Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 Minutes181 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -JANUARY 6,1997 The Washington County Plauning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,January 6, 1997 in the Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand 1.Iseminger;Vice Chairman,Bernard 1.Moser; Donald Ardinger,R.Ben Clopper,Paula Lampton and James R.Wade.Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch;Senior Plauner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Associate Plauners,Lisa Kelly Pietro,Timothy A.Lung and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:02 p.m. MINUTES: Mr.Clopper moved to approve the minutes of September 30,1996.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger. So ordered. .Before proceeding with New Business,Mr.Arch asked if he could add a variances request for Huyetts Business Park to create a lot using the simplified process for a nonagricultural lot and a 3 lot subdivision for the Meadows of St.Paul.Mr.Moser moved to add the two items to the agenda.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated that under Other Business,there are 4 rezonings listed and that they will not be taking action on any of them tonight because they are waiting on staff reports.Mr.Arch said that tentatively they are looking at having a special meeting on January 13th to review those items. NEW BUSINESS: Subdivisions: St.James Park,Section 2,Lots I -60 and Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan: Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary plat for Section 2 St.James Park.The property is located on the west side of Sharpsburg Pike and is zoned Agriculture.The developer is proposing to create 65 single family lots with minimum sizes of 9,000 square feet.Mrs,Pietro stated that the Plauning Commission agreed to the use of the cluster concept in 1992 to allow the reduced lot size.The gross acreage for this section is 28.4.The total remaining lands is 375 acres.The site will be served by public water and sewer and all ofthe lots will be served by a newly constructed public street,and is adjacent to the golf course.All approvals have been received,Mrs.Pietro stated that the Engineering Department has approved the plat with the following comment:"that in addition to other items which need to be detailed and resolved prior to final plat approval for this section,a special concern is the drainage from this section onto the existing St.James Village,"Also,the State Highway Administration has given their approval with the condition that a revised traffic study be done as the result of the elimination of an access point that initially connected with Rt.68 and Lappans Road.This change will reduce the access points from 3 to 2, Mrs.Pietro said that State Highway will give preliminary approval.A discussion followed regarding when the golf course will be built and the finalization ofthe Golf Course Plan and the club house swimming pool complex.Mrs.Pietro proceeded to review the preliminary forest conservation plan.She stated there is a total area of 443 acres and that there is no flood plain or agricultural production land located on the site.Phase I as previously mentioned is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance so that reduced the acreage to 403 that was affected.Mrs. Pietro stated that in May of 1993 the Plauning Commission approved a variance for the Forest Conservation Ordinance and as a result 42 acres ~.hall be reserved for reforestation on the tract. An additional 6.6 acres will be used for lanc!scaped area along Sharpsburg Pike,Thirty-seven acres of reforestation will be done in cO!'junction ofthe golf course,and 4.6 acres will be done in 182 conjunction with the construction of Sections 1,2 and 3.Mrs.Pietro referred to the plat and pointed out the location of the golf course,pool,reforestation area,stormwater managc;:menJ pond and the rest of the amenities.She reviewed the types of trees to be used in screening and in the golf course.In addition the developer is planting 2 street trees on each lot.She reviewed the plant protection measures and that the anticipated planting schedule is to begin in Spring of 1998.The only outstanding issue at the Preliminary Conservation Plant stage would be the golf cart crossings.Mrs.Pietro said that the County Engineer is concerned with the safety of some of the crossings since they will be across boulevards that service a major part of the development. She said at this point it is up to the developer too provide additional information to the County Engineer's office so they can analyze the crossings.She noted that some of the crossings go directly into the reforested area and staff questioned having people walking and golf carts going back and forth in the reforested area.Mr.Iseminger asked if there is a maintenance agreement for the forested areas.Mrs.Pietro stated yes.Mr.Iseminger asked in regards to the cart paths if staff was talking about a safety issue or encroachment on the reforested areas.Mrs.Pietro said it is both and that they are looking at it from a safety issue which involves Engineering and as far as the Conservation Plan it is an issue as to whether foot and cart traffic will impact the reforested areas.Mr.Arch said that the reforested areas will have to be dedicated as preservation areas and that is where the question comes in.A discussion followed regarding the reforested area,whether the path would be paved or wood chips.Mr.Iseminger said that since they do not have a final design of the golf course,he wants to reserve judgement until the final design is submitted.Mr.Moser said he felt in reading the Ordinance that the pathway would take away .square footage required on forestation.Mr.Carpenter,the owner/developer said that if that is the case they will add trees elsewhere.Further discussion followed regarding the golf course,the forested area and the safety of crossing the road.Mrs.Pietro said that the crossing of the road needs to be addressed before final approval.Mr.Iseminger stated that before them tonight is the preliminary subdivision plat for Section 2 Lots 1-60 and that prior to final subdivision plat approval there are several issues that need to be addressed:drainage in regards to St.James Village,submittal of a revised traffic study,that the final access permit be obtained from State Highway and that the golf course plans be finalized and either built concurrent to the section the 9 holes with a bond or some combination thereof.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to grant preliminary plat approval for St.James Park,Section 2,Lots 74 -136 prior to final subdivision plat approval,several issues need to be addressed,submittal of revised traffic study,that the final access permit be obtained from State Highway and that the golf course plans be finalized,build with 9 holes with bond or some combination thereof.Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered.Mr. Wade moved to approve the preliminary forest conservation plan with the provision that cart paths be allowed and that acreage be made up.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Citicorp: Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Citicorp's childrens development center addition.The site is located along Citicorp Drive south of State Line Road and is zoned HI-I.The owner is proposing a 48,200 square foot addition which will provide space for 400 additional children. The site is located on 31 acres.Mrs.Pietro proceeded to review the number of employees,hours of operation,freight delivery,the entrance,location of directional signs,lighting,parking, sidewalks,landscaping and play area.She stated that it is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance.All approvals are in except Water Pollution Control,Permits Department and they still need a name for the street.At this point,the architect,Mr.Fostell briefly reviewed the plan. Mrs.Lampton moved to grant site plan approval contingent on agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Sunoco: Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for the Sunoco expansion.The property is located on the east side of Sharpsburg Pike north of the intersection ofI-70 and is zoned HI -J.The owner is proposing to relocate the canopy and island,add new dispensers for hoses,relocate the diesel dispenser,install new wrap around drive thru,additional parking spaces,new trash enclosure with recyclable area,and the entrances will be angled.In addition,freight delivery will be every 4 to 5 days,the station building will be a model train room,sales area,sitting area,storage and 183 office and will be open 24 hours.The Board of Appeals granted a reduction from the front yard setbacks on October 1,1996 for the reconstruction of the gas pump canopy from 40 feet down to 34 feet.All agency approvals are in except the County Engineer,who just needs to sign the mylar.A discussion followed regarding the circular drive and exits.Mrs.Lampton moved to grant site plan approval contingent on Engineering Department's approval.Seconded by Mr. Clopper.So ordered. Preliminary Consultation: Peter Sujanski: Mr.Lung presented the consultation for Peter Sujanski which also includes a request for variances from the Subdivision Ordinance and permission to use off-site forest retention.He noted that the concept plan in the agenda packet has been revised to address some of the comments brought up at the consultation.The property is located on the south side of Reno Monument Road west of Clevelandtown Road and contains a total of 34.8 acres and is zoned Agriculture.The developer is proposing 1110ts on 12.5 acres.The lot sizes range from 40,000 square feet to 57,000 square feet with 22.6 acres of remaining lands.The lots will be served by individual wells and septic systems,and a new County street with a cul-de-sac on the end to be built by the developer for internal access of all of the lots.A forest stand delineation has been .approved,which shows 15.88 acres of forest on the site.Mr.Lung stated that within the area to be subdivided there is approximately 1.79 acres of forest proposed to be cleared.Based on the calculations there will be 4.28 acres of forest mitigation required.The developer is proposing to handle it through off site retention of forest on the remaining lands.Mr.Lung pointed out that this subdivision is in a high meadow along the slopes of South Mountain and is visible from Rt. 67 and any subdivision within this meadow will be visible and will have an impact on the rural view from Rt.67.In addressing the rural agricultural area,the Comprehensive Plan stresses designs that maintain the rural view of the area.Mr.Lung stated that some counties with similar problems are clustering developments within the forested area which allow the meadow to be undisturbed.He said that if that was done here,it may be in conflict with Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements that would limit the area to be cleared for the house site and septic area. In some counties they cluster the lots at the edge of the forest and use a common septic area in the meadow area.Moving the lots back into the forest would require lengthening the street.The developer's consultant,Russ Townsley of Fox and Associates,suggested that additional planting along the property line may screen the development from the road.Regarding the design as proposed,there are a few problems with the design of the panhandle lots.There are three panhandles located side by side and the Ordinance allows only 2 side by side.In addition this configuration creates a 3 tier lot effect and the Ordinance only allows stacking of one lot behind the other.The developer is requesting a variance for both of these items.Mr.Lung said that the easiest way to alleviate this problem would be to extend the street approximately 150 feet and they would not need the variances.The local fire department did not respond.Concerning the request to use off-site forest retention,Mr.Lung said that the staff does not object to the use of offsite forest retention,since it is located in a high priority area.A discussion followed with the developer and his conwltant regarding the variance requests,the suggested clustering concept using a common reserve septic area,the possiblity of planting trees in front of the houses to buffer the view.Mr.Moser expressed concern with the tiering of the lots and wants to know what the local fire company has to say. Mr.Moser made a motion to allow offsite forest retention.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.Mr.Moser made a motion to deny the variance request from Section 405.11.03 and 4 to allow three panhandle lots side by side and the stacking ofthree lots.Seconded by Mr. Clopper.So ordered. Mr.Iseminger informed the consultant that the Planning Commission concurs with the staff s suggestions and encourages the use of innovative design and to check with the Health and Engineering Departments regarding use of a common septic area and possible modification to street standards.He said if that is not possible then he agrees with the consultant's suggestion to 184 plant trees to soften the impact. Variances: Variance for Huyetts Business Park: Mr.Arch stated that this request if for a lot in the McCleary Business Park off of Rt.65.The owner is proposing to create lot using the simplified plat procedure for acquisition.Mrs. Lampton moved to grant approval of the variance request to use the simplified plat procedure for a nonagricultural use.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Subdivisions: Meadows of St.Paul: Mrs.Pietro stated that in 1994 the first 23 lots were brought in for approval.This plat is for lots 24 through 26.The subject site is located in the southwest comer of National Pike and St.Paul Road near Clear Spring and is zoned Agriculture.The developer is proposing to create 3 additional single family lots ranging in size from 1.3 to 33 acres (total acreage 36 acres).All lots will be served by wells and septics.All approvals are in.Mrs.Lampton moved to grant preliminary/final plat approval.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. OTHER BUSINESS: Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element: Mr.Arch introduced Chris Gay of Bellomo McGee,Inc.,the consultant firm retained by the County to prepare the Washington County Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element.A copy of the draft had previously been sent to the Planning Commission.Mr.Arch explained that this will be the document that they will take through the public hearing process for the Comprehensive Plan Element He stated that Bellomo McGee was retained to prepare three different documents and that the draft of the Transportation Element is a sub-set of two ofthese documents.The first document prepared was the Washington County nonurbanized long range transportation plan.Mr.Arch explained the function ofthe Metropolitan Planning Organization and the areas it covers. At this point Mr.Gay proceeded to review the Visions and Goals of the Long Range Transportation Plan.He explained that the element is broken down to the Urban and Town Growth areas as one section and the other being rural and agricultural areas.For the Urban and Town growth areas they developed 5 transportation policies.Mr.Gay proceeded to cover in detail what information they used and what they looked at in developing these policies as well as what they were predicting for future conditions and proposed road improvements to the highways.He said they looked at public transportation as well as bicycle routes.Mr.Gay .referred to the second transportation enhancements and explained that they are transportation related projects that improve the quality of life near transportation facilities. A discussion followed regarding the area around the airport,the new interchange at Rt.632,and enhancement funds. Mr.Gay stated that the last area was the rural agricultural area.He explained that the policies are a little different because they do not want to encourage development outside the growth area and are more focused on safety problems on the roads.He stated with the public transportation they are trying to coordinate and consolidate some of those services to make them cost effective.A discussion followed regarding procedures,the interchange at Rt.632 and the project at Halfway Boulevard. 185 Upcoming Meetings: A special meeting was scheduled for Monday,January 13,1997 to review the rezoning staff reports and a workshop meeting has been scheduled for January 27,1997 regarding the Highway Interchange study. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. ~ 186 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING -JANUARY 13,1997 The Washington County Planning Commission held a special meeting on Monday,January 13, 1997 in the Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand L.Iseminger;Paula Lampton,Don Ardinger,R.Ben Clopper and Ex-Officio,James R.Wade.Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch;Senior Planner, Stephen T.Goodrich;Associate Planner,Timothy A.Lung and Secretary,Deborah S. Kirkpatrick.Absent were:Andrew 1.Bowen,IV and Vice Chairman,Bernard Moser. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. Before proceeding with the rezoning recommendations,the Chairman stated that this is a public meeting and that no testimony will be taken tonight.He explained that testimony was received the night ofthe hearing and the record was kept open for 10 days.Mr.Iseminger stated that Commissioner Wade is present as an ex-officio and will not be voting. RZ-96-011 -Larry Artz.et al: Mr.Wantz,attorney for the applicant,was present and accompanied by Brad Tavel of Orion Development,Larry Artz and Doug Artz.He said that they have given this case a great deal of consideration and are requesting to withdraw and refile the rezoning application.He stated that the reason for doing this is so they can give careful consideration to a more appropriate zoning classification of the area adjacent to Pleasant View Heights.He said that they recognize the concerns of those residents and he would like to meet with them,the representatives of the Artz family and representatives of Orion (prospective purchaser of the property)so they can find an appropriate new zoning classification.Mr.Wantz requested that the deadline for refiling the application for the March 10th hearing be extended to February 3,1997.Mr.Iseminger asked if staff has a problem with granting leeway with regard to submittal.Mr.Arch said no since a lot of the background work was done prior to the public hearing has already been done and there will not necessarily be the need for as much staff time.A discussion followed regarding Mr. Wantz meeting with the residents of Pleasant Valley Estates.Mr.Arch asked that Mr.Wantz submit a letter of withdrawal for the record.Mrs.Lampton moved to approve the withdrawal and to allow an extension of filing the new application to February 3,1997.Seconded by Mr. Clopper.Mr.Wade abstained.So ordered. WS-96-1 Water and Sewer Amendment (Victor Peeke): Mr.Iseminger turned the chair over to Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Lung said that he did not have anything to add to the staff report unless the Commission members had questions.Mr.Clopper asked about the portion of the proposed development in the town of Keedysville and ifit can proceed without the Commission's approval tonight.Mr.Lung stated yes because it currently has the proper water and sewer plan classification.Mr.Clopper asked if this development is completed will it be annexed into the town of Keedysville.Mr.Lung stated that the developer is not seeking annexation at this time.It was his understanding that the developer was only interested in annexation unless it will be a requirement in order to get public water.He said at this point in time,the way the town's charter is written,annexation may be required in order to get public water to the site.Mr.Wade commented that it is unique that the State is involved and that the State made the requirement that a text amendment has to be done.Mr.Lung said that the State said in their letter that they would not approve the use of wells and septics on this property and that would require appropriate changes to the County Water and Sewer Plan.A discussion followed regarding the State's directive,potential legal problems,and possible conflicts between agencies.Mr.Arch said that the primary focus of the Planning Commission tonight should be to determine consistency of the amendment with the Comprehensive Plan.A discussion followed . 187 regarding the staff report,the Comprehensive Plan,the letter from Mr.Hearn of MDE,the letter from Ray Anderson of MDE and that if conditions should be included with an approval.Mr. Ardinger made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners to approve the amendment for planned service WS-96-1 since the amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan with the condition the applicant provide documentation from MDE or appropriate agencies that the necessary permits to begin construction have been obtained.A discussion followed regarding adding a time frame.Mr.Ardinger said to let the motion stand.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr. Wade and Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered.At this point the Chair was turned back to Mr. Iseminger. RZ-96-012 -Board of County Commissioners.Text Amendment: Mr.Iseminger stated that this is a text amendment proposing to change the buffer from 75 feet to 25 feet in the HI-I district.He said that there is no staff report for after the public hearing since there was no testimony either for or against this amendment.Mr.Iseminger referred to the original staffreport presented at the hearing.Mr.Iseminger asked if there was ever consideration given to the fact that during the hearing process that they gave assurances to the current property owners of residences that the 75 foot buffer would always be there for protection.He said in going through all of the interchange rezonings they always made that assertion regarding buffer areas and he has a problem with dropping the buffer requirements for residences existing at the time of the highway interchange rezoning.He said he did not have a problem with going to 25 ,feet for new residences.A discussion followed regarding keeping the 75 foot buffer for existing residences and 25 feet for new construction.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to recommend to the Board of Commissioners to deny the amendment as stated and recommended that the 25 foot buffer can be used for vacant lots previously created for residential development and if there is an existing house on the lot that the buffer be 75 feet.A discussion followed.Seconded by Mr. Ardinger.Mr.Wade abstained.So ordered. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. "r e --' 188 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -FEBRUARY 3,1997 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,February 3, 1997 in the Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand 1.Iseminger;Vice Chairman,Bernard Moser;Paula Lampton,R.Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger and Ex-Officio,James R.Wade.Staff:Planning Director;Robert C.Arch,Associate Planners;Lisa Kelly Pietro,Timothy A.Lung,Eric Seifarth and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:04 p.m. MINUTES: Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes of September 9,1996.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton. So ordered. In reference to the minutes of October 7,1996 Mr.Iseminger stated that for the Happy Hills Preliminary Consultation the word "lots"needed to be added after 60 on the third line.Mrs. Lampton moved to adopt the minutes as amended.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. In reference to the minutes of November 4,1996,Mr.Iseminger referred to page 4 about halfway down after "large scale development...."the word "plan"needed to be changed to "plant".Mr. Clopper moved to approve the minutes as amended.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Mr.Arch asked to add under Other Business Michael J.Mills -release from the 10 year family member provision.Mr.Wade asked that RZ-96-013 under Old Business be tabled.Mr.Wade moved to amend the agenda as requested.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. OLD BUSINESS: RZ-96-0 I0 -Ethel Small and Estate of Eleanora McCubbin: Mrs.Pietro stated that the applicant is proposing to rezone their property from Agricultural to HI- 2 and that she had nothing to add to her staff report.Mr.Iseminger referred to a letter received from John Urner,attorney for the applicant.He explained that since it was received after the 10 day comment period that it could not be considered in their discussion for recommendation.Mr. Iseminger referred to the staff report and noted that this property was previously before them requesting to change to HI-I and that it is now before them to change to HI-2 based on a change in character in the neighborhood.Mr.Iseminger said that there has been a demonstration that there has been a change in character and is continuing to change.He said that it is mentioned in the staff report that the Planning Commission did a comprehensive rezoning of the area at which time they looked at this property and other properties outside of the Highway Interchange zoned area and decided not to include them in the comprehensive rezoning.He said they felt that Rench Road and Poffenberger Road made a good dividing line.He stated that is his opinion that even though the applicant has shown that a change has occurred they have not proven that HI-2 is logical and appropriate.He said that staff points out the RR PUD is a possibility and that is the zoning immediately adjacent to them.A discussion followed regarding the Urban Growth Area boundary and that Rench Road is a natural dividing line and that a residential type zoning would be more appropriate.Mr.Clopper made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that they deny RZ-96-1 0 even though there is a change in the neighborhood,the proposed zoning ofHI-2 is not logical or appropriate and that the staff report be made part of the findings offact. 189 Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Wade abstained.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Agricultural Preservation Districts: Mr.Seifarth presented the 4 Agricultural Preservation applications:AD-97-01 -Bonnard 1. Morgan (24.2 acres),AD-97-02 -Bonnard J.Morgan (6.04 acres),AD-96-05 -Kia Young (43 acres)and AD-96-06 -Lester B.Fisher (57 acres).Mr.Seifarth stated that the applicants need to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and have been approved by the County Agricultural Advisory Board.All of the properties are located outside of the adopted Sewer and Water areas and the Urban Growth Area.In reviewing AD-97-01 and AD-97-02,owned by Bonnard Morgan,Mr.Seifarth stated that they normally do not accept properties this small but they are contiguous to over 300 acres of Ag district owned by Mr.Morgan.Both parcels are entirely woodland and zoned Conservation. Mr.Seifarth then presented the applications for AD-96-05 (Kia Young)and AD-96-06 (Mabel Fisher).He explained that they needed to go in together to create a 100 acre block in order to comply with the rules ofthe program.He stated that they are both zoned Conservation and both contain qualifYing soils.Mr.Clopper moved to recommend to the County Commissioners that AD-97-01, AD-97-02,AD-96-05 and AD-96-06 be included in the Agricultural Preservation Program since the applicants do make up contiguous blocks and are consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Wade abstained.So ordered.A discussion followed regarding the Agricultural Preservation Program. Variances: FMW Partnership (Crosspoint): Mr.Lung stated that the developer is requesting a one year extension of the preliminary plat approval and staff does not oppose the request.The developer,Dale Ausherman,briefly spoke. He stated that his request is market driven in what they are planning to do and that they have a market study done and plan to proceed with the section by the mall.Mr.Ardinger moved to grant a one year extension of the preliminary plat approval for Crosspoint Sections 3 and 4. Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Home Construction CO!;poration: Mr.Arch stated that the request is to extend the preliminary plat approval time and also be a retroactive request.The developer,Mr.Swope is present,and stated that they still plan to develop the property.They are looking for a one year extension and retroactively grant the extension that should have been granted.Mr.Moser moved to grant the one year extension and retroactive extension.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. A discussion followed regarding the extension of preliminary plats that were approved prior to some of the new requirements of the ordinances.Mr.Moser asked that staff check with the adjoining counties and see what they do. Avalon Home Inc.: Mr.Lung presented the variance request which is part of a subdivision plat.The property is located north of Hagerstown on Marsh Pike and Airview Road containing a total of 24.40 acres zoned Agricultural.Mr.Lung said that Avalon nursing home is located on the northeast corner of the property.The owner is proposing to subdivide the site into two parcels with one parcel containing the nursing home on II acres and one undeveloped parcel containing 14.38 acres. The subdivision plat has been submitted as a simplified plat with the undeveloped 14.38 acres parcel being created for agricultural purposes only and not for development.Mr.Lung said this is permitted in the Subdivision regulations.Due to the commercial use of the nursing home on 190 one of the parcels,the stafffeit that it should be brought to the Planning Commission in the form of a variance to allow them to proceed using the simplified plat process.He said that staff's concern was that they allowed enough land with the nursing home to meet all of the appropriate zoning and site plan requirements.He said they have routed the plat to all of the agencies involved and they have issued approval except the Water and Sewer Department which is waiting on a revision.A discussion followed with the consultant and owner regarding the remaining lands.Mr.Peter Perini,Vice President of Avalon Homes explained that they are doing this subdivision for the purpose of separating the two parcels on paper.The are currently refinancing the nursing home and part of the financing requirements are that the property be solely for the use of that facility and that no other work will be done on that property until the financing is paid off and it is long term.A discussion followed.Mr.Wade moved to approve the variance to use the simplified plat to create a nonagricultural parcel.Seconded by Mr. Ardinger.So ordered. Terry and Carol Mason: Mrs.Pietro presented a variance to create a lot on an existing lane from section 405 .11.B I of the Subdivision Ordinance.She stated that the property owner,Mr.Jessee,is proposing to create a lot for his daughter and son-in law (the Masons)who want to build on the rear portion of the 9.6 acres.She explained that Mr.Jessee is in poor health and that Mrs.Mason wants to be close to take care of her father,which she is currently doing.Mrs.Pietro explained the location ofthe .existing drive.She said that Brian Welch of the Clear Spring Fire Company sent a letter indicating that he made a site inspection of the property to check for the adequacy of the driveway and stated that the emergency fire equipment will be able to gain access to the house if the property were subdivided and did not see any problem with the driveway.Mr.Wade made a motion to approve the variance request to create a lot without public road frontage with the condition that the 10 year family member statement be added to the plat.Seconded by Mr. Moser.So ordered. Sherman and Judith Burton: Mrs.Pietro presented the request to create a panhandle greater than 400 feet in length.The property is located on the south side ofIndian Springs Road and is part of Keefer Memorial Estates.Mrs.Pietro explained that the Burtons own Lot 5 of Keefer Memorial Estates and want to subdivide the front portion to create a 3 acre lot (Lot 5A)which would cut off the originally approved access to this property.Due to the fact that the County Engineer's office had problems with the sight distance,the remaining lands driveway had to be snaked around which created a panhandle in excess of 556 feet.Mrs.Pietro said that the Engineering Office has looked at it and recommend that the access point be placed at the proposed location.Mr.Ardinger moved to grant the variance request.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Subdivisions: ROller Tedrick -Lots 1-5 Preliminary Plat: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary plat for Roger Tedrick lots 1 through 5.He said they are also requesting a waiver of the preliminary consultation.He explained that normally the Subdivision Ordinance requires that once 5 or more lots are proposed that they are required to have a preliminary consultation prior to subdivision submittal.In this case they are asking for a waiver.This is an estate and the applicants are in a hurry to proceed with the subdivision due to the comprehensive rezoning of this tract ofland as part of Group V of the Highway Interchange study which may change the ability of this property to be divided.The site is located on the north side of Ernstville Road.The plat is based on the current Highway Interchange zoning standards,which in this case the Agricultural standards (40,000 square feet per lot)would apply. Under the staffs proposal that has been heard at public hearing,the rezoning of the Highway Interchange study would classify this property as Conservation (3 acre lots).Mr.Lung stated that Janet Bowers the personal representative of Roger Tedrick is proposing a 5 lot subdivision for conveyance to five immediate family members.He said since they did not have a 191 consultation,staff did not have a chance to comment.He said they are concerned with 5 lots stripped along Ernstville Road and the configuration of the remaining lands.He explained that there would be 10.2 acres of remaining lands.If the subdivision were approved as presented and the property was rezoned to Conservation,there would be the possibility of an additional three,3 acre lots in the rear.Using this configuration he does not see how the remainder could be subdivided without a variance for panhandle length unless they were to build a public street.He said it is staff s opinion that what is shown is not the best configuration for provision of access to the remaining lands if further subdivision is on the horizon.Mr.Lung also stated that with each lot having its own individual driveway onto Ernstville Road,the ideal situation would be to have all of the lots served by an internal street,if that is not possible they could at least pair up the driveways.He said there are some outstanding items that have not been resolved on the plat regarding road adequacy.The County Engineer has requested more information.It would be eligible for an exemption under 4.1.2 of the APFO for immediate family member conveyances however the land does not appear to have an agricultural assessment.He said they do not know what the assessment status of the property is.Also the road has to be at least 16 feet wide and the consultant has not provided a road adequacy worksheet on the width of the road.He stated that the perc tests have not been done as of January 23,1997.Mr.Iseminger asked why this item is in front of them since there are so many outstanding issues.Mr.Lung said that the staff wanted to get their comments on the subdivision to the Commission since there was no consultation.When this item was placed on the agenda,it was hoped that more information would have been received prior to the meeting.Mr.Lung stated that this subdivision would be .exempt from the Forest Conservation requirements due to the immediate family member provision.He said that he made a notation on his report regarding the capacity at Clear Spring Elementary.With this being an immediate family member conveyance,they would be exempt from that section of the APFO.A discussion followed regarding not having enough information to act.Mr.Iseminger stated that he would like to see the applicant do something else other than stripping the lots along Ernstville Road.Mr.Moser moved to table the request for preliminary plat approval.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. St.James Park,Section 3.Lots 137-210: Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary plat for St.James Park, Section 3 lots 137 -210.The property is zoned Agricultural. She noted that Section 2 and the Forest Conservation Plan have been previously approved.The developer is proposing to create 84 lots,44 single family and 30 semi-detached on a total of 17.8 acres.The lots will be served by public water and sewer and new public streets.All approvals have been received.A discussion followed regarding the golf cart crossings,the internal street system,the school capacity,storm water management and the ring road.Mr.Moser moved to grant preliminary plat approval for Section 3.Seconded by Mr. Ardinger.So ordered. Maugansville Elevator &Lumber.PreliminarylFinal Plat: Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat.The property is located along the south side of Horst Lane and is zoned RR.The owner is proposing to subdivide the lot that has existing warehouses on it used for storage of tools and equipment.The lots are served by public water and sewer and will have access onto Horst Lane.A variance was granted in October by the Board of Appeals to change to a nonconforming use.The plat is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance.All approvals have been received.A discussion followed regarding the access to the warehouses.Mr.Wade moved to grant preliminary/final plat approval.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Rust-Oleum Corporation -Preliminary/Final Plat and Site Plan: Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat and site plan for Rust-Oleum.The property is located on the east side of Governor Lane Boulevard and is zoned Plarmed Industrial.Rustoleum is proposing to sell part of the property to EPS.The owner is proposing to readjust the existing property line.They want to center it between the larger Rust-Oleum building and the remaining resin buildings.Mrs.Pietro stated that the rear buildings are situated on a property that is 8.5 192 acres and the remainder which will stay in Rust-Oleum's name is 13.1 acres.She explained that the rear portion of the property will be conveyed to EPS.Both lots are currently served by public water and sewer.There is an easement for ingress and egress to serve both lots.A variance to change the 75 foot setback line to 24 feet between the two parcels and to waive the landscaping requirement was approved in January by the Board of Appeals.All approvals have been received except for the Water and Sewer Department and that should be coming shortly.Mrs. Pietro stated that the owner also wanted to submit a site plan and requested that staff give the Commission an idea of what they are proposing.She proceeded to explain the site plan and stated that it will show the expansion of the resin tanks,which will be owned by EPS and they will work with Rust-Oleum to provide them the material they need.A discussion followed with representatives of Rust-Oleum and EPS regarding their plans.Mrs.Lampton moved to grant preliminary/final plat approval contingent on water and sewer approval.Seconded by Mr. Clopper.So ordered.Mrs.Lampton moved to grant the ability to grant staff the authority to give final site plan approval and if there are any problems it would go back to the Planning Commission.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.Mr.Arch said that through this action there is also consideration of potential expansion of the Rust-Oleum warehousing facility approximately 30 to 40,000 square feet,but will submit a site plan for that. Ad-Vance Locksmiths: Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat,site plan and forest stand delineation and forest -conservation plan for Ad-Vance Locksmiths.The property is located on the south side of Mt. Aetna Road and is zoned Business General.The owner is proposing to establish a locksmith shop on .96 acres with no remaining lands.The property will be served by water and sewer and will have two access points off of Mt.Aetna Road.Mrs.Pietro referred to the site plan and explained the location of the building,parking,signage,dumpsters,freight delivery,landscaping and lighting.There will be 10 employees and the hours of operation will be from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.A variance was granted by the Board of Appeals to eliminate the required 5 foot buffer yard area from the right-of-way into the proposed parking lot.Mrs.Pietro stated that part of the delineation and conservation plan,there is a large forested area as well as flood plain and steep slopes.She explained that the existing forest covers about 8,000 square feet and the total to be cleared is about 900 square feet and 7,000 square feet will be retained.Mr.Wade moved to grant preliminary/final plat approval.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.Mr.Clopper moved to approve the forest stand delineation and forest conservation plan.Seconded by Mrs. Lampton.So ordered.Mrs.Lampton moved to grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mr. Clopper.So ordered. Site Plans: Warehouse and Terminal Trucking (Baer Trucking): Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for lot 2A Huyetts Business Park.The property is located on the south side of Business Parkway and is zoned HI-I.The developer is proposing to create an additional warehouse and truck terminal on his existing site.The site plan was approved in 1993,which dealt with lot 2.The area ofparcel2A is 3.9 acres and public water and sewer will service the site.Mrs.Pietro reviewed the entrance for the site,the proposed 12,000 square foot building,the future building,the hours of operation,dumpster,lighting and landscaping.All approvals are in.A discussion followed.Mr.Wade moved to grant site plan approval. Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Preliminary Consultation: Rosemont Estates: Mr.Lung stated that in September the Planning Commission approved the use of the cluster provision of the Subdivision Ordinance.The property is located along Dam #4 Road and contains 21 acres,zoned Conservation.Mr.Lung said that when the use of the cluster concept was approved there was a condition that all of the lots would be served by an internal street and 193 that the existing tress along Dam #4 Road be preserved or additional screening be placed to buffer the housing development from the road.He said that has been shown on the concept plan. The proposed use of the open space has been changed.Mr.Oder,the developer,stated he did not want the liability of a pond.At this time he is not sure how the open space is going to be used, he wanted to wait until all of the lots were sold to see what the homeowners wanted.He said he does not have a problem with putting in paths and leaving it as a common conservation area.Mr. Iseminger said he does not have a problem with the proposal since there will be a homeowners association.He said there should be an amount set aside for the amenities and that they should consider provisions for picnics and/or a playground.Mr.Oder said he thought he would set aside about $10,000.00.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that $10,000.00 was sufficient and agreed with the comments in the summary.A discussion followed regarding forest conservation and open space. OTHER BUSINESS: Calvin Mills: Mr.Arch explained that this was a request to be released from the 10 year family member statement.He referred to the copy of the plat he passed out showing Lots 1 and 2.He said that the Mennonite Church is interested in purchasing a portion oflot 2 that was originally subdivided -with the immediate family member statement.Mr.Mills said that Lot 1 has a home on it and he intends to add part of lot 2 to it and not build and convey the remainder of lot 2 to the church. Mr.Clopper made a motion to waive the 10 year family member statement contingent on the property being transferred to the church.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Forest Conservation Replanting Program: Mr.Arch referred to a copy of the pilot program outline and said that they have been before the Planning Commission before regarding utilizing forest conservation funds with the Soil Conservation Service.He said they are at the point where they are ready to use a pilot program. He explained that the County in working with the Soil Conservation District to go in and plant trees on easements and in some cases the easements would be dedicated to the County and in some cases the easements would be purchased by the County,such as,in an enviroumental sensitive area.He said they would contract with a surveyor to survey the easement area and develop a planting plan and hire someone to plant the trees.He proceeded to review the test sites listed on the handout.Mr.Arch stated that Mr.Weibley has been speaking to people in the area regarding the test sites and has interest in 3 of them (they do not have one for the purchase of easement on existing forest).He said that if the Planning Commission approves what is proposed they will take it to the Board of Commissioners.He said there would be a surveying cost but they would be working with Fred Frederick since the County has a contract with him for surveying work and that it would be approximately $500.00 per project depending on the project. A discussion followed regarding the pilot programs,getting areas where they do not have to pay for the easements,and the priority easements.A discussion followed regarding the price of the easement,the cost of the easement,setting up a flat fee,starting with stream banks,the problems with obligations involved with easements,and what other Counties area doing.Mr.Iseminger stated he felt they first need to exhaust the County owned land and then do the pilot program and set priorities up front and do stream banks and sensitive areas and stay with that.Further discussion followed regarding buying land for forest,and the areas to be targeted.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to find out what Carroll County is doing.Mr.Arch suggested having $300.00 per acre for a non priority area and $500.00 for a priority area.A discussion followed regarding the amount of the easements,concentrating on the priority areas and the restrictions of the easements Mr.Weibley suggested $500.00 for the non-priority areas and $800.00 for priority areas.It was the consensus to go with Mr.Weibley's suggestion. 194 Upcoming Meetings: Mr.Arch stated that there will be a workshop meeting February 10,1997 to discuss the Highway Interchange at 7:00 and have tentatively scheduled a meeting on February 24,1997 with the Hagerstown Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. /:;:cJgQ.uiGA- /~d 1.Iseminger,Chairman , "1 195 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -FEBRUARY 10,1997 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday,February 10,1997 in the Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand 1.Iseminger,Vice Chairman;Bernard 1.Moser,R. Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger,Paula Lampton,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,James R.Wade. Staff:Planning Director;Robert C.Arch,Associate Planner,Lisa Kelly Pietro and Secretary; Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. Highway Interchange -Groups III and V: Mr.Arch stated that this is a follow-up to the public hearing on Groups III and V held on October 28,1996 at the Clear Spring High School and proceeded to pass out maps for the interchanges showing the proposed zoning. RZ-97-04.1 1-81 at Maugansville Road and MD 58 and RZ-97-04.2 1-81 and US 40: Mr.Arch referred to the plat showing the proposed zoning and reviewed the requests received at the public hearing and during the 10 day comment period.There were 11 requests in all asking that their properties be rezoned HI-1 and not the proposed HI-2. Mr.Arch stated that for this U.S.40 interchange they received one request from Vincent Groh asking for a portion of his property to be changed from HI-I to HI-2 but he did not indicate how much he wanted and did not follow-up with a letter.Mr.Arch stated that staff recommends that Mr.Groh's property stay as HI-l since that area has the characteristics ofHI-1.He stated that if Mr.Groh wants to develop the property as residential he could still file a Planned Unit Development plan with the Planning Department.A discussion followed regarding having another public hearing.Mr.Arch referred to the area currently proposed as HI-2 along Salem Avenue.He noted that some of the residents want HI -1 and that staff recommends that the boundary line be the rear ofthe lots facing Point Salem Road.A discussion followed regarding keeping the southern areas as HI-l and to keep HI-Ion the other side of Broadfording Road.A discussion followed regarding the commercial businesses along Salem Avenue and whether they would be allowed in HI-2.He said they may want to give the same consideration along Broadfording Road.A discussion followed regarding using Salem Avenue as the dividing line and everything on the north side would be HI-l and that the rest of the lots with the exception of the HarTru property are small lots and that all of the property along Point Salem Road should stay as proposed (HI-2).Mr.Iseminger stated that he felt they need to go back to public hearing and feels they should limit the lots fronting Salem A venue to be HI-1 and the lots fronting Point Salem Road as HI-2 and the lots fronting Broadfording Road should be HI-2.Mr.Arch suggested that they may be better making everything north of Salem Road HI-1.Mr.Iseminger stated he did not want to see the triangular piece be HI -1.A discussion followed regarding the triangular piece,and whether this area was served by the Conococheague plant,the proposed shopping center in the area and the City boundary.Mr.Iseminger asked if staff was recommending that they change the zoning of the lots fronting Salem Avenue out to the edge of the area of rezoning.Mr.Arch said yes that he would recommend changing the properties on Salem Avenue and that there is enough change to warrant going back to public hearing.A discussion followed regarding the interchange at Maugans Avenue. 196 RZ-96-5.1 Clear Spring 1-70 and MD 68: Mr.Arch referred to the map for Clear Spring and proceeded to review the testimony and written requests.In addition,Mr.Arch stated that Mr.Groh testified regarding his property in Clear Spring.Mr.Groh testified that he wants his property to be zoned for commercial because it was HI when he purchased it,and he feels that they are downzoning it.However,he did not state the amount that he wanted changed to HI -I.Mr.Arch stated that along the western access ramp onto 1-70 are 2 parcels owned by Mr.Thacker and Mr.Carlisle.They request consideration to add the 2 lots to the HI -I area that they already have.He said that across the road is a property owned by Lee Downy who has submitted a request for consideration for HI-2 or at least Residential Suburban.Mr.Arch referred to the area proposed for Agriculture,which is the Snyder Estate which is under control of a bank.Mr.Arch stated that the bank sent a letter in December that they were just advised about the rezoning.Mr.Arch noted that staff contacted all property owners affected by the rezoning and added that there were articles in the paper.The bank is requesting consideration for HI -I instead of Agriculture because of the charities that are the beneficiaries of the sale of the property.Mr.Arch stated with regard to this request,it is staffs recommendation not to change the Agriculture classification.He said that nothing has changed the staff s position since these properties were eliminated from the sewer and water provisions for the Town of Clear Spring.With regard to Mr.Thacker and Mr.Carlisle's properties,Mr. Arch said he would recommend that the 5 acre section be included in the HI-I.He feels that .makes sense and that would be a minor change and would not warrant going back to public hearing.A discussion followed.In regards to the property owned by Lee Downey proposed for Rural Residential,Mr.Arch said there is not any HI-2 in the area.Mr.Downey felt that because of the location along the interstate he may be better able to develop the property with multi- family units.Mr.Arch said they can look at the property as a transitional piece,however without any HI-2 being proposed for the interchange this would be a major change.A discussion followed regarding the meeting with the Town of Clear Spring and their concerns and the fact that Mr.Groh purchased his property at auction for a price based on the commercial zoning.He recently requested a small portion be changed to HI-I.However,what must be taken in consideration is the fact that the town is not designating that area for water and sewer.Mr.Arch stated without the Town of Clear Spring designating a growth area it is hard to propose a commercial zoning without water and sewer.Further discussion followed regarding the growth area and water and sewer and whether they should hold off on making a decision on this area until the Town of Clear Spring decides on a growth area boundary.After further discussion,it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to proceed with recommendations on all of the interchanges and that Residential Rural is appropriate for Mr.Downey's property. RZ-96-5.2 1-70 and MD 56 Big Pool: Mr.Arch stated that testimony was received for this interchange from Mr.Tedrick requesting to redesignate his property which is being proposed for Conservation be changed to Agriculture. Mr.Arch said that Phil Mummert testified to change his designation from Conservation to Agricul ture so he could subdivide his property for his children.There was also a request from Andrew Michael to rezone 6 acres of his property to HI-I.Mr.George Michael requested changing the proposed zoning on a 90 acre parcel from Conservation to Agriculture.Mr.Yadzi is requesting his property be changed from A to HI-lor HI-2.A request was also received from R.Lynn Weaver asking that his property be zoned Agricultural instead of Conservation.Mr. Arch stated that Mr.Jackson's request,Mr.Younker's request and Mr.Sutton's request included a petition by property owners in the southeast quadrant,and that their request would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies and the Conservation zoning proposed for that quadrant.Mr.Arch stated that this interchange is similar to the one they had for the Rt.66 interchange in Group I since it is outside of any Growth Area and there is no planned sewer or water services there.He said that staff would not recommend any HI -lor 2 in this area.Mr. Arch stated that staff does not have a problem in changing the Andrew Michael property in the northeast quadrant to Agriculture since it would be consistent with the Agriculture property across the street.Mr.Wade commented that they should preserve the area because it is a very 197 rural area and they is very little development going on and expressed concern with future development in those areas because next there will be requests for services and he is concerned with water and septic problems and road problems.Mr.Arch stated that Mr.Wade made a valid point and staff recommends that the area stay Conservation except to change the northeast quadrant from Conservation to Agriculture. RZ-96-5.3.1-70 and 1-68 &US 522 (Hancock): Mr.Arch stated that the only request for change in the proposed zoning was from the H.B. Mellott Estate for property located west ofI-70 adjacent to Industrial Mineral zoned property where they have a quarry operation.He referred to their industrial/manufacturing operation and stated that their request is related to expansion of their current operation.They requested consideration for a HI -lor an Industrial General based on the list of uses and also that the HI-I be extended to the Agriculture because of the Industrial Mineral designation and a road that links the properties together.Mr.Arch stated that he spoke to Paul Prodonovich and reviewed the uses.He said it is their position that the HI-I addresses most of the uses but with regard to the Agriculture classification,they have not changed their position.Staff would not recommend making this change because of the terrain and access limitations.He said that if at some point in time there are changes in access and public services,then there would be enough reason to give consideration to piecemeal change.He said also at any time they can come into the Agriculture .area and request an Industrial Mineral floating designation if they were expanding production. Mr.Arch said that at this point staff would not recommend a change.A discussion followed. Mr.Iseminger asked if Mr.Arch could have the staff report completed for presentation at the March regular meeting so that the Planning Commission can take action. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:00 198 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -FEBRUARY 24,1997 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday,February 24,1997 in the Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand 1.Iseminger,Vice Chairman;Bernard 1.Moser,R. Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger,Paula Lampton,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,James R.Wade. Staff:Planning Director;Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planner,Timothy A..Lung and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Also present:City of Hagerstown Planning Commission:Chairman;Douglas Wright,Vice Chairman;James Stone, Alfred Boyer,Ted Nugent,Dennis Miller.Staff:Deborah Everhart,Richard Kautz,Kathy Maher and Matthew Davis. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m.The purpose of the joint meeting was to review the County Comprehensive Plan,the Water and Sewer Plan,the Transportation Plan and the City's Comprehensive Plan. In regards to the County Comprehensive Plan Mr.Iseminger said they have not done a major update of the Comprehensive Plan in years but all along they have made revisions to the plan and have done all of the updates except for streamlining.Mr.Arch stated that one of the goals of the Commissioners for 1997 is to initiate the process to update the County's Comprehensive Plan with consideration given to the proposed changes being recommended by the sub-committee on 66B.He said they are also looking at obtaining a grant to retain a consultant to do some of the work with other portions of the work to be done in house and that there will be a lot of public input meetings prior to the plan being drafted.He also mentioned retaining a consultant to complete in the near future a fiscal impact analysis for the County. In regards to the transportation element of the Comprehensive Plan,Mr.Iseminger said they just had a study completed by BMI and are in the process of going before the public for comments. Mr.Arch said they will have a public hearing on three amendments on March 31 st (streamlining, Ft.Ritchie and the Transportation Element of the Comp Plan).A discussion followed with Mr. Kautz regarding the City's comments on the County Plan and how they are handling their Plan. Mr.Kautz stated one of the things they have looked at is the northwest connector and they have four options Irvin,Central,Haven or Greenwood.A discussion followed regarding the northwest connection.Mr.Kautz said the only other question he had on the transportation plan was that the study de-emphasizes the need for the Robinwood Drive and Eastern Boulevard connector.He said that the City feels that connector would help relieve some of the County's load.Mr.Arch said that the traffic study recently completed shows it would not.He added that they look to identifY the road in the Comprehensive Plan but that it would be developer driven and not built by the County.He said it will not be eliminated from the Comprehensive Plan but will not be a priority.A discussion followed regarding the connector,the traffic improvements for Robinwood,upgrades to the intersection of Rt.40 and Eastern Boulevard bridge,Rt.40 and Mt. Aetna and Edgewood and Mt.Aetna Road and the problems with developer driven roads.Mr. Wright stated that he felt there was a need for dualization of Eastern Boulevard and asked if that was included in the County's study.Mr.Arch said there is an extension that would go up to Marsh Pike through the ICC property but he is not aware of any discussions to dualize Eastern Boulevard.Mr.Iseminger stated that when he was on the Joint City/County Study Committee for the Eastern Boulevard corridor,they did recommend that it go to two lanes.Mr.Arch said that neither the long range transportation plan for the MPO or the Comp Plan element proposes dualing that road system.A discussion followed regarding the Funkstown by-pass and coordinating the alignment and who will pay for the by-pass.Mr.Iseminger suggested having the City and County engineers meet to look at an alignment.Mr.Arch said that both offices have had discussions regarding the alignment.Further discussion followed. 199 Mr.Iseminger referred to the County's Comprehensive Plan and Water and Sewer Plans and stated that they call for cooperation between the County and the City.He said they are currently having public hearings on the Transportation Element and are having joint meetings with the County Commissioners on that element and will be doing updates to the Comprehensive Plan this year and by law are required to do updates to the Water and Sewer Plan this year.He explained that the Water and Sewer Plan is for all of Washington County and that the County Planning Commission is the authority that is responsible and briefly reviewed the plan and said that they will be updating this document this year.Mr.Lung,who handles the update briefly reviewed the process involved.He explained that they revised the plan to have 4 classifications: No Planned Service,Program Service,Planned Service and Existing Service.He said there are designations with no time periods tied to them.Mr.Lung said that another thing that has changed in the State's vision of the plan is that they are no longer requiring a lot of the background information and want to see the plan to be more streamlined and more of a technical document.A discussion followed regarding the adoption process of the Water and Sewer Plan, working closely with the municipalities and the City as to how to approach the Water and Sewer problems,controlling growth in some of the service areas,getting guidance from the elected officials,and having one regional water and sewer authority. City Comprehensive Plan: .Mr.Wright passed out copies of the sununary of their Comprehensive Plan and stated that they felt whatever is good for the City is good for the County and whatever happens in the County is good for the City and feels they should be working together.He stated that the City is concerned with the high percentage of homes that are not owned by the residents and the high rental rates and feels that has a detrimental effect on their housing stock.It is a goal for the City to reverse that,they are concerned with the loss of integrity of their neighborhoods and concerned with the actions of the Board of Education who have taken the City's elementary schools out of the City and have eliminated the sense of neighborhood.He stated that they feel that economic development should be focused on small businesses and existing businesses.He said they are looking for gateways to the City and will need cooperation of the County.In regards to the creation of the Urban Services Area,Mr.Wright said they have looked at urban services that are currently available in Washington County,the services bought and paid for by the Citizens of Hagerstown and the users of the Hagerstown systems water and sewer as well as other services. He said they are calling upon the establishment of policies where those resources are utilized to the greatest potential for the City.He said they still have a lot of areas not developed in the City and feels that the growth should be concentrated in the City or close to the City.They are asking that a policy be developed so that those resources already in place be reserved for that growth. They are also asking for policies to be developed as well as working with the legislature that would provide for annexation into those areas where services are provided now that are not part of the City.He said that the City feels they are in the best position to provide urban services to the urban element of Washington County and feels that should be a goal of the urban body of the County.A discussion followed regarding annexing land into the City,the development of the urban services area,where development is occurring,the need for a regional water and sewer authority and to coordinate where the growth will occur in both the City and County and that development is market driven and needing guidance from the elected officials.Mr.Iseminger stated that he has a problem with adjusting the County's Urban Growth area. After a lengthy discussion regarding growth and services it was decided to have another meeting with the two Commissions focusing on priorities for services and growth areas and tentatively scheduled it for April 21 st at City Hall. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. .d 1.Iseminger,Chairman AI . 200 201 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -MARCH 3,1997 The Washington County Planning Conunission held its regular meeting on Monday,March 3, 1997 in the Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand 1.Iseminger,Vice Chairman;Bernard 1.Moser, R.Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger,Paula Lampton,Robert Ernst II and Ex-Officio James R.Wade. Staff:Associate Plarmers;Timothy A.Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro,Eric Seifarth and Secretary; Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. Mr.Lung stated that the item for Todd Easterday under Forest Conservation was being taken off the agenda because they are trying to resolve it without modification to the plan.There were no objections from the Plarming Conunission. OLD BUSINESS: 2%County Ag Transfer Tax: Mr.Seifarth referred to the chart in the agenda packet regarding the analysis of the 2 percent agricultural transfer tax.He stated that the 2 percent tax would raise enough money to purchase one easement per year.He added that he forwarded the information to the Ag Board and the consensus is to wait to see about the Rural Legacy Program.A discussion followed regarding funding and the matching funds.Mr.Iseminger said that part of the point in bringing this issue up was to generate money for the County to purchase easements and feels this tax is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and asked that the Plarming Conunission's views be passed on to the Agricultural Advisory Board.A discussion followed regarding what this would do to the value of the property,whether ifthe easements would be treated as taxable income.Mr. Iseminger stated that he felt now is the time to discuss this with the farm community and asked Mr.Seifarth to get back to the farm conununity to schedule a meeting with the Planning Commission. Highway Interchange Rezonings Groups III and V: Mrs.Pietro referred to the staff report and analysis in the agenda packet and explained that the proposed rezoning classifications were reviewed several weeks ago and proceeded to review each of the 5 interchanges. RZ-96-4.1 1-81 at MD 58 and 1-81 and Maugansville Road and Salem Avenue: Mrs.Pietro stated that they received requests from property owners asking to have their property rezoned to HI-l instead ofHI-2 and that Mr.Arch's recommendation was that there was enough change to warrant taking this particular interchange back to public hearing. RZ-96-4.2 -1-81 and U.S.40: Mrs.Pietro stated that Mr.Groh was the only property owner for this interchange that had requested to be changed to HI -2 instead of the HI-I proposed by staff.His concerns were to have enough residential lands in that area to develop.Mrs.Pietro said that Mr.Arch noted in the staff report that the area is being looked at for a large shopping center and staff does not recommend at this time that a change be made.She said for this interchange staff is recommending HI-l as shown on the map and that it would not have to go public hearing.Mr.Moser made a reconunendation to the County Commissioners for Group III on 1-81 and MD 58,Maugansville 202 Road,staff is recommending that due to the amount of changes that they go back to public hearing with the changes.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Wade abstained.So ordered.A discussion followed regarding the interchanges for Group III and the fact that the Planning Commission felt they were including 1-81 and MD 58,Maugansville Road and U.S.40.Mrs. Pietro stated that the staff report is recommending that only the interchange for I -81 and MD 58, Maugaunsville Road should go back to public hearing.Mr.Iseminger asked if the two interchanges had separate rezoning numbers.Mrs.Pietro said yes.Mr.Moser moved to amend his previous motion to state that it applies to RZ-96-4.1.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Wade abstained.So ordered.Mr.Clopper made a motion to accept the staff report as findings of fact and to recommend to the County Commissioners to adopt RZ-96-4.2 as recommended by staff. Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Wade abstained.So ordered. RZ-96-5.l 1-70 and MD 68 (Clear Spring): Mrs.Pietro stated that requests were received from Mr.Groh and the First National Bank representing the Harold Snyder property.She said that both of the properties are being proposed for Agriculture and that both owners requested to be rezoned to HI-I.Staff recommends that they stay Agriculture at this time since there is no commitment for public water and sewer from the Town of Clear Spring.Mrs.Pietro said there was a small 5 acre parcel off of the interchange owned by Mr.Thacker and Mr.Carlisle being recommended by staff to be rezoned to the HI-l category since it goes through property already zoned HI-I.Mrs.Pietro said there is a small -residential parcel staff is proposing for Residential Rural that Mr.Downey wanted to see as Residential Suburban but that staff and the Planning Commission had previously discussed this and decided to keep it as Residential Rural.Mrs.Pietro said they are only recommending one change,which is to Mr.Thacker and Mr.Carlisle's 5.1 acre parcel to be changed to HI-I.Mr. Iseminger stated that if the Town of Clear Spring develops a town growth area and if sewer service is extended that does not mean they could not individually rezone a piece of property.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser made a motion to accept the staff report as findings of fact and recommend to the County Commissioners to adopt RZ-96-5.l (Clear Spring)as advertised with the minor change of the 5.51 acre parcel owned by Mr.Thacker and Mr.Carlisle to be HI-I. Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Mr.Wade abstained.So ordered. RZ-96-5.2 -1-70 and MD 56 (Big Pool): Mrs.Pietro said that two zoning classifications have been recommended for this area. Agriculture in the northwest quadrant and the remaining quadrants would go back to Conservation.She said they did receive correspondence from property owners requesting changes and proceeded to review them.She said that the Michael family requested that part of their property proposed for Conservation be changed to Agriculture and the staff does not have a problem one way or another if the Planning Commission wants to grant that request.She said it would not have an impact either way and that the reason why they originally gave it a Conservation designation is because of adjacent land being zoned Conservation.A discussion followed regarding the staff report.Mr.Moser made a recommendation to accept staffs report as findings offact with the exception ofthe Michael property located in the northeast quadrant of the interchange to be changed to Agriculture and recommend to the County Commissioners to adopt RZ-96-5.2 with the exception of the 82 acres in the northeast quadrant which should be rezoned to Agriculture.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Wade abstained.So ordered. RZ-96-5.3 1-70 and 1-68 and U.S.522 (Hancock): Mrs.Pietro said that staff is recommending that what was presented at the October meeting stay the same.She briefly reviewed the staff report.Mrs.Lampton moved to accept the staff report as finding of fact and recommend to the County Commissioners to adopt RZ-96-5.3 as presented. Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Wade abstained.So ordered. 203 NEW BUSINESS: Variances: Richard Divelbiss -Create a lot without public road frontage: Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Mr.Divelbiss from Section 405.ll.B.l of the Subdivision Ordinance regarding creating lots for conveyance to an immediate family member without public road frontage.He said that the property is located on the north side of Fairview Road.The applicant is proposing to create a 1.12 acre lot for conveyance to an immediate family member in the rear comer of the property and use an existing driveway that is on the adjacent property belonging to the applicant's brother.Mr.Lung explained that the reason for the variance is that while the Subdivision Ordinance does allow the creation for this type of lot without public road frontage for immediate family members the access has to be onto a lane in existence at the time the original parcel was acquired by the present owner,which is not the case here.Mr.Lung said that staff does not see why they could not go ahead and deed off a 25 foot panhandle out to Fairview Road.They would not have to put in a lane at this time,however,it would be there if they ever would need their own access.He said that the problem is that the panhandle length would be 423 feet,23 feet over the maximum.Mr.Lung added that staff believes that a variance from the panhandle length would be more acceptable than a variance to -create a lot without public road frontage.Mr.Frederick,consultant,of Frederick,Seibert and Associates,said he was unable to speak to his client until this evening and that they are in favor of the change.Mr.Lung stated that if another entrance would have to be put in,it would have to be shared due to access separation restrictions on Fairview Road.Mr.Frederick said they do not have a problem with it.Mr.Frederick requested to withdraw the variance to create a lot without public road frontage and requested a variance to create a lot with a panhandle greater than 400 feet.Mrs.Lampton moved to grant a variance to create a panhandle greater than 400 feet. Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Site Plans: Ted's Rent It: Mr.Lung presented a site plan for Ted's Rent It.He stated that the site plan is for renovations and additions to an existing commercial site,the old Bow Lighting building on Virginia Avenue. The property is zoned Business General.The site consists of 1.93 acres.Mr.Lung referred to the plan and pointed out the existing building and the proposed extension of the building.He said that the owner,Mr.Shank,is proposing to establish his equipment rental business on this site.The plan involves two additions to the existing building,also reconfiguration of the parking lot,installation of landscaped islands and relocating the sign.Mr.Lung said that the Engineering Department and Soil Conservation District have approved a waiver for storm water management on this site.Mr.Lung said that the existing water and sewer lines will continue to service this site.The County Water and Sewer Department is waiting for a revision showing the existing manholes and connections on the sewer lines and did not anticipate any problems once the revisions were made to the drawings.A revision has been submitted addressing Planning Department and Permits comments.Mr.Lung said that Permits is still reviewing the plat, however,it appears to be okay.He said that State Highway Administration has some comments regarding the entrances that still need to be worked out with the developer and that the Planning Department staff concurs with those comments.He explained that along the side of property runs Linwood Road,a private dead end road.It leads to a large undeveloped area of Residentially Urban zoned property which has a limited amount of access.Mr.Lung said that once this property is developed,Linwood would most likely become a public road and the staff and State Highway Administration are concerned with having a private entrance close to a public road.He said that both the Planning Department and State Highway are recommending to close the entrance and move it to the north.The Planning staff recommends to at least make the entrance conditional so at such time the road is built that the entrance will be closed.He said that Dick 204 Brill of Fox and Associates and Mr.Shank are present.He said he thought that Mr.Shank did not have a problem with the recommendation on the entrance and that they are going to meet with the State Highway Administration to resolve the other issues regarding the design.A discussion followed regarding possibly centering the entrance on the property.Mr.Moser moved to grant site plan approval contingent on all agency approvals and with one entrance on U.S.Route II subject to State Highway approval.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Save-A-Lot: Mr.Lung presented the site plan for Save-A-Lot.The owner is proposing a 29,983 square foot addition to an existing supermarket warehouse distribution facility formerly the Creasy building. The property is located outside of Williamsport on the north side of MD 68.The property is zoned Planned Industrial and consists of 16.93 acres.He explained that this is Phase I of a 2 phase project.He proceeded to review the truck parking and relocation of an entrance onto Prosperity Lane.The County Engineer and Soil Conservation have approved the plan and there is a waiver for additional storm water management for this phase.Future phases will involve changes to the existing storm water management facility.The additional site information they requested has been submitted in the form of a revision and appears to be adequate.The Hagerstown Water Department has not issued formal approval yet.Mr.Lung said he had a phone conversation with them today and they felt that the changes in this phase should not present any .problems.He said in the future a larger expansion will involve more of a review by the Water Department.The Washington County Water and Sewer Department issued an approval for the sewer connection.This expansion has no impact on the existing sewer connection.Access to the site is off of Prosperity Lane,which is a County road that accesses MD 68.Mr.Lung stated that Prosperity Lane currently serves Save-A-Lot and also Caldwell Manufacturing.According the Zoning Administrator there is a history of problems with truck traffic from the Save-A-Lot property interfering with truck access for Caldwell Manufacturing.Mr.Lung said that Mr. Prodonovich has not had a chance to review the revisions for the new truck parking facilities and wanted to be sure that both he and State Highway had a chance to give the plan a thorough review before any unconditional approval is granted.State Highway Administration is recommending to move the entrance location away from the access point at MD 68.Mr.Lung said he believed that this has been addressed,however,needs to verify it with State Highway.If the Planning Commission is inclined to grant approval tonight staff recommends that it be conditional upon the truck interference issue being worked out with all parties involved.The consultant,Rich Reichenbaugh of Associated Engineering briefly spoke regarding the access lane and explained the revisions they made to comply with State Highway and proceeded to review the phasing.A representative of Save-A-Lot briefly spoke.He stated that they have worked things out with Caldwell Manufacturing over the past week.He said they have increased the staff of the inbound shift to unload the trucks quicker and have agreed to put out traffic control on the road from 10:00 p.m.to midnight and added that they usually have congestion at the end of the month and on Sunday and Thursday nights.Instead of allowing the trucks to back up they have increased manpower to bring the trucks in to unload them.In addition,when they book their appointments for the trucks to come in they are informing the truck lines that there is no onsite truck parking and that they need to be at the facility no earlier than a half hour prior to their appointment.They are looking at a concerted effort to make sure that this works and noted that they are in the process of talking to two transportation companies to rent lots for storage of their empty trailers which will give them more room to stage inbound trucks.A discussion followed.Mrs.Lampton moved to grant site plan approval contingent on Permits Department and State Highway Administration approvals and any other outstanding agency approvals. Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. Preliminary Consultations: Williamsport Storage Bins: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary consultation for Williamsport Storage Bins that was held on 205 February 14,1997 for the proposed expansion of the existing facilities.He said that this property was previously known as Barnhart's Mini Storage and has been purchased by Todd Snook and is now called Williamsport Storage Bins.Mr.Lung explained that a preliminary consultation is not required for this type of project and that it was requested by the developer.He noted that the written report is not completed.The property is located on the south side ofMD 144 adjacent to 1-81 and is zoned Highway Interchange.Mr.Lung said that the owner is proposing to enlarge the use on the property with 3 additions to the mini warehouses and to construct a 19,585 office building towards the front along with improvements to the entrance.They will continue to use the water and sewer service,there will be some changes to the storm water management.State Highway commented on the entrance onto to MD 144 they may need to do some improvements based on the ultimate use ofthe office building.Mr.Lung stated that this property is included in the Highway Interchange rezoning reviewed tonight and that this site is proposed for HI-I.The proposed reclassification will not affect the proposed us of this property.He said one item that the developer wanted clarified by the Plarming Commission was the existing plantings along 1- 81.He noted that the trees have been trimmed up from the bottom for security reasons.Mr. Lung said that a question that came up from the consultation of whether the owner had to screen the entire frontage ofl-81.It is the staff s opinion that screening is not required.The concern is to not have glare from the security lighting and the cars using the site onto traffic on 1-81.He noted that the exposure ofthe business to 1-81 should be aesthetically pleasing.He said that it was staffs comment that they should be looking at being aware of possible glare from headlights and building mounted lights.The staff wanted to make sure that the Commission was in .concurrence.Mr.Iseminger noted that they had a similar situation with the Bowman property nearby and that the Plarming Commission requested some plantings of flowering trees.Mr. Frederick,consultant,of Frederick Seibert and Associates said that they could put some low plantings in like forsythia.He said there is a double row of pines,which shows up on a previous site plan and that is why they wanted to check with the Plarming Commission to see if it was necessary to keep them.He added that the problem with the mini storage is security and safety and noted that the elevation is higher than 1-81 so glare should not be a problem.It was the consensus of the Plarming Commission that the trees could be removed but that they wanted plantings as discussed,with color and pleasing to the eye. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Be' 206 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -APRIL 7,1997 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,April 7, 1997 in the Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand 1.Iseminger;Vice Chairman,Bernard Moser;Don Ardinger,R.Ben Clopper and Robert Ernst,II.Staff:Planning Director,Robert C.Arch;Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planners Lisa Kelly Pietro,Timothy A.Lung; Community Development Coordinator,Joe Kuhna;Single Family Loan Specialist,Debbie Yost and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent were Paula Lampton and Ex-Officio James R. Wade. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:05 p.m. MINUTES: Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes of December 2,1997.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. Mr.Clopper moved to approve the minutes of January 6,1997.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. In regards to the minutes of January 13,1997,Mr.Moser stated that he did not second the motion for RZ-97 -011.Mr.Iseminger requested that the secretary check the tape and amend the minutes accordingly.Mr.Clopper moved to approve the minutes as amended.Seconded by Mr. Ardinger.So ordered. Mr.Moser moved to approve the minutes dated February 3,1997.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger. So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Mr.Arch introduced Joe Kuhna and Debbie Yost,who have been with the Community Development Section of the Planning Department for over a year.Mr.Kuhna is the Community Development Coordinator.He is responsible for grant administration for the County (Housing and various other grants),elderly housing development and provides technical assistance to the other municipalities with grant administration and other nonprofit groups.Ms.Yost is the single family loan specialist.She stated that she operates the home improvement loan program and proceeded to describe the programs,funding and what they will fund.She explained that the home improvement program assists approximately 25 to 30 homeowners a year and that right now they have a waiting period of approximately 3 to 6 months and referred to the program information in the agenda packet.A discussion followed. Variances: Sandra D.Davis: Mr.Lung presented the variance request from Section 405.11.G 4 and 5 dealing with the length and design of panhandle lots.The property is located south of Falling Waters Road.The original parcel is 48 acres and is zoned Conservation.Mr.Lung explained that there is an 207 existing dwelling and barn being used for agricultural purposes which have access across a private drive to Big Bend Way which is also a private road serving approximately 27 residences. Mr.Lung stated that Mr.and Mrs.Davis also own a small undeveloped parcel along Falling Waters Road.The proposed subdivision is to create two lots with 25 foot wide panhandles to Falling Waters Road.Lot 2 is for an immediate family member with a panhandle approximately 150 feet in length.Lot I is to be conveyed to a first cousin with a panhandle length of 1000 feet. The property is currently being used for grazing.Mr.Lung said that according to the applicants, the lots are located where they are because this is the most desirable location for building and the driveway and entrance would have the least amount of impact on the agricultural land.Mr.Lung said staff agrees with the location of the lots and the panhandle lengths versus the use of Big Bend Way and believes that a common use driveway is appropriate.Site distance will need to be checked by the County Engineer.Mr.Lung noted that the panhandle for Lot I makes a 90 degree turn and that they need to be sure the radius of the driveway is gradual enough to allow delivery trucks to negotiate the bend.Mr.Lung said another concern is if there are any plans for future subdivision.There is about 100 feet of frontage remaining along Falling Waters Road.He suggested if they have additional subdivision plans,they should start thinking about a public street.Mr.Lung said that a forest stand delineation has not been done.Lot 2 for the immediate family member will be exempt from Forest Conservation.Lot 1 would be subject to Forest Conservation requirements.They would need approximately 2/3 of an acre for afforestation.Mr. Lung noted there are some trees near the stream and there may be some forest on Lot 1.He suggested that if the Planning Commission approves the variance,they may also want to consider .granting the right to use off site forest retention to meet Forest Conservation requirements and that the retention area be located in the forest around the stream.A discussion followed regarding the location ofthe lots.Mr.Davis stated that they did get requirements for sight distance from the Engineering Department and would not have a problem with cutting back the bank,if needed.If the remaining lands are subdivided they would use a shared access in the future.Mr.Iseminger stated that in order to be exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance for Lot 2 they will need the 10 year family member statement on the plat.Mr.and Mrs.Davis said that would not be a problem and they do not have a problem with setting aside land for off site forestation for Lot I.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to grant a variance from the panhandle length for Lots I and 2 to create panhandles in excess of 400 feet,contingent upon using a shared access;including the 10 year immediate family member statement for Lot 2,any development of the remaining parcel along Falling Waters Road must use the shared access with the stipulation that there will be no further subdivision unless a public street is built to County standards,the approval of off site forestation for Lot 1,and to insure that the design of the access road can handle emergency vehicles and delivery trucks and contingent on the site distance at Falling Waters Road being approved by the County Engineer.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Nathan Burkholder c/o Terry Karn -Request for Panhandle Length: Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Nathan Burkholder from Section 405.11.0.5 of the Subdivision Ordinance which states that panhandles shall not exceed 400 feet in length.The property is located on the south side of Harpers Ferry Road,east of Lime KUm Road and is zoned Conservation. The applicant is proposing to create a new residential lot with a panhandle approximately 700 feet in length.The subject parcel contains 100 acres.Mr.Lung stated that a 3 acre lot was created in 1997.At that time the Planning Commission granted a variance to allow the lot to be created without public road frontage with an access easement across the lots in front of it.Later on in 1992 Mr.Burkholder subdivided Lot 2,a 3 acre lot,and did a simplified plat adding a piece to the property fronting Harpers Ferry Road.Now Mr.Burkholder wants to create a third lot located behind Lot 2.Mr.Lung said that additional land to provide access for the panhandle out to Harpers Ferry Road will be obtained from the adjacent property owner and the panhandle will exceed 400 feet.The Engineering Department has looked at the entrance and has determined that adequate sight distance can be obtained along Harpers Ferry Road once an existing barn is removed.Mr.Lung stated that he requested comments from the Sharpsburg Fire Company and has not heard anything. He said it appears there was once a lane that ran back into the Burkholders property.Even though Mr.Burkholder owns considerable acreage in the area, 208 his development options are limited due to the limited amount of access onto Harpers Ferry Road and not having enough frontage to build a public street.Mr.Lung added that Mr.Burkholder has considerable frontage along Lime Kilm Road however,the road is inadequate.He stated that a forest stand delineation has not been done.There is a considerable amount of trees in the area and most likely enough trees on the proposed lot to meet onsite forest retention.A discussion followed.Mr.Ernst made a motion to grant the variance from the panhandle length to create Lot I contingent on receipt of a letter from the Potomac Valley Fire Company and removal of the small storage barn per the County Engineer's request.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. Site Plans: Talley Metal Products -Preliminary Plat.Final Plat and Site Plan: Mrs.Pietro presented the Preliminary Plat,Final Plat and Site Plan for Talley metals.The property is located on the northeast side of Business Parkway in Huyetts Business Park on Greencastle Pike.The property is zoned HI-I.The developer is proposing to subdivide a 4.7 acre tract for steel fabrication facilities.The site will be served by public water and sewer.Mrs. Pietro proceeded to review the number of employees (14),the hours of operation (7:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.Monday -Friday),parking -14,deliveries per day will be 3,the location of the dumpster area,building mounted lighting,storm water management and landscaping.There will .be 2 access points off of Business Parkway.The property will be exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance.All agency approvals have been received.Mr.Moser moved to grant Preliminary Plat,Final Plan and Site Plan approval.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. Oliver Homes Mini Storage (Southside Development Lots 1-3)-Preliminary/Final Plat and Site Plan: Mrs.Pietro presented the Preliminary/Final Plat and Site Plan for Oliver Homes Mini Storage Buildings (Southside Development Lots 1-3).The property is located along the southeast side of Leitersburg Pike and is zoned Business Local.The developer is proposing to construct three additional mini storage buildings behind the existing three.Mrs.Pietro stated that the site plan was submitted first and the lot the new building is on was submitted on a simplified plat so a development plat had to be submitted.Mr.Oliver decided to go ahead and do a preliminary/final plat for the warehouse lots and to subdivide around Snavely's and the other building also.The subdivision shows the storage site in addition to Lot 2 (Snavely's)and Lot I will be .69 acres in size and has a proposed well and its septic reserve area will be on Lot 3.The water is currently supplied from the southernmost well located on another property Mr.Oliver owns and provides water to the two existing buildings.Lot 2 will be 3 acres in size and has its own septic reserve area on site.Lot 3 is 7.9 acres in size.All of the lots are exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance because there are two existing structures and Lot 3 was created prior to 1993.Mrs. Pietro explained that the site plan covers Lot 3 and referred to the location of the proposed and existing buildings on the plan.The zoning is Business Local.Mrs.Pietro said there will be no outside storage,lighting will be building mounted dusk to dawn lights,there will be no employees,access will be 24 hours a day with approximately 5 vehicles per day expected,no well or septic is proposed or needed but the septic reserve area for Lot I is located on this lot. She reviewed the location of the storm water management pond and the landscaping.All approvals are in. In regards to the subdivision plat,Mrs.Pietro stated that they have some problems since the septic reserve area for Lot 1 is on Lot 3.The second item is that State Highway has not approved the plan and have commented that they will approve it based on the condition that Lot 2 show a proposed future right-of-way of75 feet from the center line,which is what the County Highway Plan recommends.On Lot I,State Highway is recommending a 60 foot right-of-way from the centerline.Mrs.Pietro explained that the proposed future right-of-ways and the 40 foot setback will come into the building and that the owner,Mr.Oliver has a problem with the State's request. Mrs.Pietro said in speaking to Andrea Abend of State Highway,the State will not back down on 209 their request and intend to widen the road as soon as funding is available.A discussion followed regarding the septic reserve area being off site.Mrs.Pietro stated that the staff does not have a problem with the off site septic reserve area and that a note will need to be added to the plat for Lot 3 regarding the septic reserve area for Lot 1.Mr.Oliver spoke explaining why he did not want to convey more than a 40 foot right-of-way and how a 75 foot and 60 foot right-of-way would cut into the parking lots.After a lengthy discussion regarding the location of the water line in the area and Mr.Oliver's request for a 40 foot right-of-way,it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that Mr.Oliver should speak to the State Highway Administration before the Planning Commission would take action.Mr.Iseminger asked to table this issue until the developer and his consultant can communicate with State Highway and have the County Engineer comment on the State's right-of-way request and asked that a representative from State Highway be present at the May meeting to explain their request.Mr.Moser moved to table the preliminary/final plat and site plan until the May meeting.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr. Ardinger and Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Forest Conservation Plans: Richard Divelbiss: Mr.Lung presented the request from Richard Divelbiss for off site forest retention for a one lot residential subdivision.The site is located on the northeast side of Fairview Road and is zoned .Agriculture.The developer is proposing a two lot subdivision out of 17 acres.Lot 2 is for an immediate family member and Lot 3 is located at the other end of the property approximately one acre in size and not for an immediate family member.Mr.Lung stated that there is no forest on the proposed new lot nor is there any priority area.The Forest Conservation Ordinance requires .24 acres of afforestation for this lot and the applicants have requested permission to use the retention of existing forest on the remaining lands.Mr.Lung said that staff supports the use of off site retention as long as there is adequate documentation recorded in the land records which ties this retention area to the remaining lands.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the request for off site forest retention.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Preliminary Consultations: Lakeside Mobile Home Park: Mr.Arch stated that staff had nothing further to add to the summary.After a discussion regarding the fact that the sewer lines and streets are privately owned and that a second water service counection will be put in at the final design stage and forest conservation,it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they concurred with staff s comments. Cavalier Development: Mr.Iseminger stated that he agreed with the Town of Boonsboro's comments regarding the development hooking up to the town water and feels that needs to be a requirement of the approval.A discussion followed regarding the location of sewer in the area,the fact that this property is outside of the Urban Growth Area and that the use of sewer or water would require an amendment to the Water and Sewer Plan.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they agreed with staffs comments. Mack Trucks,Inc.: Mr.Lung explained that they held a consultation in February which included the lots on Pennsylvania Avenue that were presented at that last rezoning hearing requesting a change from Industrial General to Business General.He said that at the consultation Mack Truck discussed their plans regarding the creation of 5 parcels surrounding the rear of the existing Mack Truck 210 plant.He referred to the concept plan and proceeded to explain the location of the existing access and the proposed lots.The 5 industrial lots at the rear of the property range in size from 9 acres up to 51 acres.Mack Truck is proposing is to extend their existing access road to a cul-de- sac. Mr.Lung said that Mack Truck has now made their access onto Maugans Avenue their primary access to the plant.He expressed concern because in the morning trucks are normally lined up along the road until the plant opens up.It is staffs concern that if there is additional development that they will have to relocate the truck staging area and that Mack Truck indicated that they would do that. Mr.Lung said that there was no one present at the consultation from the City of Hagerstown Water Pollution Control who would have control over a portion of the development from a sewer standpoint.He explained that Mack Truck has their own pumping station near Crestwood Drive that collects all of the sewage from the existing facility and sends it to the Hagerstown Treatment plant.Mr.Lung referred to the Hagerstown Water Department's comments concerning low water pressure.From a storm water management standpoint Mr.Lung said that the County Engineer made several comments regarding storm water management on the conceptual drawing. He said they are showing a 10 acre storm water management area on the corner of the property and proceeded to review Engineer Department's comments presented at the consultation regarding their requirements due to previous problems in that area.Mr.Lung said there is concern from the citizens ofthe area about the impact this development may have on the storm water management and the existing conditions.Mr.Lung stated that in addition to other -requirements,Engineering will also require a detailed traffic study.He proceeded to review the Forest Stand Delineation and noted that the site is covered with trees and believes that they should be able to retain enough forest on site to meet the Forest Conservation requirements.Mr. Lung said that staff commented that the developer be sensitive to the appearance of the proposed industrial sites from 1-81.Mr.Robert Darby,an adjacent property owner briefly spoke.He expressed his concern with the storm water management problems in the area as well as the impact from the proposed development and felt that something needs to be done to handle the water.Mr.Iseminger reviewed the comments from the Engineering Department regarding their storm water management requirements and the fact that they want the area over controlled.He said that it is going on record in the Engineering Department and that Mack Truck is aware that this will be an issue and noted that this is only a preliminary stage and when they submit the site plan it will be addressed.Mr.Darby said that he was not opposed to the development but was concerned with the impact on his property.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they concurred with the comments in the summary. OTHER BUSINESS: Kings Crest Subdivision: Mr.Schlossberg made a presentation regarding Kings Crest PUD Subdivision.He explained that the plat was approved some time ago and has zero lot lines on the rear of the lots they created.He stated that with the zero lot line on the rear of the lot,if a property owner wants to have a porch or patio in the back,then they will intrude into the common area.He said the other item they did not take into consideration was the fact that they have eaves overhanging into the common area as well as gutters and spouts overhanging into the common area.Mr.Schlossberg said that in all of those cases it is unique to zero lot line construction.He said there would not be a problem if this were built up against the minimum setback line and cited the Ordinance regarding eaves and overhangs.Mr.Schlossberg said they are seeking to utilize these properties just as they would be utilized if they were built up against the minimum building set back line.He said that they have proposed some notes to be added to the plat making reference that they are seeking a note for an easement up to 50 square feet for the construction of patios,porches,etc.over the open space located adjacent to the rear lot lines and that an easement is reserved on the adjoining lots for open space of construction and maintenance of such projections as described in 23.3.B of the Zoning Ordinance.These notes will appear on the Phase 1 and Phase 2 plats.A lengthy discussion followed regarding the phases,the fact that they will be cutting in the open space and what amenities the developer is proposing to compensate for reducing the open space.Mr. 211 Iseminger stated that what they are requesting is reasonable but if the Plarming Commission had known this at the beginning of this development process the developer would not have the density they have now and instead of doing this in the beginning they are doing this incrementally.Mr.Arch stated that in talking to Paul Prodonovich,Director of Permits and Inspections,he does not have a problem with an open patio but does not want anything enclosed because they will get into a fire wall situation.A discussion followed regarding screened porches.Mr.Moser said that he does not have a problem with the zero lot line;but he does have a problem if they want to encroach into a common area with an enclosed structure.He feels that a patio or porch is fine but feels it should be restricted as far as being enclosed in the future.Mr. Iseminger stated that the intent the PUD is to provide amenities to the people living in this development and he does not see a lot of amenities.He said he wants to see what the developer is proposing to offset this and asked ifthey can put in a gazebo,more benches or additional landscaping.Further discussion followed regarding the zero lot line and amenities.Mr. ScWossberg stated that they are requesting the Planning Commission to approve in concept what they are requesting subject to their submitting the proposed amenity revision which will include the changes that have already been made to address the Plarming Commission's previous concerns.Mr.Arch added that he would also like to get in writing Paul Prodonovich's opinion with regard to enclosures.Mr.Clopper made a motion to table this item until the May meeting with the stipulation that Mr.Prodonovich will review the enclosures and that the developer will present their new amenities as well as a recap on the amenities previously agreed to.Seconded by Mr.Moser.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Planting Plan: Mr.Goodrich said this is a continuation of past presentations on a proposed program to use Forest Conservation funds to plant new forest on private property.Private property owners will be contacted through Soil Conservation Service and paid for a long term easement.There are now two test sites that have been identified.The Lawrence Izer property is southwest of Downsville and is 4.02 acres.The Lester Fant property is located on the Sharpsburg Pike north of the Antietam Battlefield and is approximately 3 acres.He reviewed the plans for each including the types of trees to be used,the types of shrubbery for the understory,how the planting will be done and the easement document.The planting will be contracted out and the costs will include the planting and maintenance for 2 years.It will be the contractors responsibility to insure survival or replant.Mr.Goodrich said that once the contractor is picked they will be working directly with the Soil Conservation District and that the Plarming Department will be handling the paperwork.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the two pilot programs.Seconded by Mr. Clopper.So ordered. APFO Periodic Report: Mr.Arch briefly reviewed the report and the new way the school district calculates their enrollment.Sharpsburg was over capacity by one student and the next time it will probably be under.Mr.Moser moved to recommend to the County Commissioners that they continue the APFO.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Resolution No.97-1,Highway Interchanges Group III &Group V: Mr.Arch explained that this resolution is the formal document for the action the Plarming Commission took last month for the Group III and V interchanges and that he will then take it to the County Attorney to be presented to the Board of Commissioners.Mr.Moser moved to adopt Resolution No.97-1 for recommendations on Highway Interchanges Groups III and V to go to the County Commissioners.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. 212 Comprehensive Plan Update: Mr.Arch referred to the draft of the Comprehensive Plan update he passed out.He explained that this is for the Commission's review and they will talk about it at the next month's meeting and if they have any additions or deletions to give them to him.He said that once the Planning Commission makes a recommendation,he will forward it to the Commissioners.A discussion followed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Bertrand L.Iseminger,Chairrn ~V~\IL , '.M.Jrv~.'-' 213 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -MAY 5,1997 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,May 5, 1997 in the Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand L.Iseminger;Vice Chairman,Bernard L.Moser;R. Ben Clopper,Paula Lampton,Don Ardinger,and Robert Ernst,II.Staff:Director,Robert Arch; Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Associate Planners:Timothy A.Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent was Ex-Officio,James R.Wade. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES: Minutes of February 10,1997 Workshop Meeting: Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the minutes dated February 10,1997.Seconded by Mr. Ardinger.So ordered. Minutes of February 24,1997 Workshop Meeting: Mr.Iseminger stated that the on page I the minutes should be corrected to read "Mr.Iseminger stated when he was on the Joint City/County Study Committee for the Eastern Boulevard corridor they did recommend that it go to two lanes".Mrs.Lampton moved to approve the minutes as amended.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Minutes of March 3,1997 Regular Meeting: Mr.Ernst moved to approve the minutes dated March 3,1997.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Before proceeding with Old Business,Mr.Arch stated that they were removing Dormayne Drive under Other Business. OLD BUSINESS: Oliver Homes Mini Storage: This item was before the Planning Commission at the April meeting for preliminary/final plat and site plan approval but was tabled in order to give the developer time to talk to State Highway regarding their right-of-way requirements.Mrs.Pietro stated that State Highway still wants the 60 and 75 foot right-of-ways for future dedication in their 5 year program and that they are a requirement of the County's Highway Program.She said that the County Engineer also concurs with State Highway's comments.Mr.Oliver said that his position is still the same and felt he cannot give more than 40 feet since that would affect his parking areas.A lengthy discussion followed regarding the right-of-way dedications in the area,what would happen if the Planning Commission approved the plat,the fact that Mr.Oliver has existing buildings on the site that would be affected,and the fact that Mr.Oliver will not do the development if they take the right- of-way at this time.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to grant a variance from the requirement of75 and 60 foot right-of-way down to 40 feet on both properties.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr. Ernst abstained.A vote was taken:Mr.Ardinger,Mr.Clopper Mrs.Lampton and Mr.Iseminger voted yes.Mr.Moser voted no and Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.Mrs.Pietro said what brought this variance about was the subdivision plat and site plan and that they had both been 214 tabled.She stated that all agency approvals have been received for the site plan.She said on the subdivision they are still waiting for State Highway approval.She briefly reviewed the preliminary/final plat for Lots 1,2 and 3 and the site plan for Lot 3 (which were presented in detail at the April meeting).Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the preliminary/final subdivision plat contingent on State Highway and Permits Departments approval.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Mr.Ernst abstained and Mr.Moser voted no.So ordered.Mr.Clopper moved to approve the site plan.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered Kings Crest PUD: Mr.Schlossberg passed out copies of the proposed plan for Phase 1 and proceeded to review the revised notes.In regards to notes 4,5 and 6 on sheet 2,Mr.Schlossberg said they were the notes discussed at the last meeting.He explained that the notes create the easement for the rear porch patio and proceeded to review each one.Mr.Schlossberg proceeded to review the plat for Section B,Phase 2 and the reviewed notes 4 through 7.A discussion followed regarding the revised notes for Phase 2 pertaining to lots I,2,3 and 4.Mr.Arch referred to Mr. Prodonovich's memo which stated that he does not object to the placement of a 3 x 3 slab outside the rear doors since it is required by the Building Code and added that a larger patio may be allowed provided the Planning Commission grants permission.Mr.Arch proceeded to read in detail the rest of the memo regarding the Permits Department's requirements.Mr.Schlossberg said they do not have a problem with Permits requirements.Mr.Schlossberg said at the last .meeting the Planning Commission wanted to know about amenities.He stated they have revised the landscaping plan,are proposing to provide street lighting,and will provide an irrigation system for the continued maintenance of the turf in the common area.Mr.Weikert,consultant, of Fox and Associates proceeded to review in detail the revised landscaping plan which includes walkways,benches,red maples and lampposts and commented that each lot has its own landscaping.A discussion followed.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the revised PUD plan as shown with the revised notes and the stipulation outlined in Mr.Prodonovich's letter to allow within the setbacks for porches and patios at the discretion of the Permits Office for the depth of invasion.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Ernst and Mr.Moser abstained.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Agricultural Land Preservation District Applications: AD-97-03,AD-97-04 and AD-97-05: Mr.Seifarth presented the Agricultural Land Preservation applications for Ray Clark (AD-97- 03),Dianne and Anthony Arena (AD-97-04)and Everett and Frances Norris (AD-97-05).He said that all of the applications have been approved by the Advisory Board.The properties are all located outside of the Urban Growth Area and meet the criteria.Mr.Seifarth proceeded to review each application individually.Mr.Clopper made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that AD-97-03,AD-97-04 and AD-97-05 be included in the Agricultural Preservation Program because they are consistent with the goals and provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Variances: Oakleigh Estates -Final Plat Extension: Mr.Lung stated that the developer was requesting a second extension for the recordation of the Final Plat for Oakleigh Estates for one year.A discussion followed with the developer.Mrs. Lampton made a motion to grant the variance request for a one year extension of the final plat. Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Home Construction -Preliminary Plat Approval Extension: Mr.Arch stated that the developer is requesting a one year extension oftheir preliminary plat 215 approval.A discussion followed regarding the number of extensions for this development and to have staff take a look at extension requests in general.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to grant a variance to allow a one year extension of the preliminary plat.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. Hagerstown Soccer Club -Variance from Forest Conservation: Mr.Arch stated that this is a request from the Hagerstown Soccer Club concerning a variance from the Forest Conservation Ordinance.He said they are interested in purchasing 23 acres located off of Rt.58 to build soccer fields on.Since they are subdividing,they will be subject to the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.Mr.Arch commented that a soccer field is not the best place to plant a forest and as a non-profit organization they do not have a lot of money to pay the fee in lieu of.Mr.Arch referred to the drawing in the agenda packet which shows a small stream that does have some trees on it.He said that the Soccer Club indicated that they would be willing to add some trees to that area,but it would not be enough to qualify for a forest. In accordance with the Forest Conservation Ordinance,a letter was sent to the State asking them to comment and they have not as of this date.Mr.Arch said that the Forest Conservation Variance requirements require that a review be made by an engineer regarding water quality and there is a letter enclosed by Gerald A.Cump stating that this development would not affect the water quality of the small stream.In fact,it was his position that once grass was planted that it may enhance the water quality.A representative ofthe Soccer Club was present and briefly .spoke.Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant a variance from the Forest Conservation Ordinance based on the fact that there will be no development and that the intended use is not compatible with the planting of trees,the fact that the water quality will be improved and that the Soccer Club agrees to follow a planting schedule along the stream with the stipulation that should the property be sold or if there is significant future development that the property will then come under the Forest Conservation Ordinance.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Mrs.Lampton abstained. So ordered. Site Plans: Hub Labels,Inc.: Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for HUB Labels.The property is located on the south side of Shawley Drive in Maugansville and is zoned HI-I.The developer is proposing 51,000 square foot expansion of their existing printing facility and office.The property is 8.28 acres in size and is served by water and sewer.Total number of employees is 190 and hours of operation will be 5:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.Monday through Friday and 6:00 a.m.to 1:00 p.m.Saturday.Mrs.Pietro proceeded to review the parking,freight and delivery,solid waste and recycling program, lighting (building mounted and pole mounted),the two access points,storm water management and landscaping.She stated that this property is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance.A simplified plat for the acquirement of additional land has been submitted to address the 75 foot buffer requirement in the HI-I district.All approvals have been received except for the County Engineer who needs a revised roadway drawing and they are waiting on right-of-way plats from Mr.Dabura to obtain additional land for road improvements.A discussion followed. Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the site plan contingent on Engineering,Permits and Water Pollution Control approvals.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Save A Lot -Phase 2: Mr.Lung presented the site plan for Phase 2 of Save a Lot.The property is located east of Williamsport on Rt.68 and is zoned Planned Industrial and contains 16.93 acres.Mr.Lung stated that a site plan for Phase 1 was approved last month for a 30,000 square foot addition.He stated that for phase 2 the developer is proposing an expansion of 115,980 square feet to the existing warehouse.Mr.Lung said there will be new storm water management facilities, additional truck trailer parking,water and sewer will serve the site.There will be 28 employees, and 55 trucks per day,provisions for recycling and additional landscaping have been provided. 216 He said that the Board of Appeals granted a variance for the rear yard setback.All agency approvals have been received.Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the site plan for Phase II. Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Williamsport Storage Bins: Mr.Lung presented the site plan for Williamsport Storage Bins.He reminded the Commission that the Preliminary Consultation for this site was reviewed at last month's meeting for the expansion of this business.The property is located on Maryland 144 west ofI-81 overpass.Mr. Lung stated that the property contains 12 acres zoned HI and is under consideration for HI-l as part of the comprehensive rezoning of the interchanges.He noted there are no adjacent residential properties.Mr.Lung explained that the expansion is in 2 phases.Phase 1 is for 3 additional mini storage warehouse buildings,a 8,000 square foot building,a 6,500 square foot building and a 21,350 square foot building as well as a new storm water management pond. Phase 2 involves the construction of a new 19,585 square foot office building that would include additional parking,entrance improvements and landscaping.All agencies have submitted their comments.Mr.Lung said they have just received a revision addressing all of the comments and will be routed shortly.Water and sewer facilities are existing,additional landscaping has been provided.This site is exempt from the Forest Conservation requirements because it is an existing lot of record.Mr.Moser moved to grant site plan approval contingent on all agency approvals and receipt of signatures on the site plan.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ernst -abstained.So ordered. Michael and Teresa Myers: Mr.Lung presented the site plan for Michael and Teresa Myers for a new mini storage facility on the east side of Oak Ridge Place in the Hagerstown Industrial Park.He stated that the Planning Commission approved Phase 1 in December for one storage building with 36 bays and the storm water management pond.He said they are looking at the remainder of the project for 7 storage buildings (total of 111 storage units)and a 5,000 square foot office building.The site is on an existing lot of record consisting of3.56 acres and is zoned Industrial Transition.The site is currently not served by public water and sewer.A well and septic is proposed and has been approved by the Health Department.Mr.Lung reviewed the landscaping.The Board of Appeals granted a variance from front yard set back for building number F from 40 feet to 10 feet.The· site is exempt from Forest Conservation requirements since it is a lot of record.All approvals are in.A discussion followed regarding paving the parking area and entrance,and adding a note to the plat regarding the timetable for paving to coincide with build out.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the site plan contingent on a note being added to the plat stating that paving be done around the first 3 buildings,with the remaining paving to be done upon completion of the remaining buildings.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Preliminary Consultations: Ronald and Beverly Forsyth: Mr.Arch said the staff had nothing to add to the comments in the summary.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they concurred with the summary. OTHER BUSINESS: Roger Fairbourn (June Butler -Waiver ofImmediate Family Member Provision): Mr.Arch stated that he received a letter of request from Roger Fairbourn requesting waiving the immediate family member provision for June Butler.Mr.Fairbourn explained that the Butlers subdivided their farm in 1990 and conveyed one parcel to their son,with the intention that the children would be there to help the parents.Since that time,the son has relocated and the daughter has not built on her parcel.Mrs.Butler is by herself and is asking for relief from the immediate family member provision.Mr.Fairbourn explained that the lots created for the 217 children both have adequate road frontage but Mrs.Butler's 3 acre parcel does not and uses a private right-of-way.He further stated that Mrs.Butler wants to combine her parcel (Lot 2) with her daughter's to sell as one parcel.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant the waiver of the immediate family member provision contingent on the two remaining lots being sold as one parcel.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. RZ-97-01 Mack Truck.Inc.: Mr.Lung stated that he had nothing to add to the staff report.A discussion followed regarding State Highway's access requirement.Mr.Iseminger stated he felt that the applicant made a case for a change in the neighborhood and feels that commercial zoning is logical and appropriate on that side of the road.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to recommend that the County Commissioners approve RZ-97-01 due to the fact that the Planning Commission concurs that the neighborhood as presented by the applicant was acceptable to the Planning Commission,that the applicant successfully showed that there has been a change in the character of the neighborhood and concur with the findings of fact as outlined in the staff report and that the requested rezoning is logical and appropriate.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. RZ-97-02 -Triad Rezoning Recommendation: Mr.Arch said that they had no additional information to add to the staff report.Mr.Arch stated -that the applicant is requesting a change from Agricultural to Residential Suburban and that the staff report indicated in its findings of fact that the neighborhood as defined is logical and appropriate and that the applicant demonstrated a change in neighborhood over the years and that the requested rezoning is compatible and appropriate.Mr.Clopper made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that the adopt RZ-97 -02 due to the fact that the Planning Commission concurs that the neighborhood as presented by the applicant was acceptable to the Planning Commission,that the applicant successfully showed that there has been change in the character of the neighborhood and that they concur with the findings of fact as outlined in the staff report and that the requested rezoning is logical and appropriate.Seconded by Paula Lampton.Mr.Ardinger abstained.So ordered. RZ-97-03 Artz Rezoning Recommendation: Mr.Goodrich passed out copies of the addendum to the staff report and proceeded to review it. The addendum addresses the apparent contradiction in the staff report regarding the adequacy of Rench Road as a buffer.Mr.Goodrich explained that the RR zone on the west end will have a lot more potential for conflict from properties on the other side of Rench Road because of the drastic differences in the types of uses between RR and HI-I.On the east end the RR and HI-2 allow similar residential uses and non-residential uses that are compatible.He said that the other paragraph addresses the proposed HI-2 zoning. Mr.Goodrich referred to the exhibit map and proceeded to review the various parcels and their proposed zoning as well as the existing zoning of the adjoining properties,the relationship ofthe site to the UGA boundary,the location of the railroad,the distance to 1-70,subdivisions in the area and the location of Rench Road through the site.The developer is requesting to rezone 170.7 acres to RR,100 acres to IR,276.8 acres to HI-I and 64 acres to HI-2. Mr.Iseminger said that there are two additional issues that need to be addressed when considering a recommendation for the application.The first is the applicants change in the acreage figures for the proposed RR and IR zones from 26 and 100 acres to 36 and 90 acres respectively.The brief discussion indicated the Commission did not feel it was a significant change.Mr.Iseminger said the other issue is whether the Commission must act on the application as a whole or could approve part of the request and disapprove the rest. Mr.Arch said that he spoke to both county attorneys and they could find no information that precludes the Planning Commission from making a recommendation to approve any parts of the application.Mr.Arch said they would still have to find concurrence with the definition of the 218 neighborhood and find the change in its character.Mr.Iseminger said that the first order of business is to determine whether the applicant has demonstrated that there has been a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood to warrant a rezoning.He said whether they accept the applicant's definition of neighborhood or reduce it,there has still been in his opinion substantial change in the neighborhood that could be associated with this rezoning.He pointed out the amount of commercial activity,the installation of water and sewer lines,the fiber optic lines,improvements to Route 65,the proposed interchange at 1-70 are all examples of changes in the neighborhood and feels there has been a change in the character of the neighborhood. A discussion followed regarding the testimony in opposition to the rezoning presented at the hearing as well as correspondence,resident's concerns that can be addressed during site plan approval and the need to set aside land along Rench Road for future right-of-way as well as substantial developer contributions.Also discussed were:change in the character ofthe neighborhood,the historic sites and the testimony from Norfolk and Southern Railroad.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that there has been a change in the character of the neighborhood.Mrs.Lampton said that they all agree there is a change but expressed concern with the size.A discussion followed. Mr.Arch highlighted additional items to consider I)If the property is developed in accordance with the current zoning it would be over a period oftime and would still have to comply with the adequacy provisions 2)With the proposed zoning classification there is a potential for mixing of .traffic between heavy commercial,heavy residential and light residential. Mr.Iseminger said the next step is to look at each of the zoning classifications to determine if they are logical and appropriate and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.He commented on the proposed rezoning as follows:that the large RR section is consistent with the adjoining properties;that the HI-2 on the other side of Rench Road which adjoins existing HI-2 is not a problem;that the RR on the far end whether 26 or 36 acres is not a problem.He does not agree with the proposed IR.He said that it should be left Agriculture or at some other point in time come back with an RR zoning.It would be more consistent with the adjacent Agriculture and the plans for proposed residential development.Rench Road is a logical line with regards to mixing commercial and residential uses. In regards to the HI-I zone Mr.Iseminger felt there is not much difference between it and the Planned Industrial zone of Potomac Edison.He would strongly encourage Potomac Edison and these developers come to an agreement regarding joint access onto Downsville Pike. Mr.Clopper made a motion that they have found that there has been a change in the character of the neighborhood demonstrated by the applicant and that the requested rezoning ofthe 145 acres to RR is logical and appropriate and consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Mr.Moser abstained.So ordered. Mrs.Lampton made a motion to recommend denial of the rezoning ofthe 100 acres to IR. Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Mr.Clopper and Mr.Ardinger voted no.Mrs.Lampton,Mr.Ernst and Mr.Iseminger voted yes.Mr.Moser abstained.So ordered. Mrs.Lampton moved to recommend to the County Commissioners that the Planning Commission found that the applicant demonstrated that there has been a change in the character of the neighborhood and that the requested rezoning of the 26 acres to RR is logical and appropriate and consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Moser abstained.So ordered. Mr.Ardinger moved to recommend to the County Commissioners that they found that the applicant demonstrated that there has been a change in the character of the neighborhood and that the requested rezoning of the 64 acres to HI-2 is logical and appropriate and consistent with the goals and objectives ofthe Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Mr.Moser abstained. So ordered. 219 A discussion followed regarding the 276.8 acres proposed for HI-I.Mrs.Lampton stated that she felt the proposed HI-1 section is extremely large.Further discussion followed regarding traffic on Rench Road and the desire to see a complete picture of the development proposal for the site.Mr.Ardinger moved to recommend to the County Commissioners that they found that the applicant demonstrated that there has been a change in the character of the neighborhood and that the requested rezoning of the 276.8 acres to HI-1 is logical and appropriate and consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Mr.Ardinger, Mr.Ernst,Mr.Clopper and Mr.Iseminger voted yes.Mrs.Lampton voted no.Mr.Moser abstained.So ordered. Mr.Iseminger stated that he would like to pass along as part of this recommendation to the County Commissioners the Planning Commissions concerns regarding the dedication of right- of-way to realign Rench Road,protecting the wetlands,the historic overlay to protect the existing buildings,that forest conservation requirements will be met on site,to have limited access on both Rench Road and the Downsville Pike be part of any future approvals of development plans and would encourage cooperation with Potomac Edison for a shared access off of Downsville Pike.He asked that these concerns be passed on to the Commissioners and the developer.Mr.Clopper said he would like to recommend to the Commissioners that some mechanism be put in place to increase funding for Agriculture preservation districts and hopes in the future that the citizens supports that type of action as much as they fought to keep this rezoning from happening and add that off site improvements will be the responsibility of the -developer and this development will be subject to the APFO requirements. CIP: Mr.Arch stated that each year the Planning Commission has to take action on the consistency of the projects.He said there are a number of projects in the CIP and briefly reviewed them.Mrs. Lampton moved to recommend that the projects in the CIP are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. A discussion followed regarding upcoming meetings. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. '.h+dX~~~ C~L.Iseminger,Chairm: 220 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -JUNE 2,1997 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,June 2, 1997 in the Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman;Bertrand 1.Iseminger,Vice Chairman;Bernard 1.Moser,R. Ben Clopper,Paula Lampton,Don Ardinger,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio James R.Wade. Staff:Director;Robert C.Arch,Senior Planner;Stephen T.Goodrich,Associate Planners; Timothy A.Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro,James R.Brittain and Secretary;Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. Before proceeding with New Business,Mr.Arch asked to add a variance request for an additional extension of the preliminary plat approval for Creative Associates,Phase 2 Sterling Oaks.Mr.Wade made a motion to add the item to the agenda.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Variances: Angelo and Corrine Petrone: Mrs.Pietro presented the variance request for Mr.and Mrs.Petrone.The property is located on Itnyre Road and is zoned Agriculture.The request is from the requirement that all newly created lots have a minimum of 25 feet of public road frontage.The owner is proposing to subdivide 4.77 acres into 2 lots with the existing house to remain on Lot 7.Mrs.Pietro stated that Mr.and Mrs.Petrone want to sell the existing housing and build a smaller home on the proposed Lot 7A. The new lot would also contain the barn and would access onto the existing driveway.Mrs. Pietro said that the County Engineer does not have a problem with the sight distance.A discussion followed regarding adjoining properties that have a similar configuration,the fact that there will be a deeded easement,the fact that financial reasons are not a hardship according to the Ordinance but that not having enough road frontage is.Mr.Ardinger moved to approve the variance to create a lot without public road frontage with the stipulation that the two lots share one access with the right-of-way placed on the deeded plat.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr. Moser voted no.So ordered. Gregory Barr-Removal of 10 year family member statement: Mrs.Pietro presented the variance request for Gregory Barr.The property is located on the west side of Jordan Road and is zoned Agriculture.The owner is requesting that the Planning Commission remove the 10 year family member restriction from his lot.Mrs.Pietro explained that Mr.Barr's grandmother created 3 lots in 1990.She stated that the road is inadequate and in order to approve the subdivision the 10 year family restriction was placed on the plat.Since that time Mr.Barr has moved to Cumberland and is unable to use the lot (Lot 13 -2 acres)and would like to sell it to someone outside of the family.Mrs.Pietro said that Gray Hebb of the Engineering Department recommends denial of the variance due to the current inadequacy of the road.A discussion followed with Mr.Barr regarding the lot,the road,the APFO and obtaining verification of employment from Mr.Barr's employer,the removal of the 10 year family member statement and having the APFO requirement transferred to the new owner.A discussion followed regarding what happens once the time limit expires.Mr.Arch stated that according to 221 the Ordinance when the time limit is up it allows for a 16 foot road having to be in place in front of the lot,so they do not have to make all of the improvements.Mr.Iseminger stated that if they allowed the removal ofthe 10 year family statement that they would still require Mr.Barr or whoever purchases the lot to make the improvements along the frontage ofthat lot.Further discussion followed regarding the variance request,and having a moratorium on variances to give the Planning Commission time to review the Ordinance.Mr.Clopper made a motion to remove the 10 year family member statement with the stipulation that the roadway be improved to meet the existing ordinances.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Moser asked ifthey are obligating the new owner to all of Jordan Road.Mr.Clopper amended the motion to state the road in front of Lot 13 would have to be improved to 16 feet of width by the future owner and with the condition that Mr.Barr's employer send a letter to the Planning Commission verifying his employment.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Moser voted no.So ordered. Gardner Cook: Mr.Goodrich presented the variance requests for Gardner Cook.The property is located on the west side of MD Route 65 near Tilghmanton.The variance requests are to create a lot without public road frontage (Lot 2)and for a reduction in panhandle width (Lot 3).Mr.Goodrich stated that Mr.Cook owns 5 acres with frontage on Sharpsburg Pike,zoned Agriculture.He is proposing to create 2 lots for family members.Lot 2 will not have any road frontage and would .use the right-of-way through Lot 3.Lot 3 would have only a 12 foot wide panhandle.There is an existing entrance within the panhandle and an access permit has already been issued.A discussion followed.Mrs.Lampton moved to grant the variance from the panhandle width requirement and to grant a variance to create a lot without public road frontage with the condition that the 10 year family member statement be added to the plat.Seconded.So ordered. John and Sandra Grossnickle: Mr.Lung presented the variance request for John and Sandra Grossnickle.The property is located on Marsh Pike and contains Baer's Lawn &Garden equipment business.It consists of 1.86 acres zoned Residential Suburban.Mr.Lung stated that the applicant wants to create a lot with an access 170 feet from an existing commercial access to the north and 80 feet from a residential access to the south.He stated that the Board of Appeals granted a special exception for the existing business in 1983,located in an abandoned creamery building.Mr.Baer now wants to convey a .36 acre lot to his daughter and son-in-law for the purpose of building a house. Mr.Lung stated that the proposed lot location does not impact the existing business.He said that the County Engineer has reviewed the plat and does not object and proceeded to review his comments.Mr.Lung said that staff is concerned with the fact that they are reserving 25 feet of road frontage to the south of the proposed lot for a possible future subdivision lot to the rear of the property.Staff suggested if the Planning Commission is inclined to approve the variance that they require that the entrance to the new lot be set up so that it can be used as a shared entrance if there is any future subdivision.This was also the County Engineer's recommendation.Mr. Moser moved to grant a variance from the access separation with the conditionthat any future subdivision would access Marsh Pike via a shared access.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Steve Oder: Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Steve Oder.The applicant is requesting a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance pertaining to the stacking of panhandle lots and to use natural regeneration to meet the Forest Conservation requirements.The property is located on the east side of Dam #4 Road and contains 37 acres zoned Conservation.Mr.Lung stated that the Planning Commission previously approved the use of a cluster design for 7 lots and proceeded to review the history of the property.He explained that they were unable to get 7 percs and are now proposing 5 lots based on standard Conservation guidelines.He commented that they will no 222 longer have a public street.Lot 1 contains the existing farm buildings and consists of 18 acres and was not part of the previous plan.tot 2 contains 3.3 acres and has a panhandle,Lot 3 contains 4.0 acres,Lot 4 contains 3.2 acres.Lots 3 and 4 both front Dam #4 Road.Mr.Lung said that what is referred to as remaining lands is actually a building lot and contains 8.4 acres and is also a panhandle lot.Mr.Lung said that this configuration creates a 3 tier stacking arrangement.The applicant maintains that this configuration is necessary due to topographic conditions which limit the available perc locations.Mr.Lung noted that in the Plarming Commission's previous approval they had a condition that the lots along Dam #4 Road be provided screen plantings from the road.A discussion followed with the developer and the owner regarding the new proposed design and the number of accesses onto Dam #4 Road. Mr.Lung stated that the developer is proposing to meet the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements with natural regeneration,which has not yet been done in the County.The developer is minimizing the amount of required forest conservation by the way he has designated the remaining lands.Mr.Lung explained that the remaining lands are not subject to the Forest Conservation Ordinance and in this case,is essentially a building lot.What is referred to as Lot 1 (which is what would normally be called remaining lands)contains the existing farm house and it would be exempt from the Forest Conservation requirements since it contains an existing dwelling.He further stated that the Forest Stand Delineation shows no existing forest on the site and the worksheet shows 2.2 acres of afforestation required.The developer is proposing to use natural regeneration which is the lowest method in the preferred sequence ofteclmiques of .forestation and reforestation.The applicant feels this is a viable option since he is proposing a back up afforestation plan and a surety if the regeneration does not work.Mr.Lung proceeded to explain what is involved with natural regenerations and the location of the site and the type of trees on that site.DNR has looked at the site and commented that regeneration would be a viable alternative however,the applicant should provide a provision in the Forest Conservation Plan for the control of invasive species.She suggested an initial clearing of the invasive species and then a follow up inspection after one year and another clearing to make sure that they are keeping up on the control of the invasive species.Mr.Lung explained that the developer would still submit an afforestation plan showing how they would plant the area (if the natural regeneration fails) and post a bond.After 2 years the site would be inspected and if it did not meet the criteria they would have to do supplemental planting and the clock would start again.Mr.Lung said that this has been done in Frederick County.A discussion followed regarding what is labeled as remaining lands and whether the 8.4 acres is actually remaining lands since it can be subdivided. Mr.Iseminger stated that because there is an existing house on Lot 1,it is exempt from the Forest Conservation requirements and that the lot labeled as remaining lands is actually a buildable lot and would require another 1.6 acre of afforestation.A discussion followed regarding requiring an additional 1.6 acres of forest conservation,concern with the use of natural regeneration,concern with lot configuration,maintaining the rural character of the area and the number of accesses onto Dam #4 Road and the possible future subdivision of Lot 1 for family members.Mr.Ernst made a motion to grant a variance to allow the staking of panhandles with the stipulation that Lot 2 and the remaining lands share a driveway and Lots 3 and 4 share a driveway and with the condition that the remaining lands be treated as a buildable lot which will increase the forest conservation requirements by approximately 1.6 acres and to allow the use of natural regeneration as a means of satisfying Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements per the recommendation of the DNR.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Moser abstained.So ordered. Creative Investments: Mr.Arch stated that this is for the extension of preliminary plat approval of Sterling Oaks Phase 2.Mr.Arch explained that this has been extended before and that the property has changed hands to Creative Investments who are moving ahead with construction on Sterling Road and will be coming in shortly with the final plans.He said that they are requesting a 1 year extension of the preliminary plat.Mr.Moser moved to approve the request for a one year extension of the preliminary plat.Seconded by Jim Wade.So ordered. 223 Subdivisions: K.K.T.M.Co.,Inc.Lots 1-3: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final plat for K.K.T.M.lots 1-3.The site is located on the south side of Mapleville Road and contains 14.78 acres zoned Industrial Restricted.It is currently the site of Fil-Tec Inc.near Smithsburg.The owner is proposing to divide the property into 3 lots.Lot 3 contains the existing manufacturing building and is on 5.77 acres.Lot 2 is a future building site and consists of 4.99 acres and Lot 1 is also a future site consisting of 4.02 acres. There is 3.39 acres of remaining lands which is unusable because it contains steep slopes and flood plain areas and is also being used to meet the forest conservation requirements.Access will be off of MD Rt.66 via an existing access road approved by State Highway.The existing plant is served by an onsite septic system.Public sewer will be provided to the existing plant upon development of Lot 2.The public water is provided to the site by two different agencies. Water for domestic use is provided by the Town of Smithsburg and water for fire protection will be provided by the City of Hagerstown.This is due to the fact that the pressure at this location is not adequate for fire protection for the town of Smithsburg to provide.Mr.Lung stated that staff was initially concerned with the configuration of the remaining lands because it is an unbuildable piece of property.The Town of Smithsburg wants this parcel to add their adjacent holdings (Smithsburg Water Supply system)and a simplified plat has been submitted.The forest stand delineation shows 1.56 acres of existing forest.The developer intends to remove .11 acres of ,forest around Lot 1 and will be retaining 1.45 acres.The worksheet shows that the developer is required to afforest .94 acres and that will occur in a afforestation/reforestation area on the remaining lands.The applicant is proposing to plant approximately 400 trees.Mr.Lung stated that a surety amount will be set up in the amount of $4,094.64.He said that the plat is ready for approval except for approval by the Water Department of revisions and submittal of the two year maintenance agreement for the forest conservation area.A discussion followed.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the preliminary/final subdivision plat contingent on the Water Department's final approval and submission of the forest conservation maintenance agreement. Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the forest conservation plan and the surety amount of $4,094.64.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Mr.Moser made a motion to grant staff the authority to approve the simplified plat for the transfer of the remaining lands to the town of Smithsburg.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. St.James Village North Phases III &IV PreliminarylFinal Plat: Mr.Brittain presented the preliminary plat for St.James Village North Phases III and IV.He stated that Phase III consists of 35 single family units on 10.3 acres,public water and sewer will serve the site.The water portion is serviced by the City of Hagerstown and the sewer is serviced by Washington County.There are some outstanding agency comments regarding the construction drawings.Mr.Brittain said he spoke to all of the agencies reviewing the drawing and none of them were things that would easily be overcome.He said that a large stormwater management structure is located in Phase III and will also serve Phase IV,V and VI.The County Engineering Department has recommended a note be added to the plat that basements are not recommended on Lots 20 -28 and Lot 245 in Phase III and Lots 147,152,153,262 and 263 in Phase IV.Mr. Ardinger made a motion to grant preliminary plat approval for Phases III and IV contingent on final agency approvals and notes being added to the plat with regard to the basements and incorporation of grading plans as recommended by the Engineering Department.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Site Plans: Valley World Parcel II: Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Valley World.The property is located at the intersection 224 of Halfway Boulevard and 1-81 and is zoned HI-I.The developer is proposing to build additional mini storage warehouses with access off of Cole Road.The proposed warehouse will be located on parcel 2 and the building area will be approximately 16,400 square feet.The projected daily use will be about 5 customers per day and will be open 24 hours and will have an electronic security gate opened by key card.She reviewed the location of the dumpsters, lighting,signage and landscaping.All agency approvals have been received.A discussion followed regarding the internal traffic flow and Cole Road.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to grant site.plan approval.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Preliminary Consultations: Pin Oak Terrace: Mrs.Pietro said that she did not have anything to add to the summary.Mr.Cump,consultant,of Gerald A.Cump and Associates,Inc.briefly spoke.He said that since the time of the consultation they have revised the concept plan to reflect the comments from the meeting.He referred to the comments in the summary regarding the private roads and the fact that the developer would like the roads to be public.He said they revised the concept plan showing a public road going straight through the existing development,added the public water and sewer, added the stormwater management pond.The site will now have 34 units instead of 50 units as .shown on the previous plan.Mr.Cump noted that Mr.Schreiber of the Permits Department commented that the RM zoning requires a minimum of 5 acres for the site and they have 3 acres. They will talk to Mr.Prodonovich regarding that.It was the consensus of the Plarming Commission that they agreed with the comments in the summary. Burgesser Subdivision: Mrs.Pietro stated that she had nothing to add to the summary.It was the consensus of the Plarming Commission that they concurred with the comments in the summary. OTHER BUSINESS: Demolition Permit -Richard Weber: Mr.Goodrich proceeded to review the County's policy for demolition permits and added that the Historic District Commission will be reviewing the demolition permit at their next meeting June 4th.Mr.Goodrich said that in the past the Plarming Commission has deferred the decision to the Historic Commission.He then proceeded to review the application.The dwelling on the property is the oldest dated structure in the County and is the applicant's residence.The building that is proposed to be demolished is currently being used as a garage and is in poor repair.A discussion followed with the applicant.Mrs.Lampton made a motion that they would defer the decision and concur with the Historic District Commission's recommendation.Seconded by Mr. Clopper.So ordered. CP-97-02 (Ft.Ritchie Rezoning Special Plarming Area)and CP-97-03 (Streamlining) Recommendations: Mr.Iseminger stated that both applications were straight forward and that staff was recommending that both be approved.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that they adopt CP-97-02 for the Fort Ritchie Comprehensive Plan amendment as advertised.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. 225 Mr.Ernst made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that they adopt CP-97-03 which incorporates the streamlining provisions as presented at the joint public hearing. Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Upcoming Meetings: A discussion followed regarding the meeting with the Frederick County Planning Commission for Tuesday,June 3,1997 in Frederick.The quarterly joint rezoning hearing will be held on Monday,June 9,1997 at the Court House.It was also the consensus of the Planning Commission to hold a workshop meeting on Monday,June 23,1997 at 7:00 p.m.to discuss varIances. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. Be~rand L.Iseminger,Chail 226 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -JUNE 23,1997 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday June 23, 1997 in the Commissioners meeting room. Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand L.Iseminger;Vice-Chairman,Bernard Moser;Paula Lampton,Don Ardinger,and Robert Ernst,II.Staff:Planning Director,Robert C.Arch; Associate Planner,Timothy A.Lung;and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent were:R. Ben Clopper and Ex-Officio,James R.Wade. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:03 p.m. Mr.Arch reviewed the memo of June 17th regarding staff s recommendations in streamlining the variance process as well as a letter from Terry McGee from March of 1997 regarding circumventing APFO road adequacy policy requirements by using the remaining lands .designation.Mr.Arch said that staff met with the Permits Department regarding variances.He explained they did an analysis of the variances that are the most popular and tried to address them.Mr.Iseminger asked if stafflooked at some of the issues to see if the Ordinance made sense and if it needs to be changed.Mr.Arch said that they did and there are some cases where they will need Ordinance revisions as well as major rewrites to both the Zoning Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance.Mr.Ardinger briefly commented on the recommendations and feels there is a need for it and asked how other counties handle variances.A discussion followed regarding what other counties do and the Board of Appeals process and streamlining the variance process.Mr.Iseminger suggested sending a copy of this proposal to the Board of Appeals for comments. Mr.Arch referred to the recommendations outlined in the June 17th memo and proceeded to review them.Item #1 -Charge a fee of $100.00 for variances.A discussion followed regarding the fact that the preparation of a variance for presentation can take 2 to 3 hours (this includes meeting with applicant,completing the application,inspecting the site and preparing a drawing).Item #2 -Creating lots without road frontage and the requirement of25 feet of road frontage.Planning staff is suggesting that they do not grant them any more and that they enforce the 25 foot requirement in the Subdivision Ordinance and adopt a policy and notify the consultants.A discussion followed regarding the possibility of encouraging a cul-de-sac and create more density,the Smart Growth Bill,the family member lots being sold to nonfamily members and violations of the Ordinance.Mr.Iseminger said to send a letter to the developers and engineers advising them of these changes. Item #3 -Panhandle length.Mr.Arch proceeded to review the criteria for administrative variances (Panhandle Length,Access Spacing and Twenty Five Foot Road Frontage Requirement).Mr.Iseminger asked what would happen if staff administratively denied a variance,what would be the next step for the applicant and would it go to the Planning Commission.Mr.Arch stated that staff would be acting on behalf of the Planning Commission and if they do deny it that it would then go the Zoning Board of Appeals.A discussion followed regarding giving the applicant the option to go to the Planning Commission instead of staff,the administrative review process,the number of variances they get a year,the fact that other counties do not have variances,the fact that the way the draft policies are written if staff turns down a variance it then goes to the Board of Appeals and not to the Planning Commission and that the purpose of the policies is to eliminate some of the variances that go before the Planning Commission and to make sure that the public has the proper channels to address their needs. Mr.Ernst stated that he felt that staff should have the simplified approvals and that the difficult ones go to the Planning Commission.After further discussion it was the consensus of the 227 Planning Commission to leave policy 3 as written and see what happens. Item #4 -10 year family member statement.Mr.Arch said that staff felt there were 3 items that the Planning Staff could act on and any other reason would come before the Planning Commission. Item #5 -Time extensions.Mr.Arch reviewed the process for Preliminary and Final plat extensions. Item #6 -Simplified plats.Mr.Arch said that staff wants to modify and get rid of simplified plats.He said the simplified plat process is used for two purposes -one is for enlargement of the property and the second is to create 3 acre parcels for agriculture purposes only.He said they would rather see that they cannot create lots with the simplified plat process because every lot created is for development purposes.But what they can do is to create a simplified process for the enlargement of lots.Mr.Arch said that there is not much difference between the simplified plat and a development plat. Item #7 -Remaining lands.Mr.Arch said that when remaining lands were created it was not the intent for them to be development lots to get arolmd various regulations,as is currently occurring.He said that staff has created a definition to address this problem and proceeded to review the definition.A discussion followed. It was the consensus ofthe Planning Commission to proceed with what is presented.Mr.Arch said that he will put it in good form and the Planning Commission can act on it at their next meeting. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. <:,I 11(t)~-NL-l1'~fJwv'v\J'-c/ Be~and L.Iseminger,Chairman (J 228 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -mLY 7,1997 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,July 7,1997 in the Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand 1.Iseminger;Paula Lampton,R.Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,James R.Wade.Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch; Farmland Preservation Administrator,Eric Seifarth;Senior Planners,Lisa Kelly Pietro,Timothy A.Lung;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. Absent was Vice Chairman,Bernard Moser. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. Before proceeding with the agenda items,Mr.Arch asked that 2 items be added to the agenda and that one be removed.He requested that the tentative text amendment RZ-97-06 be removed because Mr.Prodonovich is still working on it.He then requested to add a variance for.Harry .Doyle to create 4 lots without public road frontage and one site plan for Burger King (Assad Ghattas).Mr.Ernst made a motion to add the items to the agenda.Seconded by Mr.Wade.So ordered. MINUTES: Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the minutes of April 7,1997.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.In regards to the minutes of May 5,1997,Mr.Iseminger referred to page 3 under Hub Labels and stated that the hours of operation should be 5:00 a.m.until 5:00 p.m.Mr.Iseminger asked that in regards to RZ-97-02 that the tape be checked to see ifMr.Arch or Mr.Iseminger stated that the applicant demonstrated change.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the minutes of June 2,1997.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Agricultural Land Preservation District A];l];llications: AD-97-06,AD-97-07 and AD-97-08: Mr.Seifarth presented the three applications.He stated that they are located outside the Urban Growth Area and the 10 year water and sewer service areas.He said that the Agricultural Advisory Board has approved them.Mr.Clopper made a motion that AD-97 -06,AD-97-07 and AD-97-08 are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and recommend that the County Commissioners that they approve them.Seconded by Mrs. Lampton.Mr.Wade abstained.So ordered.A discussion followed. Variances: Robert Millard: Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Robert Millard.The applicant is requesting a 229 variance form Section 405.11.G.2 of the Subdivision Ordinance which stipulates that a maximum of 4 panhandle lots are allowed out of the original parcel.Mr.Lung stated that the developer is proposing a subdivision with 10 lots,5 of which are panhandles.Mr.Lung said that the applicant's hardship is that even though access to Gapland Road is available for Lot 17, Engineering Department prefers the panhandle to provide access to Guard Court which is a new street serving the subdivision.Mr.Lung proceeded to review the history of the property.He said that two preliminary consultations have been held for this property with two different consultants.He said that one was done in February of 1995 when the consultant was Fox and Associates.That proposal showed 4 panhandles total with 1 existing panhandle.At that time the developer was notified that would be the limit of the number of panhandles.Mr.Lung said that also at that time staff stressed a recommendation for clustering and that recommendation was endorsed by the Planning Commission.Another consultation was held in August of 1995 with Frederick Seibert and Associates as the consultant.That concept plan showed 12 lots with 1 existing panhandle lot and 4 proposed panhandles and at that time the plan did not show the date of the existing panhandle so they did not know if that was created prior to the 1989 cut off date. Mr.Lung stated that again staff and the Planning Commission recommended clustering.At that time the consultant stated that due to the topographic conditions that clustering would be difficult.Mr.Lung said that on May 13,1997 they received a plat for 10 lots showing 4 new panhandles and referred to his exhibit plat.Mr.Lung referred to the applicant's reason for hardship (access for lot 17 onto Guard Court being a safer access)and noted that Lot 17 has frontage onto Gapland Road as well as the proposed panhandle access onto Guard Court.He said that Gapland Road is a minor collector highway with 100 foot minimum access separation distance,which could probably be met.He said that there may be a sight distance problem with access onto Gapland Road.He said that it may be a true statement that it is a hardship for Lot 17,however,staff is concerned with the overall design of the subdivision and the fact that staff recommended twice before the use of clustering and that the other two panhandles do not show excellence in design other than allowing the developer to maximize the number of lots.He said staff is also concerned with what will happen in the future which could result in additional requests for panhandles because of undeveloped frontage along the proposed road which has the potential to be subdivided in the future and may require a panhandle to serve the existing farm buildings in the back.Mr Lung referred to existing parcel approved in 1990 for an immediate family member conveyance without public road frontage and it currently has a right-of-way on the plat.Staff is concerned that if this lot is ever provided road frontage,it would require another panhandle based on the current proposed lot layout.Mr.Lung stated that staff is concerned with this piece of property due to its location outside of the UGA and because of its location from a historic standpoint.A discussion followed regarding the lot configuration,the variance for proposed Lot 17 and the history of the property and the fact that staff s concern is that with the proposed configuration the applicant may have to come back in the future for additional panhandles.At this point Mr.Millard briefly spoke regarding the configuration of Lot 17 and that he has someone interested in purchasing Lot 17 (they own the adjoining lot)who wants to eliminate the panhandle to Guard Court and will have access through their lot to Lot 17 so there will be no need for that panhandle unless they sell the property in the future.Mr.Iseminger said that Mr.Millard makes a case for Lot 17 but not the other proposed panhandle lots.He feels they need to demonstrate excellence in design and that staff has told him in the past that they would work with him if they came back with a design that showed some innovation.He said that what is shown,is doing the least to get the most.A lengthy discussion followed regarding the hardship,the fact that the applicant does not want to cluster because they want 3 acres lots,the fact that economics is not a hardship,and the plans for future development of the farm.Mr. Iseminger stated that he would like to see a better plan than what is being presented and does not want to act on the variances if at all possible.He said if this is the only way to go,fine,but it does not look to be the only way to go and feels that they need to clear up the right-of-way to the 10 acre lot before the other lots are sold.Mr.Ardinger commented that he feels there should be a redesign for many reasons.He would like to see that instead of having to vote against the variance.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger said he would like to see the applicant come back at the next month's meeting and address the access to the 10 acres.A discussion followed regarding whether Mr.Millard would be interested in selling development rights to the property. Mr.Iseminger suggested that the applicant meet with his consultant and comeback at to the August meeting and if the design as presented is what he wants the Planning Commission to act 230 on they will act on it in August.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to table the variance request until the August meeting.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Church ofInternational Fellowship: Mr.Goodrich presented the variance request for the Church ofInternational Fellowship to remove the restriction of the 10 year family member statement from a previously approved plat. The property is located on the east side of Alternate Route 40,north of Boonsboro.Mr. Goodrich stated that the Church,plans to purchase the 15 acres that was previously divided by Mr.Yommer.Attorney Stone's letter explained that a one acre lot was subdivided from the 15 acre parcel for an immediate family member.The Church now proposes to recombine both parcels and construct a Church.The 10 year family member restriction would not allow the church to purchase the 1 acre parcel.Mr.Goodrich stated that the applicant is also requested a waiver of enforcement of the Forest Conservation Ordinance exemption that was granted to the parcel.Staff does not feel that is necessary since they are going back to the original configuration and a declaration of intent stated only that when this parcel is conveyed out of family ownership that the Planning Commission be notified.That will be accomplished upon submittal of a plat to combine the parcels. He said that the request is to release the one acre parcel from the family member restriction so that it can be conveyed to the Church along with the other portion of the property.A discussion followed.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to remove the 10 year family member statement in order to recombine the two lots with the stipulation that title will be transferred to the Church of International Fellowship and if any subsequent subdivision or reuse would take place that it would fall under the Forest Conservation Ordinance and with the requirement that a replat be submitted showing the lines being abandoned.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Harry Doyle: Mr.Arch stated that he handed out information on the variance.He explained that this situation just came to his attention in reviewing a subdivision submittal.He explained that they have a request to create 4 lots without public road frontage.The applicant is proposing a 4 lot immediate family member subdivision with access off of Keadle Road.Mr.Arch stated that the consultant has submitted some information on Keadle Road and the Engineering Department has not had an opportunity to review it.He said that the access off of Keadle Road would be back a 25 foot easement through the property owned by the State of Maryland coming back to the 4 lots and then in front of Lots 3 and 4 there would be a 25 foot easement area to lots 1 and 4.The applicant has owned the property since 1946 and now wants to take two lots and subdivide them into lots for his children and the subdivision would qualify for exemption under 405 .11.B which deals with lots and the 25 foot requirement and that the lot can be subdivided for immediate family members fronting on a private road or right-of-way existing at the time of the original parcel acquisition by the current owner.Mr.Arch said that provision is interpreted normally to be invoked when there is an existing farm lane through the property which subdivision would take place on that lane somewhat contained within the entire section.He said that this is somehow different then how staff would interpret the application of this site.He said it is more of a creation of lots without road frontage.Mr.Doyle briefly spoke.He stated that 2 years ago they contacted the Planning office to see what they had to do to get the property subdivided into 4 lots.He said they were told at that time that they needed a deeded right of way to get back to the 4 lots.They had to go through the State of Maryland.He explained what he went through to acquire the right-of-way from the State and said that the easement stipulates that is for only 4 lots.He said that when they applied with the State of Maryland,it was for a 25 foot right-of-way and that the State wants limited access and that Engineering has okayed the access and all of the lots have been perced.He also noted that the Board of Appeals had granted a variance for lot widths.Mr.Iseminger expressed concern with the Board of Appeals acting on the width of the lots without the lots being created by the Planning Commission and felt that a letter should be sent to the Board of Appeals expressing concern regarding sequence of events.He said that at 231 the last meeting one of the variances they do not want to create is to create lots without road frontage.A discussion followed regarding the fact that Mr.Doyle has been working on this for two years.Mr.Iseminger said that he wants the County Engineer to review the plat and wants to see what he has to say in regards to the adequacy of the road and wants a letter from the ranger in charge of Greenbriar State Park regarding the fact that they do not have a problem with creating 2 additional lots and tabling this until the August meeting.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to table until the August meeting with the condition that Terry McGee review the plan and give comments with regards to road adequacy and that they have something in writing from Greenbriar State Park regarding the creation of 4 buildable lots.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Site Plans: Burger King: Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Burger King.The property is located on the north side of Maugans Avenue and east ofa new street Oliver Drive and is zoned HI-I.The developer is proposing to build a Burger King with a drive through on 2 acres,which previously had a gas station.The site will be served by public water and sewer.Access to the site will primarily be off of Oliver Drive and an in only off of Maugans Avenue.Mrs.Pietro reviewed the hours of .operation (6:00 a.m.until II p.m.with 3 shifts),the number of employees (8 to 12 people), parking spaces (71),the location of the screened dumpster area,pole mounted and building mounted lighting,landscaping,signage and sidewalks which will connect with the future development on the remaining lands.All approvals are in.Mrs.Pietro said that State Highway approved this plat but anything further done to the rear of the property will require a traffic study. Mr.Wade made a motion to approve the site plan.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. (Mr.Wade left the meeting) RZ-97-04 -John Young: Mrs.Pietro stated that she had nothing else to add to the staff report.Mr.Iseminger referred to the staff report and noted that staff agrees with the definition of neighborhood and that the property is within the Urban Growth Area.He said that the applicant demonstrated that there has been a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood and that there have been a number of changes such as the road construction,water and sewer line extensions,the Robinwood Medical Center and recent rezonings.Mr.Iseminger said that the proposed rezoning is logical and appropriate.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that they adopt RZ-97 -04 due to the fact that the Planning Commission concurs that the neighborhood as presented by the applicant was acceptable to the Planning Commission,that the applicant successfully showed that there has been a change in the character of the neighborhood and that they concur with the findings of fact as outlined in the staff report and that the requested rezoning is logical and appropriate.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Preliminary Consultations: Cross Creek: Mrs.Pietro stated that they held a consultation on May 22 for Cross Creek South,which is adjacent to the Cross Creek development consisting of single family residences off of Sharpsburg Pike.She stated that this portion had originally been proposed for commercial development and that the developer,Hilton Smith,would like to tie it in with the residential development.A discussion followed regarding whether the property was zoned HI -lor 2.Mr.Arch said that a section of it is HI -I.Mrs.Pietro referred to the proposed Battle Creek Boulevard which is to be constructed in the initial stages of the development and that the developer does not want to do 232 that.Mr.Arch said that they do not want the developer to actually connect through.They want them to stop 20 feet from Poffenberger Road and that the COlmty will malce the connection once they decide what they are doing with the Rench Road design.Mr.Iseminger said that they made that clear at the beginning of the process.Mrs.Pietro said that there was some confusion and that the developer felt when this started in 1989 that they were not aware that they would have to construct the entire street.She said that another item brought up at the meeting by Ed Schreiber of the Permits Department,which she concurs with is that the road to service the commercial area runs through the residential area.She said that Mr.Schreiber recommends that the street be cut off and that anything to be serviced in the commercial section come off of Battle Creek Boulevard instead of bringing traffic through the residential development.She said that Bill Weikert of Fox and Associates stated that they are revising the plan to address that comment.It was the consensus of the Plarming Commission that they concurred with the staff's and agencies comments and the extension of Battle Creek. Evangel Baptist Church: Mr.Lung stated that a consultation was not required on this plan and that it was requested by the consultant.He explained that the church is proposing to construct a multi-purpose facility.The property is located along Broadfording Road.Mr.Lung explained that there is an existing Church on the property.The church owns three parcels.Mr.Lung referred to the summary and -said that the biggest problem is with the Health Department.He noted that the property does not currently have public water and sewer and there are some old septic systems serving the existing uses.The construction of the new facility will trigger new review by the Health Department which will require them to do some considerable reworking of the existing septic systems and designation of new reserve area.Mr.Zoretich said that they pre-perced the property and that the Health Department had some requirements for a kitchen and the sizing and that the contractor and the Health Department are to meet next week to resolve it.Mr.Lung said that this site is in an area to eventually be served by public water and sewer and that it is in the Growth Area.The County does not currently have any plans but if development occurs on the south side of Broadfording Road then the church could possibly hook up.At this time it would not be economically feasible.Mr.Lung said that the other issue is that the property is in three different parcels and that the proposed multi-purpose building will span two parcels.He said that they will have to combine the three parcels into one zoning lot and that will create a problem because they would then have more than one principal use on a lot.This would require a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.Another issue pertains to setbacks.Mr.Lung said that the property is presently zoned Highway Interchange.This property is part of the Comprehensive HI rezoning and is proposed to be changed to Highway Interchange 2.Mr.Lung said with the present zoning the Church would be required to adhere to 75 foot buffers.If the property becomes HI-2 they would only have 25 foot buffers.Mr.Lung said that the only thing the Plarming Commission would be involved in would be allowing parking in the buffer yards.He said that in the past the Plarming Commission has allowed access lanes serving parking areas to infringe on buffer yards as long as they provide adequate screening.The other issue is Forest Conservation and whether Forest Conservation would be imposed if a subdivision would occur that would eliminate the property lines.Mr.Lung said that it was staff's opinion that technically there would be a subdivision but did not think that was the intent of the Forest Conservation Ordinance to cause that to trigger the Forest Conservation requirements.The staff's opinion is that the Forest Conservation requirements would not apply.A discussion followed.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they were in agreement the comments in the summary. Variance Policies: Mr.Arch proceeded to review Resolution #2 of 1997.He noted that the item for the $100.00 fee for variances has been tentatively scheduled for next Tuesday on the Commissioners agenda for their approval of the fee.Mr.Arch proceeded to review the policies.Mr.Iseminger asked to talee out Item 12 since that wording is already in the Ordinance.Under item 14 Mr.Iseminger 233 asked that they add under "D"as stated in the Ordinance now "foreclosure".Mr.Arch said that he also passed out two additional policies.The first one deals with the ability to waive requirements for preliminary consultations where no significant information is anticipated to be submitted and reviewed the wording. The other item is to give the Planning Director the ability to grant the creation of a lot without road frontage in those cases when the proposed lot or lots contain existing structures.A discussion followed regarding mobile homes.Mr.Iseminger suggested maldng that "D"under 13 and put a in as 12.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to adopt Policy II with the amendments.Seconded by Mr.Clopper Mr.Arch passed out a tentative schedule for the Comprehensive Plan update and proceeded to review it. Mr.Arch stated that they have tentatively scheduled a Sewer Advisory Board meeting for Tuesday,July 22,1997 at 7:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. r~l~v\N~Yo~ .Bertril\?-d L.Iseminger,Chairm'--. 234 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORICSHOP MEETING WITH WATER &SEWER ADVISORY BOARD JUL Y 22,1997 The Washington County Planning Commission held a joint workshop meeting with the Water & Sewer Advisory Board on Tuesday,July 22,1997 in the first floor conference room. Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand L.Iseminger;Vice-Chairman,Bernard Moser;R. Ben Clopper,Paula Lampton,Don Ardinger,and Robert Ernst,II.Staff:Planning Director, Robert C.Arch;and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Water &Sewer Advisory Board: Chairperson,Clarence Scheer; Secretary,Michael Armel;Gordon Crabb,Glenn Fishack,Bonnie Parks and Ed Renn.Also present were:County Administrator,Rodney Shoop and Water and Sewer Director,Greg Murray.Absent were:Ex-Officio James Wade and Christopher Diehl. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. Mr.Iseminger briefly reviewed the ordinances that the Planning Commission follows ~Subdivision Ordinance,Zoning Ordinance,Comprehensive Plan,Water and Sewer Plan,APFO and Article 66B).He stated that amendments to all of these plans are done jointly with the County Commissioners with public hearings.He explained that what is coming up is the update of the County Water and Sewer Plan that will start around the end of this month and that they will be sending copies of the cmrent ordinance out to the towns and providing agencies for comments.They will then put together a draft plan by December 31 st which will be submitted to the various agencies including the Water &Sewer Advisory Board.Mr.Iseminger stated that once the comments are addressed they will then take the plan to public hearing in April of 1998. Mr.Arch explained that the Water &Sewer Plan is a summation of the Sewer providing agencies and is more or less an agenda for the next several years.He stated that they compile the information into one document and are cmrently in the process of streamlining this document, which they are required to update this every 3 years.Mr.Arch stated that due to some discussions between the City and the County,this will be a more detailed revision than was originally planned.As part of the process there will be hearings held by the County Commissioners to be held some time next year.Mr.Scheer asked about the County Master Plan regarding the waste water treatment facilities in Hancock.Mr.Arch said that they will be updating the County's Comprehensive Plan and that the Water and Sewer Plan will address Hancock's facility.Mr.Iseminger said that the Water and Sewer Plan includes all of the municipalities,the City of Hagerstown and the Washington County system.He said that what is called for in the plan is cooperation between all entities.He said that one of the things he is concerned with is the conflict between the City of Hagerstown and the Washington County system and would like to see a unified system.He said that the City just completed their update and created an Urban Services area.He explained that area is located inside the County's Urban Growth Area boundary and that they want growth encomaged inside their mban services areas. Mr.Iseminger said that the Planning Commission encomages growth where there is already infrastructme in place but that does not mean that it is always going to happen there and they caml0t prevent it from happening outside the growth area.He stated that they developed the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance which has stopped some of the growth outside the Urban Growth Area.He noted that the County will be looking at a fiscal impact study and that could recommend that impact fees be structmed to encourage growth inside the UGA.In addition,Mr. Iseminger stated that there will be an update to the Comprehensive Plan which will be separate from the Water &Sewer update.As part of that,the Planning Commission will be looking at the allowed uses in Agricultmal zones.Mr.Scheer stated that they want to see where they can interact or have input on what occms in the City.He favors the City and County coming togefuer to create a regional authority.He said that they have offered to be an Advisory Board for the City.Mr.Scheer expressed concern with rates being beyond affordabiltiy to the customers in the County.He said their primary concern is their rate structme and to find ways to 235 drive that rate structure down.Mr.Moser said in regards to the rate structure,he asked if the Water and Sewer Advisory Board is revisiting their policies as they apply to installations within the development community.Mr.Scheer said that they are concerned with the rate structure and feel that the County Commissioners should establish a debt ceiling.He said that he figured that the current population in the County will be burdened with paying over 60 percent of the debt for the Water &Sewer Department.He said that will be revisited and that they have been asked by Greg Snook to look at it and that is their number one priority.He added that they have asked the Commissioners to outline what the Advisory Board is empowered to do and will be meeting with them on July 31,1997.Mr.Iseminger said he would like to see a unified Sanitary District with authority.A discussion followed regarding working with the City,problems in Boonsboro and Keedysville and the facility plan.Mr.Shoop said they are combining all of the agreements and that MDE will be sending a letter to the City and the County encouraging that they work closely together.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger said that they need to be aware of any policies or procedures that would discourage people from going where there is already water and sewer and is open to comments.Mr.Iseminger suggested having a meeting with the Water and Sewer Advisory Board on a 6 month basis.A discussion followed regarding pending developments, the fact that copies of all new submittals in their service area are sent to the Water &Sewer Department,people buying up allocation for water and sewer and not using it and the fact that the Water and Sewer Advisory Board are looking at extension policies,the pretreatment plant, marketing the pretreatment plan,a telemarketing plan for the pretreatment plant,for the Planning Commission and the Advisory Board to receive copies of each others minutes and _urban sprawl.Mr.Iseminger suggested meeting again in the spring. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Be t1~-- 236 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -AUGUST 4,1997 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,August 4, 1997 in the Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand 1.Iseminger;Vice Chairman,Bernard Moser;Paula Lampton,Don Ardinger,R.Ben Clopper,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,James R.Wade. Staff:Planning Director,Robert C.Arch;Senior Planners Jim Brittain,Timothy A.Lung and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. Before proceeding with the agenda items,Mr.Arch stated that he would be deleting under Other Business the request for permission to have an access way in the buffer area for a HI -I zone since the Commissioners took action on the amendment to establish a 25 foot buffer yard in the HI-I .district. OLD BUSINESS: Robert Millard -Variance request for 5 panhandles: Mr.Lung stated that this item was tabled from the July meeting.He explained that staff received a plat for 10 residential lots,zoned Conservation.This request is from the panhandle section of the Ordinance which allows no more than 4 panhandle lots to be subdivided out of the original tract.The applicant is proposing 5 panhandle lots.Mr.Lung referred to the exhibit plat and reviewed the history of the property.He said that at last month's meeting,after a lengthy discussion,the Planning Commission decided to table the request and have the staff meet with the consultant to clarify the reasons for the design and future development plans.He said that he met with Fred Frederick and reviewed all of the items.In regards to the design,he stated that this plan has been through several consultations with two consultants and that Frederick Seibert Associates said that they inherited the design from the other consultant and the fact that some of the lots were already approved dictated the total number of panhandles.In regards to clustering, the consultant stated that due to the topography and the fact that the Millard's do not want to have small lots is why they are going with larger lots.As far as future development plans,Mr. Millard does not have any firm development plans and that the primary concern regarding additional lots with access onto Gapland Road is going to be a potential road adequacy problem on Gapland Road.In regards to access to Parcel A,the landlocked parcel,it has several means of access through rights of way to Gapland Road.Mr.Lung said to simplify the access,the consultant submitted a revision to the subdivision plat which provides a new easement to parcel A across the remaining lands and across a 50 foot wide easement through Lot 24 to the new County Road.He said there are no changes to the lot layout and staff still encourages clustering, however,the Ordinance does not require it.He said that this subdivision could be approved as shown if they would do away with the panhandle for Lot 17 and access Gapland Road.The reason why the panhandle was created was due to the Engineering Department's comments that they would like to see the entrance for Lot 17 to come off the new street.Staff is concerned with the possibility in the future for the need of additional panhandle lots.Mr.Llmg said that Mr.Millard had indicated that he has already built the road.He noted that there is an existing tree line along Gapland Road and even though it does not qualify as a forest,it might be a good idea to ask that they preserve the tree line to soften the impact along Gapland Road.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger agreed that they should retain the tree line and would like them to look at clustering.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to grant the variance request to create 5 panhandle 237 lots.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mrs.Lampton,Mr.Clopper,Mr.Ardinger,Mr.Ernst and Mr. Wade voted yes.Mr.Moser vote no.So ordered. Site Plans: Penske Trucking: Mr.Arch presented the site plan for Penske Trucking located off of Maugansville Road.He explained there is another road shown on the plan as New Horizon Road,which will eventually go from Maugansville Road to Showalter Road.This property is part of a larger design for a business park area consisting of approximately 32 acres.The Penske site contains 3.54 acres. Mr.Arch explained that this will be a truck leasing business and repair facility.He proceeded to review the parking -27 spaces,building height is 18 feet,reviewed the dumpster location,hours of operation will be 12 hours per day 6 days a week with 4 employees per shift,the yard setbacks (40'front,10'side and 10'rear),landscaping and access.Mr.Arch stated that the front,rear and sides of the building all abut onto additional HI-I property.All agency approvals are in.Mr. Arch said that the only issue that came up is that there is an intermittent stream.He said that Elmer Weibly of Soil Conservation suggested doing a detention system for water quality.He explained that there is a sand filter system which will be better for water quality than a grass buffer would be.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mr. .Clopper.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Preliminary Consultations: Austin Hills: Mr.Brittain presented the preliminary consultation for Austin Hills.He referred to his memo in the agenda packet pertaining to comments received from State Highway Administration after the meeting.He stated that during the consultation it was State Highway's position that they wanted the site to be developed utilizing one entrance for an internal public road.He explained that the site is located on MD Rt.62,consisting of 11 lots with one large parcel for remaining lands and that two lots have already been approved.He referred to correspondence from State Highway which recants their original comments at the consultation and recommends approval using 3 entrances for development of Lots 3 through 10.Mr.Brittain said that he met with the partners of Creative Investments and emphasized the staffs desire to cluster this development.However, in talking with the developers,he said it has been their intent from the beginning to have a large lot subdivision.He said that they reviewed the proposed covenants and restrictions for the development which include language restricting further subdivision.The developers are also willing to state on the plat that there will be no further subdivision ofthis parcel.Mr.Brittain said that there are some physical constraints to the development of the parcel.Along Rt.62 rock outcroppings,and shallow soils and the forest retention area to the rear of the parcel make clustering more difficult.Mr.Wade expressed concern with the access onto Rt.62.He noted that there is another development underway just down the road that has one common entrance for approximately 15 or more lots.He expressed concern with there being 3 entrances.A discussion followed regarding clustering,the fact that the developer will be restricting no further subdivision,the number of entrances,the other subdivision in the area,the fact that with the existing lots there will be 7 entrances onto Rt.62 and the fact that it has been the Planning Commission's position that subdivisions along MD 62 be served with interior streets.Mr. Iseminger asked about the lot size brought up by Permits and Inspections.Mr.Brittain stated that the property is zoned Agriculture with the proposed lots as shown on the revised concept plan meeting Zoning Ordinance requirements.In addition,there were discussions with regard to the development of the contractors storage area (on the remaining lands)because they are required to have 400 foot setbacks.He said that has been dealt with and noted that most of those issues have been taken care of.Mr.Wantz,attorney for the developer,stated that the Zoning Board has approved the special exception for the contractors storage yard sometime ago.A discussion followed regarding the storage yard and the way it is situated in relationship to the 238 other proposed lots.Mr.Moser expressed concern with the contractor being on the road adding truck traffic to the area.Further discussion followed regarding the creation and approval of Lots 1 and 2 and the fact that lots 3 and 4 are under review.Mr.Iseminger indicated that he would much rather grant leeway on forest conservation than the access design to promote development of the site with the use of public roads.After further discussion,it was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the developer needs to take another look at the proposed design with regard to entrances onto MD Rt.62.The Commission also indicated that if the plan comes before the Planning Commission with the same design,they would like to make a site inspection with State Highway and the County Engineer to look at this property as well as others in the area. Prime Retail: Mr.Arch said this is the consultation for the outlet mail located within the intersection of MD 65 and 1-70.He stated that there will be two accesses into the property and one off of West Oak Ridge Drive with the main access being off of Route 65.He said that this project will be developed in phases.Phase one consists of approximately 200,000 square feet,phase two 100,000 square feet,and phases 3 and 4 to be approximately 150,000 square feet,for a total of 460,000 square feet.Mr.Arch said they plan on between 80 and 100 stores.He referred to the preliminary consultation and reviewed forest conservation application.He said there is not 40,000 square feet of trees on the site so it will be exempt.In regards to sewage disposal service, -this site is treated by the City of Hagerstown and even though it is within the service area of the City plant it is not within the sewer service agreement and the City Council would have to approve this area being serviced by the plant.Mr.Arch said that the last issue is the road.He said there have been a number of meetings with the County Engineer and Prime Retail regarding road improvements.Mr.Arch said that a substantial amount offunding will be involved with off site improvements.He said that Prime Retail has approached the Board of County Commissioners concerning doing something similar to what Adrian Carpenter did in terms of a local bond issue to raise revenue with the money being paid back by a request for an additional special tax (the creation of a special taxing district)to finance the improvements.A discussion followed.Mr.Arch proceeded to review the storm water management facility.A discussion followed regarding the amount oftraffic anticipated to be generated,the APFO,impact fees,how the buffer will impact the access road onto West Oak Ridge Drive,water quality and the impact on residences along West Oak Ridge Drive.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they agreed with staffs comments. OTHER BUSINESS: Ben Shaool -Woodbridge Subdivision: Mr.Arch referred to the agenda packet and reviewed the request.He said that the developer has buyers requesting additional living space at the rear of the building.He said that he spoke to Mr. Prodonovich and he does not see this as a major problem.A discussion followed regarding the layout of the units,parking and the fact that the developer has been before the Planning Commission before for changes to this plan.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission since the developer was not present,the fact and that they had several questions and that they want additional information that this item should be tabled.Mr.Moser made a motion to table the request for Woodbridge subdivision until the September meeting.Seconded by Mr.Wade. Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Rural Hamlets: Mr.Iseminger stated that he received this information from Victor Peeke and that Mr.Lung visited some of these developments in Loudon County,Virginia.Mr.Lung said that he spent a day in Loudon County with a developer promoting these type of developments in western Loudon County.He stated that they are generally upscale type developments.He added in 239 Loudon County they are much more lenient on their road standards and are allowing these developments to be built on gravel roads.Mr.Iseminger said that this County needs to start thinking about it and that they would have to relax their road standards.A discussion followed regarding these developments,the fact that the streets are narrow with no on street parking,the fact that there are alleys with garages in the back and the fact that the developments have sidewalks,problems with using a common water system and gravel roads. Mr.Arch passed out a copy of the public meeting schedule for the Comprehensive Plan meetings.He stated that a staff member will be present and would like at least one Planning Commission member present at each meeting.Mr.Moser and Mr.Iseminger said that they would attend the meeting scheduled for September 4th.After a discussion,it was decided that the members would review their schedules and decide at the September meeting who will attend the rest of the meetings. A discussion followed regarding developments in Agricultural zoning,the water and sewer plan and having a joint water and sewer authority. Mr.Arch stated that a joint public meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday,August 26,1997 at 10:00 a.m.in the Commissioners Meeting room for an amendment to the Water and Sewer Plan in order to get water service to the landfilL ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. ~~\~~c. _....._~ 240 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISISON REGULAR MEETING -SEPTEMBER 8,1997 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,September 8,1997 in the Commissioners meeting room. Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand 1.Iseminger;Vice-Chairman,Bernard Moser;Paula Lampton,Don Ardinger,R.Ben Clopper,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,James R.Wade. Staff:Planning Director,Robert C.Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior Planner,Timothy A.Llmg and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Also present,Paul Prodonovich,Director of Permits and Inspections. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.by the Chairman. Before proceeding with the meeting Mr.Arch stated under Forest Conservation that Mountain Shadows would be removed.In addition,Mr.Arch requested to add a site plan for a cellular tower for Tri Star Communications.Mr.Wade made a motion to remove Mountain Shadows .and to add the site plan for Tri Star.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. MINUTES: Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the minutes of June 23,1997.Seconded by Mr.Ernst. So ordered. Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the minutes of July 7,1997.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton. So ordered. Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the minutes of July 22,1997.Seconded by Mrs. Lampton.So ordered. In regards to the minutes of August 4,1997,Mr.Iseminger requested that on page 2 for Austin Hills Preliminary consultation,the 22nd line should read "to be served with interior streets." Mr.Wade made a motion to approve the minutes of August 4,1997 as amended.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. OLD BUSINESS: HatTy Doyle: Mr.Arch stated that this variance was presented at the July meeting and was tabled.At that time the Planning Commission asked that the consultant be present to discuss the variance,requested a letter from the Park Service regarding the number of lots accessing the land and comments from the Boonsboro Fire Department.Mr.Frederick,the consultant,briefly reviewed the history of the variance request.Mr.Iseminger said that the Planning Commission's main concern was to have a letter from the Parks Service,and comments from the Boonsboro Fire Department and the County Engineer.He said that comments have been received from both the Parks Service and the Boonsboro Fire Department that they do not have a problem with the proposed subdivision. Mr.Arch said that Terry McGee did not have a comment because it is not a County road.A discussion followed regarding the sequence of events regarding the Board of Appeals approval. Mr.Moser made a motion to grant a variance to create 4 lots without public road frontage with the 10 year family member statement.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.Mr.Arch noted that this subdivision was submitted prior to the policy change by the Planning Commission. 241 Ben ShaooL Sections B-3 and B-1 Woodbridge Subdivision: Mr.Prodonovich said that several months ago he came before the Commission with a problem that had arisen with this development due to the fact that lots were being established and were not where they should be on the plan.At that time,a variance was requested and granted to address the lot setbacks in Section B-2.Mr.Prodonovich stated that the developer,Ben Shaool, has made 3 requests as follows:I)College Heights -Mr.Shaool would like permission to add a swimming pooL Mr.Prodonovich referred to the adjoining development (Kings Crest)and said that the developer,Stanley Valentine,expressed concern with the location of the pool being near two units that will overlook the pooL Mr.Valentine wants to be sure that the pool will be screened and otherwise does not have a problem with it.Mr.Prodonovich said that the two developers may go into together with the development of the pool so Kings Crest,College Heights and Woodbridge could all use the pooL 2)Mr.Prodonovich referred to the green lines on the plats in Sections B-1 and B-2 and said that it represents the 2 foot space between the sidewalk and curb.Mr.Shaool has proposed to eliminate the greenspace so that the curb and parking lot would be right at the edge.Mr.Prodonovich said that he spoke to Terry McGee regarding storm water management and that he did not have a problem with it.3)Mr. Prodonovich referred to the areas in pink in Section B-3 and stated that Mr.Shaool is proposing to allow a lOx 10 addition that would be encroaching in the rear yard. Mr.Shaool said it is not necessary that all of the units have them and that it could be limited . .In regards to the swimming pool,Mr.Iseminger said that the PUD was already established and wanted to know how the residents would access the pooL Mr.Prodonovich said that no outside people will be using the pooL He said that he does not see a need for parking but may need to show a right-of-way for people to walk to the pooL Mr.Iseminger said if the Plarming Commission approves the pool he asked if the developer would come back and show the easements and pedestrian access and what safeguards they will have to ensure that there will be no outside people using the pooL Mr.Iseminger said that he did not have a problem with it as long as the developer created a system for policing the pool and have as part of the lease agreement that the tenants have the option of using the pool.A discussion followed.Mr. Prodonovich asked for clarification if the Planning Commission wanted to see the plans redrawn prior to any construction.Mr.Iseminger said that the plans need to show pedestrian access to the satisfaction of the Plmming Staff and Engineering review,screening,evidence of an agreement or addendum to the lease for control of access to the pooL He added that as long as the plan is to Mr.Prodonovich's satisfaction,it does not have to come back to the Plarming Commission.Mr. Arch said that they might want to meet with Mr.Shaool regarding having another site plan drawn to locate the walkway and the swimming pool.Mr.Clopper made a motion to include the swimming pool as an amenity.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. In regards to the green space between the sidewalks and parking areas,a discussion followed regarding the fact that the County Engineer does not have a problem with paving the green space area,and the problems the developer has experienced with the existing green space and the fact that the development is heavily landscaped.Mr.Moser made a motion to remove the 2 feet of green space and have it included in the sidewalk area for Sections B-1 and B-3.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. In regards to the addition,Mr.Shaool said that not all of the lmits need to be able to add the 10'x 10'area.Mr.Iseminger commented that he strongly recommends for future developments that these items be addressed in the beginning.A discussion followed regarding the requests,the fact that the developer purchased the development after it had already been designed and whether they should limit the number of units allowed to have the addition.After further discussion it was the consensus that the additions would be contingent on the fact that they do not affect storm water management.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to grant a varimlce to add flexibility to get as close to 10 feet in the rear yard and that it would be contingent on complying with the requirements of storm water mmlagement.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Ernst abstained.Mr. Ardinger opposed.So ordered. 242 NEW BUSINESS: Rowland Brandenburg,Pleasant View Heights -Panhandle Stacking: Mr.Llmg presented the variance request for Rowland Brandenburg to create an additional panhandle lot,resulting in the stacking of more than two lots.The property is located on the east side of Branden Terrace in Pleasant View Heights subdivision and is zoned Agricultural. Mr.Lung referred to a memo from the County Engineer to him regarding the variance request. He said that Branden Terrace currently ends in a cul-de-sac and when the last two lots in the cul- de-sac were approved,the County Engineer recommended that provisions be made for the future extension of Branden Terrace to serve the remaining lands (consisting of approximately 63.75 acres).The reason being that the access to the remaining lands is limited to this location and one other location with the extension of Claymont Drive and that the size and shape of the remaining lands dictates that they need two entrances.Mr.Lung referred to the drawing of the current layout of the lots and the new lot being proposed.He stated that when Lots 14 and 15 were approved,a right-of-way for the extension of the street was set up on the panhandle for Lot 15 and a note was included stating that the cul-de-sac would be removed at the time the street would be extended.He said that there is also a 25 foot wide strip of land (part of the remaining lands) off of the cul-de-sac.Mr.Lung said that Mr.Brandenburg is now proposing to subdivide another building lot off of Branden Terrace utilizing the 25 foot strip of land as a panhandle to serve the new lot.Mr.Lung said that by doing this the remaining lands would no longer have .any access to Branden Terrace.He referred to the proposed lot and noted that it contains the same language that was on the plat for Lots 14 and 15,setting up a right-of-way and stating that Branden Terrace may be extended in the future.The applicant maintains that the original lot was laid out in 1990 utilizing aT-turnaround and that the County Engineer required the cul-de-sac which resulted in the 3 tiered stacking arrangement.The applicant maintains that by setting up the right-of-way with future road extensions,the stacking situation will be resolved if and when the road is extended.Mr.Lung said that stafffeels there needs to be further explanation of the backgrOlmd of the subdivision and proceeded to review the history. Mr.Lung said that it is the Planning staffs and the County Engineer's opinion that to set up another right-of-way will only create more problems and that now is the time to extend the street.In addition,Staff and the County Engineer feel that the proposed lot does not meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance,that the lots being proposed would not have been approved if they were part of the original design and that the developer has created his own hardship by designing the lots and going ahead with constructing the cul-de-sac.It is both the Staffs opinion and the County Engineer's opinion that setting up another right-of-way across another lot for the possible extension of the road will only create additional problems when the time comes to extend the road.Mr.Lung noted that they have received letters from neighbors stating that they do not have any problems with another lot being created off of Branden Terrace as well as the contract purchaser,John Adams.Mr.Adams,the contract purchaser of Lot 16, briefly spoke regarding his conversations with the Engineering Department. Mr.Frederick of Frederick,Seibert and Associates,Inc.,the consultant,spoke regarding the design and the fact that Mr.Brandenburg does not want to extend the road at this time since he is not ready to develop the remaining lands.Mr.Frederick asked if the Planning Commission would allow them to work with the County Engineer to grade the road at this time to get one lot and if the Board would accept a letter from the County Engineer to that affect.Mr.Brandenburg spoke regarding his plans for the development.He said that his problem in extending Branden Terrace would be that they would only get a couple of lots on the south side for an extension of 1500 feet.He explained that he thought he would build the section off of Claymont Drive first. Mr.Iseminger said that another option would be to eliminate the cul-de-sac and extend the public road back to the second lot,which would eliminate the 3 tier stacking and would only extend the road 58 feet.A discussion followed.It was the consensus of the Plarming Commission that the developer needs to speak to the COlmty Engineer regarding grading the road.Mr.Iseminger said he will not be satisfied until there is some guarantee that the road will be built and that they are asking the developer to extend the road to the end of Lot 16 and wants to know when that will happen.Further discussion followed regarding availability of public water and sewer.Mr. 243 Iseminger requested that Mr.McGee also comment on the water and sewer.Mr.Moser made a motion to table the variance request.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Alvin Martin: Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Alvin Martin.The request is from Section 405.11.G.5 of the Subdivision Ordinance which states that the length of each panhandle shall not exceed 400 feet.The owner is proposing to create a lot with a panhandle length of approximately 850 feet.The property is located on the west side of Maugansville Road and is zoned Agriculture.Mr.Lung explained that Mr.Martin owns approximately 54 acres along the west side of Maugansville Road and is purchasing 14 acres from Mr.Albin to add to his property.Mr.Albin will still be able to access his property via an existing farm lane.Mr.Martin would like to create a building lot for his son out of the 14 acres he is obtaining from Mr.Albin. In order to provide this lot with road frontage it will be necessary to create a panhandle to access Maugansville Road approximately 850 feet in length which will run parallel to the farm lane accessing Mr.Albins property.Mr.Lung said that the topography of the area is flat and that there is a public water line along Mauganville Road.The Maugansville Fire Company does not object to the length of the access road.The 10 year family member statement will be on the plat and that they will use a shared access onto Maugansville Road.Mr.Martin asked if the Planning Commission would allow the portion of the lot containing the lane to be less than 100 feet wide to allow for more farm land to be maintained.Mr.Arch stated that this would essentially lengthen the panhandle,but would reduce the chance for further subdivision.Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the variance request to create a lot with a panhandle length greater than 400 feet,with the condition that the 10 year family member statement be on the plat,with the condition that they use a shared access and allowing the panhandle width to be 25 feet back to the main body of the lot.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Subdivisions: Rosemont Estates -Preliminary/Final Plat and Forest Conservation Plan: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final plat and Forest Conservation Plan for Rosemont Estates.He stated that it is a 4 lot residential subdivision located along the west side of Dam No. 4 Road south of Dellinger Road and is zoned Conservation.The lots range in size from 3.29 acres to 7.82 acres with 18 acres of remaining lands.The Planning Commission previously approved a variance to allow this lot configuration of panhandles.The granting of the variances was based on findings that excellence of design would be achieved by allowing this design which results in the reduction of the number of access points onto Dam No.4 Road and reduces the visual impact of the subdivision on the road.Mr.Lung said when the Planning Commission approved the val'iance request they wanted the lot labeled remaining lands to be changed to Lot 1 and to label the lot containing the farm buildings as remaining lands.Also at that time,the Planning Commission approved the nse of natural regeneration to meet Forest Conservation requirements.Mr.Lung said that since they changed the lots they had to do more forest conservation and are adding 2 more acres.In addition,to soften the impact of the development on the rural character of Dam #4 Road they provided a 100 foot setback along Dam NO.4 Road. Mr.Lung stated that each lot will have its own well and septic system.Mr.Lung explained that the Forest Conservation Plan provides for 3.76 acres of forest conservation easement for the establishment of natural regeneration area.The Forest Conservation Plan also provides for a backup planting plan should the regeneration not work.There will be a backup surety in the amount of $15,117 .50 in the form of a letter of credit provided for the backup Conservation Plan. The natural regeneration area has 2.02 acres on Lot 1 and 1.74 acre easement on the remaining lands.All agency approvals have been received.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the preliminary/final plat for Rosemont Estates.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the Forest Conservation Plan,and acceptance of the surety in the amOlmt of$15,117.50.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.A discussion followed with the developer regarding screening on Dam No.4 Road.Mr.Lung stated that they felt that the 100 foot setback along Dam No.4 Road was sufficient due to the topography of the site. 244 Site Plans: Hagerstown Junior College Learning Resource Center: Mr.Goodrich presented the site plan for the new Hagerstown Jtmior College Learning Resource Center.He explained that the plan also covers the improvements such as parking and stormwater management.The proposed building is located next to the administration building.The proposed Learning Resource Center will be 3 stories and 57,000 square feet in size.Mr. Goodrich proceeded to review the parking,stated that the water and sewer is handled by a private system on the campus and reviewed the landscaping.He also said that the storm water management area will be in the rear of the property,that the pond will be 5 to 5.5 acres in size and will serve the entire campus.The only other issue is the Forest Conservation.Mr.Goodrich stated that this is a lot of record and they are allowed to clear up to 40,000 square feet offorest without mitigation requirements.That limit will be exceeded but there are over 70 acres of forest on site.Mr.Goodrich said that Engineering's approval is still outstanding because there is substantial review and approvals involved in the storm water management pond.He stated that the pond is located in the flood plain and has a sizable embankment to be constructed to create the pond and will need approval from MDE as well.Approvals are also needed from the City Water and Sewer Departments.Mr.Goodrich said that the Planning Commission's approval is contingent on agency approvals . .Gerry Cump of Gerald A.Cump and Associates,the consultant,and Phil Snoderly of the Junior College,briefly reviewed the plan.Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the site plan contingent on all agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. Prime Retail: Mr.Goodrich presented the site plan for Prime Retail.The property is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection ofI-70 and Rt.65.The property consists of61 acres,is zoned HI-l and will be developed as an outlet shopping center.There will be a total of 460,000 square feet of shopping area.The first phase will contain 230,000 square feet with parking to the north and south.Mr.Goodrich proceeded to review the location of the 2 entrances,the signage,and landscaping.The property will be served by public water and sewer and both of those connections will be made in the Sharpsburg Pike.He also reviewed the location of the storm water management area and explained how it will work.He stated that the buildings will face one another to create a V-shape and the individual stores will be accessed from the outside of the V s and the interior part will be for loading and receiving supplies,trash,etc.so it will be hidden from the general public.He proceeded to review the landscaping and buffering and stated that they have not yet received the landscaping plan and reviewed the lighting.Mr.Goodrich explained that when a HI-l district adjoins existing residential development,buffer requirements kick in.He stated that there is residential development on two sides of the property that need to be buffered.There is also a need for buffering on the western edge because the adjacent property is zoned HI-2 and even though there is nothing on the site now there is the potential for residential development.Mr.Goodrich stated he is still waiting for approvals from State Highway Administration and proceeded to review the improvements to the site including the accel/decelllanes,the bypass lane,the 4 lane section,the location of the light and that the ramp from west bound 70 to Rt.65 will be redesigned.He said there will be a secondary access into the American Convenience store because of the median on Rt.65.He said that all of those things will be subject to State Highway approval and the access permit will not be issued tmtil those items are taken care of.Mr.Goodrich stated that the County Engineer's approval is still outstanding for the access and stormwater management and that the City of Hagerstown Water and Sewer Departments approvals are still forthcoming.He stated that there is some discussion regarding the arrangement for sewerage disposal since it will go through County lines to the City treatment plant and the issue is who will get the fees.Mr.Goodrich said that staff has requested two items 1)a designated area for bus parking and 2)the buffer along the western property line. Mr.Goodrich said that staff is concerned that the present tree line is deciduous in nature and in the winter will not provide a complete buffer on that edge of the property so staff recommends 245 that the new planting be enough to get a complete screen along that parcel. A discussion followed regarding the storm water management facility and the fact that they will be addressing water quality,signs and lighting.Mr.Beall of Davis,Renn and Associates requested in regards to the buffering that they be allowed to use the buffer as presented and fill in the holes with trees.Mr.Downey of Prime Retail briefly spoke and said they are working on the final design of the Rt.65 improvements.A discussion followed regarding the road improvements.(At this point Mr.Moser left the meeting).In regards to bus parking,Mr. Downey stated that they do not put bus parking in their centers.He explained that for their more popular centers they try to put some in and that they are never really sure until they open the mall as to how many buses they will have.He suggested since Phase 1 will have over 6.5 spaces per thousand and that the standard is 5.5 spaces and that there will be a substantial amount of pavement,he suggested that they look at the bus parking in the second phase.Mr.Downey said he would like to put the bus parking off to the side and has not yet determined how the buildings will be configured for the second phase.He also stated that build out of Phase II would hopefully be no later than mid 1999.Mr.Iseminger said that they could review the bus parking in Phase II or in 5 years.Mr.Goodrich said that staff is looking for approval with contingency on agency approvals.Mr.Ernst made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent on landscaping plan,all agency approvals,contingent on revisiting the designated bus parking in Phase 2 or within 5 years whichever comes first.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. Huyetts Business Parle Mr.Lung presented the preliminary site plan for a shell building in Huyetts Business Park to be located on Lot 7.The property is located on the north side of Business Parkway and is zoned HI- I.Mr.Lung stated that a preliminary site plan is being presented because the applicant does not know who the occupant will be at this time.The developer is proposing to build a 75'x 100' building on a 1.049 acre lot.Mr.Lung stated that the site will be served by public water and sewer.He proceeded to review the parking,lighting,recycling,and storm water management. He stated that Forest Conservation was taken care of during the subdivision of the business parle All agency approvals are in.Mr.Lung said that a final site plan with complete information must be submitted prior to occupancy and asked that the Planning Commission give staff the authority for final site plan approval.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to grant preliminary site plan approval giving staff the authority to grant final site plan and subdivision if needed.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Cellular Tower -Tri-Star Communications: Mr.Prodonovich stated that this is located in the HI district.He explained that the reason why they needed it on the agenda immediately is that the deadline for the permit expires October 25, 1997 and they have to be substantially underway or go back through the State approval process. The site is located on the Mason Dixon line and is owned by Expedited Services Inc.,a trucking business.They will be leasing a small portion ofland on the corner of their property.Mr. Prodonovich proceeded to review the plan.He stated there will be landscaping and noted that towers are exempt under the Zoning Ordinance for communication purposes.He said there is a buried vault for communications.He said another reason why he brought this in is that is falls within the AP clear zone and they have all of the approvals from the appropriate agencies that show that the tower will not affect flight traffic.The tower will be 160 feet high and will be lighted for both day and night and the owner has offered to paint the tower for added security measures.Mr.Prodonovich said that he spoke to Carolyn Motz and she felt the tower would interfere and turned it over to Griner,who is the airport engineering consultant.He said that he received a fax from Griner today which stated that once they received the FAA approval from the regional office they will have everything they need to provide the necessary safety traffic.A discussion followed regarding painting the tower.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they would defer the painting of the tower to the Airport Commission.Mr. Ernst made a motion to grant site plan approval for the cellular tower for Tri-Star 246 Commlmications with lighting and subject to review by the Airport Commission regarding painting.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. Preliminary Consultations: Steve McCleaf: Mr.Lung presented the Preliminary Consultation for Steve McCleaf.The property is located near Fairplay.The developer is proposing to create 17 lots on 20 acres.The site is located outside of the Urban Growth Area.Mr.Lung said that staffs main concern was the proposed length of the cul-de-sac which was 2,000 feet long.He noted that years ago the Subdivision Ordinance limited the length of cul-de-sacs to 600 feet and that restriction was later removed and now it is up to the Planning Commission to determine what is an acceptable length for a cul-de- sac.He said that during the consultation the Engineering Department suggested the use of a turn around and maybe more.He said the concern was with access for emergency vehicles and the possibility of the road being blocked or congested with pumper trucks.He said that in other cases the Fire Department has commented that most eyebrow or hammerhead turn around areas are not large enough to accommodate a large fire truck.He said they did not receive any comments from Fairplay Fire Department but that in the past the fire departments have expressed concern with very long cul-de-sacs.He said that the other area is that they may be dealing with a -stream buffer situation.The road may actually cross the stream buffer and there may have to be some additional consideration given there.He said that it was staffs recommendation that if they will be dealing with the stream buffer that would be a good area to do Forest Conservation. A discussion followed with the consultant,Fred Frederick regarding the cul-de-sac,stream buffers and forest conservation.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they agreed with staff s comments and felt the forest conservation requirements need to be met on site. Water and Sewerage Plan Amendment (WS-97-01): Mr.Lung stated that he did not have a written staff report at this time.He said they did receive correspondence following the public hearing within the 10 day comment period which supported the County Water and Sewer Department's request for the extension of the water line and also addresses some of the City of Hagerstown's concerns regarding provision of water to the site. I-Ie said that the Planning Commission's action tonight would be limited to making a recommendation that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.He said that it is staffs feeling since it is an extension ofthe existing restricted use service area and the Health Department has provided written documentation of long standing history of well contamination in this area that a provision of public water in a restricted use service area would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Mr.Arch stated that they also received correspondence from Jim Bishop of the Water and Sewer Department that stated that 2 of the lots are already served by the water line.There is a 2 inch service line coming off of Greencastle Pike that serves two of the lots 311d all of the proposed service area is located in what the City of Hagerstown designated years ago as being a potential service area for the extension of water in that area.A discussion followed regarding the restricted use service area category.Mr.Ernst made a motion that the Water and Sewer Plan 3111endment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and be adopted by the COlmty Commissioners.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. Report on Field Inspection -Izer and Fant: Mr.Elmer Weibley of the Soil Conservation District made a presentation regarding the County's forest planting pilot program.He said that several weeks ago he presented to the County Commissioners for approval a forest conservation fund use program.He said that they looked at the Izer site and said that most of the trees planted died due to the drought.He explained that with the program they will all be replanted at the contractors expense.He said that he will go out in the next couple of weeks to count all of the dead trees 311d they will put an order in for trees ' 247 this fall and will inspect the planting in the spring.Mr.Weibley referred to the outline in the agenda packet and stated that it was approved by the Commissioners and stated that they approved the program with some suggestions.He said that the Commissioners wanted to be sure that they specify the size,age and class of tree in the planting contract.At this point Mr. Weibley referred to the outline in the agenda packet and proceeded to review the criteria as well as the summary of costs for the pilot program.A discussion followed. Sensitive Areas: Mr.Weibley passed out copies of the Criteria for Sensitive Area Stream Buffers and said this is something they will be sending out to the development community.A discussion followed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. B 248 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING-OCTOBER 5,1997 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,October 5, 1997 in the Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand 1.Iseminger;Vice-Chairman,Bernard Moser;Paula Lampton,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,James R.Wade.Staff:Director,Robert C.Arch; Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Farmland Preservation Administrator,Eric Seifarth; Senior Planners Timothy A.Lung and James P.Brittain and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. Absent were:Don Ardinger and R.Ben Clopper. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:03 p.m.Mr.Arch stated that Mr.Roland Brandenburg requested that his variance request under Old Business be held until the November meeting.Mr.Arch asked to add Austin Hills Subdivision for Lot 3 under Forest Conservation. Mr.Moser made a motion to amend the agenda as requested.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So .ordered. Agricultural Land Preservation District Applications: AD-97-09.AD-97-10 and AD-97-12: Mr.Seifarth presented the three applications.He stated they are located outside the Urban Growth Area and the water and sewer areas and comply with the State regulations.These applications have been approved by the Agricultural Advisory Board.Mr.Moser made a motion that AD-97-09 (Robert Cline),AD-97-10 (Carl and Jeanette Hull)and AD-97-12 (Carlton Shriver)are consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and recommended that the County Commissioners adopt them.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Variances: Charles Dunn: Mr.Goodrich presented the variance request for Charles Dunn.The property is located on the north side of Boyd Road north ofI-70,containing 11.27 acres and is zoned Conservation.The property is currently owned by Preston Durm,the applicant's father.Mr.Dunn is proposing to create two lots out of the entire parcel for his two sons.They plan to create Lot I first and Lot 2 will be taken out of the middle portion in the future.Mr.Goodrich explained that the lots need to be stacked in order to get the minimum lot size of 3 acres and to meet the minimum width requirement of 300 feet.The variance request is to create a pmiliandle approximately 1000 feet in length.The remaining lands contain Mr.Dunn's house and driveway and each lot will be served by a panhandle.A discussion followed with Charles Durm regarding adding the 10 year family member statement to the plat and for the lots to use a shared driveway.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to grant a varimlce to create a panhandle greater than 400 feet with the condition that the 10 year family member statement be added to the plat,with the condition that when Lot 2 is created a shared driveway is used and that the driveway is satisfactory with the Clear Spring Fire Company.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. 249 Subdivisions: Prospect Place: Mr.Brittain presented the preliminary/final plat for Prospect Place.The property is located on the west side of Harwood Road in the Halfway area and is zoned Residential Urban.Mr.Brittain explained that they currently have three existing double lIl1its which are being proposed to be subdivided to give each unit its own lot.He stated that this subdivision went to the Board of Appeals and was granted a variance for lot width and side yard requirements.He said that the Permits Department is waiting for an architectural verification that the party walls meet the building code in order for the subdivision to proceed.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the preliminary/final plat contingent on verification of the fire walls.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Jane Hess: Mr.Brittain presented the preliminary/final plat for Jane Hess lots 2-4.The property is located on the northwest side of Welty Church Road and is zoned Agriculture.He noted that one lot was previously approved and stated that a certification will be added to the plat per Section 4.11 of the APFO stating that further subdivision of the remaining lands cannot be done lIl1til Welty Church Road is improved and determined to be adequate.Mr.Brittain stated the Health Department has verbally approved the plat and is waiting for written comments.He said that the owner will be using the express procedure to meet the Forest Conservation requirements which allows them to use the payment in lieu of option.Mr.Wade made a motion to grant preliminary/final plat approval contingent on Health Department approval and contingent upon the stipulation being added to the plats that there will be no further subdivision lIl1til Welty Church Road is brought up to standards. Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. Roger Tedrick: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final plat for 5 residential lots along the northeast side of Ernstville Road near Big Pool.He said that the plat also involves a simplified conveyance of a .5 acre parcel to the United Brethren Church,which is adjacent to the east side of the property.The lots range in size from .96 acres to 1.38 acres with 9.41 acres in remaining lands containing an existing dwelling.The property is zoned Conservation.The lots will be served by individual wells and septics.Mr.Llmg commented that when the application was submitted,the property was zoned Highway Interchange and since is was located in a rural area,agricultural zoning standards would apply.The zoning was changed to Conservation as part of the Comprehensive Highway Interchange rezoning while this subdivision plat was being processed.The Zoning Administrator required the applicant to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals if they still wanted lots less than 3 acres in size.Mr. Lung said that the Board of Appeals approved the developer's request to allow the original lot sizes. Engineering has approved the subdivision based on an exemption from the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance due to the lots being conveyed to immediate family members.Mr.Lung said that at the staffs request,shared driveways are used where possible.The subdivision is exempt from Forest Conservation regulations due to the immediate family member exemption.All agency approvals are in.Mr.Lung said that this was previously before the Planning Commission as a preliminary plat and they requested a waiver of preliminary consultation.He said the subdivision is being done to talee care of an estate.Mr.Fred Frederick,of Frederick Seibert and Associates,the consultant,briefly spoke.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to grant preliminary/final plat approval with the 10 year family member statement.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Riverwood,Preliminary/Final Plat and Forest Conservation: Mr.LlIl1g presented the preliminary/final plat and forest conservation plan for Riverwood Lots 5-9. The property is located along the east side of Gift Road near Charlton and is zoned Agricultural.The lots range in size ±i'om .92 acres to 1.85 acres and will be served by individual wells and septics. 250 Four lots will be using shared driveways.Mr.Lung stated that the developer is required to pay for widening of Gift Road in order to meet the APFO and that the County Engineer will not issue final approval until the road widening is complete.Mr.Llmg said that a forest stand delineation was previously done on the property for the site and indicates that 1.22 acres of forest will need to be preserved.He said that there is no existing forest on the lots but there is considerable amount of forest on the remaining lands.The developer is requesting to use forest retention on the remaining lands near the C &0 Canal tow path.Mr.Lung stated that a Preliminary Consultation was held in 1990 and at that time 11 lots were proposed.He said that staff is suggesting that if the Planning Commission grants preliminary/final plat approval that it be contingent on the required road improvements being made by the developer and the Engineering Department's approval. Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the use of off site forest retention on the remaining lands to meet the forest conservation requirement.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the preliminary/final plat contingent on road widening. Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Robert Millard.Preliminary/Final Plat and Forest Conservation Plan Lots 15-24: Mr.Llmg presented the preliminary/final plat and forest conservation plan for Robert Millard.The ·property is located on the north side of Gapland Road East of MD 67 and is zoned Conservation. The developer is proposing 10 residential building lots.The lots range in size from 3 acres to 4.5 acres.All lots except Lot 20 will be served by a new public street called Guard Court.Mr.Lung stated that the Planning Commission approved a variance to allow 5 panhandle lots.The lots will be served by wells and septics.Mr.Lung said that 10.51 acres will be retained to meet Forest Conservation and an additional .26 acres of afforestation is required.The developer is proposing to pay into the fund for the .26 acre.Mr.Llmg said that staff does not object to the proposal.He noted that the developer is going to retain the existing tree line along Gapland Road on Lots 15 and 17 to buffer the subdivision from Gapland Road and have agreed to add a note on the plat stating that they will be preserved.There are 77 acres of remaining lands along the site and there is the possibility of additional lots along Guard Court.The owner is aware that if there is further subdivision,another preliminary consultation may be required.All agency approvals are in and they are looking for preliminary/final subdivision approval and forest conservation plan approval including the .26 acres of payment in lieu of.A discussion followed regarding the payment in lieu of and the fact that any future forest conservation requirements will have to be met on site.Mr.Wade made a motion to approve the preliminary/final plat,the forest conservation plan as outlined and the payment in lieu of.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger reminded the consultant any future forest conservation requirements would need to be met on site. Hagerstown Washington County Industrial Foundation: Mr.Llmg presented the plat to convey a 20.4 acre parcel owned by the Hagerstown Washington County Industrial Foundation,(CHIEF).The property is located along the east side of Governor Lane Boulevard in the Interstate Industrial Park and is zoned Plamled Industrial.At this point there is no development plan for the parcel and the purpose of the plat is for CHIEF to be able to convey the property.Mr.Lung said there are notes on the plat that a site plan will be required to be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission prior to any development on the site.Public water and sewer is available.Forest Conservation will be handled by a master plan for forest conservation involving all of the CHIEF parks.A discussion followed.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant preliminary/final plat approval contingent on agency approvals.Seconded by Mrs. Lampton.So ordered. 251 Preliminary Consultations: Farhney Keedy Home and Village: Mr.Goodrich presented the preliminary consultation for the Farlmey Keedy Home and Village long range plans for the development of the rest of their property.The property is located on Rt.66 or Mapleville Road.The entire site contains 90 acres,developed and undeveloped,zoned Agricultural. Mr.Goodrich stated that they are planning to add more of the same which is a variety of senior living alternatives.Existing on the property now are 35 individual single family homes,24 apartments,120 rooms with several different levels of care.Mr.Goodrich said they are proposing to expand onto the remainder of the 40 acres with more of the same:40 single family units, 40 apartments,60 assisted living units and a 20 bed special care unit.He said that 3 issues came lip during the consultation:1)This type of development is allowed in the Agricultural zone and is allowed to use the clustering provision.Mr.Goodrich explained that the density of units cmmot exceed what is normally allowed in the Agricultural zoning but they can be placed closer together as if they were on smaller lots even though a subdivision is not taking place.He said they want to be sure in the development of the remainder of the property that they maintain the density that was allowed in the Agricultural zoning and referred to the small map passed out which shows a breakdown of the various uses and assigned an acreage to each.He said that they are sure that the zoning requirements have been met.2)A change in the orientation of the development.He stated that the main entrance will eventually be relocated to the south of the existing one as part of a future .phase of development.The old entrance from MD 66 will be closed and the other one on San Mar Road will be retained.3)Mr.Goodrich said that the Water and Sewer issue is the largest one. Currently the property has its own water and sewer system.The water system consists of a reservoir on South MOlU1tain which serves both Falrrney Keedy and the San Mar Childrens Home on the other side of the road.Mr.Goodrich said that during the development ofthe proposal the consultant found that it was more economical and reliable for Farhney Keedy to go to a completely new system for water and sewer.They plan on drilling new wells on this site for their needs and establishing a new sewage treatment system.Staff s concerns were for how this would affect San Mar,and consistency with the Water and Sewerage Plan.San Mar is going to establish its own system.He said that this will comply with both the Water and Sewer Plan and the County's Comprehensive Plan.Altllough they are new systems in the rural area,they will replace existing systems and will not provide service for new development on adjacent properties.A discussion followed with the administrator,Mr. Bowman and a board member,Calvin Mahany,regarding the reservoir and the potential problems that may be created with the new systems,well head protection and the State permit procedure.Mr. Goodrich stated that there were 3representatives from the Maryland Department of the Environment at the preliminary consultation for the purpose of addressing water quality.Mr.Iseminger stated that as part of the storm water management of the site they need to look at the water quality.Further discussion followed regarding water discharge and water quality.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they are concerned with the water quality mld well head protection.No additional requirements were imposed. OTHER BUSINESS: APFO Periodic Report: Mr.Arch referred to the APFO 6 month report he sent out.A discussion followed regarding the schools and the impact fee study.Mr.Ernst made a motion that they find the APFO to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recommend to the County Commissioners that they continue the APFO.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger stated that Mr.Ardinger has requested that they have a workshop meeting sometime to discuss the APFO. 252 Forest Conservation: Austin Hills: Mr.Brittain reviewed the previous discussion on the preliminary consultation for Austin Hills.He stated that the developer had withdrawn the plat for Lots 3 and 4 and are proposing to develop the site with one internal road.A preliminary consultation will be held October 15th to review the revised concept plan.He said that currently in the office for review is a new Lot 3 located in the southern corner away from the main part of the development.The developer is requesting that the forest conservation requirements be allowed to be off site and that it be met by a forest retention area previously set aside with Lot I.He explained that when Lots 1 and 2 were approved there were .66 acres above the required acreage that was set aside.The amolmt required for Lot 3 was .41 acres. Mr.Brittain said that the Plarming Commission has told the developer if they would go back and look at the design of the development and redesign it using an internal road,the Commission would work with them on the forest conservation requirements.A discussion followed regarding the remaining lands.Mr.Wade made a motion to approve the Forest Conservation Plml to utilizing off site retention on Lot 7 to meet the Forest Conservation requirements.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. MD 632 Interchange: Mr.Wade said that the Board wants some direction from the Planning Commission regarding how to handle the MD 632 interchange.He said that he asked Mr.Arch to come in and discuss how many properties are out there that have the potential of coming in for piecemeal rezoning and whether they should look at that area for a comprehensive rezoning.Mr.Arch said that he could spealc to the Board about it but it is his opinion that at this point that he would not recommend to do a comprehensive rezoning because it could be subject to legal attack since it would not incorporate substantial area as per case law and he said that he did not know if there would be many parcels that would probably be rezoned.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the interchange should be left the way it is and allow them to come in piece meal since that would give the property owners more flexibility. A discussion followed regarding the upcoming meetings for the Comprehensive Plml.Mr.Keith Moore,the President of the Washington County Land Use COlmcil,briefly spoke.He said that his group will be sending a council member to each Plarming Commission meeting and will be attending the Comprehensive Plan update meetings. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 8: 253 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -NOVEMBER 3,1997 The Washington County Plamling Commission held its regular meeting on Monday November 3, 1997 in the Commissioners meeting room. Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand 1.Iseminger;Vice-Chairman,Bernard Moser;Paula Lampton,Don Ardinger,R.Ben Clopper,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,James R.Wade. Staff:Plam1ing Director,Robert C.Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Park and Environmental Plalli1er,Bill Stachoviak;Senior Plam1ers,Timothy A.Lung,Lisa Kelly Pietro and Jim Brittain;and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.by the Chairman. Before proceeding with Old Business,Mr.Arch requested that Emeritis Site Plan and Tempico amendment to the Solid Waste Plan be held over to the December meeting.Mr.Moser made a motion to remove the two items from the agenda until the December meeting.Seconded by Mrs . .Lampton.So ordered. OLD BUSINESS: Roland Brandenburg: Mr.Lung stated that this item was before the Commission in September requesting a variance for panhandle length and stacking of lots.He referred to the memo from the County Engineer,Terry McGee,in regards to this request.He stated that the developer is proposing to create Lot 16 in Pleasant View Heights which will result in the stacking of 3 lots.He said that Staff was opposed to the variance.He added that,Fred Frederick,Mr.Brandenburg's consultant,suggested that Mr.Brandenburg grade to the end of the lot and not pave it.Mr.Lung referred to Mr. Brandenburg's proposal in the agenda packet and proceeded to review the issues that needed to be resolved.He said that the key items are,to grade Branden Terrace the entire length of Lot 16, future right-of-way to be shown on the plat (no dedication for acceptance by the County at this time and that the County will determine when the road would need to be completed),subdivision plat approval would not be granted until the construction of the grading is complete or a performance bond is posted,and that the conditions would run with the property.Mr.Lung said that the issue to be resolved is that Mr.Brandenburg wants to grade the road to the driveway on Lot 16 (approximately 50 feet)and not the entire length of Lot 16 (550 feet).He explained that Mr.Brandenburg is proposing to grade a total of 300 feet and that Mr.McGee wants 550 feet graded.Mr.Iseminger asked about the other condition in the letter extending Branden Terrace to construct a loop roadway and wanted to know if that would also be part of the variance until such time that they develop the lands.Mr.Adams, the contract purchaser,spoke regarding their proposal for grading the road in front of his lot.A discussion followed regarding the County Engineer's comments and the amount of road to be graded and the fact that the County Engineer wants the entire length of the road in front of Lot 16 to be graded.Mr.Frederick said that he spoke to Terry McGee along with Mr.Adams and Mr.Brandenburg and one of the big concerns was blasting.He said that the high point is the line between lots 15 and 16.Mr.Frederick proposed that Mr.Brandenburg extend the road to the cut,which would be approximately 50 to 60 feet and bring in fill. Mr.Arch stated that they are dealing with a variance and that a financial hardship is not a consideration and that there is an Ordinance with requirements to follow and that is what the County Engineer is basing his comments on.After further discussion regarding the County Engineer's comments,Mr.Adams said that they would meet with Mr.McGee again with their new proposal.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to table the variance request.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered. 254 NEW BUSINESS: Variances: Dean Fawley: Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Dean Fawley.The request is from Section 405.II.G.5 of the Subdivision Ordinance which states that the panhandle length shall not exceed 400 feet.The owner is proposing to create a new building lot behind two existing lots with the new lot having a panhandle approximately 750 feet in length.The property is located on the west side of MD 67 near Brownsville and is zoned Conservation.The proposed lot is 3 acres in size out of a 39.5 acre farm to be conveyed to an immediate family member.The owner is proposing to use a shared driveway with Lot I.He stated that the fire department does not have a problem with serving the lot.Mr.Lung stated that staff supports the use of a shared driveway and would prefer provision of fee simple road frontage instead of creating lots without road frontage and using rights of way with existing lanes.He noted that State Highway looked at the entrance and does not have a problem with its location.Mr.Lung said there is a narrow strip of remaining lands behind proposed Lot 2 for farm access.He said this would be the last lot to be created behind Lot 1.Mr.Lung said that staff would not want the same situation to occur on this lot that occurred on Lot I.He said they want to make sure that the owner realizes that if the variance is approved that the existing entrance would be conveyed to Lot 2.Mr.Lung suggested .that the owner may want to consider setting up a right-of-way across the panhandle for construction of a future street if they decide to develop the remaining lands in the future and a right-ot~way would need to be set up to allow Lot I to continue to have access onto Rt.67.A discussion followed with the owners regarding the conditions.Mr.Moser made a motion to approve the variance with the condition that the 10 year immediate family member statement be added to the plat,that the existing entrance be conveyed to Lot 2,with the condition that a right- of-way be set up across the panhandle for the construction of a future street to County standards if the remaining lands are developed and that a right-of-way be set up to allow Lot 1 to have access onto Rt.67.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Van Lear Manor.Section 13: Mr.Arch stated that this is a request to extend the final plat approval for one year for Section 13. He stated that when they adopted the policies they had some discussions concerning this issue and perhaps not doing it any more in the future.Mr.Iseminger stated that he felt that two extensions are plenty and any more they need to record the plats.He asked that a letter be sent to the developers to put them on notice that after the second extension that is it.A discussion followed.Mr.Ernst made a motion to grant a one year extension of the final plat.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. Subdivisions: Floyd Doyle.Lot 1-4: Mrs.Pietro presented the subdivision plat for Floyd Doyle.The property is located 300 feet south of Keadle Road and is zoned Conservation.The owner is proposing to create 4 single family lots for immediate family members.All lots will have access of a right-of-way owned by the State of Maryland Parks Department.The lots will be served by wells and septics.Mrs. Pietro stated that the Planning Commission granted a variance in September which will allow the 4 lots to be created without public road frontage.In addition the Board of Appeals in November of 1996 approved an appeal for lot size and width with a restriction that there will be no mobile homes on the site.All agency approvals have been received.Mr.Moser made a motion to grant preliminary/final plat approval.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. 255 Quail Rlm.Section 2.Preliminary/Final Plat and Site Plan: Mr.Lung presented the subdivision plat for Quail Run.The property is located on the south side of Mallard Drive off of Youngstoun Drive.The developer is proposing 48 townhouses on 6.73 acres and is part of the Youngstoun PUD.The proposal also involves the construction of 600 feet of new County road called Grouse Lane that ends in a cul-de-sac.The street will be built with a curb and gutter and sidewalk.Mr.Lung stated that 9 townhouse blocks are proposed.He stated there is off street parking proposed,and noted there is no common area in this section which was part of the approval of the concept plan in 1999.Mr.Lung explained that when the concept plan was approved it was agreed they would not need to provide additional play lots in this section because there are two existing play lots nearby.Mr.Lung said that the developer has provided paths to both of the play areas and walking paths are provided off of the end of the sidewalk of the street to tie in with the existing path to the commercial area off Robinwood Drive and another extension of 160 feet of path out to Youngstoun Drive where the children wait for the school bus.He reviewed the location of the RV parking area and landscaping.Public water and sewer is available and will be served by the City of Hagerstown.Mr.Lung stated that the development is exempt from Forest Conservation,however,they are reserving the existing tree line.Mr.Iseminger asked ifthere was a requirement when this section was approved that the developer had to meet regarding the walking paths.Mr.Lung said that it had to do with the road that used to go behind the commercial area.He said it was barricaded and there was discussion that the road would be eliminated and that a walking path would be put in and that has been .done.Mr.Llmg said that the walking path is in bad shape and that there is a tree fallen on the path and needs some maintenance.A discussion followed regarding the pathway,who is responsible for maintenance of the walkways,and the regional stormwater management pond. Mr.Moser made a motion to grant preliminary/final plat and site plan approval contingent on final agency approvals,contingent on an agreement from the developer to maintain the common areas being the sidewalks,walkways between areas and the walkway behind the commercial areas and that the agreement would be subject to review and approval of the County Attorney. Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Site Plans: Evangel Baptist Church: Mr.Lung presented the site plan for the Evangel Baptist Church for the construction of a multi- purpose facility to be added to the existing church.The property is located along the north side of Broadfording Road east of Point Salem Road,consists of 2.36 acres and is zoned Highway Interchange.The Church is proposing a new 60 x 100 foot building and to relocate the existing parking lot.Mr.Lung reviewed the location of the existing and proposed buildings and the storm water management area.He stated that the Board of Appeals granted a variance from the required 75 foot buffer yard along the west property line with the condition that screening be provided from the parking area and that has been done.Mr.Lung stated that this property is pending HI-2 zoning as part of the Comprehensive Highway Interchange zoning and noted if the proposed zoning been approved prior to submittal they would not be subject to this requirement. The site will be served by a well and septic and a new septic area has been proposed and verbally approved by the Health Department.Mr.Lung said he had one comment on this site.The site plan calls for some night use of the building and the site plan did not show any lighting for the parking lot.He was concerned with the isolated nature of the parking lot and suggested that they may want to consider lighting.Pastor Thompson stated that there will be dusk to dawn lights. Mr.Lung stated that the Permits Department was concerned with the fact that the property is described as three different parcels and since all three parcels are encumbered with the one use, the Permits Department has requested that it be stated on the plat that the existing property lines will be vacated and there will be a new deed written.Mr.Lung said that approval would be contingent upon the addition of the lighting in the parking lot,addressing Permits comments and receiving the formal approval from the Health Department.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent on lighting being providing for the parking areas,eliminating the property lines and describe it as one parcel and Health Department approval.Seconded by 256 Mr.Clopper.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Forest Conservation: Mountain Shadows: Mr.Stachoviak presented the forest conservation plan for Mountain Shadows.The property is located in the Town of Smithsburg.Mr.Stachoviak stated that all of the municipalities in the County except for the City of Hagerstown delegate the authority of the Conservation Plans to the County.The total acreage ofthe site is 11.27 acres and are required to plant 1.67 acres of forest. There is no forest presently on the site.The developer is proposing that afforestation be done off site on the remaining lands and needs the Planning Commission's permission to do that.Mr. Stachoviak said that the planting will be done along Little Grove Creek,which is a priority one area.He proceeded to review the sizes and types of trees to be planted and stated that they are proposing a surety bond in the amount of$7,361.64.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the use of off site planting.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the Forest Conservation Plan.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Agro Forestry: ·Elmer Weibley of the Soil Conservation District referred to the agroforestry tree planting plan prepared by Phil Pannill,Regional Watershed Forester,in the agenda packet.He explained that when he previously met with the Planning Commission regarding their partnership in working with the forest conservation fund,Mr.Iseminger had suggested utilizing some of the funds for educational activities.He said that they worked with the forestry people for forestry educational activities and the result are the two proposals in the agenda packet.He added that Phil Pannil was looking for someone to assist him in getting the funding for the two projects and to be the conduit for the funds to flow through and the District agreed to do that.Mr.Weibley said that the County Commissioners approved the funding and they will start to implement it soon.A discussion followed. Preliminary Consultations: Austin Hills: Mr.Brittain referred to the summary in the agenda packet.It was the consensus of the Plmming Commission that they agreed with the concept plan proposed by the developer. Other Business: Rosewood PUD Revised Concept Plan: Mr.Lung referred to the copy of the revised PUD concept in the agenda packet and reviewed the PUD process as follows:submittal of the concept plan of the PUD for preliminary consultation, review of the concept plan by the Planning Commission for design approval,public hearing for PUD zoning approval,submittal of the preliminary plan and then submittal of subdivision plan and site plans.He said that for Rosewood they have already gone through most of the process. He noted that the property was rezoned and the developer was working with his consultant on the preliminary/final development plans and during that process they determined that they needed to acquire additionallm1d in order to relocate one of the roads,which would make the PUD work better.Mr.Lung explained that the developer will be required to have another public hearing because they are proposing to add additional land to the PUD.He proceeded to review the proposed changes.The development is located on the west side of Robinwood Drive,north of Robinwood Medical Center and south of the Junior College.The PUD approval was received in 1995.Mr.Shaool has acquired additional property at the south end and is proposing to relocate 257 John F.Kennedy Drive further south to line up with a street from the other section across of Robinwood Drive.In addition to the road relocation,the plan is shifting some of the commercial and residentiallmits.Mr.Lung explained that this change will affect the density as follows:the original acreage of the PUD was 75.823 acres -the revised acreage would be 79.013 (additional 3.19 acres);the original plan called for 523 residential units -the revised plan will have 589 units.Mr.Lung stated that the original PUD was approved with a density of 6.9 dwelling units per acre and the revision would change it to 7.5 dwelling units.The commercial area originally proposed 7.6 acres and is now 7.9 acres.Mr.Lung said this will have to go back to public hearing to rezone the additional land that Mr.Shaool is acquiring from Residential Suburban to Planned Unit Development and to revise the concept plan to include this change in the overall design.Mr.Llmg said that the County Engineer supports this design because it provides for better traffic flow through the development and also lines up the intersection and added that staff thinks it is a good design.A discussion followed with the developer's attorney Roger Schlossburg regarding going to public hearing and the fact that the entire development will have to meet the requirements ofthe Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance prior to final plat approval, the widening of Robinwood Drive,cost sharing of road improvements and school capacity. Wintergreen Subdivision -Request to Remove Sidewalks from the Plan: Mr.Lung referred to the letter in the agenda packet from the developer,Mr.Schuster.He stated .that preliminary plat approval was granted in 1995 for 11 lots off of Green Mmmtain Drive north of Maugansville.The property is zoned residential multi-family.Mr.Lung stated that this is a single family residential development based on RU standards.He said that the smallest lot in the development is 7,500 square feet.Mr.Lung said that the 11 lots off of Green Mountain Drive involved an extension of Green MOlmtain Drive and the County Engineer allowed that to be constructed to the same standards as the old part of Green Mountain Drive.He referred to the 46 lots off of Reiff Church Road and noted that section was required to be built with curb and gutter streets with sidewalks.The developer is requesting that he be relieved of the requirements of sidewalks and has also requested that the County Engineer relieve him of his responsibility to do upgrading to Reiff Church Road to meet the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance to the point after he constructs 25 lots,the developer is also requesting an extension to both the preliminary plat and the final plat.Mr.Lung said that so far they have final plat approval on lots 1-11 and lots 12-34 and proceeded to review the history of the subdivision.Mr.Llmg said that the COlmty Engineer has agreed to the delaying of the implementation of the APFO requirements on Reiff Church Road.He said in regards to the sidewalks,staff feels that the sidewalks are an integral part of the development based on density and the design of the street.As far as the extension time that would be up to the Planning Commission. Mrs.Lampton made a motion to grant a one year extension of the preliminary plat and a one year extension of the final plat for lots 12 -34.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Mr.Schuster said that he is requesting the elimination of the sidewalks because when he originally submitted the plan they called for open streets and swales.He said that staff came back and wanted closed section streets.He said it is his recollection that he added the sidewalks and said that in looking at the development costs in terms of sidewalks,which run approximately $2,000 a lot,it is difficult to compete with developments that do not have sidewalks and wanted to know if the Planning Commission would allow him to eliminate them.A discussion followed regarding the fact that with closed section streets there are normally sidewalks and the fact that sidewalks malce sense in this location because of the design and density.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to deny the request to eliminate the sidewalks.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Rezoning Recommendation -RZ-97-08 Ted Shank: Mr.Lung referred to the staff report in the agenda packet and stated that he had nothing else to add.Mr.Iseminger stated that the applicant made a good case that there was a mistake in the original zoning plus the fact that what they are requesting is a logical extension of the zoning 258 lines for the business.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that they adopt RZ-97 -08 due to the fact that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and based on the findings of fact outlined in the staff report and that the requested zoning is logical and appropriate.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Rezoning Recommendation -RZ-97-09 Ronnie Koontz: Mr.Goodrich stated he had nothing to add to the report but had a comment regarding the last full paragraph on page 4 which states "very few travel centers or employment centers are near the proposed interchange now".He recognized the Review and Herald and Potomac Edison in that area but question whether they should be considered near.Mr.Wantz stated that there was a question raised in the staff report about the neighborhood and how it was determined.He said that the circular dimensions of the neighborhood are based on case law precedent and they have no objection to revision of the neighborhood to limit it to the north side of the interstate consistent with staff s position.He also commented that the staff report mentions a special exception granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals for restaurant use which was a prospective purchaser driven application and that the purchase negotiations are no longer active.Mr. Iseminger stated that the soon to be built interchange will have a significant impact on the neighborhood and referred to the staff report.He feels that the applicant has made a case in regards to change in character of the neighborhood.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to recommend ·to the County Commissioners that they adopt RZ-97 -09 based on the fact that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,based on the findings offact outlined in the staff report,the fact that the applicant demonstrated that there was a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood and that the requested zone is logical and appropriate.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger. So ordered. Transportation Element: Mr.Arch referred to the Transportation Plan he sent out for their review.He said they need recommendation on approval of adoption for the commissioners.A discussion followed.Mr. Moser made a motion that the County Commissioners adopt the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. I WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -DECEMBER 1,1997 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday December I, 1997 in the Commissioners meeting room. Members present were:Chairman,Bertrand 1.Iseminger;Vice-Chairman,Bernard Moser;Paula Lampton,Don Ardinger,R.Ben Clopper,and Robert Ernst,II.Staff:Planning Director,Robert C.Arch;Senior Planners Lisa Kelly Pietro and Timothy A.Lung;Park and Environmental Planner,William Stachoviak and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent was Ex-Officio James R.Wade. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.by the Chairman. Before proceeding with the minutes,Mr.Arch said he had three items for informational purposes.One pertains to the consultation for Stonehenge Farms,the tree planting program and Creative Kitchens expansion. Minutes of September 8,1997: Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the minutes of September 8,1997.Seconded by Mrs. Lampton.So ordered. Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the minutes of October 5,1997.Seconded by Mrs. Lampton.So ordered. New Business: Subdivisions: South Pointe PUD Preliminary Plat/Site Plan: Mrs.Pietro presented the Preliminary Plat/Site Plan for cOl11l11ercial development of the South Pointe PUD.The property is located on the north side of Oak Ridge Drive in front of the existing one story townhouses and is zoned Residential Suburban PUD.Mrs.Pietro explained that the PUD has been in existence for about 6 to 7 years with residential development in the back of the property and commercial in the front.The developer is proposing to create an office retail center with mini storage warehouses to the rear of the cOl11l11ercial area on approximately 7.5 acres.The total square footage of the building area is 38,000 square feet,and the mini storage area will be 4,600 square feet.The site will be served by public water and sewer and access will be from Oak Ridge Drive and South Pointe Drive.Mrs.Pietro reviewed the parking (201 spaces),freight and delivery (4 trips per day),number of employees (50),approximate customers (1,000),hours of operation (8:00 a.m.-10:00 p.m.Monday thru Saturday,12:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.on Sunday),recyclable and trash location,signs,landscaping and lighting (pole mounted).All approvals have been received.Mrs.Pietro noted that Engineer'ing's approval is with the condition that they receive comments back on the traffic study and Permits approval is contingent on the variance for the sign being approved by the Board of Appeals at their meeting Wednesday night.She stated that she met with the developer and his consultant at the site in regards to sidewalks in the cOl11l11ercial section tying in with the residential section.She refened to the exhibit plat and noted that in the commercial section located along Oak Ridge Drive the sidewalk was designed for the other side of the street.She stated that the developer has agreed to place the sidewalk along South Pointe Drive and to the rear of the site and at such time that the sidewalk is developed on the other side,there will be crosshatching on the road to connect the 2 sidewalks.A discussion followed regarding access to the site,the traffic study,access to the commercial area by the residents and the sidewalks.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the Preliminary Plat/Site Plan contingent on Engineering's review of the Traffic Study,Permits approval and with the condition that the sidewalks be constructed before Phases 3 and 4 begin. Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Emeritus Preliminary/Final Plat and Site Plan: Mr.Ltmg presented the preliminary/final subdivision plat and site plan for Emeritus Corporation. He stated that this is an assisted living facility to be located on a 4.6 acre lot located on the southeast side of RobinwoodDrive,zoned Residential Suburban.He stated that the Emeritus Corporation will be purchasing the property from Triad Properties to con.strnct a 100 unit . assisted living facility.The Board of Zoning Appeals has granted a specIal exceptIOn for thIs use in the RS zoning district and has approved the building setbacks.Emeritus will be constrncting a new building consisting of a one story central building which will contain a common area,dining. facility,and indoor recreation facilities.There will also be two residential wings,which will be two story.There will be a new public street off of Robinwood Drive to serve this site and to serve the 14 acres of remaining lands.Mr.Lung stated that an agreement has been drawn up between the COlmty and Emeritus regarding their contributions to the improvements of Robinwood Drive.The site will be served by public water and sewer provided by the City of Hagerstown.Mr.Lung reviewed the storm water management pond,landscaping,parking and .number of employees (15).He said thete is no existing forest on the site and that the developer is proposing a payment in lieu offorestation for .68 acres in the amount of $2,962.08.Mr.Lung stated that the County Engineer and Soil Conservation District have signed off on the drawings, however,Engineering has not issued an official approvalll11til the stormwater management agreement is submitted as well as the agreement letter between the County and Emeritus regarding the offsite improvements.Mr.Lung said that the Hagerstown Water Department has not completed their review but do anticipate that some revisions will be needed.He said that he was unable to reach anyone at Water Pollution Control and that their approval is also outstanding and that if the Planning Commission issues an approval it should be contingent upon those agencies and conditional upon the agreement between the County and Emeritus being worked out over the off site improvements.Mr.Lung said they are also requesting approval of the payment in lieu of and giving staff the authority to approve the final subdivision plat. A discussion followed with Keith Meisner of Greencastle Retirement Associates (pminers with Emeritus)regarding the plml and the outstmlding items.Mr.Ernst made a motion to grmlt preliminary subdivision plat approval and site plan approval,giving staff the authority to grant final subdivision plat and site plan approval,contingent on the Engineering Depmiment's approval of the Stormwater Management agreement,contingent on the Offsite Improvement agreement,contingent on the City of Hagerstown Water Depm·tment and Water Pollution Control's approval and to grant approval of payment in lieu of to meet the forest conservation requirements.Seconded by Mrs.Lmnpton.Mr.Ardinger abstained.So ordered. Walnut Point Heights: Mr.Lung presented the final plat for Sections 2 mld 3 of Walnut Point Heights.Mr.Lung said that the Planning Commission has previously approved the Preliminary Plat alld that they me now asking for final approval for Sections 2 mld 3.He stated it is a residential subdivision located west ofMD 63,north ofl-70 and east of Walnut Point Road.The property is zoned Residential Rural.He said that the Plarming Commission previously approved a preliminary plat for 215 lots in April of 1995 and revised approval was granted in July of 1997.He said that the entire development covers 133 acres.Mr.Lung stated that the Planning Commission has already approved the final plat for Section 1 for 48 single fmnily dwellings.He said that what is before them tonight are Sections 2 alld 3.Section 2 contains 16 lots for semi-detached dwellings, Section 3 has 36 lots for single family dwellings.There will be new public streets built as pmt of these sections.Public water is provided by the City of Hagerstown,sewer will be provided by Washington County.The development is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance.All 3 agency approvals have been received.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to grant final subdivision plat approval for Sections 2 and 3 of Walnut Point Heights.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Preliminary Consultation: Stonehenge Farms: Mrs.Pietro stated that she did not have anything to add to the summary for the consultation.The developer is proposing 26 single family lots located on the north side of Speilman Road and on 67 acres zoned Agriculture.In order to meet the Forest Conservation requirements,Mrs.Pietro stated that the developer is proposing to use some of the existing forest on the site as well as some of the existing hardwood forest on the remaining lands.She said that she informed them they would need to get permission from the Planning Commission to do that i'llld suggested that they do so before proceeding with the preliminary plat.Mrs.Pietro stated thai:there is quality forest on both the development site and the remaining lands.She said that the off site forest is of quality since it lies along a stream and consists of older trees.In addition,Mrs.Pietro refened to the exhibit drawing and noted that three lots will have direct access onto Speilman Road and did not know ifthe Planning Commission wanted all of the lots to access an interior road.Mr. Moser commented that in the past the Planning Commission has discouraged multiple accesses when the lots can all access an interior street and recommended use of the interior street.A discussion followed regarding the intermittent stream,and the cemetery.Mr.Iseminger stated that he concurs with Mr.Moser and staff to deny access to Speilman Road except for the new road and that all lots should front the new road. Other Business: Creative Kitchens: Mr.Arch explained that this is a site plan for Creative Kitchens located in the Early Industrial Parle He said there is an existing business there and they want to add a showroom for kitchen cabinets.He said it is before the Platming Commission for information purposes and that they are requesting that staff be given the authority to grant site plan approval.Mrs.Pietro explained that tlw site plan was recently submitted and that the developer is proposing a warehouse and wholesale showroom area.She stated that there is an existing metal building on the site and they are expanding and creating another building for their kitchen business.The site is located on Western Drive off of the Sharpsburg Pike.She said tllat the expansion is 1500 square feet and the property is zoned IG.There are 5 employees,9 parking spaces and the accesftjs already there. She proceeded to review the number of employees (5),parking (9 spaces),access,sign (existing), freight and delivery (twice a day)and screened dumpster location.Mr.Iseminger commented that a lot of the area in that industrial park is not blacktopped and wanted to know if they intended to provide parking with blacktop instead of gravel.Mrs.Pietro said they are showing crushed stone.Mr.Iseminger feels that the Planning Commission should start requiring the developer to pave these areas to keep down the dust,etc.A discussion followed regarding paving parking areas.Mr.Ardinger stated that he would like Teny McGee,the County Engineer,to comment on the advantages and disadvantages with storm water management regarding paving the parking area.Mr.Ernst made a motion to give staff the authority to grant [mal site plan approval for the expansion of Creative Kitchens.Seconded by Mr.Moser.So ordered.Mr. Iseminger asked that Mr.Arch send a memo to Terry McGee regarding the discussion they had concerning paving the parking areas and have him and Paul Prodonovich meet with Platming Staff to discuss at what point paving should be required. Resolution 97-05.Long Range Transportation Plan: Mr.Arch stated that last month the Platming Commission approved the amendment to the 4 Comprehensive Plan for the Long Range Transportation Plan and that this is just the resolution to recommend to the County Commissioners that they adopt the revised Transportation Plan. Mr.Moser made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that they adopt the revised Transportation Plan.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. Parks Plan: Mr.Stachoviak referred to the draft Parks Plan in the agenda packet and said that he has not received any additional comments on the plan since it was mailed out for review.He explained that the plan is before .the Planning Commission for their review and comments.The next step is to take the plan to the Commissioners for their comments at their December 9th meeting and that the public meetings will begin the first week of January.Mr.Iseminger stated that on page 16 of the Plan that the numbers did not seem to add up.On page 24 in regards to the population projections in the Eastern area that includes Smithsburg,Mr.Iseminger asked·if that was correct because he thought the amount was low.Mr.Arch stated that was correct.Mr.Iseminger asked in regards to page 37 #12 under Goals and Objectives "Facilitate programming through cooperative efforts with private enterprise"if they meant working with existing providers like nonprofits such as the YMCA,Boys Club and Scouts that provide for recreation.Mr.Stachoviak stated that this list was provided to him by the Parks Department and he was not sure if it meant working through sponsorships.Mr.Iseminger stated that he felt there needs to be cooperation -and coordination of all of the programs and feels it should be mentioned in the Plan and asked Mr.Stachoviak to check.On page 44 with regard to facilities #16 City Park improvements -Mr. Iseminger noted that the park is one of their least used resources and he would like to see some major landscaping and aesthetic improvements to the park to make it a walking passive park that people can enjoy.Mr.Stachoviak said that this information was provided by the City.Mr. Iseminger added that he agrees that they need to have more neighborhood parks.In regards to page 55,Eastern Plmming area,Mr.Iseminger said that he did not know if they wanted to make reference to Ft.Ritchie or Pen Mar Development Corporation.He said that it is not referred to and that in October of next year the County will be taking over the recreational facilities and feels it should be referenced.A discussion followed regarding soccer fields and the Ruritan Park in Maugansville. American Heritage River Initiative: Mr.Arch referred to the letter passed out regarding the American Heritage River Initiative.He stated that the County Commissioners received a letter from Senator Paul Sarbanes for support of this initiative.He explained that the President has created the Americml Heritage River Program with an Executive Order and they are looking to have the Potomac River designated as one of the first ten rivers.He said that it does not create any new funding programs,but does elevate the prospects to receive certain flmds based upon that designation.He said that the County Commissioners asked him to bring it before the Plmming Commission.A discussion followed regarding the advantages of the initiative.Mr.Moser made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners to support the American Heritage Rivers Initiative.Seconded by Mr. Ernst.So ordered. Tree Planting: Mr.Arch stated that he met today with Elmer Weibley of Soil Conservation and are in the process of getting the next phase moving and that they will have four to five projects.He said that they will take this to the County Commissioners for their blessing and then bring it back to the Planning Commission for their approval of the plan.A discussion followed regarding the sites,and when they need to get the RFP out,the fact they need to start planting early in the spring,and using this program as an educational tool with the children. Mr.Iseminger commented that he received a letter hom the Washington COlmty Water and Sewer Advisory Commission regarding their concern of the cellular towers and wanted to know the status of the amendment.Mr.Arch said that the County Commissioners reviewed it in the spring and that the legal department is working on it.Mr.Iseminger asked that Mr.Arch check with Beth Evans and to let her know that the Planning Commission would like to lmow by the next meeting the status of the amendment. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. 5