Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015 Minutes46 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION January 5, 2015 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, January 5, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, 2nd Floor, Hagerstown, Maryland . Commission members present were: Chairman Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Dennis Reeder, Drew Bowen David Kline, and Ex-officio Leroy E. Myers, Jr.. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning -Steve Goodrich, Director; Jill Baker, Chief Planner; Justin Lindley, Comprehensive Planner; and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant; and Washington County Department of Plan Review & Permitting -Terry Irwin, Deputy Director; Tim Lung, Chief Planner; and Lisa Kelly, Senior Planner. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MINUTES Motion and Vote: Mr. Wiley made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 1, 2014 meeting minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS -SITE PLANS Doubs Mill Cellular Communication Silo (SP-14-040) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for the Daubs Mill Cellular Communication silo to be located along the west side of Black Rock Road just north of 1-70. A special exception to erect the silo was granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals in December 2013. The total disturbed area of the site will be 5 ,000 square feet and will be located in an open field approximately 475 feet from the closest neighboring property. The developer, Verizon, is proposing to construct a 91 foot tall silo, 25 feet in diameter. A 12 foot by 26 foot equipment shed is also proposed . The silo 's finish will be concrete gray with a pearly white roof. The tower and antennas will be located inside the silo. The tower will be located 980 feet from the 1-70 right-of-way and there are no structures to be located with a 90 foot radius of the silo . There will be no signage on the silo. There will be a right-of-way to the site from the existing lane that connects with Black Rock Road. An 8 foot tall fence will surround the 5,000 square foot site with the appropriate required signage on the fence . No solid waste facilities will be required. The proposed tower will accommodate three carriers. The site is exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements. 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. Bowen and unanimously approved . DEVELOPMENT PLANS Emerald Pointe PUD Development Plan (DP-14-001) Ms . Kelly presented for review and approval a development plan for the Emerald Pointe PUD located along the east side of Marsh Pike. The total development site is 97 acres. In 2013, the developer requested a change in the existing development plan that was approved in 2003. The change provided for the expansion of a community center on the interior of the site, the removal of the interior commercial building, and the removal of the retirement living center. In place of the retirement living center, the developer is proposing a mixture of office/retail space and a convenience store/gas station . The site is currently zoned RT(PUD) -Residential Transitional Planned Unit Development. There is currently one access into the site via Emerald Drive. The development plan is proposing an additional full service access as well onto Marsh Pike directly across the road from Gentry Drive and a full service access onto the Leitersburg Pike north of the intersection of Leitersburg Pike and Marsh Pike. Public water and public sewer will serve the site. The development plan is proposing a residential build out of 259 units on 58 acres . The community center will be located on 2.9 acres and the commercial area will be built on 6.5 acres for a total of 9.4 acres of commercial use on the entire site. The changes to the site were approved by both the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners following a joint public hearing . Approvals are pending from the Department of Plan Review & Permitting (Plan Review section) and State Highway Administration; all other agency approvals have been received . Mr. Robert Slocum, Director of the Division of Engineering and Construction Management, noted that the State Highway Administration (SHA) initially recommended a right-in/right-out access at Maryland Route 60 . Following a review of the Traffic Impact Study, it was determined that this would not be beneficial for circulation and traffic patterns ; therefore , a full access onto Maryland Route 60 has been designed and submitted to SHA for review. There are on-going discussions regarding the proposed traffic signal at Gentry Drive and the timing of that signal. Mr. Slocum expressed his opinion that when Eastern Boulevard is relocated and connects to Maryland Route 60 across from Marsh Pike, a traffic signal will be needed at that intersection; thus both locations have been considered. Additionally, he does not believe 47 that a second signal will be beneficial only 650 feet away at Gentry Drive. This issue has been discussed with SHA, the traffic consultant and the developer. Both the County and the SHA agree that the traffic study needs to identify a definitive threshold that would warrant where and when the traffic signal(s) are needed. Questions and Comments: Mr. Bowen expressed his opinion that a flashing beacon should be installed at Gentry Drive until such time a traffic signal is warranted . Mr. Slocum stated that putting a flashing signal in at this point in time is not a good idea, but he recommended that the developer put all of the below grade wiring and mechanisms in place now so when the signal is warranted it can be put into operation quickly. Mr. Bowen reiterated his concern with regard to the intersection at Gentry Drive and the volume of traffic that currently exists and future traffic that will be generated by this development. He expressed his opinion that the traffic signal should be installed now. Mr. Reiber expressed his concern with regard to safety issues at this intersection and he believes that safety should be considered, not the number of vehicles on the road . Mr. Bowen asked what the commercial element would be associated with the community center. Mr. Crampton, the developer, stated it would be a snack bar for people using the community center. Mr. Kline expressed his opinion that the below grade work should be installed now and the light should be installed when it is warranted. Mr . Reeder, Mr . Reiber, and Mr. Wiley expressed their concern that there is no vehicular access between the residential and commercial areas. Mr. Slocum stated that staff was concerned about cut-thru traffic and he believes the bicycle/pedestrian path between these two areas combined with the existing sidewalks and proposed sidewalks would be beneficial to pedestrians. Mr. Wiley also expressed his opinion that the light at Gentry Drive should be installed and operational soon. Commissioner Myers expressed his opinion that the pedestrian/bicycle access between the residential and commercial areas is adequate to meet the needs of the development. He believes that the installation of the traffic signal(s) should be based on income and traffic generated by the commercial development and that the signal should not be installed before it is warranted. Mr. Slocum does not believe that the State Highway Administration would allow a traffic signal to be installed that is not warranted . He stated that when the traffic signal is warranted, "prior to the issuance of the next permit, the light will be installed as soon as SHA and the County can allow it to go in legally." Mr. Reiber asked why a street is not being proposed within the development between the residential and commercial areas. He expressed his opinion that the residential community likely will be comprised of older residents that will want a direct vehicular access to the commercial area . Mr. Slocum stated that the comments from the Planning Commission members and comments from the Board of County Commissioners have been taken into consideration. However, the Board of County Commissioners have decided to rely upon the traffic study to address this issue and, according to the traffic study a connecting road is not required . Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the development plan as presented contingent upon receiving approvals from all reviewing agencies. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kline and unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Rural Business Rezoning (RZ-14-002) Ms. Baker reminded Commission members that the proposed text amendments to the Rural Business zoning district were remanded back to the Planning Commission by the Board of County Commissioners. During the December 1st meeting, Ms. Baker presented changes to the proposed text. The first proposed change would delegate approving authority to the Planning Commission [from the Board of County Commissioners] for Rural Business zoning applications .. By giving the Planning Commission the approval authority for the Rural Business zoning applications, it would shorten the length of time needed to process these applications; however, a public hearing with the Board of County Commissioners would be eliminated. Comments: Mr. Wiley expressed his opinion that asking the County Commissioners for the approval authority would streamline the process for citizens. He noted that if the change doesn't work, the decision could be reversed by the County Commissioners. Mr. Bowen agreed that this would be a benefit to the applicants. There was a brief discussion regarding the filing deadlines and schedules for rezoning applications. Ms. Baker reiterated that this process would only apply to the Rural Bus iness floating zone. Members discussed an appeal process whereby the applicant, if in disagreement with the Planning Commission's decision, could file an appeal. The second issue deals with proposed uses on properties zoned RB. A section has been added to the text to deal with changes in land use in the RB district. Ms . Baker reminded.Commission members that the RB zone is a use specific zone . Any changes in the land use would need to be determined as a minor change or a major change by the Planning Commission, which will then determine the need for a public hearing. Ms. Baker then described the processes for a minor change and a major change that the applicant would need to follow . 48 Consensus: The Planning Commission will seek [from the Board of County Commissioners] the authority to approve Rural Business rezoning applications and recommended proposed language for an appeal process before the proposed text amendment is taken back to the Board of County Commissioners. Comprehensive Plan Update Ms. Baker noted that staff will be presenting updates, seeking input and disseminating information for members each month on the Comprehensive Plan Update. She presented a DRAFT time schedule for completing the Plan . Ms . Baker briefly explained the tasks that staff will accomplish throughout the Comp Plan process . She noted there are several issues that are required by law to be included in the Plan. Ms . Baker stated that she will provide [via e-mail] a list of links to websites that may be helpful to members throughout the Comp Plan process. Mr. Bowen expressed his opinion that a GIS person being present in Workshop meetings was very helpful in the past and would like staff to provide a GIS person during upcoming Workshops. Mr. Reiber requested that hardcopies of the State requirements be made available to members. Consensus: Planning Commission members discussed dates and times for Workshop meetings. By consensus, they decided that Workshops for the Comp Plan would be held on Wednesday afternoons. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Wiley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and so ordered by the Chairman. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Monday, February 2, 2015, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting, Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, Hagerstown, Maryland TerrpReiber, Chairman 49 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION February 2, 2015 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, February 2 , 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Washington County Administration Building , 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, 2nd Floor, Hagerstown, Maryland . Commission members present were: Chairman Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, David Kline, and Ex-officio Leroy E. Myers, Jr.. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning Jill Baker, Chief Planner and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant; and Washington County Department of Plan Review & Permitting -Tim Lung, Chief Planner. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m . The Chairman announced that the agenda item for the Rural Business Rezoning has been removed from this evening 's agenda . MINUTES Motion and Vote: Commissioner Myers made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 5, 2015 meeting minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Staff Report Discussion Mr. Lung reported that the County will be conducting a major software upgrade of its Permits Plus automated permit and plan review processing system which is used for tracking projects. This also serves as a portal for the public to access information on plat and permit submittals made to the County. The upgraded software will make the system more user-friendly and provide more flexibility in the way reports are designed and the tracking of projects . Staff is seeking the Commission's input relative to information that members would like to have on the staff reports for ease in reviewing plans. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that information is not always provided to determine if all regulations are being met, if staff is recommending approval or disapproval of a project, or other concerns that the staff may have on the project. Commissioner Myers expressed his concern with regard to the timing and dissemination of information to the public through the Permits Plus system. He believes that the contractor and developer have the right to some level of confidentiality up to a certain time in the process. Ms . Baker stated that the Public Information Act is the guidance that is followed by the County and she believes this issue needs to be addressed with the County Attorney's Office . There was a brief discussion with regard to information that is currently available to the public through the Permits Plus system and when information should be released to the public. Staff will follow-up with the County Attorney 's Office. It was determined that Commission members would like the staff report to include any items that have not been addressed to the satisfaction of the approving agencies and a statement indicating that the plan complies with all regulations . There was a brief discussion regarding agency approvals and when projects are presented to the Planning Commission . Mr. Wiley stated that the Commission , in the past, has approved plans with contingencies and given staff the authority for final approval of a project. This is generally done when staff believes no major issues will arise. Mr. Lung noted that the Planning Commission established a policy whereby on time sensitive projects the Commission would consider scheduling a special meeting to approve a project. There was a brief discussion regarding the Development Advisory Comm ittee (DAC), why it was established , and the role it plays in the development review process . There was a discussion with regard to how the DAC has changed over time and projects that no longer need to go before the DAC. Mr. Reiber asked that the Planning Commission's policy for staff approval of projects be sent to all members. Comprehensive Plan Update Ms. Baker gave a brief update on the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has been researching public engagement tools that are available to get the public involved and interested in this project. Many of these tools are quite expensive, ranging in price from $7,000 to $20,000. Staff has decided to take the initiative to design a website with assistance from personnel in the County's Information Technologies department. Staff has been w9rking to finalize the Stakeholder's list as well as reviewing and evaluating the previous recommendations of the SWOT Analysis . There was a brief discussion with regard to engaging citizens and government officials from each of the municipalities. Ms . Baker noted that staff has contacted the Board of Education's Director of Secondary Education to engage students in this process. Presentations are being planned for ylh and 10th grade social studies and government classes in April and May so throughout Washington County schools. Presentations are also planned for the Fall semester at Hagerstown Community College. Ms. Baker presented the idea of appointing a citizen's advisory committee to help with review of the document and make recommendations. All members present believe that appointing a separate group implies an authority that does not exist and they do not want an advisory committee. Ms. Baker announced that a lunch meeting with the Board of County Commissioners has been scheduled on February 24th at 1:00 p.m. in the Department of Planning & Zoning's conference room . This meeting is intended to brief the County Commissioners on plans for the Comprehensive Plan update and the upcoming kick-off events . Planning Commission members are invited to attend . Ms. Baker announced that the annual Home Show will be held on March 20 th and 21 st in the Hagerstown Community College ARCC building. Washington County will have 4 booths set up. The Department of Planning & Zoning is planning to distribute postcards informing citizens of the Comp Plan Update as well as asking citizens to complete a brief survey. There was a brief discussion relative to the types of social media that will be used throughout this process. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Wiley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m . The motion was seconded by Commissioner Myers and so ordered by the Chairman . UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Monday, March 2, 2015, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting, Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, Hagerstown, Maryland Respectfully submitted , Ter~ 51 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION March 2, 2015 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, March 2, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, 2nd Floor, Hagerstown, Maryland. Commission members present were: Chairman Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Drew Bowen, Dennis Reeder, David Kline, and Ex-officio Leroy E. Myers, Jr. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning -Stephen Goodrich, Director; Jill Baker, Chief Planner; and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant; Washington County Department of Plan Review & Permitting -Terry Irwin, Deputy Director; Tim Lung, Chief Planner; and Cody Shaw, Senior Planner. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Chairman announced that the agenda item for the Rural Business Rezoning has been removed from this evening's agenda. MINUTES Motion and Vote: Commissioner Myers made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 2 , 2015 meeting minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and unanimously approved. SITE PLANS Rubble Site 2 (SP-15-007) Mr. Shaw presented for review and approval a site plan for a proposed solar power generation field on the existing rubble landfill site located along the west side of Kemps Mill Road. This will be phase 2; phase 1 was presented and approved by the Planning Commission on December 1, 2014. The leased site is approximately 11 acres in size and is currently zoned EC -Environmental Conservation. There will be no employees; however, a daily service vehicle will check the site . Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements are being addressed via an easement on 2.25 acres of existing forest on site. Storm water discharge will be directed to an existing storm water management pond on site . Staff has no objection to the plan; however, staff is asking that the Planning Commission grant staff the authority to approve the plan after all agency approvals have been obtained. Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon approvals from all reviewing agencies. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and unanimously approved . FOREST CONSERVATION Seneca Ridge Mr. Lung presented a request from Renn Engineering, Inc . on behalf of the Homeowner's Association (HOA) for Seneca Ridge located off of Maugans Avenue just west of 1-81 . Seneca Ridge is an established residential development with a mix of existing single family dwellings, townhouses and proposed apartment units . The overall plan for Seneca Ridge was approved in 2003; and as part of the plan a Forest Conservation Easement was established on site with nine afforestation planting areas for a total of 8.4 acres scattered throughout the development. The Homeowner's Association is requesting that a portion of the previously approved Forest Conservation Easement planting areas be eliminated including a .68 acre and .12 acre area. Mr. Lung noted that the HOA is proposing to use these areas for additional residential amenities, which include an additional play area and a gazebo/patio area. The Zoning Ordinance establishes setbacks for play areas in developments which will apply to the new play area; there are no setback requirements for the gazebo/patio area . A scaled drawing will be required to insure that the setbacks for the play area are met per the Zoning Ordinance. The Homeowner's Association notified all adjoining property owners with regard to the proposed changes and received no comments or objections. Mr. Lung stated that when a Forest Conservation Easement area is eliminated it must be replaced or mitigated for in some other manner per guidelines established in the Forest Conservation Ordinance (FCO). The Forest Conservation Ord inance provides a list of mitigation priorities, the last of which is the payment-in-lieu of planting. The HOA is proposing to use the payment-in-lieu method to mitigate for the areas that are being eliminated and have provided a detailed justification explaining why this method has been chosen. Staff does not take exception to the request. Mr. Lung asked that if this request is approved, a condition be placed on the approval that supplemental planting be required to bring the existing Forest Conservation Easement areas up to standard . He explained that some of the original plantings did not survive beyond the two year inspection period due to being mowed or trampled down . Discussion and Comments: There was a brief discussion regarding Staff's request for supplemental planting. It was noted that trees did not survive after the two year inspection period due to residents mowing them down or being trampled by children playing in those areas. There was a discussion with regard to the trees being replaced by nursery stock rather than whips or seedlings. Motion and Vote: Mr. Wiley made a motion to approve the request to vacate the proposed Forest Conservation Easement areas as presented contingent upon the HOA providing supplemental plantings [using nursery stock trees] to meet FCO specifications in the existing Forest Conservation areas. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Myers and unanimously approved. 52 O'fHER BUSINESS Comprehensive Plan Update Ms. Baker gave a brief update on the Comprehensive Plan. She reported that the luncheon held on February 24th with the Planning Commission, Board of County Commissioners and Planning staff went very well and thanked the members that were able to participate . Staff is finishing the SWOT [Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, Threats] Analysis and anticipates presenting the findings to the Planning Commission next month. Background studies are being developed in order to provide trends and analysis of previous history . Staff is working with the County's PR office to begin the public engagement process, including handouts for the Home Show scheduled on March 21 st and 22 nd . Due to the development of a new website for the County, a website devoted only to the Comprehensive Plan has not been approved. A subpage from the Planning Department's website will be developed and should be ready sometime in April. Staff has made contact with some of the public schools to schedule presentations to students in 7'h and 10th grades; we will continue contacting the remaining public and private schools this week. Workshops for the Planning Commission should begin in late Spring or early Summer. Discussion and Comments: There were brief discussions regarding population changes and growth and development throughout the County. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Wiley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Myers and so ordered by the Chairman. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Monday, April 6, 2015, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting, Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, Hagerstown, Maryland Respectfully submitted, Ter~---- 53 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION April 20, 2015 The Washington County Planning Commission held a public rezoning meeting on Monday, April 20, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Washington County Court House, Court Room #1, 24 Summit Avenue, Hagerstown, Maryland. Commission members present were: Chairman Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Dennis Reeder, Andrew Bowen, and David Kline. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & . Zoning Stephen Goodrich, Director; Jill Baker, Chief Planner; Justin Lindley, Associate Planner; and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff Presentation Mr. Lindley presented a map amendment request for MB Realty Group, Inc. for property located at the corner of Jefferson Boulevard and Warrenfeltz Lane, just west of the intersection of Robinwood Drive. The current zoning of the site is RT (Residential Transition). The applicant is planning to rezone a 1.8 acre section of the 6.5 acre parcel to BL (Business Local); the remaining 4.5 acres would remain zoned RT. A subdivision approval and site plan approval would be required if the site is rezoned to BL. The site has gentle slopes and is wooded with a small clearing along Jefferson Boulevard; the entire parcel is unimproved . The original rezoning application was sent to several County and State reviewing agencies and comments relative to the original submittal have been received. Mr. Lindley briefly reviewed the six criteria that should be considered in evaluating a rezoning request. He discussed the change in population, availability of public services, emergency services, and traffic counts. He noted that Jefferson Boulevard is classified as an "other principle arterial" on the road classification map included in the Comprehensive Plan. The primary purpose of the highway is to provide unhindered mobility for regional through traffic. Mr. Lindley briefly reviewed comments received from the Washington County Department of Plan Review and Permitting, which included: "A traffic study would be required for any commercial development that generates 50 or more trips during peak hours. Since Jefferson Boulevard is a State road, the County defers to SHA regarding specific access requirements ." The County Commuter provides service to this area via the Smithsburg route. Mr. Lindley discussed compatibility with existing and proposed development in the area . It was noted that the Zoning Ordinance requires an increase in side and rear yard buffers to mitigate the impact from Business Local zoning on residential parcels . The development of the site with a business use may affect traffic patterns in the area. A traffic stu.dy and the State Highway Administration entrance requirements would determine if accel and decel lanes would be required. Residential uses surround the property with a few commercial uses within a ½ mile radius. Mr. Lindley discussed the subject property as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan . The parcel is on the northern edge of the Urban Growth Area boundary which runs along the CSX Railroad tracks on the north end of the parcel. According to the 2002 Comp Plan, the parcel is located in a low-density residential policy area . Low-density residential areas are typically located on the fringe of the UGA and are the transition to agricultural areas. According to the Comp Plan, commercial uses should be located in areas identified as commercial on the Land Use Plan, which are primarily located along major road networks within the UGA. The Comp Plan also recommends the revision of the BL classification within the Zoning Ordinance to be more restrictive in uses and would support neighborhood commercial needs as well as acting in the capacity of a transitional zoning district. When not part of a comprehensive rezoning, the applicant [in accordance with Maryland law] must provide evidence of a mistake in the original zoning of the property or a change in the character of the neighborhood. For this rezoning request, the applicant has indicated that a mistake in the last comprehensive rezoning in 2012 was made. Mr. Lindley briefly discussed the applicant's justification statement that was submitted with the rezoning application. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Wiley asked how long it took to adopt the latest Comprehensive Plan and what efforts were made to inform the public of this on-going process . Ms . Baker stated that several commun ity outreach meetings were held, advertisements were published in the local newspaper, and there was coordination with various Town Planning Commissions. She noted that during the comprehens ive rezoning in 2012 , every affected property owner was notified by mail and back page advertisements were published in the local newspaper. Applicant's Presentation Mr. Edward Kuczynski, 55 North Jonathan Street, Hagerstown, Maryland, the attorney representing MB Realty, was present during the meeting. He introduced the applicant, Mr. Matthew Beckham, 1422 Burtonwood Drive, Suite 200, Gastonia, North Carolina . Mr . Kuczynski noted that additional information was distributed to Commission members just prior to the meeting . He gave a brief presentation relative to the background of this request. After hearing the comments regarding the comprehensive rezoning in 2012, Mr. Kuczynski noted that the property owners Kevin and Leanne Smith, did not participate in the process to voice their opin ions or concerns on thi~ 54 property. The rezoning application has been precipitated by MB Realty's contract to purchase the property for the construction of a Dollar General store . Mr. Kuczynski noted that the applicant will be providing information that will support their claim that a mistake was made in zoning this parcel Residential Transition during the comprehensive rezoning of 2012. He began with the change in the population of 122%, which he believes supports the need for more business local uses in the area. Mr. Kuczynski explained that he contacted staff in order to determine if this specific parcel was discussed during the comprehensive rezoning . He believes that it was not specifically discussed and was zoned RT because all of the surrounding properties were zoned RT. He expressed his opinion that the site does not lend itself to residential development due to the topography, slope and geological aspects of the site and the railroad tracks along the northern edge of the property . At the corner of Jefferson Boulevard and Robinwood Drive is a parcel of land which is zoned BL and contains a Liberty gas station and an office building . Mr. Kuczynski expressed his opinion that "creeping" change has occurred from the intersection of Mt. Aetna Road, including the Meritus Medical Center, down Robinwood Drive to the Hagerstown Community College. He believes that these changes accentuate the fact that more consideration should have been given to zoning this property BL. Mr. Kuczynski stated that the BL zoning does not allow high intensity uses such as Walmart or big box stores. The intended use of this parcel is to construct a Dollar General on only 1.6 acres of the entire parcel. The proposed use would require approximately 31 parking spaces, which suggests a lower intensity use of the property. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Bowen expressed his opinion that a mistake was not made in the zoning of this site and that the commercial uses, specifically the Meritus Medical Center, along Robinwood Drive, the topography of the site, and the property's proximity to the railroad tracks should not be considered relevant to this request. Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that the proximity of the commercial sites referenced in the applicant's report are not within the immediate area of the site on Jefferson Boulevard . Mr. Reiber stated that Parcel 143 located slightly to the east of the site is zoned BL; however, Parcel 153 is zoned RT and is directly across the road from the subject site. Citizen Comments Mr. Reiber entered into the record, pictures taken by Mr. Nevin Smith, of the rezoning public meeting signs that were posted by the applicant on the property that fell down shortly after being posted. • Lori Monnett, 20470 Jefferson Boulevard, Hagerstown, MD 21742 -Ms. Monnett stated that there is a lot of -traffic on Jefferson Boulevard as well as many traffic accidents· that have resulted in damage to her property . The expansion of Meritus has increased the traffic at the intersection of Jefferson Boulevard and Robinwood Drive. She expressed her opinion that the Dollar General should consider re-use of one of the many abandoned buildings in the downtown area or in the County. Ms. Monnett submitted written comments for the record . • James Wilson, 12010 Warrenfeltz Lane, Hagerstown, MD 21742 -Mr. Wilson expressed his opinion that a mistake was not made during the comprehensive rezoning of the area and residents were notified of all public hearings that were held on the subject. He stated that there is a large volume of traffic going eastbound during the late afternoon hours and believes it would be difficult and unsafe for anyone trying to make a left onto Jefferson Boulevard from the site. Mr. Wilson stated that Warrenfeltz Lane is a private lane and maintained by the residents who live there. He noted there are two large sink holes at the end of Warrenfeltz Lane. He believes that any grading on the subject site could potentially force water runoff onto his property and if a septic field is placed on the subject site, the effluent that soaks into the ground would run into the sinkholes and into the groundwater. • Seth Wilson, 12010 Warrenfeltz Lane, Hagerstown, MD 21742 -Mr. Wilson submitted written comments for the record and as well as verbal comments . He cited two Board of Zoning Appeals cases that he believes set a precedent for the residential zoning of this property . He noted that numerous improvements have been made to the properties identified as Parcels 1396, 576, 1754 and 682 since the time of these opinions. Mr. Wilson stated that Warrenfeltz Lane is a private road. He noted that there are five existing Dollar General stores within five miles of the subject site, including one located at 22945 Jefferson Boulevard. Mr. Wilson believes that the railroad tracks were present before zoning was established and that development north of the railroad tracks has been hampered by the lack of convenient rights of way. He expressed his opinion that the slopes on the property are steep slopes, not gentle slopes as noted in the Staff Report and Analysis. Mr. Wilson asked if there would be a buffer zone on the commercial site. • Jessie Marie Jones, 20460 Jefferson Boulevard, Hagerstown, MD 21742 -Ms. Jones stated that she lives in the family home next to the subject site, which was constructed by her grandfather and is the site of numerous family gatherings during the year. She is opposed to the rezoning of the subject property due to safety concerns . She expressed her opinion that constructing a Dollar General store on this property would be "redundant, unnecessary, and unwanted" due to the number of Dollar General stores already located within close proximity to the proposed site . • Christopher Amos, 20445 Jefferson Boulevard, Hagerstown, MD 21742 -Mr. Amos gave a brief history with regard to his property which would be directly across the street from the proposed Dollar General store. He expressed his opinion that this is a quiet, safe 55 neighborhood. He stated there is a large volume of traffic on eastbound Jefferson Boulevard during the evenings, which makes it difficult for residents to get on Jefferson Boulevard. Mr. Amos believes that Jefferson Boulevard would need to be widened in this area to accommodate the traffic going in and out of the proposed site. • Michelle Carbaugh, 12045 Warrenfeltz Lane, Hagerstown, MD 21742 -Ms . Carbaugh stated that Warrenfeltz Lane is a private lane and it is not maintained by the County. She noted that it is very difficult to access or leave Warrenfeltz Lane during peak traffic hours . Ms. Carbaugh stated that when she moved into her home approximately 15 years ago, she tried to get public water to her property and was told that she could not. She expressed her opinion that the Robinwood corridor with all of its commercial uses and the new Meritus medical facility has brought significant traffic to the area. Applicant's Closing Comments Mr. Kuczynski reiterated his earlier comment that this specific parcel was not specifically considered during the comprehensive rezoning of the UGA. This is important because this is a Residential Transition area with Business Local zoning in close proximity to the subject parcel. Mr. Kuczynski noted that MB Realty attempted to purchase/lease a site at the corner of Jefferson Boulevard and Robinwood Drive; however, attempted negotiations on that site failed . In rebuttal to comments made with regard to increased traffic and vehicles entering and leaving the proposed site, Mr. Kuczynski noted that residential development on the site would be faced with the same difficulties. He believes that traffic from a commercial use would be more strictly controlled because the State Highway Administration will be involved during the site plan process. If the property is rezoned to Business Local, any of the principle permitted uses listed in the Zoning Ordinance would be allowed on this site . Mr. Kuczynski stated that the intent of the BL zone is "to provide retail goods and services for neighborhoods". Mr. Kuczynski believes that traffic has increased in this area due to the construction and expansion of the Meritus health facilities and the growth of the Hagerstown Community College . All of this development has impacted the residential area. He expressed his opinion that this growth can also be used as part of the basis to justify a mistake in the zoning of the property . He stated that zoning should "create the highest and best use of the property in question, not to render it unsaleable or unusable". He believes that the site would be less than ideal for residential development due to its location near the railroad tracks . Mr. Kuczynski believes that rezoning this parcel to BL makes good planning sense. He noted that BL zoning is intended to blend low density residential properties with neighborhood commercial uses. He stated that issues such as traffic patterns, buffering and utilities would be addressed during the site plan process. Mr. Reiber stated that the public can submit their written comments to the staff via e-mail or regular mail. The Planning Commission will deliberate and make its recommendation at its next regular meeting . The recommendation will then be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing before making its final decision on this request. Mr. Reiber asked staff to research the legal definition of "spot zoning " prior to the Commission's next regular meeting . ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:18 p.m. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Monday, May 4, 2015, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting, Washington County Administration Building , 100 West Washington Street, Room 255 , Hagerstown, Maryland 56 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION May 4, 2015 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, May 4, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Washington County Administration Building , 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, 2nd Floor, Hagerstown, Maryland. Commission members present were : Chairman Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Drew Bowen , Dennis Reeder, David Kline, and Ex-officio Leroy E. Myers, Jr. Staff members present were : Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning -Stephen Goodrich, Director; Jill Baker, Chief Planner; Justin Lindley, Comprehensive Planner; and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant; Washington County Department of Plan Review & Permitting -Terry Irwin , Deputy Director; Tim Lung , Chief Planner; Lisa Kelly and Cody Shaw, Senior Planners . CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Goodrich announced that the agenda item for James Shifler has been removed from this evening 's agenda per the applicant's request. MINUTES Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 2, 2015 meeting minutes as presented . The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and unanimously approved . OLD BUSINESS MB Realty Group, Inc. (RZ-15-001) Mr. Lindley presented for review and recommendation a map amendment request for MB Realty Group, Inc. for property located at the corner of Jefferson Boulevard and Warrenfeltz Lane. The applicant is proposing to rezone a 1.8 acre section of a 6.5 acre parcel from RT (Residential Transition) to BL (Business Local). A public rezoning meeting for this request was held by the Planning Commission on Monday, April 20, 2015 at the Washington County Court House. Mr. Lindley noted that public comment was received during the public meeting as well as letters and e-mails received by the Planning Department since the public meeting . All correspondence has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for its review. During the public meeting, Mr. Reiber requested that staff research the legal definition of "spot zoning ". Mr. Lindley noted that a memorandum was included in the Commission members' agenda packets addressing this issue . Discussion and Comments: Mr. Bowen expressed his opinion that the proposed change should have been requested during the 2012 Comprehensive rezoning . Mr. Wiley expressed his opinion that the appl icant's argument that the Commission performed only a "broad brush " analysis of this area during the comprehensive rezoning was unfounded. He noted that during the comprehensive rezoning the Commission spent a lot of time and used sophisticated GIS (geographic information systems) tools to rev iew and evaluate properties . Mr. Wiley does not believe that the applicant's case was strong enough to prove a mistake in the zoning of the property; therefore, he is opposed to rezoning the property at this time. Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that rezoning this property to "BL" would constitute "spot zoning", to which he is opposed . He does not agree with the applicant's contention that a mistake was made in the zoning of this property; and . that the property owner should have been pro-active during the comprehensive rezoning process. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to recommend denial of the rezoning request to the Board of County Commissioners. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and unanimously approved with Commissioner Myers abstaining from the vote. NEW BUSINESS MODIFICATIONS Overdale Estates (SV-15-004) Mr. Shaw presented for review and approval a modification request for Lots 1-6 of Overdale Estates located along the south side of Jefferson Boulevard (Tax Map 51/Grid 3/Parcel 30) on 20.2 acres of land .currently zoned A(R) - (Agricultural Rural). The applicant is requesting a modification from Sections 402 and 405.11.G .5 of the Washington County Subdivision Ordinance. The modification would allow proposed driveways with 510 ', 445' a nd 261' separati o ns on Jefferson Boulevard . Section 402 requires a minimum driveway separation on a principal a rteria l road of 75 0 feet. The modification would also allow a panhandle length of 432' for Lot 1 in the proposed s ubdivi s ion . Sec ti o n 40 5.11.G.5 allows a maximum panhandle length of 400 feet. Each proposed lot would share a driveway with an oth e r lot in order to reduce the total number of access po ints from six to three. Th e stopping sight distance for each entrance meets the requirements of the St ate Hi ghwa y A dmini stration . T hi s req uest wa s forwarded to the Washington County Department of Engineering a nd Construction Manageme nt, t he Ma ryla nd State Highway Administration, Emergency Services and the Sm ith sburg Vo lunteer Fire Co mpany. Th ere w e re no objections from the reviewing agencies and staff has no objections to these modifications . 57 Discussion and Comments: Commissioner Myers expressed concern with regard to sight distance from the proposed driveways. Mr. Reiber expressed his concern with regard to the maintenance of the shared driveways in the future. Mr. Shaw stated that this issue will be covered in the property owners' deeds. Mr. Reiber also expressed concern with regard to the proposed panhandle length for Lot 1. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the modification request as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and unanimously approved. PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS Roy E. Petre Animal Waste Staging Facility (PC-15-002) Mr. Lung presented for review and comment a preliminary consultation for the Roy E. Petre Animal Waste Staging Facility to be located along the north side of Rench Road, west of Col H.K. Douglas Drive inside the Hagerstown Urban Growth Area. The property is currently zoned RU -Residential Urban . The farm consists of 139 acres devoted primarily to a dairy operation, which produces 3,787 tons of animal waste annually. There is an existing earthen manure storage facility and water tank on the site that will be decommissioned and a 12' x 100' concrete circular tank will be installed with a capacity of 598, 117 gallons. The new facility will be capable of providing manure storage for five months. When the waste is removed from the tank it will be applied to the Petre farm and surrounding farms in accordance with the approved Nutrient Management Plan. The proposed facility is 750' to the closest property line and 2300' from the closest residence not on the same property . The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum setback of 300' from a property line, 250' from a public road, and 500' from a dwelling, school, church, or institution for human care. The Zoning Ordinance permits the Planning Commission to double these requirements if deemed appropriate. The Department of Plan Review & Permitting (Engineering] indicated that no storm water management facility will be required because this is an agricultural facility and no grading plan and/or permit will be required. The plan has been reviewed and approved by the Washington County Soil Conservation District and meets all USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service standards and specifications. The Washington County Health Department has no comments or objections to the application. The Department of Plan Review & Permitting [Land Use] verified all setbacks and discussed odor reducing technology with the owner. Discussion and Comments: Commissioner Myers asked about requirements to till the ground once the manure is applied. Mr. Elmer Weibley with the Washington County Soil Conservation District explained that State and Nutrient Management regulations require that the ground be tilled within 48 hours after applying the manure with the exception of highly erodible land. He also noted that his office as well as State offices insure that regulations as well as the approved Waste Management Plan are being followed. There was a brief discussion regarding the doubling of the setback requirements. Mr. Lung noted that if land were to be sold in the future, the setbacks required by the Ordinance would prevail. The setbacks, as proposed on the plan, are more than double the setbacks currently required by the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Reiber and Mr. Wiley do not believe there is a need to double the setback requirements because anyone purchasing a lot in the future would be aware of the location of the waste staging facility. SITE PLANS Grumbacker Lane Warehouse (SP-14-002) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for Grumbacker Lane Warehouse located along the south side of Partnership Court, east of Governor Lane Boulevard. The property is currently zoned Pl -Planned Industrial. The developer is proposing to construct a 140,000 square foot building, 30 feet in height on18.54 acres. The parcel will have 80 feet of frontage on Grumbacker Lane, which is a County roadway. The site will be served by water from the City of Hagerstown and sewer from Washington County. The hours of operation will be Monday thru Saturday 24 hours per day for warehouse workers and Monday thru Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for office workers. A total of 100 car parking spaces are required and 100 spaces will be provided along the front and side of the Warehouse. There will be 82 truck parking spaces and 3 docks constructed to the rear of the building. Lighting will be building mounted as well as pole mounted throughout the parking lot. Signage will be building mounted. Storm water management ponds will be located along the south side of the parcel. Landscapirig will be located along the entire front property line which js to the north and throughout the parking lot. Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements are being met by retaining 7 .6 acres of existing forest off-site on lands owned by Bowman 2000 West, which is located west of Hancock. All reviewing 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 with Commissioner Myers abstaining from the vote . Resh Road South Landfill Solar Project (SP-15-017) Mr. Shaw presented for review and approval a site plan for the proposed Resh Road South Landfill solar generation project. The site is located along the southeast side of Resh Road (Tax Map 23, Grid 21, Parcel 160) and is currently zoned EC -Environmental Conservation. The s ite will have no employees and is exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements because there is less than 20,000 square feet of disturbance. Landscaping will be addressed using existing trees located on the site. All agency comments have been addressed and staff has no objection to the approval of this project. 58 Discussion and Comments: Commissioner Myers noted that an individual application for a solar farm in Clear Spring was recently withdrawn due to its location . Mr. Goodrich noted that solar farms are not permitted in Priority Preservation Areas in the County. Commissioner Myers expressed his op inion that rich, fertile farmland should not be used for solar farms. Ms. Baker stated that the Zoning Ordinance defines a solar generating energy system as "serving the grid" with a minimum 20 acre lot size. She noted that solar farms are not permitted in some agricultural areas because farmland is a valuable resource that needs to be protected. 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. OTHER BUSINESS Rosewood Planned Unit Development (PUD) Mr. Lung began with a brief history of the Rosewood PUD located along the west side of Robinwood Drive, south of Hagerstown Community College and north of Meritus Medical Center. The PUD was approved in 1995 and has been developed over the past 15 years in phases. Since its original approval, the final development plan has been revised several times. The original PUD proposed townhouses in the northeast corner of the property at Capital Lane; and subsequently a subdivision plat and site plan was approved . In 2011, a request was submitted to replace the proposed townhouses with 8 commercial office buildings. This proposed change was the subject of a public hearing and was approved ; however, subdivision plats and site plans were never submitted for the commercial buildings. In April 2014, the developer asked the Planning Commission to review a proposal to convert this area back to townhouses and to make a determination if a public hearing would be required . The Planning Commission determined that a public hearing was not required . The developer has now submitted a revised final development plan as well as a preliminary/final plat and site plan for the proposed townhouses and is requesting that the Planning Commission grant staff the authority to approve these plans after all agency approvals have been received. Staff has no objection to the request. Mr. Lung stated that the plan is proposing 50 townhouse lots and a .35 acre commercial lot along Capital Lane. There will be 8 blocks of townhouses with 3 to 8 townhouse units per block. The .35 acre commercial parcel at the corner of Capital Lane and Professional Boulevard will be an expanded parking lot for the existing Varsity Lane Professional Center. All infrastructure is in place. The proposed final development plan has been reviewed and approved by the Department of Plan Review & Permitting [Engineering] and the Washington County Soil Conservation District. The City of Hagerstown Water & Sewer Department stated that they have no objection to reverting to the original residential concept. However, there will be the need to completely document the as-built location details and consider the minor changes to the existing services as well as bringing the plans up-to-date with our current standards. Approvals are pending on the revised final development plan from the Department of Plan Review & Permitting [Land Use], Washington County Health Department and Addressing. The revised preliminary/final plat and site plan has been reviewed and comments have been issued by the Department of Plan Review & Permitting [Engineering]; the Washington County Soil Conservation District has approved the plan . Approvals are pending on the preliminary/final plat and site plan from the Department of Plan Review & Permitting [Land Use], the Washington County Health Department and the City of Hagerstown Water & Sewer Department. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to grant staff the authority to approve the revised final development plan and the preliminary/final plat and site plan contingent upon all agency approvals . The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved. Commissioner Myers left the meeting at 8:07 p.m. Comprehensive Plan Update Ms . Baker announced that an article about the Comprehensive Plan Update was recently published in the "What's NXT" magazine. She noted that staff has been working with the County's Information Technologies department on the website and we anticipate it to be completed and functional by the end of the month. Staff will be making school presentations to Boonsboro Middle School on May 1ih and Boonsboro High School on May 28th . Specific dates have not been scheduled for presentations at the Williamsport and Clear Spri ng High schools. We are hoping to m_ake additional presentations to more schools in the Fall. Staff has also begun scheduling Stakeholder meetings. We have been meeting with staff members from other County departments such as the Office of Business Development, Engineering Capital Projects and the Hagerstown Regional Airport. Ms. Baker stated that we intend to begin holding town hall style meetings with the Planning Commission in July and August. Staff is also working on background studies for each of the Comp Plan elements. Ms . Baker reported that, to date, we have received 107 responses to surveys we have posted on-line. Discussion and Comments : Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that the municipalities need to get involved. Mr. Bowen suggested that we contact the Maryland Municipal League to make a presentation . Rural Business Rezoning Ms. Baker reminded Commission members that proposed changes to the text of the Rural Business zoning district were discussed earlier this year. The Planning Commission was prepared to make its recommendation to the Board of Co u nty Com mi ss ioners after the Commissioners remanded this issue back to the Planning Commiss ion. There have bee n s everal meetings with the County Attorney's Office regarding proposed changes . Ms. Bake r briefl y explained t he proposed changes to be made and she will present these changes to the Planning Commission at the next regular meeting. 59 Capital Improvements Plan Mr. Goodrich announced that the Board of County Commissioners will be holding a public hearing on the proposed FY 2016 budget which includes the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) on Tuesday, May 5, 2015 at the Kepler Theater at Hagerstown Community College. The CIP funds improvements to infrastructure throughout the County that will encourage and support development as recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to recommend approval of the CIP because it is consistent with recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan . The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and unariimously approved. Mr. Goodrich announced that Mr. Bowen's appointment will expire on June 30, 2015. Mr. Bowen stated he would like to remain on the Commission with the other members' approval. Mr. Goodrich will notify the County Clerk of this decision and it will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners in the near future. In accordance with the Ethics Ordinance, Financial Disclosure Statements must be returned to the County Attorney's office . Mr. Goodrich asked Commission members to fill out these forms and return them as soon as possible . ADJOURNMENT Mr. Bowen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and so ordered by the Chairman . UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Monday, June 1, 2015, 7:00 p.m ., Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting, Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255 , Hagerstown, Maryland 60 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION June 3, 2015 The Washington County Planning Commission held a rezoning public meeting and its regular meeting on Monday, June 3, 2015 at 7 :00 p.m. at the Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, 2nd Floor, Hagerstown, Maryland . Commission members present were: Chairman Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Dennis Reeder, David Kline , a!"]d Ex- officio Leroy E. Myers, Jr (arrived at 7 :11 p.m .). Staff members present were : Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning -Stephen Goodrich , Director; Jill Baker, Chief Planner; Justin Lindley, Comprehensive Planner; and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant; Washington County Department of Plan Review & Permitting -Terry Irwin, Deputy Director; Tim Lung, Chief Planner; and Lisa Kelly, Senior Planner. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m . MINUTES Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 18, 2015 rezoning public meeting as presented . The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and unanimously approved . Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 4, 2015 meeting as presented . The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and unanimously approved. REZONING PUBLIC MEETING RZ-15-003 Text Amendment Mr. Goodrich presented a text amendment jointly prepared by the Washington County Department of Planning and Zoning and the County Attorney's Office to add new Article 16A and amend Article 16 of the Washington County Zoning Ordinance . He explained that a recent appeal of the approval of a PUD (Planned Unit Develop- ment) development plan change and a subsequent court decision on the appeal of the change highlighted a defect in the PUD zoning district; the defect is a tack of procedures to handle changes to a development plan. In 2012, during the Urban Growth Area rezoning, the County replaced the PUD text in the Zoning Ordinance with the MX (Mixed Use) district. Both the PUD and the MX zoning districts are floating zones; therefore, they are both approved based on a specific plan that is presented during the rezoning hearing. Both districts allow a mixed use type of development and both relax some specific design requirements in return for some flexibility in the plan the development will follow. · Mr. Goodrich explained that the PUD text was taken out of the Zoning Ordinance ; however, the existing PUD designation was left on the zoning maps . It was believed that any future activity in a PUD would be covered by including an explanatory paragraph in the MX zoning district. He further explained that a process to approve changes to Development Plans had already been established several years ago . When Emerald Pointe, a pre- existing PUD, applied for a change in its development plan, the proposed change was approved and subsequently appealed. The Courts did not uphold the change and in its discussion of why the change was not upheld pointed to the fact that there was no defined process for addressing a change in a PUD development plan. The currently proposed text amendment would define a process for changes in a PUD development plan. Mr. Goodrich stated that if the text amendment is adopted, it will not override the Court's decision and it will not relax or change any current allowances or restrictions in the PUD district. If the amendment is approved , language will be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance that codifies a previously established administrative policy. Mr. Goodrich briefly reviewed the proposed text and explained that part of the old PUD text that covers the design guidelines would be returned to the Zoning Ordinance and text describing the process to address a major change in a development plan that is to be added. Discussion and Comments: There was a brief discussion relative to the appeal that was filed, the Court's decision to grant the appeal and the proposed text amendments as they relate to the Court's decision. Mr. Reeder and Mr. Reiber expressed concern with regard to the lack of a definition of a minor change and a major change . Mr. Goodrich stated that it is not defined in the proposed text amendment because it was not previously defined in the PUD text; and, in the past, the Planning Commission has been able to appropriately distinguish the difference between a minor and major change in the development plan. Citizen Comments • Jason Divelbiss, 13424 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 302, Hagerstown, Maryland representing Emerald Pointe LLC -Mr. Divelbiss expressed his opinion that the proposed procedural text provides the major change option, which allows the applicant to request a major change and gives guidance on the approval process. However, if a major change is approved by the County Commissioners, the proposed text does not clarify the next step in the development process (i.e. the preliminary plan, the final development plan , and the site plan process). Mr. Divelbiss expressed his opinion that there is ambiguity created in what is meant by "commercial uses permitted in the BL". He explained the issues as they relate to the Emerald Pointe development. He believes the County should address the uses that are permitted by cross-reference in the BL zoning district; in particular, 61 the requested use of a convenience store and what the Zoning Ordinance references as a neighborhood shopping center, which is not separately defined . Commissioner Myers asked Mr. Divelbiss to submit, in writing, his proposed changes to County staff for further consideration. Commissioner Myers asked what would happen to the court case if this text amendment is approved. Mr. Divelbiss stated that the pending appeal of the previously submitted, ruled upon, and appealed PUD amendment is not affected by this proposed amendment. The appeal would proceed indepen- dently. If this text amendment is approved, it is likely that the applicant would submit a new development plan that would need to be considered by the Planning Commission and the ·county Commissioners. The Chairman closed the rezoning public meeting at 7:35 p.m. and called to order the regular meeting of the Washington County Planning Commission . NEW BUSINESS PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS Heritage Huyett LLC (PC-15-001) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a preliminary consultation for Heritage Huyett LLC. The applicant is proposing Industrial Commercial lots on property located along the west side of Greencastle Pike. The property is currently zoned RT (Residential Transition). The applicant is proposing to rezone a portion of the property (61.4 acres) to Pl (Planned Industrial) and a portion (20.7 acres) to BL (Business Local). The site was formerly known as Powers Estates, a proposed residential development that did not come to fruition . Eleven lots are proposed; Lots 1-7 would be zoned BL and Lots 8-11 would be zoned Pl. Forest retention areas were established during the approval process for Powers Estates and would remain virtually unchanged. A representative from the Washington County Soil Conservation District noted there were environmental conservation concerns on the site during its review as Powers Estates, including stream buffers and wetlands. These issues have been addressed and incorporated in the current concept plan. A representative from the Division of Environmental Management - Department of Engineering Services indicated that the developer will be required to extend public sewer to this site, at his expense, that would include the design, easement acquisition, construction permit, and inspection fees. Sewer from this site will flow into the Cedar Spring pump station; and, therefore, infrastructure fees will apply to this project. The Maryland State Highway Administration will not address any comments regarding access to this site until a traffic study has been submitted to the Washington County Department of Plan Review & Permitting and the State Highway Administration. A representative from the City of Hagerstown Utilities Department stated that according to the City's data, this out lot is not included in the approved Water Service Area, known as Powers Estates; therefore, the City would require documentation to confirm the current status of this site. A representative from the Washington County Department of Plan Review & Permitting :.... Engineering section provided the following comments at the preliminary consultation: 1) a traffic impact study will be required for this development; 2) all proposed public roads must meet, or exceed, the County's geometric design criteria for the commercial/industrial street classification; 3) there should be redundant access provided for the lots currently shown to be accessed by a single road leading to a cul-de-sac [a loop road or a horseshoe design was suggested]; 4) add an 80-foot wide right-of-way reservation from the proposed public road in the Pl zoned area to the Groh parcel property line; 5) the public road and its right-of-way terminating at Lot 1 should be reconfigured to allow for future extension of the public road to properties beyond Lot 1; 6) Lot 1 traffic flow would benefit by having a right-in only entrance on the public road that divides Lots 1 and 2; 7) a separate ESD (Environmental Site Design) storm water concept plan will be required at the appropriate construction phase for this project; and 8) the plan shows proposed storm water management facilities on the undeveloped lots; the purpose of these facilities and who will be responsible for their maintenance must be addressed. The Washington County Department of Plan Review & Permitting -Land Use section made the following comments: 1) in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, prior to rezoning the property to Pl, a preliminary consultation is required; 2) changes made to the concept plan deemed significant by the Planning Commission would require another public hearing; 3) following the approval of the final concept plan, sites plans and subdivisions for each lot would be required, which would include architectural drawings showing the facade of the building and buffers. Discussion and Comments: Commissioner Myers made an inquiry regarding comments about a loop road. Mr. Lung stated that the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) requires a second entrance if the number of peak hour trips exceed 25; therefore, an APFO review would be required as part of the approval process for this site. Mr. Reiber expressed his concern with regard to the future ingress and egress to the adjoining property. He believes this issue should be addressed now. Mr. Schreiber of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, the consultant representing the developer, stated that a T-turn around could be added in that area as this site is being developed. Motion and Vote: Mr. Wiley made a motion to approve the preliminary consultation concept plan in order to allow the proposal to move through the Planned Industrial rezoning process. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS· Rosewood Planned Unit Development (PUD) Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a modification request of two design requirements for the Rosewood PUD Section 11-8, Capitol Lane Townhouses located along the north side of Varsity Lane. Section 22 .12 of the 62 Zoning Ordinance establishes a minimum off-street parking requirement for residential multi-family units as 2 spaces per dwelling unit excluding garage space, plus overflow/visitor parking . Section 22 .12(b).4 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that residential multi-family units provide overflow parking at 0.5 additional spaces per dwelling unit. The proposed design provides for 2 parking spaces in each driveway; however, the 0.5 space for overflow parking is not being provided. The applicant is requesting a modification to allow one parking space be counted in the garage; the townhouses are designed to have a two-car garage. Mr. Lung reminded Commission members that part of the plan includes an additional parking lot to provide overflow parking for the existing Varsity Professional Center. He believes this would be a prime opportunity to use the provision in the Zoning Ordinance for shared parking. The second modification request is related to Section 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance which requires that play lots be provided within multi-family developments. The developer is proposing a 609 square foot tot lot at the end of the cul-de-sac. The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 50 foot setback from any street right-of-way; however, due to the design of this section of Rosewood, the play lot is located only 15 feet from the edge of the Capitol Lane right-of-way. There is forest conservation area located around the tot lot. Staff recommends that a fence be provided around the tot lot. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Kline stated that he is not opposed to the request to use the garage as one of the two required parking spaces. He believes that if parking is a concern, people will not purchase the town homes. Commissioner Myers asked if there are "no parking" signs provided along the street. Mr. Lung stated there are no signs and the street is designed with a shoulder. Mr. Wiley believes there is not enough space for parking along the street without blocking a driveway. He agrees that the market will dictate these concerns. Mr. Reeder expressed his opinion that the fence around the tot lot is a good idea if the setbacks are being changed. Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that the tot lot needs to be fenced with an appropriate style of fencing with adequate gates for ingress and egress. Mr. Reiber asked how many cars per household is typical. Mr. Lung did not know but indicated he could investigate this issue for future reference. Motion and Vote: Mr. Wiley made a motion to approve the two modification requests as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Myers and unanimously approved. Commissioner Myers left the meeting at 7:45 p.m . Comprehensive Plan Update Ms. Baker presented a working draft of the website designed for the Comprehensive Plan, which is not "live" yet. She noted there is a Comprehensive Planning 101 section describing the Commission's responsibilities , how the plan is developed, what a comprehensive plan is and how it is used, why the Plan is being updated, and a graphic showing the update process. Staff is developing a master plan of surveys to be used over the next several months to gain the public's input. There will be a section describing "upcoming events", a calendar and a "what's new" section. She briefly reviewed the "elements" page outlining the nine sections discussed in the Plan. There will be a "Maps and Data" page, a "Participate" page where citizens can sign-up for e-mails, and a "Meet the Staff' page . Our new anticipated launch date is June 30th . Ms . Baker gave members the website address and asked them to review the information and contact staff if they have comments or suggestions. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Reiber asked if the timeline presented to the Commission members would be available on the website as well. Ms. Baker noted that there will be a graphic included on the website but in a different format than the timeline presented to the Commission. She noted that staff will be speaking with the Board of County Commissioners on June 16th (tentatively) to discuss the website. Public Relations will devote an entire week to disseminate information to the media. Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that we need to continue moving through the process in a timely manner. Ms. Baker briefly discussed Stakeholder meetings and staff's plans on how to conduct these meetings. The stakeholder meetings would be invitation only meetings and general public meetings would be held separately in the evenings in different areas throughout the County. In addition, the Planning Commission previously indicated that they would like to meet with each municipalities' Planning Commission and the Maryland Municipal League. Mr. Reiber asked that Planning Commission members be notified by no later than the end of June when meetings have been scheduled so it can be discussed at the July meeting. Ms . Baker briefly described the procedures being proposed for use during stakeholder meetings . She reported that presentations have been made at the Boonsboro Middle, Boonsboro High and Williamsport High Schools that have been very well received. Staff will be making a presentation at Clear Spring High School orI June 5th_ Rural Business Rezoning (RZ-14-002) Ms. Baker presented the text and map amendments for the Rural Business District. Mr. Goodrich reminded members that a public information meeting was previously held by the Planning Commission and a recommendation was forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners. Following a public hearing, the County Commissioners remanded the proposed amendments back to the Planning Commission. As a result of comments made during the public hearing, changes have been made to the proposed amendments. Motion and Vote: Mr. Wiley made a motion to recommend approval to the Board of County Commissioners of the proposed map and text amendments as am~nded and presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved. Election of Officers Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve Mr. Reiber as Chairman. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kline and unanimously approved. 63 Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve Mr. Wiley as Vice-Chairman. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kline and unanimously approved. ADJOURNMENT The Chairman ordered the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Monday, July 6, 2015 , 7:00 p.m ., Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting , Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, Hagerstown, Maryland 64 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION July 6, 2015 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, July 6, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, 2nd Floor, Hagerstown, Maryland . Commission members present were : Chairman Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley, Dennis Reeder, and Ex-officio Leroy E. Myers, Jr. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning -Stephen Goodrich, Director; Jill Baker, Chief Planner; Justin Lindley, Comprehensive Planner; and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant; Washington County Department of Plan Review & Permitting -Tim Lung, Chief Planner; Lisa Kelly and Cody Shaw, Senior Planners . CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Motion and Vote: Mr. Wiley made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 1, 2015 meeting minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS RZ-15-003 Text Amendment Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the proposed text amendment. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley. Amended Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder amended the motion to approve the proposed text amendment to include the old PUD (Planned Unit Development) language. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS PRELIMINARY PLAT/SITE PLAN Emerald Pointe PUD, Phase 31 Section 1 (PSP-14-001) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a preliminary plaUsite plan for Emerald Pointe PUD, Phase 3, Section 1 located along the east side of Marsh Pike . The site is currently zoned RT (PUD) -Residential Transition with a Planning Unit Development overlay. The developer is proposing to create 17 lots, one single- family lot and 16 semi-detached lots on 4.5 acres . The semi-detached lots will range from 5,800 to 9,300 square feet and the single family lot will be 10,500 square feet in size . All lots will have access to new county streets. Public water and sewer will service these lots. Street lighting and sidewalks will be installed along the front of the lots. The projected build out of this site is two to three years. Bradford Pear trees will be planted along Emerald Pointe Drive. Forest Conservation requirements were previously met with the recordation of a final plat for Phase 1A and an additional .42 acres will be preserved and/or planted during development of future sections of the Emerald Pointe PUD . All approving agencies have submitted their approvals. Ms. Kelly stated that if the preliminary plaUsite plan is approved, the next step would be the submission of a final plat, which requires only staff approval unless there are major changes. Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the preliminary plaUsite plan as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Myers and unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Comprehensive Plan Update Ms. Baker announced that the Comprehensive Plan website was presented to the Board of County Commissioners on June 30 th and is now live. An article was published in the Herald Mail over the past weekend and an interview has been scheduled with WHAG television for July J1h . Ms. Baker discussed the upcoming Stakeholder and general public meetings. She also discussed the meetings that are planned with the municipalities' Planning Commissions and/or Mayor and Council. Sign-up sheets for all meetings were distributed to members. Members and staff discussed the differences between towns with growth areas and those without growth areas, Ms. Baker distributed information regarding the basic concepts of the Comprehensive Plan which include growth management and the type of growth we expect. She discussed population, housing and employment projections. Members briefly discussed the impacts on sewer and water capacity . Mr. Goodrich noted that the Water Resources element will be re-evaluated throughout the Comp Plan update process . Ms. Baker presented a chart showing the changes in land use since the last Comp Plan update . There was a brief discussion with regard to the facilitation of the upcoming meetings . Public Comment: Mr. Dan Kaminsky of 13136 Hepple White Circle, Hagerstown, MD requested information regarding the proposed text amendment (RZ-15-003) submitted by Mr. Wilkinson of Divelbiss & Wilkinson. This information will be forwarded via e-mail. 65 ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Myers made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and so ordered by the Chairman. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Monday, August 3, 2015, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting, Washington County Administration Building , 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, Hage?stown , Maryland Respectfully submitted, TerryR~ 66 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION September 14, 2015 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, September 14, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, 2nd Floor, Hagerstown, Maryland . Commission members present were: Chairman Terry Reiber, Dennis Reeder, David Kline and Ex-officio Leroy E. Myers, Jr. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning -Ste·phen Goodrich, Director; Jill Baker, Chief Planner; and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant; Washington County Department of Plan Review -Tim Lung, Deputy Director; Lisa Kelly and Cody Shaw, Senior Planners. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Chairman announced that the Initial Advice item will be moved to the third position under Other Business. MINUTES Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 6, 2015 meeting minutes as presented . The motion was seconded by Mr. Kline and unanimously approved . NEW BUSINESS MODIFICATIONS Cody Reed (SV-15-008) Mr. Shaw presented for review and approval a modification request from Sections 405.11.B and 405 .11.B.1 of the Washington County Subdivision Ordinance for a proposed 3 acre lot located at 9912 National Pike (Tax Map 32, Parcel 43). The property is currently zoned EC (Environmental Conservation). The modification request is to allow the creation of a lot without public road frontage for an immediate family member. However, the existing lane to the proposed lot is not within the bounds of the original parcel and does not serve an existing house on the same property. The following justification statement was provided from the applicant to be considered with this request: 1) The land selected is wooded and does not take away from crop or pasture land and does not disrupt State and Federal programs currently used by the Reed family; 2) The land has an approved perc test; 3) The land selected is off of an existing lane; however, it does not cross other property. Both property owners are immediate family members of the applicant and have agreed to have a written and recorded ingress/egress easement as well as a joint use maintenance agreement placed on the lane for the protection of future owners; and 4) A driveway in another location would be very difficult and expensive to construct. All agency approvals have been received. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Ed Schreiber of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, consultant for the applicant, was present at the meeting and reiterated that there will be a written and recorded ingress/egress easement as well as a joint use and maintenance agreement. Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the modification request contingent upon a written ingress/egress easement and joint use and maintenance agreement being recorded as well as the septic area being shown on the plat. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Myers and unanimously approved. Faye Downey (SV-15-009) Mr. Shaw presented for review and approval a modification request from Section 405.11.B .1 of the Washington County Subdivision Ordinance for property located at 4601 Mt. Briar Road (Tax Map 81, Parcel 4). The proposed lot is 3.98 acres in size and is currently zoned RV (Rural Village). The modification request is to allow the creation of a lot for an immediate family member without usable public road frontage. The following justification statement was submitted by the applicant: "The irregular configuration of the existing property with an existing panhandle that accesses the portion of the desired area to be developed lends itself to being the primary access to the proposed lot". All agency approvals have been received . Discussion and Comments: Mr. Ed Schreiber of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, the applicant's consultant, explained that the applicant wishes to use the existing driveway that crosses over her sister's and brother's properties and that a written document for joint use and maintenance will be recorded. Mr. Reiber expressed his concern regarding the length and width of the panhandle for emergency service vehicles. Mr. Lung explained that staff believes it would be better from a safety standpoint if the applicant uses the existing road access because it meets sight distance requirements . Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the modification request contingent upon the right-of- way documents and joint use and maintenance documents being recorded. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kline and unanimously. approved. 67 SITE PLANS Tony Summers (SP-15-012) Ms . Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for Tony Summers for property located along the southwest side of National Pike in Beaver Creek. The property is currently zoned HI (Highway Interchange). The owner/developer is proposing to construct a 5,000 square foot building at a height of 25 feet to be used for lawn mower retail sales on a 3.4 acre parcel. Twenty-five parking spaces are required and will be provided in front of the proposed building. The site will be served by individual well and septic. The hours of operation will be 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m ., five days per week . There will be two employees. Building mounted lights will be installed and signage will be building mounted . There will be an inside trash receptacle; no dumpster is proposed. Landscaping will be provided in the bio-retention ponds that are adjacent to the parking lot and on the left side of entrance to the site . This site meets the requirements for the express procedure as specified in the Forest Conservation Ordinance; therefore, the developer will be paying the payment-in-lieu fee in the amount of $3,879.57 . All agency approvals have been received. Motion and Vote: Commissioner Myers made a motion to approve the site plan as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kline and unanimously approved. Community Rescue Service (SP-15-027) Mr. Shaw presented for review and approval a site plan for Community Rescue Service for property located along the east side of Oliver Drive (Tax Map 24, Parcel 1165). The site is currently zoned HI (Highway Interchange). The owner is proposing to construct an ambulance rescue station on 1.42 acres . The number of employees will be two per shift and the hours of operation will be 24 hours/day, 7 days/week. Ten parking spaces are required and ten parking spaces will be provided. The site is served by public water and sewer. All landscaping and lighting requirements meet County standards . Forest Conservation requirements were addressed by paying a payment-in-lieu fee per recorded plat #5563. All agency approvals have been received. Mr. Shaw explained that the Planning Commission previously approved a site plan (SP-13-029), which was appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals who upheld the Planning Commission's approval of the subdivision plat. Another appeal was then filed in the Circuit Court where Judge Dwyer overturned the Board of Zoning Appeals' decision. Judge Dwyer made a ruling that an additional 75 foot buffer was required. The current plan shows the buffer as required by Judge Dwyer. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Raj Patel, representing Diamond Development Corporation who owns the Microtel hotel located next to the CRS site , was present at the meeting and was given the opportunity by the Planning Commission to make the following comments. He stated that the 1-81 off-ramps and Maugans Avenue are backed-up with or without the opticoms in place. He noted that the State Highway Administration has identified the site in question for storm water management; therefore , he believes the buffer requirements are inadequate and the building and parking lot are inadequate for this site . Mr. Patel expressed his opinion that the proposed landscaping trees will block the view of the hotel from 1-81. He believes that the sirens, air horns, and other related noise will be disturbing to him and his family as residents of the hotel as well as guests staying at the hotel. The glare and flashing lights will be a distraction to motorists on 1-81. Mr. Patel stated that he has had a traffic study prepared for this area that shows traffic issues and he believes that the site plan should be disapproved. Mr. Reiber noted that the courts did not make any ruling on the traffic issues, only on the buffering of the property . It was noted that both the State Highway Administration and the County's Engineering Department have approved the site plan without any concerns relative to traffic issues. Commissioner Myers expressed his concern with regard to the site being a designated storm water management area. Mr. Lung stated that the State Highway Administration, as part of its plans for widening and improvements to 1-81, identified areas that may be needed to address storm water management. Mr. Shaw noted that SHA made that comment when the initial plan was submitted; however, they did not make that comment on the current plan . Commissioner Myers stated he would like this verified. Mr. Gordon Poffenberger of Fox & Associates, Inc., the consultant, stated that a long-term study identified this property as a potential storm water management site; however, no funds have been set aside to purchase these identified sites and SHA has given their approval on this site plan. Commissioner Myers expressed his concern that Mr. Patel 's traffic study identifies a problem in this area that is not being acknowledged . He is also concerned that the screening ordered by the Court and its placement is not acceptable to Mr. Patel and would not be in the best interest of Mr. Patel's business . Mr. Kline stated that he would not object to moving the location of the landscaping trees if Mr. Patel is dissatisfied . Mr. Reeder asked a representative of the Community Rescue Service , who was in attendance at the meeting, if there is a set pro tocol for the use of sirens and lights as the ambulance leaves the station . The representative stated that the station averages 4 ca lls per day, and of those 4 calls, 1/3 of them are dispatched as non- emergency calls which do not allow the acclamation of lig hts or aud ible devices on the vehicle . He noted that the State of Maryland will not allow CRS to issue an order to the operators that they can turn the lights on but cannot use the siren. However, Maryland law does not prohibit CRS from instructing their operators to use no audible devices or lights until they approach the intersection of Maugans Avenue and Oliver Drive . The representative also noted that every call that would be run from this location would use the same intersections that are currently used from their current location in Maugansville. Therefore, there would be net zero change in traffic flow if CRS moves to this location. The representative from CRS stated that they also have a completed traffic study in case an attempt was made to use traffic safety concerns to stop the site plan . He explained that in the original letter 68 written by Sheriff Mullendore citing traffic and safety concerns, the Sheriff was unaware that opticoms were already in place and being utilized. Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that as long as the sirens and lights are used within the parameters of the State regulations this should not be an issue. Because traffic issues are not a concern of the State Highway Administration and County staff, he has no objections to this plan moving forward. Commissioner Myers asked if the Planning Commission could waive the buffer requirement ordered by the Court. Mr. Lung stated that based on Section 19.8 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission does not have the authority to waive the buffer requirement. The applicant would need to take that request to the Board of Zoning Appeals . Mr. Lung noted that in lieu of plantings, the Planning Commission could require a fence at a maximum height of 10 feet to be installed. Motion and Vote: Mr. Kline made a motion to approve the site plan with the requirement that a vinyl fence be constructed 74 feet from the property line bordering the hotel with plantings on the outside of the fence that will not grow higher than 10 feet. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved. Commissioner Myers requested that the record indicate that he voted "yes" in favor of the site plan approval; but, he still has concerns with regard to the traffic study and storm water management issues discussed during this meeting . (Correction : Following the meeting, staff verified that the site plan had been routed to the State Highway Administration (SHA) for "Observation and Comment", not "Approval". SHA did not initially comment on the submittal; however, in response to an e-mail from staff following the Planning Commission meeting, SHA verified that they had no objection to the approval of the site plan.) OTHER BUSINESS Kent and Wendy Thomas Subdivision Mr. Lung presented a request for Kent and Wendy Thomas to remove a condition from the original subdivision plat for Lot 2. He explained that on December 7, 1998, the Planning Commission approved a variance for Kenneth Thomas to create a new lot (Lot 2) with a panhandle exceeding 400 feet with a condition that there would be no further subdivision of this lot. After the lot was created, two dwellings were constructed on the lot, which was permitted at that time. Since then regulations have changed that allow only one dwelling to be permitted on a single lot, thus creating a non-conforming condition. The owner of Lot 2 now wishes to have each of the dwellings located on its own lot which would require a subdivision . One of the lots will not have public road frontage; however, there is a policy that allows the staff to approve a subdivision around an existing dwelling without public road frontage. A subdivision plat to create a new lot around the existing dwelling cannot be approved unless the Planning Commission removes the prior condition of approval. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Reiber asked if the access to the lot is in compliance with County regulations . Mr. Lung stated that it is in compliance and the access was approved with the subdivision that was approved in 1998 . Mr. Lung explained that even if the note was not on the plat, the County would need to grant approval of a lot without road frontage, which the Planning Commission has granted staff the authority to do in cases of an existing dwelling such as this. Mr. Reiber asked if these two dwellings each have their own wells and septic systems. Mr. Ed Schreiber of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, the consultant, stated that the dwellings share a well but each have their own septic systems. A new well will be proposed if the subdivision is granted . Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to grant removal of the condition stating there would be no further subdivision as requested . The motion was seconded by Commissioner Myers. Comments before the vote: Mr. Reeder asked if the Planning Commission needs to include a condition in the approval for a separate well. Mr. Lung stated that a well location is required to be shown on the plat for each lot. Mr. Reiber asked if the Planning Commission should assume that each lot will have a recorded plat showing its own well, septic and utilities. Mr. Lung stated that the Subdivision Ordinance requires these items and proposed locations be shown on the subdivision plat before approval can be granted. Mr. Schreiber stated that the Health Department may allow the two dwellings to share a well until such time there is a problem with the well. Mr. Reiber and Commissioner Myers expressed concern that the proposed well location would only be shown on the plat and would not actually exist at the time the subdivision plat is approved . They both believe that a well should be installed and working on the secondary home's lot prior to approval of the subdivision . Amended Motion and Vote: Commissioner Myers made a motion to grant removal of the condition stating there would be no further subdivision contingent upon a working well and septic system being installed on the subdivided lot prior to approval of the subdivision plat. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kline and unanimously approved. Emerald Pointe Planned Unit Development Mr. Goodrich reminded Commission members that as a result of an earlier proposal to amend the concept in a development plan for Emerald Pointe, the Circuit Court made a decision on an appeal of that amendment request. The Court overturned the County Commissioner's approval of the amendment to the development plan . In the Court's decision, the Court cited a defect in the Zoning Ordinance that the County has since corrected with a text 69 amendment (RZ-15-003) to the Zoning Ordinance that addressed the PUD issue. The County Commissioners approved that amendment (a copy of which was distributed to Commission members). The Court determined that the County Commissioners did not have the authority to approve a major amendment to a PUD . The new text now gives the County Commissioners that authority and the process to be used. Ms . Kelly presented a request to determine if a proposed change to the final development plan for the Emerald Pointe PUD is a major or minor change. The original final development plan that was approved in 2003 showed an assisted living facility. The proposed plan shows a two-story commercial complex replacing this facility and removing the commercial area from the interior of the development. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Kline expressed his opinion that in deciding if a change is a minor change or a major change, it should be quantifiable with specific criteria dictating, not subjective. It is his subjective opinion that based on what the developer is proposing, this would be a minor change . Mr. Jason Divelbiss, attorney for the developer, explained that in 2013 when the developer proposed a change to the final development plan it was determined that the change was a major change; and, therefore, required public hearings with the Planning Commission and County Commissioners. The change was approved ; however, the decision was appealed and the Circuit Court reversed the County Commissioners ' decision. The Circuit Court reversed the decision because they determined there was no procedure whereby the County Commissioners could make a major change. The text amendment now provides a clear process for a major change and a minor change . The proposed final development plan will show the previously proposed convenience store site being removed and replaced with another mixed use building. Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that the proposed change will be a major change , which should be subject to public review and comment. Motion and vote: Mr. Kline made a motion that the Planning Commission determine that the proposed changes to the Emerald Pointe PUD be considered major changes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Myers and unanimously approved. INITIAL ADVICE Adkins Automotive (SP-15-024) Ms. Kelly reminded Commission members that a rezoning (RZ-14-005) was previously approved by both the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for this site, which is currently zoned RB-E (Rural Business Existing). Following the rezoning approval, the applicant met with the Development Advisory Committee, and subsequently a site plan was submitted for the property located at 9920 Crystal Falls Drive. The Zoning Ordinance requires , when the RB-E district is adjacent to res idential uses , a perimeter screening 8 feet high to buffer a commercial use from residential uses. Mr. Ed Schreiber of Frederick, Seibert & Associates, the consultant, stated that the applicant must go before the Board of Zoning Appeals to request a reduction in the side yard setback from 100 feet to 10 feet. Although the adjacent property, which is currently heavily wooded does not contain a dwelling , it is zoned for a residential use . In accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, landscape screening must be provided that is at least 8 feet high at on- set. Mr. Schreiber noted that Mr. Adkins has already planted 4 to 6 foot arborvitae around his property. The applicant is requesting that he be allowed to continue planting landscape screening not utilizing 8 foot stock, but smaller stock . Discussion and Comments: Mr. Kline expressed his opinion that when the adjoining property owner [of the heavily wooded lot] decides to build on that property, he should be responsible for screening his property since the existing business is already there . He also believes that the existing woodlands should be able to regenerate itself without the use of expensive or exotic materials being planted . Ms. Kelly stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires the buffering of the vacant property. Consensus: It is the consensus of Planning Commission members that the applicant plant landscaping screening that will grow to the minimum 8 foot height in the future and that native species can be used as well as foreign species . OTHER-BUSINESS -CONTINUED Plan Review Staff Approvals Update Mr. Lung explained organizational changes that have recently taken place in the County's Division of Engineering and Construction Management. He believes that the Planning Commission should be informed of notable projects that have bee n granted a pprovals by the staff. Mr. Lung s tated th a t a n expansion to th e Holiday In n Express nea r th e Va ll ey Ma ll is c urren tly being reviewed by staff. Ot he r proj ects in c lud e a site plan for GTI (a propose d med ica l ca nn ab is g rowing an d processing facility) located al o ng Hopew e ll Roa d a nd a s it e pl a n for a proposed sta nd-alo ne reta il store at Crosspoint Shopping Cen te r. Thi s report w il l be pa rt of each reg ul ar Plan ni ng Commiss io n a ge nd a. Comprehensive Plan Update Ms. Baker informed Commission members that there have been 7 stakeholder meetings conducted and one last stakeholder meeting scheduled for later in September. Total attendance for the stakeholder meetings has been approximately 30 people. Six general public meetings have also been held in Smithsburg, Boonsboro, Clear Spring, Hancock and two in Hagerstown. Approximately 45 people have attended those meetings . Meetings 70 have also been held with the nine municipalities' Planning Commissions/Mayor and Council members . Following each of the stakeholder meetings, surveys have been developed and distributed to the stakeholder groups . Meeting summaries, when completed, and comments received will be forwarded to the Planning Commission. The next step will be Planning Commission workshops to review and discuss all information and comments received to date. Staff has been discussing plans to continue to educate the public and disseminate information. Staff will be making presentations to the local high schools and the Hagerstown Community College. More postcards are being printed to distribute to local businesses and the Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that the Chamber of Commerce reaches large numbers of people and we should utilize their resources when trying to distribute information. He also believes we should try to make presentations to more civic groups such as the Rotary Club . There was a brief discussion regarding the update of the City of Hagerstown's Comprehensive Plan and a workshop with the City's planning staff. Zoning Amendments Update Mr. Goodrich announced that the zoning amendments (RZ-14-002) for the Rural Business zoning district have been approved by the Board of County Commissioners . The map amendment application (RZ-15-001) for the Dollar General along Jefferson Boulevard was disapproved by the County Commissioners. Mr. Goodrich informed members that the October 1ih date for the upcoming Planning Commission public rezoning meeting is incorrect. The correct date is October 19th . ADJOURNMENT Mr. Reeder made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Myers and so ordered by the Chairman. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Monday, October 5, 2015, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting , Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, Hagerstown, Maryland 2. Monday, October 19 , 2015, 7:00 p.m ., Washington County Planning Commission public rezoning meeting ; Location to be announced Respec tfu ll y ~ ~e~ 71 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION October 5, 2015 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, October 5, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, 2nd Floor, Hagerstown, Maryland. Commission members present were : Chairman Terry Reiber, Dennis Reeder, David Kline and Andrew Bowen. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning -Stephen Goodrich, Director; Jill Baker, Chief Planner; and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant; Washington County Department of Plan Review -Tim Lung, Deputy Director; Lisa Kelly and Cody Shaw, Senior Planners. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr. Lung noted that staff made a correction to the minutes of September 14, 2015 for the CRS Site Plan approval. Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 14, 2015 meeting minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kline and unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS Chester Burkholder and Lawayne Martin (PC-15-003) Mr. Shaw presented for review and comment a preliminary consultant for Chester Burkholder and Lewayne Martin for the construction of an animal waste storage facility and an animal husbandry facility located at 12440 Burkholder Lane in Hagerstown. The property is currently zoned Pl (Planned Industrial) and is located in the Hagerstown Urban Growth Area . The applicants are proposing to construct an animal waste storage facility to ensure compliance with the Maryland Nutrient Management Regulations . A waste storage facility is required to provide over winter storage of animal wastes by January 1, 2016 , at which time a complete prohibition on winter spreading from November 15th through March 1st of each year will become mandatory. The farm produces 3,770 tons of animal waste annually. The Washington County Soil Conservation District (WCSCD) has approved the construction drawings certifying that the proposed structure meets current standards and specifications of the USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). After construction, WCSCD will certify that the construction meets applicable standards. Mr. Shaw reviewed the farm's current operation, current waste management procedures and planned waste management procedures. He also informed Commission members of the reviewing agencies and their comments . The plan is currently being revised to address these comments. Both the animal waste facility and the animal husbandry facility must have a minimum setback of 350' from the property line and 250' from any public right-of-way. There must also be a minimum setback of 500' from each school, dwelling, church or institution for human care that is not located on the same lot. The proposed plan meets all of the setback requirements. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Elmer Weibley of WCSCD was present at the meeting and stated that plans are being revised and the applicant has requested that FEMA revise the flood plain prior to a final permit being issued . Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the concept plan for this project. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and unanimously approved. SITE PLANS Crosspoint Shopping Center -Lot 5 (SP-15-031) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for Lot 5 of the Crosspoint Shopping Center located adjacent to Cole Road in front of the Kohl's Department store . The property is currently zoned BG (Business General) and is 2.89 acres in size . The developer is proposing to construct a 26,000 square foot building that will house Bob's Furniture. The proposed building will be 30' in height. The site will be served by existing public water and sewer. There will be two access points from Cole Road. Hours of operation will be Monday through Saturday 10 a.m . to 10 p.m. and Sunday 11 a.m . to 7 p.m. There will be a total of 20 employees making up two shifts. There will be one tractor trailer delivery per week . There are 125 parking spaces required and 133 parking spaces will be provided. There will be one dumpster. Two building mounted signs are proposed and one sign added to the overall shopping center sign adjacent to 1-81 . Lighting will be building and pole mounted throughout the parking lot. Landscaping will include trees and shrubs located throughout the parking lot in front of the building, along the back of the building, around the fencing enclosing the dumpster, and throughout the bio- retention pond. ForE:st Conservation Ordinance requirements were previously addressed during the development of the shopping center. Ms . Kelly noted that the County and the developer have agreed to put a cul-de-sac in the area at the end of Cole Road . All reviewing agency approvals have been received . Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the site plan for Lot 5 of the Crosspoint Shopping Center as presented . The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and unanimously approved . 72 GTI (SP-15-033) Ms. Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for GTI for property located along the southeast side of Hopewell Road near the Halfway Boulevard interchange. The developer is proposing to construct a 47,000 square foot building for Phase I for the growing and manufacturing of medicinal cannabis . Phase II, which is planned for the future, will be a 129,000 square foot building, for a total of 176,000 square feet. The site is 19 .34 acres in size and is currently zoned HI (Highway Interchange). The site will have one access onto Hopewell Road, which will be secured with a guard shack and gate that will be monitored. The entire site will be secured by a fence. The hours of operation will be Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. There will be approximately 40 employees for Phase I with a total of 100 employees after completion of the second phase. Parking spaces required for Phase I is 48 spaces with 80 spaces being provided. With the completion of Phase II, an additional 44 parking spaces will be added for a total of 124 parking spaces on site; 113 parking spaces are required. Freight and delivery will be one tractor trailer per day for Phase I and two per day following the completion of Phase II. Public water and sewer will serve the site. Lighting will be building mounted and pole mounted throughout the parking lot. One dumpster will be located on the site. No signage is proposed with the exception of the address on the mailbox along Hopewell Road. Forest Conservation requirements are being met by retaining 3.85 acres of existing forest on site . Landscaping will include trees planted at the entrance and throughout the parking lots and in the bio-retention ponds located to the rear of the site. Discussion and Comments: There was a discussion regarding the County Attorney's determination that the proposed use under the guidelines of the County's Zoning Ordinance will be considered a pharmaceutical manufacturing use rather than an agricultural use. Staff referenced a letter signed by Mr. Rob Slocum, Director of the Division of Engineering and Construction Management and acting as the Zoning Administrator at the time of said letter, determined the use to be pharmaceutical and a principal permitted use within the HI zoning district. Security measures at the site were discussed at great length . Mr. Sterling Crockett, a principal of GTI, was present at the meeting and provided an overview of the security measures that have been developed by highly specialized security individuals and businesses. He stated that all employees will be subject to a thorough background check, they will be required to wear uniforms without pockets, and they will be permitted to enter only the area of the building where their work will take place. There will be a security guard on duty at the guard shack 24/7 that will monitor all individuals entering the property. Mr. Jason Divelbiss, attorney for the developer, stated there will be a live feed at the facility that will be connected to and monitored by the Maryland State Police. Mr. Kline expressed his concern about approving a project that could cause a problem in the future with regard to security issues. Mr. Divelbiss and Mr. Crockett explained that the facility would be used for the growing, cultivation, and limited processing of medical cannabis in healthy forms such as tablets, oils, waxes, patches, etc. The final product will be packaged in sealed packages and will be distributed to State licensed dispensaries by delivery vans. Delivery vans, which will be tracked and monitored by GPS, will not be permitted to make any stops except at the designated dispensaries. There will be a two key system (one key from the dispensary and one key from the plant) that will be required to open the delivery van once it reaches its destination. There was a discussion regarding noxious or unpleasant odors and effluent that would be emitted from the facility. Mr. Crockett stated there will not be any odors associated with the facility. Plants will be grown in pots with soil and hand watered; therefore, there will be no run-off and no pre-treatment of effluent on site. The group discussed regulations and oversight by the State of Maryland and the Federal government's stand on medical cannabis. Mr. Divelbiss stated that a 2013 memorandum from the Department of Justice's Deputy Attorney General states that the Federal government on the issue of enforcing the Controlled Substance Act with regard to cannabis will defer to each State except when it infringes on nine different priority areas, such as the sale of cannabis to minors, illegal trafficking, etc. Mr. Crockett stated that the Maryland Medical Cannabis Commission will have oversight of the facility and the first two years of operation will be considered a test period. After the two year period, changes and adjustments to the facility and the operation may be made if necessary . He also stated there will be random inspections performed throughout the year. There was a discussion with regard to the approval of the site plan and if that approval would transfer to another developer if GTI does not get the State required license. There was also a discussion placing a conditional approval note on the site plan. Mr. Lung believes that the approval would stay with the site, not with a particular owner/developer. Mr. Divelbiss explained that the property is currently owned by CHIEF and he believes that if GTI does not get the license, CHIEF would request that the slate be wiped clean. He further explained that in accordance with the State of Maryland, the application requires the applicant to provide the specific site where y<,u plan to locate a facility, compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, information relative to security, effects on schools, etc. He noted that no other applicant would meet all of the conditions exactly and apply for this site because they do not have the site under contract, they do not have an equity interest in the property, and they do not have the consent of the current property owner. Therefore, the State of Maryland would not allow anyone else to operate at this site. 73 Mr. Reiber strongly expressed his concern with regard to the Planning Commission approving a site plan for a facility for a drug based operation that is not legally recognized by the Federal government, but is recognized by the State of Maryland. He reminded Commission members that they took an oath to abide by and take up all laws including Federal, State and local. He also expressed concern with regard to the use being considered a medical use rather than an agricultural use, to the location of the facility and its close proximity to other businesses including retail and wholesale businesses. Mr. Reiber is very concerned about safety measures at the facility and feels this could be a serious problem in a county that already has drug related issues. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the site plan for GTI contingent upon obtaining all approvals and permits from the State of Maryland. The motion was seconded by Mr. Kline and unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Comprehensive Plan Update Ms. Baker distributed copies of information received from the City of Hagerstown regarding recommendations that they are making in their Comprehensive Plan . She noted that the City is making 67 proposed changes to land use designations. These recommendations are consistent with the County's current Land Use Plan with the exception of three proposed areas for expansion of the Medium Range Growth Area (MRGA) and one area proposed for retraction. The three proposed area changes to the MRGA are: Holcim property located behind the Cortland Manor Subdivision; Friendship Technology Park on Downsville Pike; and Sharpsburg Pike/Poffenberger Road vicinity . Ms . Baker began with the Holcim property, which is a small area where the County is proposing to extend Eastern Boulevard and would become open space . The next area to be discussed was the Friendship Technology Park which includes 14 parcels (465 acres) and is predominately commercial and institutional uses. The reason for the expansion in this area is because the City is required to provide service to this area due to old agreements made with Potomac Edison many years ago . The last area proposed for expansion is the Sharpsburg Pike/Poffenberger Road area. Ms. Baker stated there is service already in this area, which serves several subdivisions. She noted there are multiple pre-annexations agreements in place for developments in this area, such as Claggett's Mill, Cross Creek , Carriage Hill , etc. Ms . Baker discussed the proposed areas for retraction and explained that the City, by expanding the three aforementioned properties, would need to retract areas to make up the difference in their allocation numbers. The first area is between Broadfording Road and Salem Avenue, which includes three parcels that total approximately 250 acres . Staff does not object to the retraction of this area because these parcels are currently being used as farmland and they do not have good access. The second area is the northeast quadrant of MD 63/US 40 (Hopewell Valley North). The City is proposing to retract approximately 1100 acres of land which the County has designated as Planned Industrial. This recommendation needs some additional consideration by the County. Ms . Baker stated lhat the City 's Planning Department would like to meet with the Planning Commission to discuss these recommendations . A workshop will be scheduled in November with the City to discuss these issues. Ms. Baker stated that the public engagement process for the Comprehensive Plan update has been completed . Staff has begun compiling all of the information received to date and will begin working with civic groups to obtain additional information and feedback . Workshop meetings will be scheduled with the Planning Commission to begin working through the information received and begin drafting the document. Staff Approvals Mr. Lung reported that Staff approved 12 projects during the month of September, which included the following: • Site plan and subdivision plat for the Rosewood PUD Section 11-B (50 townhouse units) • Expansion for the Good Shepherd Ministries located at the intersection of Long Meadow Road and Leitersburg Pike • Site plan and subdivision plat for Walmart -Arnett Farm (On July 1, 2013, the Planning Commission delegated approval authority to staff upon receipt of all agency responses and approvals .) • Site plan for the Holiday Inn Express expansion (24 additional rooms) He also noted that 16 new plan submittals were received during the month of September. Applicants for Planning Commission Mr. Goodrich presented a list of applicants to fill the vacant Planning Commission position. Planning Commission members should make a recommendation of 2 or 3 applicants to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration and appointment. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Bowen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m . The motion was seconded by Mr. Kline and so ordered by the Chairman . 74 UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Monday, October 19, 2015, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Planning Commission public rezoning meeting, Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, Hagerstown, Maryland 2. Monday, November 2, 2015, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting; Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, Hagerstown, Maryland 'Terry Reiber, Chairman WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION October 19, 2015 75 The Washington County Planning Commission held a public rezoning information meeting on Monday, October 19, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, 2nd Floor, Hagerstown, Maryland . Commission members present were : Chairman Terry Reiber, Dennis Reeder, David Kline, Andrew Bowen and Ex-officio Leroy E. Myers, Jr. Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning -Stephen Goodrich, Director; Jill Baker, Chief Planner; and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m . PUBLIC REZONING INFORMATION MEETING RZ-15-002 -Brian Kurtyka for Heritage Huyett LLC Staff Presentation Ms. Baker presented for review and comment a piecemeal map amendment application for Heritage Huyett LLC for property located along the west side of Maryland 63 (Greencastle-Williamsport Pike) approximately 0 .1 miles north of US 40 (National Pike). The applicant is requesting the property to be rezoned from RT (Residential Transition) to a portion [approximately 29 acres] being BL (Business Local) and a portion [approximately 61.5 acres] being Pl {Planned Industrial). The request is for two parcels totaling 90.5 acres. In accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, applicants requesting a new Pl zoning district are required to first hold a preliminary consultation with the Planning Commission that outlines the intent of the developer and gives an early opportunity to supply guidance and feedback on the proposal. The preliminary consultation was presented to the Planning Commission at its June 3, 2015 meeting for review and comment. Most of the discussion during that meeting revolved around internal traffic circulation and external access to MD 63. Planning Commission members recommended that the developer provide access to adjoining properties along the southern boundary. This issue has been addressed and is included in the revised concept plan . Parcel 393, which consists of 82.18 acres is currently unimproved. It has a rolling topography which generally rises up from MD 63 to a high point in the back third of the property and then drops off severely and borders the Conococheague Creek. Parcel 561 consists of 8.32 acres and is currently unimproved. The topography is primarily flat with a gentle upward slope moving away from MD 63. Population data in this area_ was compiled from the US Census Bureau from 1980 to 2010 . The properties are located in the Wilsons Election District (#23). The figures show that the population has increased approximately 83% (or 2 .79% per year) while the County's overall population has increased by 30% (or 1.01 % per year) during the same period . Parcel 393 is delineated as a W-3 Programmed Water Service Area and Parcel 561 has a split delineation of W-1 Existing Water Service and a W-1 Restricted Use Existing Water Service. During the preliminary consultation, the City of Hagerstown Water Department commented that they weren't sure that the outlet (assumed to be Parcel 561) would have water service. It was later confirmed by the consultant that water service is available to the parcel. Both parcels are located within an S-3 Programmed Wastewater Service Area. The Washington County Department of Water Quality has stated, "The develop,er would be responsible for extending the sewer to this property at their expense. Any sewage that flows to this station is subject to a special user fee in addition to the standard tap fee for the Cedar Spring pump station area." Fire protection service is provided to Parcel 393 by the Williamsport Volunteer Fire Company and Parcel 561 is located within the service area of the Maugansville Goodwill Fire Company. The property is approximately 5 miles away from both fire companies. Emergency services are provided by the Williamsport Volunteer Ambulance Service, which is approximately 5 miles away from the property. This application was sent to the Washington County Department of Emergency Services for review and comment. Mr. Kevin Lewis, Director, responded that there is a desire to locate an emergency substation in the area and asked that the developer work with the Department of Emergency Services during the development of this property to potentially set aside land for an emergency substation. The subject properties are within the districts of the Conococheague Elementary, Clear Spring Middle and Clear Spring High schools. The requested change from residential to Pl and BL zoning districts would eliminate the potential for residential development and would not have an impact on school capacities . A copy of the rezoning application was sent to the Maryland State Highway Adm ini stration ; however, no comments have been received at this time . The Zoning Ordinance states that the developer requesting a Pl zoning district shall provide " .... preliminary traffic data that includes avai lab le current traffic counts for ex isting roads within a one mile radius of the site ... ". The developer has completed a preliminary traffic analys is evaluating existing and projected traffic impacts along1 MD 63 from its intersection with the Interstate 70 Eastbound off ramps up to the intersection of US 40. The preliminary traffic analysis was sent to the Division of Plan Review & Permitting and they have provided comments related to the traffic analysis, internal traffic issues and storm water management design . The area is currently not served by public transportation. Ms . Baker stated that the purpose of the BL zoning district is to provide appropriate locations where the retail goods and services needed by a neighborhood population can be made available. Uses permitted in the BL district should provide for routine daily shopping needs of the nearby neighborhood residents and be of an 76 appro·priate use intensity and scale compatible with the adjacent and surrounding residential neighborhood. The purpose of the Pl zoning district is to foster industrial development in Planned Industrial Parks that can be built and operated with a minimum of nuisance. Historic structures are another important component of compatibility on and around the parcels being proposed for rezoning. There are 11 historic sites listed on the Washington County Historic Sites Survey that are located within a 0.5 mile radius of the proposed rezoning area; none of these structures are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Ms . Baker explained that the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is to evaluate the needs of the community and balance the different types of growth to create a harmony between different land uses. In the ·current Comprehensive Plan , both of these properties are located in the sub-policy area Industrial Flex, which reflects a hybrid policy area comprised of different types of economic development associated land uses. Because this is considered a piece-meal rezoning, the change or mistake rule applies to this request. The applicant must prove there has either been a change in the character of neighborhood since the last comprehensive rezoning or that the legislative body made an error or mistake in the application of zoning at the time of the last comprehensive rezoning. Even when change or mistake has been sufficiently sustained, it merely allows the local governing body the authority to change the zoning; it does not require the change. In this case, the applicant has claimed that there was a mistake made in the last comprehensive zoning of 2012 . Ms. Baker noted that the last comprehensive rezoning of this property was in 2012. Initially this property was proposed to be zoned Pl. At that time, the property owner appeared at a County Commissioner public hearing and noted that a subdivision was proposed on this property and requested that the property be zoned RT. The local legislative body reacted to the request and changed the zoning to RT under the assumption that the residential plat for Powers Estates [a 118 lot subdivision] had been approved and recorded . Staff has recently discovered that the plat was approved on October 8, 2007 but was never recorded. The collapse of the residential housing market in the late 2000s created the previous property owners inability to market and sell residential lots. The property was then conveyed to the bank and then to the current property owner. Staff believes that because the subdivision plat was not recorded and all approvals became void in 2009, these facts were not taken into consideration at the time of the rezoning in 2012 . If these facts had been known and considered during the rezoning, the local legislative body may have made a different decision on the rezoning of this property. Therefore, there could have been a mistake in the zoning of this property in 2012. Staffs recommendation, based on the new facts, believes there could have been a mistake made in the zoning of this property because certain rfacts may not have been considered . The request for the Pl zoning is logical and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan ; however, BL zoning on a portion of the property has not been contemplated; and, therefore, there is no case for staff to determine that the BL zoning is appropriate and logical. Applicant's Presentation Mr. Brian Kurtyka on behalf of Heritage Huyett LLC stated that some of the interior roadways have be re- designed including the T-stub on the southern portion of Parcel 1 to allow better traffic flow and future hook-up to the adjoining properties. He noted that the preferred zoning designation for the larger parcel was Pl, which the applicant is now requesting, with the exception of a portion of the front of the property to be zoned BL. The applicant is hoping to attract high-tech and service type businesses; however, when those types of businesses come to the area there is a need for appropriate retail services and food establishments to service the employees who work in these facilities. Mr. Kurtyka stated that the Pl zoning district allows for principal permitted uses that are allowed in the IG (Industrial General) and IR (Industrial Restricted) zoning districts, which are intense uses such as heliports, prisons, etc. By requesting the BL zoning district on a portion of this property, the uses will be less intense such as offices and professional type businesses. Discussion and Comments: Commissioner Myers asked if Randy Shifter's business has been contacted with regard to using the proposed access. Mr. Kurtyka stated that no discussions have taken place with regard to this issue; however, the applicant would be willing to discuss the matter in the future. Public Comment Dick Shank, 16525 National Pike, Hagerstown -Mr. Shank, representing himself as well as President of Wilson Ruritan Club which neighbors the property, asked if sewer is run to this property, will the surrounding properties need to be hooked up to sewer. He expressed concern with regard to traffic issues. Les Milburn, 17821 Broadfording Road, Hagerstown -Mr. Milburn stated he is representing the Wilson Ruritan Club and asked if the Ruritan would be able to hook onto the water and sewer if it is made available and their system would fail. The Ruritan does not want their zoning to be changed so they may continue to operate as they have in the past. Kyle Waters, 16400 National Pike, Hagerstown -Mr. Waters stated that his property abuts the south side of the property in question and to the right of the Ruritan building . He noted that he purchased his property approximately one year ago with the understanding that his driveway is currently a County right-of-way. He wanted to verify that this driveway will not be used as an access to the Heritage Huyett property. Mr. Waters is not opposed to hooking up to public water and sewer services if they become available. Jeff Suder, 16048 National Pike, Hagerstown -Mr. Suder expressed his concern with regard to the wooded area between his property and the property in question. Mr. Bowen stated that is a Forest Conservation area and is located in a floodplain, which makes it a priority area so they will honor it. 77 .Samuel Croteau, 12515 Huyett Lane, Hagerstown -Mr. Croteau asked if the retail shops would be located along Greencastle Pike and if there would be a buffer between Greencastle Pike and the shops. Mr. Bowen stated there would be a buffer. Comments from Planning Commission: Commissioner Myers expressed his concern with regard to Mr. Waters' concerns about the County using the right-of-way on his property . Comments from Applicant: Mr. Kurtyka stated that the applicant will address the concerns and comments expressed during this evening's meeting as much as they can accommodate . RZ-15-004 -Bob and Mary Rotz Staff Presentation Mr. Goodrich presented for review and comment a map amendment request for Bob and Mary Rotz for property located at 9729 Garis Shop Road. The property is one acre in size, contains their dwelling, and is currently zoned A(R) -Agricultural Rural. The applicant is requesting the property to be zoned RB -Rural Business floating zone with underlying A(R) (Agricultural Rural). Mr. and Mrs. Rotz currently own and operate a recreation day camp on the adjacent 31 acre parcel, known as Antietam Recreation. They have owned the property where the camp is located since 1971; the camp opened in 1977. Mr. and Mrs . Rotz purchased the adjacent parcel where the dwelling is located in 1983. The applicant, in their request, noted that the one acre parcel has always been considered part of the business on the adjacent property. The dwelling has been used over time for storage, housing camp employees and other camp related activities. The dwelling crosses over the property line and sits partially on the Antietam Recreation parcel. Mr. Goodrich stated that the Staff Report and Analysis stated that no traffic counts were available; however, Staff has discovered that traffic counts are available and will be provided following the public meeting. Traffic counts were taken in 2008 on Wagaman Road, which yielded an average daily count of 1,644 vehicles per day. In 2015, traffic counts showed an average of 1,223 vehicles per day . Mr. Goodrich reminded Planning Commission members that changes have been made to the Rural Business zoning district, which were adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in August 2015. He noted that the changes were in the procedures and nomenclature used and does not have an effect on the uses permitted on this property. If there is an intensification of the use on the property, the Planning Commission would deal with that during the site plan review process. If it would be determined that the business was becoming more intense than it was in the beginning, the Planning Commission could decide that another public hearing was required. Mr. Goodrich stated that another modification was made to the RB district side yard setback, which was reduced from 100 feet to 50 feet. He noted there are specific criteria which must be met in order to establish the RB zone on a property and the Planning Commission must consider certain items when making its recommendation to the County Commissioners and they are noted in the Staff Report. Mr. Goodrich stated that the Rotzs do not currently have a proposal for development of this property . Applicant's Presentation Mrs. Rotz explained that they are requesting the zoning change because the house is located in two different zoning districts, which could cause problems in the future. She noted that in 1971, they purchased the 31 acre parcel that was zoned Agriculture and was developed over the next few years as Antietam Recreation. In 1983 they purchased the adjoining property with the dwelling which was also zoned Agriculture. In 1996 the garage was added to the house and the property owners did not consider that the dwelling would be located on two different parcels of land. There are storage containers, a costume room, and fitness gym located on the one acre parcel that is currently used by Antietam Recreation. In 2005 during the comprehensive rural area rezoning, the 31 acre parcel was rezoned to RB and the Rotzs did not realize that both properties were not going to have the zoning changed. When investigating the possibility of moving part of the junior camp activities to the one acre parcel or the possibility of opening a day care facility, the issue of two different zoning districts became apparent. The Rotzs believe it would be better to have both properties zoned as one zoning designation, Rural Business. Public Comment No public comments were received during the meeting. RZ-15-005 -Emerald Pointe Inc. Staff Presentation Mr. Goodrich presented for review and comment a request for consideration of a major change to the concept and development plan for Emerald Pointe PUD located along the east side of Marsh Pike and south side of Longmeadow Road. The property is currently zoned RT (PUD) -Residential Transition with Planned Unit Development floating zone. The PUD zone has been in place since 2003; the zoning will not change regardless of the outcome of this request. The current concept and subsequently approved development plan reflect a long term plan for development of this site and the developer has requested a change to that plan . In September, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed change is a major change, which has triggered this public review process. The current concept and development plans show 259 dwelling units on single-family, townhouse, and semi-detached lots, a commercial area and community center in the middle of the residential development and a retirement living center at the intersection of Marsh Pike and Leitersburg Pike. The proposed changes that will be considered this evening are as follows: removal of a 9,000 square foot commercial building from the residential area, expansion of the community center and provision of additional amenities for the residents of the development including a commercial component (either a restaurant or a cafe) in the community building, revision of phasing lines for residential portions that have already been developed or will be developed in 78 the future, and a change of the retirement living center to a commercial area . The proposed commercial area does not include a convenience store as a previous plan did ; it includes a two-story bank and office structure instead. Mr. Goodrich stated that the County Commissioners approved the PUD floating zone on this property in 2003. The concept plan included 259 dwelling units, a commercial area and community center in the interior of the development and 8 acres of retirement living center at the intersection of Marsh Pike and Leitersburg Pike . A development plan, which mirrors the concept plan and is the official guide for the site development, was approved in 2007. In 2013, the developer proposed a change to the development plan and replaced the retirement living center with a commercial area, which included a convenience store. The Planning Commission determined the proposed change was a major change and triggered the public review process. The Board of County Commissioners approved the change to the concept and development plans in 2014, following public input and two public hearings . The decision by the County Commissioners was appealed to the Circuit Court who reversed the decision citing its opinion that the Zoning Ordinance did not contain the authority for the County Commissioners to approve a major change or any guidelines to approve a major change. Therefore, the plan approved by the County Commissioners in 2014 became null and void and the previous plan [approved in 2007] became the approved plan that was in effect. It was not the County's intention that PUDs could never change and that long-term development plans need to have some degree of flexibility because conditions change and community needs change. Following the Court's ruling that the County had no guidelines to approve a major change, a text amendment was approved by the County Commissioners in August 2015 to the PUD section of the Zoning Ordinance. After the text amendment was adopted, which provided the authority and guidelines to approve a major change in a PUD concept, Emerald Pointe Inc. submitted a new plan to the Planning Commission proposing a change which the Planning Commission determined to be a major change; and, therefore, the review process has begun again. Mr. Goodrich briefly reviewed the guidelines from the Zoning Ordinance that the Planning Commission should follow in order to make its decision and recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. Applicant's Presentation Mr. Jason Divelbiss, 13424 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 302, Hagerstown, counsel to Emerald Pointe, Inc., noted that although the exhibit shown at the meeting is labeled as a revised preliminary/final development plan, the request is to revise the concept plan . Mr. Divelbiss emphasized that if the concept plan is approved there will still be the development plan and site plan phases that the commercial area and revised community center area will need to go through . He noted that the 60,000 square foot of mixed use retail buildings along Marsh Pike remain part of the plan. Mr. Divelbiss explained the criteria upon which the Planning Commission needs to evaluate the proposed changes as follows: • Purpose of the PUD district: "The purpose is to permit a greater degree of flexibility and creativity in the design and development of the residential areas than is possible in a conventional zoning district. The purpose is also to promote a more economical and efficient use of land while providing for a harmonious variety of housing choices, a more varied level of community amenities and the promotion of adequate open space and scenic attractiveness." o Justification: Both the expanded community center and the proposed commercial area are consistent with the purpose of the PUD zoning district. Both are on land that has been approved for development [2003 concept plan], both are an efficient use of land, both facilities would provide community amenities in the form of additional recreation areas, local retail and office space to accommodate local residents, both incorporate elements of open space, and both are designed to be attractive additions . • Applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan: The community center is consistent with the mixed use development policies of the Comprehensive Plan. In Article 2, Chapter 4 (Economic Development section), it states that for commercial and office use infrastructure and utilities should be available or capable of being provided. o Justification: The proposed community center and the commercial and office space are part of an existing PUD that is partially constructed with infrastructure being provided. Therefore, the applicant believes they have met the criteria for this revision . • Access to the interstate should be over arterial highway routes that do not require movement of heavy traffic through residential neighborhoods. o Both Marsh Pike and Leitersburg Pike provide access to 1-81 without going through the residential neighborhoods, except for the area of roadway running from Leitersburg Pike to Longmeadow Road via Marsh Pike. Therefore , this meets the policy of providing access to arterial roadways quickly and efficiently from the proposed development. • Ability to mitigate development impacts on sensitive environmental, historical, or cultural features. o Justification: The revisions are being proposed as part of a previously approved PUD, and all of the above components have been evaluated and deemed acceptable. • Avoidance of areas where there is a high probability of incompatibility with existing residential development: o Justification: The applicant believes that adequate buffering has been provided along the Marsh Pike side as well as the north side of the project adjacent to Emerald Pointe . Therefore, given the buffering and the specific site design the criteria for compatibility have been met. • Retail commercial sites are located where they best service the market niche, being targeted whether regional, community-wide or neighborhood. o Justification: The proposed commercial area is focused primarily on the local community and is located and oriented on the side to be accessible by a car, bike or walking path. 79 ·• Compatibility of the proposed PUD with the neighboring properties consistent with the policy of the Comp Plan. o Justification: The applicant believes that adequate buffering has been provided because this is a transitional area from the commercial areas to the south along Leitersburg Pike and the residential areas of Emerald Pointe , Foxleigh Meadows and Spring Valley [further to the north]. The applicant believes that the proposed mixed use of retail and office space continues to meet the criteria of a transitional area and is therefore compatible with the neighboring properties . • Effect of the PUD on community infrastructure . o Justification: With regard to water and sewer, the revisions are being proposed as part of a previously approved PUD and all of these components were previously evaluated and deemed acceptable. Mr. Divelbiss addressed several points related to traffic issues. • Design standards provided in the PUD zoning that states , "In general non-residential development proposed as part of a PUD shall be integral to the overall development and shall relate well to residential areas in terms of pedestrian and vehicular circu lati on . Mr. Divelbiss state d that this is a policy , not a requirement, of interconnection to the residential area and the commercial area . There are several reasons why the development has not been designed with a direct connection between the commercial area and the residential area. Primarily, it wou ld be contrary to some of the policies identified previously in the Comp Plan; in particular, quick and efficient access onto arterial roadways. Providing a direct connection into the Emerald Pointe residential area , there could be potential problems with cut-through traffic, incompatibility with multiple driveways along the roadway, etc. The applicant believes that the proposed design minimizes the impact on infrastructure and complies with related policies . The lack of a direct roadway connection does not prohibit the commercial area from relating well to the residential area. The applicant believes that the relation for pedestrian and vehicular circulation can be achieved , for the most part by connecting with sidewalks; a 12 ' wide pedestrian/bike/golf cart path is proposed . • Access of this development onto Marsh Pike: Mr. Divelbiss entered into the record applicant's Exhibit #1, an aerial photograph of the Marsh Pike/Gentry Drive area showing a rudimentary rendering of the access design for the proposed commercial area . He expressed his opinion that the drawing shows significant improvements on Marsh Pike after development in the vicinity of Gentry Drive that will improve existing conditions as opposed to further deterioration or impact on existing traffic conditions. These improvements have been reviewed and approved by both the State Highway Administration and Washington County Engineering . Mr. Divelbiss noted that the current concept plan approved as part of the 2003 PUD does not have access onto Route 60; therefore, the retirement living center and community center were all planned to enter and exit onto Marsh Pike . The proposed acce;,s onto Route 60 should help alleviate traffic impact onto Marsh Pike by further spreading and distributing traffic to two access points rather than one access point. He also noted that the 13,600 square feet of mixed use that replaces the previously shown convenience store will generate less traffic than the convenience store . Mr. Divelbiss entered into the record applicant's Exhibit #2, a letter from the Maryland State Highway Administration stating that they are satisfied with the proposed improvements and access onto Route 60. SHA believes that the proposed mixed use will generate less traffic than what was projected and utilized in the traffic impact study for this development. Public Comment Martin Palmer, 21 Summit Avenue, Hagerstown -Mr. Palmer expressed his opinion that the County does not need more commercial space. He also believes that empty stores, such as the ones that currently exist at the Long Meadow Shopping Center, shou ld be revitalized and re-used before new commercial development takes place. He expressed his opinion that the developer is using a "bait and switch " tactic by presenting one plan and then coming back at a later date and changing that plan . Karen Spessard, 19421 Moonstone Drive , Hagerstown -Ms . Spessard is a current resident of the Emerald Pointe PUD and she supports the proposed revisions. She expressed her opinion that the developer's completed plans will be beneficial for the residents of Emerald Pointe as well as the surrounding community and the Emerald Pointe development will benefit Washington County as a whole. Dan Kaminsky, 13136 Hepplewhite Circle , Hagerstown -Mr. Kaminsky is a resident of Foxleigh Meadows. He expressed his opinion that the proposed changes as submitted by the applicant do not conform to the BL (Business Local) district requirements as defined by th e current Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Kaminsky expressed his opinion that the development now falls under the MXC (Mixed Use Commercial) zon ing district and described the purpose of this zoning district as stated in the Zoning Ordinance. He referenced several artic les from the Zoning Ord inance including those dealing with the uses permitted in the BL district and the definition of neighborhood shopping centers . He discussed the intent, limits and definitions of the MXC and BL zoning districts. Mr. Kaminsky submitted his written comments for the record . Joe Sebrosky, 19250 Jamestown Drive , Hagerstown -Mr. Sebrosky stated that he is a resident of Foxleigh Meadows and the only access to his property is via Gentry Drive . He expressed his opinion that the proposed commercial uses are not compatible with the residential development of Foxleigh Meadows due to noise , lighting and dumpsters that wi ll accompany the commercial uses . He also expressed concern that there is no buffering b~twe~~ the propos~d commercial area and the residential area of Foxleigh Meadows. Mr. Sebrosky expressed his opinion that making a left turn from Gentry Drive onto Marsh Pike will be impossible after the Emerald Pointe commercial development is built-out. He expressed his opinion that access to the commercial area is 80 iRcompatible with Foxleigh Meadows and he believes the Planning Commission should re-visit the location of the access into the commercial area. Applicant's Rebuttal Mr. Divelbiss began his rebuttal addressing Mr. Palmer's comments regarding the empty stores at Long Meadow Shopping Center. He noted that commercial development can be compatible in other locations even if other retail spaces in the area are unoccupied. There are many reasons why commercial space can be unoccupied, including age, location, size of the building, square footage rates, etc. Mr. Divelbiss believes that if the developer can provide a different, more marketable location for certain retailers and commercial users who would not otherwise be inclined to occupy space, then he is serving an underserved market. He expressed his opinion that the "bait and switch" tactic that Mr. Palmer referred to is an unfair characterization because Mr. Palmer is not a person to which any representations were made ; and, therefore, he has no grounds on which to make that contention . Mr. Divelbiss pointed out that language in the Zoning Ordinance for the PUD identifies reasons why there may be a need to change a previously approved concept plan due to changes in the needs and conditions of the neighborhood. To address Mr. Kaminsky comments, Mr. Divelbiss stated that the references to the MXC zoning district are not applicable because this development is a PUD (Planned Unit Development), not a Mixed Use Commercial development. He explained that the definition of a "neighborhood shopping center" is a subcategory of a planned business center, which is not identifi~d in the BL zoning district. The intent, by definition, of a planned business center and a neighborhood shopping center is intended to be a retail shopping center; thus the criteria to the definition that says no more than 25% of the gross floor area may contain uses other than retail sales . Therefore, if you have more than 25% of a retail use you are not a planned business center or any other of the subcategories thereof including a neighborhood shopping center. The applicant is proposing more than 25% retail, therefore, the plan does not meet the definition of a "neighborhood shopping center" and is not subject to the 25,000 square foot referenced figure. The 9,000 square feet of commercial space that was shown on the interior of Emerald Pointe is being eliminated and the proposed commercial/retail area is replacing the interior commercial area . Mr. Divelbiss expressed his opinion that the issue of compatibility is subjective and he believes there is a natural separation [Marsh Pike] from Foxleigh Meadows and Emerald Pointe. Marsh Pike is not a narrow roadway, it's a w ide right-of-way that is currently occupied by only a few lanes. The developer is proposing significant improvements to Marsh Pike which have been reviewed and approved by the State Highway Administration and Washington County Engineering. Mr. Divelbiss reiterated that a new access is not being proposed onto Marsh Pike; it already exists as part of the previously approved PUD . Comments from Planning Commission members: Mr. Reiber asked if a traffic study and signal warrant analysis was previously done on Marsh Pike. Mr. Divelbiss stated that the signal warrant analysis ~as completed as part of the traffic studies. The traffic study determined that a traffic signal is not warranted at Marsh Pike and Gentry Drive at this time; however, it may be warranted closer to full build-out of the project. Mr. Divelbiss stated that the developer may not install a traffic signal at this location until it is warranted per direction from the County Engineering Department. The developer will install the underground infrastructure in order to facilitate a signal when it is warranted. The Chairman stated that the record for all of these cases will remain open until the end of the public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners. Written comments may be forwarded to the Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning. ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Re~ TertyRer,amnan --- 81 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION November 2, 2015 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, November 2, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, 2nd Floor, Hagerstown, Maryland . Commission members present were: Chairman Terry Reiber, Dennis Reeder, Clint Wiley, Andrew Bowen and Ex-officio Leroy E. Myers, Jr. Staff members present were : Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning -Stephen Goodrich, Director; Jill Baker, Chief Planner; and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant; Washington County Department of Plan Review -Tim Lung, Deputy Director. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Motion and Vote: Commissioner Myers made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 5, 2015 Planning Commission regular meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved with Mr. Wiley abstaining from the vote. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 19, 2015 Planning Commis- sion public rezoning meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Myers and unanimously approved with Mr. Wiley abstaining from the vote . OLD BUSINESS RZ-15-002 -Heritage Huyett LLC Ms. Baker presented for review and recommendation a zoning map amendment request for property located at 16422 National Pike, which consists of two parcels totalling approximately 90 acres in size . The property is currently zoned RT (Residential Transition). The applicant is requesting the back portion of the property to be zoned Pl (Planned Industrial) and the front portion of the property to be zoned BL (Business Local}. The applicant is claiming a mistake in the zoning of the property during the last comprehensive rezoning of the Urban Growth Area that was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in July 2012 . Discussion and Comments: Mr. Bowen expressed his opinion that most of the interested parties who appeared at the public rezoning information meeting seemed to have questions about traffic issues, but were not opposed to the proposed rezoning . During the public information meeting, Kyle Waters of 16400 National Pike, stated that his driveway is currently a County owned right-of-way . Commissioner Myers stated that he has discussed this issue with staff and was told that the right-of-way is not owned by the County; it is owned by Mr. Groh. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to recommend approval of the map amendment request as presented to the Board of County Commissioners. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved with Mr. Wiley abstaining from the vote because he was not present at the public rezoning information meeting. RZ-15-004 -Bob and Mary Rotz Mr. Goodrich presented for review and recommendation a zoning map amendment request for property located at 9729 Garis Shop Road . The applicant is requesting a change in the zoning on their 1 acre parcel of land that contains their home from A(R) -Agricultural Rural to A(R) with the RB (Rural Business) floating zone. The adjacent 31 acre parcel containing Antietam Recreation [also owned by Mr. and Mrs. Rotz] is currently zoned A(R) with the RB floating zone. During the public rezoning information meeting, Mrs. Rotz stated that she has always considered the two parcels part of the business and believes that both properties should be zoned AR with the RB floating zone. She noted that many camp related activities take place on the 1 acre parcel. Mr. Goodrich stated there are specific criteria in Sections 5E.4 and 5E.6(c)1-6 of the Zoning Ordinance that should be considered when evaluating this request and they were enumerated in a memo to the Planning Commission provided with the agenda. Discussion and Comment: Commissioner Myers asked if Mrs. Rotz's claim that there was an oversight on the zoning of this property during the comprehensive rural rezoning of 2005 was accurate. In response Mr. Goodrich stated that during the comprehensive rezoning, staff contacted all property owners by letter that were identified as having a business on their property and would be affected by a zoning change. Owners were asked to verify the use of their property. He stated that the Rotzs were contacted and no response was received indicating that the house was on a separate parcel and being used as part of the business. Commissioner Myers asked if the Rotzs had responded, would both parcels have been zoned Rural Business. Mr. Goodrich stated that if the County had known that both parcels were being used for the business, both would have probably been zoned RB . Commissioner Myers asked if there is a mechanism in place to help citizens, in cases like this one, through the process without spending a lot of money. Mr. Goodrich explained an abbreviated process that the County has for a Map Line Adjustment; however, this is a case where this process would not have been appropriate. He noted that staff worked with Mrs. Rotz throughout the process; however, he noted he lacked authority to waive the 82 application fee. Mr. Goodrich said he advised Mrs. Rotz that a request to waive the application fee could be presented to Mr. Murray, County Administrator, but she chose not to pursue it. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to recommend approval of the application request to the Board of County Commissioners . The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved _with Mr. Wiley abstaining from the vote because he was not present at the public rezoning information meeting. RZ-15-005-Emerald Pointe, Inc. Mr. Goodrich presented for review and recommendation an amendment to the concept and development plan for Emerald Pointe PUD . He noted that written correspondence from the public was included in the agenda packets and additional correspondence was distributed just prior to this evening's meeting. Mr. Goodrich discussed the traffic counts and letter from the traffic consultant submitted by Mr. Divelbiss. He also briefly reviewed the history of the PUD concept and development plan and the proposed changes. Discussion and Comments: Mr. Bowen expressed his concern with regard to safety at the intersection of Gentry Drive and Marsh Pike. He believes there will be a dramatic change in traffic at this intersection. Mr. Goodrich stated that the traffic study indicates that a traffic signal is not warranted when the commercial develop-ment begins but will be warranted when it is completed . Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that traffic issues are a major concern in this area and that improvements to alleviate these issues should be addressed at the beginning of the commercial construction . Commissioner Myers suggested that the Planning Commission, as part of its approval , recommend that access to and from Marsh Pike be prohibited and traffic only be permitted access onto Leitersburg Pike until the increase in traffic from the commercial development warrants the light at this intersection . Mr. Reiber pointed out that by restricting access from Marsh Pike, traffic counts would be skewed on Marsh Pike and therefore, the traffic light would not be warranted. Mr. Bowen expressed his opinion that a flashing beacon is probably warranted at this time, which would require the infrastructure to be put in place now. Commissioners Myers believes that the developer would be willing to install the infrastructure at this time. Mr. Lung stated that in January 2015, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised development plan, at which time Mr. Rob Slocum, Director of the Division of Engineering and Construction Management, expressed his opinion that when Eastern Boulevard is relocated and connects to Maryland Route 60 across from Marsh Pike, a traffic signal will be needed at that intersection. He does not believe that a second signal will be beneficial only 650 feet away at Gentry Drive . This issue has been discussed with the State Highway Administration, the consultant and the developer. Both the County and SHA believe that the traffic study needs to identify a definitive threshold that would warrant where and when traffic signals are needed. The flashing beacon was also discussed and Mr. Slocum expressed his opinion that this is not a good idea; however, he recommends that the developer install the below grade wiring and mechanisms so when the signal is warranted, it can be installed quickly . Mr. Reeder shares the same concerns for traffic issues in this area and expressed his opinion that the infrastructure for the traffic signal should be put in place now. Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to recommend approval of the concept and development plan amendment to the Board of County Commissioners. The Planning Commission also recommends that the underground infrastructure for the traffic signal at Gentry Drive and Marsh Pike be installed at the onset of the commercial development The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and approved with Mr. Reeder, Mr. Bowen and Mr. Reiber voting "Aye", Commissioner Myers abstaining from the vote and Mr. Wiley abstaining from the vote because he was not present at the public rezoning information meeting . OTHER BUSINESS Staff Approvals Mr. Lung reported that Staff received 44 new projects during the month of October, which included grading plans, grading permits and entrance permits . A 74 lot single-family residential subdivision, Harper Park on Paradise Road, was received. Staff approved the following projects: • Site plan for Crosspoint Shopping Center (Bob's Furniture) • GTI • Section 17, Van Lear Manor (14 lots) He also noted that a minor site plan for a car wash at the old Sharrett Auto site was received. There will be a major re-development of the site . Mr. Lung stated that on November 9th an open house will be conducted at the Hagerstown library from 6-8 p.m. for review of the updated flood plain maps. Approximately 4,400 postcards have been mailed to property owners who will be affected by the changes. Planning Commission Member Recommendation Mr. Goodrich reminded members that at the end of the October 19th public rezoning information meeting, the Planning Commission recommended two applicants to fill the vacant position on the Planning Commission. This is a ratification of that recommendation . Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to recommend Jeremiah Weddle and Dr. Edward Wurmb, IV to the Board of County Commissioners to fill one vacancy on the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved . --- 83 WORKSHOP Ms. Baker introduced Alex Rohrbaugh, planner for the City of Hagerstown Planning Department. The City is in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan and has developed amendments to the land use maps. The City has updated its census information, population projections, housing projections, etc. Ms. Baker noted that the City is adjusting its Land Use Plan to the County's Land Use Plan so there is consistency between the two. Ms. Baker stated that there were approximately 166 individual amendments proposed by the City as part of their update to their Land Use Plan. Ms. Baker noted that all but 3 of the proposed changes were consistent with the County's current Land Use Plan. Members began with a review of the areas found to be inconsistent with the County Plan. First is an area of land along the east side of Eastern Boulevard, south of Maryland Route 64 that currently contains Ewing Oil. A portion of the property is zoned BG (Business General) and a portion is zoned IG (Industrial General) by the County . The City, in its Comprehensive Plan, is recommending a Commercial General classification for this property. It is likely that this parcel will be annexed into the City at some point in time; therefore, County staff has no objection to the proposed classification . Mr. Rohrbaugh expressed his opinion, that if the property is annexed, commercial development would occur on this site in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood along Eastern Boulevard . Discussion and Comments: Mr. Reiber stated that he does not want to impede the current owners of the property from expanding their business . The next area discussed was Robinwood Drive between JFK Drive and Rosebank Way (listed as #132 on the City packet). This amendment consists of two parts , one on the north side of Robinwood Drive and another that spans Robinwood Drive to the North and South . The part on the north side of Robinwood Drive is currently zoned RS (Residential, Suburban). There are currently 5 houses located in the area but are completely surrounded by commercial uses. While this is inconsistent with the County Plan, the increased pressure from new commercial development in the area will likely cause these parcels to eventually be used commercially.The other part that spans Robinwood Drive is zoned RS and BL (Business Local). The City 's proposal to apply a commercial land use is partially inconsistent. While the portion on the northside of Robinwood and part of the area across the road are currently commercial , the two parcels that lie on the East and West side of Rosebank Way contain apartment complexes . The City is recommending this area to be designated as commercial general ; however, the County believes that a high density residential designation is more appropriate . Discussion and Comments: Mr. Rohrbaugh believes this recommendation was an oversight and the City should re-evaluate its recommendation. He believes the recommendation should be changed to a high-density residential classification in order to accommodate the existing uses. The last area to be discussed is along Virginia Avenue, in the vicinity where a property was recently rezoned by the County. The City is expanding the width of commercial zoning along Virginia Avenue where commercial development would be appropriate. The property is currently being used for agriculture; however, both the City and the County anticipate that this area will eventually develop as a residential use and would be annexed into the City. Staff has no objection to this recommendation. Ms. Baker started a review of proposed changes to the City's Medium Range Growth Area (MRGA). Mr. Rohrbaugh noted that all municipalities are required by the State of Maryland to establish a growth area. The first MRGA area proposed to be amended is a portion of the Holcim property which consists of two parcels, approximately 120 acres in size . The City is recommending to expand the MRGA to include these two parcels. This would also provide annexation potential for the City. Mr. Rohrbaugh noted that an area on the west side of Eastern Boulevard will be designated as Parks , Rec and Open Space by the City due to proposed plans for a County park in the future. The next area reviewed was in the Friendship Technology Park area along Downsville Pike. This area contains 14 parcels and approximately 465 acres, which are currently used for commercial and institutional businesses . The City is proposing this expansion due to existing water agreements between the City of Hagerstown and Potomac Edison [now the Board of Education property]. Ms . Baker noted there are 3 parcels along the west side of Maryland Route 63 containing approximately 142 acres of vacant land which is currently zoned HI (Highway Interchange) and 4 parcels along the east side of Maryland Route 63 containing approximately 94 acres of vacant land currently zoned ORI (Office, Research, and Industry). Staff has no objection to the proposed boundary line expansion. The next area reviewed was in the vicinity of Sharpsburg Pike and Poffenberger Road and is also proposed for expansion of the MRGA boundary . This area contains numerous parcels of land consisting of approximately 630 acres of land that is currently zoned for low and high density residential, general commercial and institutional development. The City is proposing this expansion due to numerous pre-annexation agreements with developments such as Carriage Hills, Cross Creek, Claggett's Mill and the proposed Walmart. There is a large .._ area of vacant land with development potential which fronts 1-70 behind Carriage Hills and Claggett 's Mill. The last area under review is broken up into two different parts. First, Ms. Baker discussed an area consisting of 3 parcels of land, approximately 255 acres, along Broadfording Road, Salem Road and Cearfoss Pike, which the City of Hagerstown is planning to retract from its MRGA. The property is currently zoned RT (Residential Transition) and is used for fanning . There is currently no public water or public sewer service in this area . Development potential on these three parcels would be limited due to limited access, flood plain issues, etc. The second part proposed to be retracted from the MRGA is approximately 1100 acres of land at the northeast quadrant of Maryland Route 63 and US Route 40 (aka Hopewell Valley North). This area contains several parcels of land and is predominantly used for agriculture with a moderate amount of residential development. The 85 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION December 7, 2015 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday, December 7, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. at the Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, 2nd Floor, Hagerstown, Maryland . Commission members present were : Chairman Terry Reiber, Dennis Reeder, Clint Wiley, Andrew Bowen and newly appointed Jeremiah Weddle. [Mr. Weddle will not be voting on any agenda items at this evening's meeting.] Staff members present were: Washington County Department of Planning & Zoning -Stephen Goodrich, Director; Fred Nugent, Parks & Environmental Planner; and Debra Eckard, Administrative Assistant; Washington County Department of Plan Review -Tim Lung, Deputy Director. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Goodrich announced that the item listed on the agenda under Old Business for the Community Rescue Service has been withdrawn at this time. MINUTES Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 2, 2015 Planning Commission regular meeting as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Reeder and unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS MODIFICATIONS Taylor Farms Ill, LLC (SV-15-012) Mr. Lung presented for review and approval a modification request from the Subdivision Ordinance as it relates to simplified plats. Mr. Lung explained that the simplified plat procedure is normally reserved for the moving of property lines, adding a piece of property from one property to another without creating a new lot. There is a provision in the Subdivision Ordinance that simplified plats can be used for other purposes which must be approved by the Planning Commission. In this case, the applicant wants to create a stand-alone simplified parcel not for development. The property as it exists today is approximately 42 acres in size; 9 acres is being requested to create the stand-alone not for development parcel and 33 acres would be remaining lands. The remaining lands are proposed to be used for the expansion of DOT Foods. Staff has no objection to the proposal with the caveat that, if the request is approved by the Planning Commission , a condition be placed on the approval that the developer must provide the standard 25-feet from centerline right-of-way along Wright Road . Discussion and Comments: Mr. Reiber asked if the stand-alone not for development parcel consisting of nine acres will be recorded . Mr. Lung stated that the restriction will be included in the owner's statement that is with the simplified plat and in the recorded deed. Motion and Vote: Mr. Bowen made a motion to approve the modification request with the condition that the developer will dedicate the standard 25-feet from centerline right-of-way along Wright Road. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and unanimously approved . FOREST CONSERVATION Town of Boonsboro Mr. Nugent presented for review and approval a request from the Town of Boonsboro to establish a forest bank on property located along the east side of Monroe Road and north of Shepherdstown Pike. He explained this is the first request the County has received since the adoption of Section 20 of the Forest Conservation Ordinance. Mr. Nugent stated that a forest bank will establish a permanent easement on the property and briefly explained how the forest banking process will work. Discussion and Comment: Mr. Reiber expressed his concern that the forest banks may not be in the same area where development is occurring; therefore, it is not helping the environment in the development area . Mr. Nugent explained that forest banking is one step above payment-in-lieu in the mitigation process. The developer must prove that there is no other mitigation available for his particular site. This requirement was established because similar concerns were expressed at the time Section 20 was proposed. Mr. Goodrich stated that all requests to use forest banking as mitigation must be presented to the Planning Commission which has the authority to approve or deny any mitigation proposal. Mr. Reiber expressed his concern that on-site forest retention is not a priority. Mr. Bowen expressed his opinion that having a forest banking program will help to preserve forested areas. Mr. Goodrich stated that the forest bank request being reviewed this evening is intended for projects within the Town of Boonsboro. Motion and Vote: Mr. Reeder made a motion to approve the request to establish a forest bank for the Town of Boonsboro as presented. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowen and unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Update of Staff Approvals Mr. Lung reported there were 19 new submittals made to the Department of Plan Review including a site plan for a large solar generating facility. There were 11 plan approvals issued in November. A site plan was approved by staff for the Horizon Goodwill facility located along Pennsylvania Avenue near the Hagerstown Regional Airport. Planning Commission appointments Mr. Goodrich stated that two of the Planning Commission members ' terms will expire in March of 2016. Mr. Reeder , having served one full-term, is eligible for re-appointment; however, Mr. Wiley has served two full terms and is not eligible for re-appointment unless an exception is made by the Board of County Commissioners. A list of potential candidates was distributed to the Commission members. Discussion and Comment: Mr. Reiber expressed his concern with regard to the appointment of new members during the Comprehensive Plan Update and questioned if the Commissioners would consider an extension of Mr. Wiley's term if he is willing to remain on the Commission. Mr. Goodrich stated he would present the request to the County Commissioners if the Planning Commission chooses to make that its recommendation. Mr. Bowen agreed with Mr. Reiber's comments and believes there should be continuity thr9ughout the Comprehensive Plan Update. Mr. Wiley stated that he has been looking forward to working on and completing the Comprehensive Plan Update and he would be willing to serve an additional term. Commission members will review the candidates' applications and make their recommendations at the January meeting. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Reeder made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 7:55 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wiley and so ordered by the Chairman. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1. Monday, January 4, 2016, 7:00 p.m., Washington County Planning Commission regular meeting, Washington County Administration Building, 100 West Washington Street, Room 255, Hagerstown, Maryland Res~ Terry Rei er ,