sewer.All lots will access proposed and current public streets with no direct access onto Poffenberger Road.Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements will be met by planting 26.7 acres of trees,with a majority of the planting occurring adjacent to the Antietam Creek.This preliminary plat would replace the previously approved preliminary plat for Claggett's Mill. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Shaool noted that there are no playgrounds or amenities delineated on the plat.Ms.Kelly stated that this subdivision is not a planned unit development and therefore no amenities or playgrounds are required.She noted that the lot sizes are large enough to accommodate play areas on individual properties. Mr.Reiber asked if a study would be done to determine the effects on the Antietam Creek.Mr. Civjanovich of Renn Engineering,the developer's consultant,stated that all of the storm water management structures drain into the Antietam Creek and all structures are currently under review.Ms. Smith stated that the storm water management structure design currently meets all state and local requirements.Mr.Reiber questioned the traffic impact on Poffenberger Road and Downsville Pike.Ms. Smith stated that the developer addressed their requirements for mitigating traffic when the preliminary plat was originally approved.Mr.Jason Wiley,the developer's representative,gave a brief overview of the road improvements that have been completed in this area.Ms.Smith stated that the additional lots [due to reconfiguration of the development]would not generate enough traffic to require the developer to make more road improvements. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reeder made a motion to approve the preliminary plat for Claggett's Mill as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Ecker and unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Draft of the Solid Waste Plan Amendment Mr.Goodrich informed Commission members that during the 2012 Legislative session,a bill was passed that requires recycling in apartment bUildings and condominium structures with more than 10 units in the bUilding.The Bill dictates that counties amend their Solid Waste Plans to create a program to guide the implementation of the Bill.In accordance with the Bill,the amendment to the Solid Waste Plan is to be completed by October 1,2013 and the actual recycling program would need to be in place by October 2014.Mr.Goodrich noted that the Washington County Commissioners have approved a waste to energy program at the County's landfill,which will require the construction of facilities and purchase of machinery.Permits will be required from MDE for the construction and operation of these facilities,which will also require an amendment to the Solid Waste Plan.The County has requested and been granted a delay in order to submit both amendments at the same time. 192 Business Friendly Task Force Ms.Smith stated that in August 2012,County staff and members of the development and engineering communities began meeting to discuss issues,problems and concerns with regard to the plan review and permitting processes.Staff has begun implementing solutions for 18 of the 42 identified issues.A task force has been created to work on several other issues that were identified.The task force has suggested an optional step early in the plan review process where developers or consultants could come before the Planning Commission to seek gUidance on project proposals.This would not be an official review or approval from the Planning Commission. Mr.Fred Frederick of Frederick,Seibert &Associates is a member of the Task Force and was present to speak during the meeting.He cited several examples when consultants may want to appear before the Planning Commission to discuss project proposals.Mr.Frederick reiterated that the Commission's comments would not be binding and this step would not eliminate the need for formal approvals.He discussed a change to the current meeting forum to include a public comment period. Discussion and comments:Mr.Shaool believes that the public comment period is a good idea; however,he believes that it needs to be structured.He believes that a drawing or sketch needs to be presented,not just verbalized,and there should be a sign-up period ahead of time to present a proposal to the Planning Commission.Mr.Shaool believes the Planning Commission should give staff additional approval/denial authority for minor projects;however,if the developer or the consultant is not satisfied with Staffs decision,then the request could be brought before the Planning Commission. Mr.Frederick noted that the Task Force also recommended that plans for major projects should be presented to the Planning Commission earlier in the process before all agency approvals have been received.Ms.Smith stated that the Planning Commission is already reviewing plans that do not have all approvals and has given conditional approval on many projects. There was a brief discussion among members regarding the policies and procedures currently used during meetings and the approval of projects.Commissioner McKinley expressed his opinion that public comment at Planning Commission meetings could be structured very similarly to County Commissioner's public comment period with a time constraint for each speaker and members choosing whether or not to make comments. There was a brief discussion with regard to delegating more approval authority to staff and the types of decisions that could be made by them.Mr.Goodrich noted that the Planning Commission has already delegated many decisions to staff that they deal with every day;however,if staff is not comfortable in making a specific decision it will be brought before the Planning Commission.Ms.Smith Qoted the policies are currently written so that staff has only the authority to approve various requests;they do not have the authority to deny requests.She also stated that as the policies are currently written,if someone is unhappy with a decision that is made by staff,their only recourse is to appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals,not the Planning Commission. After a lengthy discussion,Commission members decided changes to procedures that would allow staff the authority to approve certain types of projects should be explored further.Chairman Reiber requested that staff prepare for the Planning Commission's review,guidelines for projects that could use this process (such as modifications for length of a panhandle),setting a deadline for these requests to be received by staff (3 to 5 days),and adding a specific time slot on the agenda to address these items. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Tuesday,October 1,2013,3:00 p.m.-Joint Public Hearing for revisions to the Emerald Pointe PUD,Washington County Administration Building,100 West Washington Street, Room 255,Hagerstown,Maryland 2.Monday,October 7,2013,7:00 p.m.-RegL:lar Planning Commission meeting,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown,Maryland ADJOURNMENT Mr.Ecker made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:17 p.m.The motion was seconded by Commissioner McKinley and so ordered by the Chairman. 193 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION October 7,2013 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,October 7,2013 at 7:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Dennis Reeder,Drew Bowen,Sassan Shaool,and Ex-officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Stephen Goodrich,Chief Planner Jill Baker,Director of Plan Review &Permitting Jennifer Smith,Deputy Director of Plan Review &Permitting Tim Lung,Senior Planners Cody Shaw and Lisa Kelly and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Reeder made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 9,2013 regular meeting as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Shaool and unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS Emerald Pointe PUD Revision Recommendation (RZ-13-005) Mr.Reiber stated that this item would be tabled pending a second public hearing. Town Growth Areas Update Ms.Baker distributed copies of the comments received following the Town Growth Area public meetings held during the month of August in the towns of Boonsboro,Clear Spring,Hancock and Smithsburg.She noted there were three general comments that were heard at each of the meetings. •Citizens expressed concern that they would be annexed into the Town boundary and be forced to hook up to public water and sewer and that their taxes would be increased. •Concern was expressed by the language requiring new development to hook up to public water and sewer.While some citizens understood they wouldn't be required to annex into 'the Town, they believed that all existing development would also be required to hook up to public facilities. Others were concerned that if neighboring properties began to develop and services were extended,they would also be required to hook up. •Concern was expressed with regard to tax increases if properties are changed from a zoning designation of Agriculture to Residential.Staff tried to explain the difference between agricultural zoning and agricultural tax assessment;however,the concern remains an issue. Ms.Baker briefly reviewed the number of direct mailings sent to residents in each Town and the number of residents that attended the public meetings:Boonsboro -117 direct mailings with approximately 45 to 50 people attending the meeting;Clear Spring -93 direct mailings with approXimately 25 to 30 people attending the meeting;Hancock -113 direct mailings with approximately 65-70 people attending the meeting;and Smithsburg -888 direct mailings with approximately 90-100 people attending the meeting. Ms.Baker noted there were a few specific requests for zoning changes which will be reviewed by the Planning Commission.There was a brief discussion regarding the next step in the rezoning process. Discussion:Mr.Bowen expressed his opinion that the Planning Commission should hold a workshop to discuss the issues and then hold public meetings in each Town for citizens to express their concerns.Mr. Reeder also believes that a public meeting in each Town would be beneficial.Commissioner McKinley expressed his opinion that the most common concern during the public meetings was a fear of annexation into the Town's boundaries and hooking up to public water and sewer.Mr.Shaool expressed his opinion that a written handout for residents would be helpful.Ms.Baker stated that a brief summary was sent to each property owner on the mailing list,copies of the power point presentation were available at the meetings and there is information posted on the Planning Department's website. The Planning Commission decided to hold a Workshop following its regularly scheduled November meeting and asked staff to choose tentative dates for the public meetings in each Town. NEW BUSINESS Sharrett Collision Center (SP-13-023) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for the Sharrett Collision Center located along the west side of Auto Place and adjacent to National Pike.The property is zoned HI -Highway Interchange. The developer is proposing to construct a 35,000 square foot vehicle repair shop on a 4.7 acre parcel. The site will be served by individual well and septic.The proposed hours of operation will be 7:30 a.m.to 5:30 p.m.,Monday through Friday.There will be 30 employees.Total parking spaces required is 116 spaces and 116 parking spaces will be proVided.There will be a secure fenced parking area located at 194 the back of building.Lighting will be building mounted and pole mounted throughout the parking area. Signage will be pole mounted and will be located in the southwest corner of the site.An enclosed dumpster will be located to the rear of the building for the collection of solid waste.Landscaping will be located throughout the site and will include landscaping islands.Storm water management will be provided using bio-retention ponds,which will also contain vegetation.Forest Conservation requirements will be met by a payment-in-Iieu in the amount of $3,136.32.All agency approvals have been received. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reeder made a motion to approve the site plan as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Wiley and unanimously approved. Smithsburg A C &T (SP-13-012) Mr.Shaw presented for review and approval a site plan for the Smithsburg AC &T addition.The site is located at 22515 Jefferson Boulevard,Smithsburg.The developer is proposing the addition of a 1,900 square foot restaurant with indoor seating and a drive-thru on a .9 acre parcel.The property is currently zoned BL -Business Local.The site is served by public water and public sewer.Storm water management will be addressed using micro bio-retention areas.The site features two access points - one from Maryland Route 64 and one from Maryland Route 66.There is an existing screened dumpster to collect solid waste.The minimum requirement for parking is 44 spaces and 46 parking spaces will be provided.This site is exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements because there will be less than 40,000 square feet of disturbance.The hours of operation will be 24 hours a day,7 days per week and the number of employees will be four per shift (3 shifts per day).There will be no additional lighting or signage.All agency approvals have been received. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the site plan as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Wiley and unanimously approved. Baltimore Mack Truck Group (SP-13-026) Mr.Shaw presented for review and approval a site plan for Baltimore Mack Truck Group.The site is located on the east side of Greencastle Pike (TM 48,G 9,P 921).The developer is proposing a truck sales/service center on an 8.18 acre parcel.The property is currently zoned HI -Highway Interchange. The site will be served by public water and sewer.Storm water management will be addressed via a storm water management pond located at the front of the site and bio-retention areas located around the site.The site features two points of access.Trash will be collected in a screened dumpster.Forest Conservation requirements were previously addressed on a 1999 development plan for Tiger Development.Proposed are 43 truck parking spaces and 34 car parking spaces;28 parking spaces are required.The proposed hours of operation will be Monday through Friday,7:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.with 17 employees.The proposed sign will be pole mounted.Lighting will be building mounted and pole mounted.All agency approvals have been entered into the County's Permits Plus system with the exception of the State Highway Administration.Comments from SHA were received earlier today.Staff recommends that the Planning Commission give staff the authority to approve the site plan once all agencies have reviewed all revisions. Discussion:Mr.Fred Frederick of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,the consultant,stated that his firm has begun working on the comments received from SHA.Mr.Mike Hicks of Frederick,Seibert & Associates,stated that the main comment from SHA was relative to a drainage swale along the front of the site.All other comments that have been received are off-site in the right-of-way and will not affect the site design.Mrs.Smith stated that if there are changes that are required by SHA on the current plans, the revised plans must be resubmitted to the Division of Plan Review &Permitting and redistributed to all reviewing agencies because SHA's changes could impact other reviewing agencies approvals. Comments:Mr.Shaool expressed his opinion that if the changes required by SHA and other reviewing agencies are major,the plan should come back before the Planning Commission.Mr.Reiber asked for confirmation that used oil and gasoline will be disposed of properly.Mr.Leroy Meyers stated that it will be disposed of in accordance with MOE requirements. Motion and Vote:Mr.Shaool made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon final approval by the State Highway Administration and all other agencies.The motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder. Clarification by Staff:Mr.Lung reiterated that staff's recommendation was for the Planning Commission to grant staff the authority to approve the site plan.The motion was not amended. Vote:The motion passed with Mr.Wiley opposing the motion because he believes that staff should be given the authority to approve the site plan. Clarification for Consultant:Mr.Frederick verified that when State Highway Administration approval is received and all other agency approvals are in the system,the site plan is approved.Mr.Reiber stated that is the intent of the motion. Clarification for Staff:Ms.Smith asked if the State Highway Administration approves their copy of the plan,will other approving agencies have the opportunity to again review the plan?Mr.Reiber clarified that if the SHA approves the plan with changes then the other approving agencies must review the changes.Ms.Smith stated that the plan must be re-submitted and all other agencies must review and re- approve the changes.Mr.Reiber concurred. 195 FOREST CONSERVATION Proposed Forest Conservation Amendment Mr.Goodrich presented for review a proposed Forest Conservation Amendment.He began with a brief history leading up to the proposed amendment.Mr.Goodrich noted when the new amendments go before the County Commissioners for approval,they will be accompanied by a separate resolution that will set the payment-in-Iieu fee.Staff is proposing that the fees be set at the State required level of $.30 per square foot inside the Priority Funding Areas and $.36 per square foot outside the Priority Funding Areas.Mr.Goodrich briefly reviewed and summarized the proposed changes. Discussion:There was a brief discussion regarding the proposed language that states,"New guidance to discourage easements on individual residential lots and limit easements to lots greater than 20,000 square feet".Mr.Goodrich noted that in large subdivisions where forest mitigation was spread out over several lots,enforcement has become an issue.Mr.Shaool expressed his opinion that,as a developer,it is very difficult to maintain easements over a long period of time.He believes that there needs to be consistency in who should be permitted to make the payment-in-lieu instead of mitigation especially if the fee is raised to the proposed limit required by State law.Mr.Goodrich stated that the preferred method of mitigation is to retain or plant new forest on the site.There is a specified sequence of mitigation preferences dictated by State law in the Forest Conservation Ordinance which developers should follow. There was a brief discussion regarding "forest banking",in which an individual can plant or set aside an area of forest and sell easements to developers to meet mitigation requirements.Mr.Goodrich noted that Staff is proposing an amendment at a later date to allow "forest banking". Comments and recommendations will be discussed on the proposed amendment at the November Planning Commission regular meeting.Mr.Reiber requested that a brief outline of the "forest banking" process used in Frederick County be presented to the Planning Commission for consideration. OTHER BUSINESS Draft of the Solid Waste Plan Amendment Mr.Goodrich presented a draft of the Solid Waste Plan Amendment.He noted that the County will be entering into an agreement with America First Inc.to establish a waste to energy facility at the County Landfill.This project will be completed in two phases.When the facility is operational,it will convert most of the solid waste to RDF (Refuse Derived Fuel),which will be sold on the open market to industry to use as fuel.In the future an additional process will be added to convert the RDF,thru gasification,into a synthetic liquid fuel.The landfill may be mined and the garbage already in the landfill will then be turned into fuel.Permits are needed from the State of Maryland in order to construct and operate t1lis facility. Throughout the permit process,MDE will review the County's Solid Waste Plan to insure this activity is included as part of our long term plan.Mr.Goodrich briefly reviewed the proposed changes,including language to address the implementation of recycling programs in apartments and condominiums that have 10 units or more,as required by State law.Although the Planning Commission is not required to take any action on this item they were advised in order to be aware of a significant work task undertaken by department staff. Business Friendly Task Force Mr.Goodrich noted this is a follow-up to discussions held during the September Planning Commission meeting.One item in particular that was discussed was a request from the Task Force to set aside time on the agenda for developers/consultants to seek early guidance on design issues or other plan review matters in order to reduce the potential for major design changes and negative impacts at the time of approval.Following are suggested guidelines for the Commission to consider: •Adopt a new policy with specific procedures and limitations to avoid misuse and maintain control and order. •Assign a specified time on the agenda for these items (at the end of the agenda so applicants waiting for required formal approvals and other formal actions will not be delayed). •Limit the total agenda time and divide the time among the applicants.Consider limiting the number of requests per meeting. •Require an agenda for these items that is prepared ahead of time.A deadline to be placed on the special agenda should be set. •With the assistance of the County Attorney,develop guidelines for Planning Commission members to follow during these presentations.Guidelines might include a required statement made by the Planning Commission Chairman indicating caveats associated with any decision or discussion held on any item. •Consider requiring a signature of the applicant on an acknowledgement or waiver form noting the applicant's understanding of the terms/conditions of the Commission's gUidance (does not eliminate required formal approval, non-binding,based on limited information,subject to change with additional information including other agency requirements or staff review at a later date,the potential for no comments at all). •Should not be used for appeal of staff decisions. •An open comment session is not recommended by staff.Many general comments/concerns can be addressed at a staff level. Discussion:Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that a deadline of the Thursday before the meeting should be the cut-off for items to be submitted for the additional agenda and staff could e-mail the additional 196 agenda to Planning Commission members.Staff clarified that this agenda would not include approval items.Mr.Shaool asked if the size or scope of a project would impact it from being put on this agenda. Mr.Reiber clarified that no decisions are being made so the size and scope of a project should not matter.There would be a specified time allotted for each item.There was a brief discussion with regard to limiting the number of items on the agenda (first come,first served basis)and additional items would need to wait until the next meeting to be presented.Staff will work with the County Attorney's office and bring a formal policy before the Planning Commission at the November meeting. Ms.Smith presented proposed modifications to the Planning Commission policies that would grant additional staff approval authority.Proposed changes include the following: •Authority for the Executive Director to administratively approve an extension of time for approval or disapproval of the preliminary plat beyond the allowed two (2)years. •Authority for the Executive Director to administratively approve an extension of the preliminary plat approval effective period beyond the allowed (2)years. •Authority for the Executive Director to administratively approve an extension of a preliminary consultation effective period beyond the allowed one (1)year. •Amend current Policy 13 regarding panhandle lengths based upon specific criteria. •Authority for the Executive Director to administratively approve a variance to panhandle widths based upon specific criteria. •Authority for the Executive Director to administratively approve a variance to the number of panhandle lots allowed in an original tract of land based upon specific criteria. •Authority for the Executive Director to administratively approve a variance to the number of panhandle lots served by adjoining driveway entrances to a public right-of-way based on specific criteria. •Authority for the Executive Director to administratively approve a variance to the number of panhandle lots allowed to be stacked based on specific criteria. Mr.Reiber asked Commission members to consider these changes and be prepared to make final comments at the November meeting.There was a brief discussion regarding the length of time that plat approvals should be extended. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Monday,November 4,2013,7:00 p.m.-Regular Planning Commission meeting,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown,Maryland ADJOURNMENT Mr.Shaool made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m.The motion was seconded by Mr.Wiley and so ordered by the Chairman. Respec~IY7ubmitted,...._, ~/?:.-.:-d­~~-_.~ 'terry 'Reiber,Chairman 197 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION November 4,2013 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,November 4,2013 at 7:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown, Maryland. Members present were:Chairman Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Dennis Reeder,Sam Ecker,Sassan Shaool, and Ex-officio William McKinley.Staff members present were:Planning Director Stephen Goodrich, Chief Planner Jill Baker,Deputy Director of Plan Review &Permitting Terry Irwin,Chief of Plan Review & Permitting Tim Lung,Parks &Environmental Planner Fred Nugent and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr.Goodrich introduced Mr.Terry Irwin,who is the new Deputy Director of Plan Review &Permitting.He noted that Plan Review &Permitting is now part of the Division of Engineering &Construction. MINUTES Mr.Reeder made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 7,2013 regular meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr.Wiley and unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS Proposed Forest Conservation Amendment Mr.Goodrich reminded Commission members that proposed amendments to the Forest Conservation Ordinance were presented during the October ]'h meeting.At that time,there were discussions regarding the establishment of a forest banking program in Washington County.Staff researched the forest banking program used in Frederick County and provided members with this information.Mr.Goodrich briefly reviewed the documentation with members.This item will be discussed at a later date;however, Mr.Goodrich asked that the Commission take action on the proposed text amendments without including the forest banking program in order to continue moving these amendments along.He noted that it will take a few months in order to prepare documents and establish a forest banking program. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Shaool expressed his opinion that the forest banking progfam is an important part of the amendments and should be included as part of the amendments.He believes that the option for forest banking as a form of mitigation should be included now and the program developed over the course of the next several months.Mr.Goodrich expressed his opinion that developers would expect the program to be available immediately after the text amendments are adopted and the staff could not have all of the requirements and procedures in place at the same time ..Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that the proposed amendments should not be delayed and the Commission should not vote on a program that is not in place. Motion and Vote:Mr.Shaool made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed Forest Conservation Ordinance amendments,as drafted,to the Board of County Commissioners.The motion was seconded by Mr.Wiley and unanimously approved. Business Friendly Task Force Mr.Goodrich reminded Commission members that discussions were held at the October ]'h meeting regarding a new policy to allow time on the agenda for applicants/developers to seek design guidance from the Commission.He reviewed the proposed text for the "Initial Plan Advice"category to be added to the monthly Planning Commission's agenda.Mr.Goodrich noted that there is language included that the Planning Commission may change its opinions of a plan depending upon the final design that is submitted for formal review and approval. Discussion and comments:Mr.Shaool expressed his opinion that a statement should be made prior to the beginning of the meeting or the "Initial Plan Advice"portion of the meeting that states,"this is for informational purposes only,please refer to Policy 25 for details".Mr.Goodrich noted that staff has discussed the idea of having applicants sign a form acknowledging the policy.After staff has received clarification from the County Attorney's office on several issues,this item will be brought back for approval at the December meeting. Mr.Goodrich reminded Commission members that proposed modifications to the Planning Commission policies to authorize additional staff approval authority were presented during the October ]'h meeting.If an applicant's request for any of the following is not acted upon by the Executive Director,the applicant may submit his request to the Planning Commission: •to administratively approve an extension of time for approval or disapproval of the preliminary plat beyond the allowed two (2)years; 198 •to administratively approve an extension of the preliminary plat approval effective period beyond the allowed (2)years; •to administratively approve an extension of a preliminary consultation effective period beyond the allowed one (1)year; •to administratively approve a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance regarding panhandle lengths based upon specific criteria; •to administratively approve a variance to panhandle widths based upon specific criteria; •to administratively approve a variance to the number of panhandle lots allowed in an original tract of land based upon specific criteria; •to administratively approve a variance to the number of panhandle lots served by adjoining driveway entrances to a public right-of-way based on specific criteria; •to administratively approve a variance to the number of panhandle lots allowed to be stacked based on specific criteria. Motion and Vote:Mr.Shaool made a motion to approve the modifications to the Planning Commission policies authorizing additional staff approval authority as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS MODIFICATIONS Rosewood PUD Lot 17 (SP-13-032) Mr.Shaool was present during this presentation;however,he did not participate in any discussions or vote on this agenda item. Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a proposed sign modification for a High's convenience store to be located at the corner of Robinwood Drive and Professional Boulevard.The applicant is requesting a reduction in the sign setback from 25 feet to 13 feet from the property line.The property line is the ultimate right-of-way for Robinwood Drive.The County is embarking on a major improvement plan on Robinwood Drive and consideration was given to these improvements when designing the proposed plan. Mr.Lung noted that because this structure is within a Planned Unit Development,the Planning Commission must approve this request rather than the Board of Zoning Appeals.The proposed sign is approximately 21 feet 8 inches in height (maximum height is 35 feet)and the sign area is approximately 70 square feet per side for a total of 140 square feet (maximum area is a total of 300 square feet).The County engineer managing the road improvement project was consulted and he has no objection to the proposed location of the sign. Motion and Vote:Mr.Wiley made a motion to approve the sign setback modification as presented.The motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder and unanimously approved,with Mr.Shaool abstaining from the vote. SITE PLANS Everly Plaza Parking Improvements (SP-13-034) Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a site plan for proposed amendments to the existing parking lot and a change to the hours of operation for property located at the northwest corner of Maryland Route 63 and Everly Road,south of the 1-70 interchange north of Williamsport.The property is currently zoned HI -Highway Interchange.The site consists of an existing strip shopping center.The original site plan called for retail sales and was approved by the Planning Commission in September 2006 with hours of operation indicated from 7:00 a.m.to 8:00 p.m.,Monday through Saturday.Mr.Lung stated that the Zoning Ordinance establishes parking regulations for different types of commercial uses.The owner of the shopping center is proposing to expand the commercial uses beyond retail,which requires an update of the site plan to enumerate the uses and re-calculate the parking space requirements.The updated site plan is proposing some retail use,office use,a restaurant and a night club/tavern use.All of these uses have varying hours of operations as follows:retail -Monday thru Saturday,8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.; restaurant -8:00 a.m.to 8:00 p.m.;office -9:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.;and night club /tavern -8:00 p.m.to 2:00 a.m.The required parking for these proposed uses is 108 spaces and 109 spaces are being proposed.The original site plan included 95 parking spaces.The revised site plan is proposing to achieve the reqUired parking spaces by re-striping and re-Iocating some spaces.Fourteen additional parking spaces will be located to the rear of the building.There is no new lighting proposed;building mounted,down-directed,cut-off lighting is existing at the rear of the building.There is existing vegetative screening provided along the rear property per the approved site plan.All of the proposed uses are principally permitted uses in the HI zoning district.Mr.Lung distributed photographs of the existing screening along the rear property line for the Commission to consider. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Shaool asked where the trash dumpsters would be located.Mr.Lung stated that a dumpster has been relocated along the side property line,which was approved on the original site plan.Mr.Shaool expressed his opinion that one dumpster is not sufficient to accommodate the entire center,which is approximately 17,000 square feet.Mr.Lung stated that the collection and storage of refuse must be stated on the site plan and if dumpsters are located in an area that was not approved,it would be a violation of the site plan. 199 Mr.Wiley expressed his opinion that the existing screening is not adequate for a use that is proposed to operate until 2:00 a.m.Mr.Lung stated that in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance under the HI zoning district,the Planning Commission has the authority to require what they believe is adequate for screening.There was a brief discussion regarding the current vegetative screening and the proposed hours of operation. Motion and Vote:Mr.Ecker made a motion to table the request with a recommendation to the developer to address the issues discussed during this meeting with regard to screening,dumpsters,hours of operation and noise.The motion was seconded by Mr.Reeder and unanimously approved. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Tuesday,November 19,2013,7:00 p.m.-Joint Public Hearing with the Board of County Commissioners,Washington County Court House,95 West Washington Street,Court Room 1,Hagerstown,Maryland 2.Monday,December 2,2013,7:00 p.m.-Regular Planning Commission meeting Mr.Goodrich announced that the regular Planning Commission meetings,beginning in December and until further notice,will be held at the Washington County Administration Building,100 West Washington Street,Room 255,Hagerstown,Maryland. ADJOURNMENT Mr.Ecker made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m.The motion was seconded by Mr.Wiley and so ordered by the Chairman. "Perry,Reiber,Chairman