Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999 Minutes82 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -JANUARY 4,1999 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,January 4,1999 in the Commissioners meeting room. Members present were:Chairman,Bernard Moser;Vice-Chairperson,Paula Lampton;R.Ben Clopper;Don Ardinger,Robert Ernst,11,and Ex-Officio,Bertrand L.Iseminger.Staff:Planning Director,Robert C.Arch;Senior Planners,Lisa Kelly Pietro and 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. MINUTES: Mr.Iseminger made a motion to adopt the minutes of November 6,1998.Seconded by Mr. Ernst.So ordered. Mr.Ernst made a motion to adopt the minutes of December 7,1998.Seconded by Mr. Iseminger.So ordered. OLD BUSINESS: Marc Silverman -Forest Conservation: Mr.Lung stated that the preliminary consultation and concept plan for this site was presented at the November Planning Commission meeting.The property is located off of Robinwood Drive, and consists of 12.99 acres zoned Residential Suburban.Mr.Lung stated that at the November meeting the applicant requested to use the payment in lieu option to meet their forest conservation requirements.He said that according to the work sheet,the developer would be required to plant 1.95 acres of forest.The approved forest stand delineation shows no existing forest on the site nor are there any priority areas and it would appear that the payment in lieu of would be in order.Mr.Lung stated that during the November meeting an issue was raised by an attorney,representing some neighboring property owners,in the audience regarding a buffer yard and referred to the response from the property owner's attorney in the agenda packet.Mr. Iseminger commented that the developer still has some landscaping to plant along the property lines that should provide some buffering.Mr.Tucker,consultant,of Associated Engineering stated that landscaping is being supplied as part of the improvement plan and there will be a walking trail around the development.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to approve the request for payment in lieu subject to the site plan showing the improvements (landscaping and walking path).Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ardinger abstained.So ordered. Sandra Shay -Variance Request from Panhandle/Access Requirements: Mr.Lung stated that this request was before the Commission at the December meeting and was tabled in order to receive comments from the County Engineer regarding the proposed entrance. He said that the County Engineer verified what the Planning Commission reported,by moving the entrance as proposed would create a safer situation from a sight distance standpoint.He said that the County's sight distance requirements have changed since the subdivision was originally approved and the original entrance would not meet the current sight distance standards.Moving the entrance as proposed would meet the requirements.He stated that the request was for a panhandle exceeding 400 feet,the 5th panhandle lot out of the original tract ofland and the 83 access separation variance.Mr.Iseminger asked ifthe applicant saw Mr.McGee's memo of December 14th and whether they were in agreement with abandoning the original apron.Ms. Shay stated they did not have a problem.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant the variance request subject to the conditions stated in Terry McGee's memo of December 14,1998 and based on the fact that they are improving sight distance.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Subdivisions: Paul and Dulce Ritchie,Lots 1-3 Preliminary/Final Plat: Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat for Paul and Dulce Ritchey.The property is located on the south side of Fairview Road.The property consists of 4.06 acres zoned Agriculture.The developer is proposing to create 3 single family lots.The lots will be served by wells and septics.All will have access to Fairview Road via a common drive.All agency approvals have been received.Mrs.Pietro stated that they are paying the fee in lieu in order to meet the Forest Conservation requirements.Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the preliminary final plat.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the payment in lieu request.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Site Plans: Washington County Regional Airport: Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for the Washington County Regional Airport.The site is located at the intersection of Henson Boulevard and Air Park Road and is zoned AP.The County is proposing to construct a 20,000 square foot vehicle storage building with office space on 4 acres.Mrs.Pietro proceeded to review the site plan:the building height will be 26 feet,there will be 7 parking spaces with one handicapped space,public water and sewer will be provided to the site,lighting will be building mounted and hours of operation will be Monday through Saturday 7:00 a.m.to 4:00 p.m.She stated that there will be four employees and reviewed the landscaping.Mrs.Pietro stated that this site is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance. Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the site plan.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Lippincott and Wilkins: Mr.Lung presented the site plan.The site is located on 27 acres in the Huntridge Business Park on the south side ofMD 144.The property is zoned HI-I.Access to the site is off of an extension ofInsurance Way.Lippincott is in the book binding business and already have an existing building in the business park.Mr.Lung stated that the owner is proposing to build a new building consisting of a 155,232 square foot warehouse with a future addition of 45,750 square feet and a 20,000 square foot office in the front.The building will front on Insurance Way.Mr.Lung reviewed the parking which will provide for 150 employees.He stated it will have lighting and will have all the required green areas.Hours of operation will be from 9:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.Monday through Friday.Storm water management will be handled by a regional pond.Public water and sewer is available to the site.He stated that the truck loading area for the warehouse will be to the rear of the building.He said they are adjacent to a residential zoned property and there are residences across Rt.144 so the buffer yard requirements for the Highway Interchange zoning would apply,which requires a solid screen of vegetative planting and is being addressed.Mr.Lung stated that one of their comments was that it did not appear they had a sufficient amount of trees to meet the requirements.He said they did receive a revision today and has not had a chance to verifY the changes.He said that another concern was that they are showing building mounted flood lights in the back,which could cause a problem with spillover.He said a note has been added to the site plan stating that the lights will be shielded to prevent spillover onto the adjacent properties.Forest Conservation has been addressed in the business park by establishing a forest retention area and doing afforestation planting in a flood plain area.Mr.Lung stated that they are waiting for approvals from Water Pollution Control and the County Permits Department.A discussion followed with the consultant,Gerry Cump of Cump and Associates,regarding the landscaping plan,future expansion,location of the sewer and the fact that the required 50 foot buffer may limit future building on the lot.Mr.Iseminger suggested locating the vegetative screen planting near the road now.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent on agency approvals and final resolution of the buffer.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. uLJ!)~"", Bernard L.Moser,ChairrnaA 84 85 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -FEBRUARY 1,1999 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,February 1, 1999 in the County Commissioners meeting room. Members present were:Chairman,Bernard Moser;Vice-Chairperson,Paula Lampton;R.Ben Clopper;Don Ardinger and Robert Ernst,II.Staff:Planning Director,Robert C.Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior Planner,Timothy A.Lung and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. Mr.Moser commented that Robert Nichols has been appointed to fill Mr.Iseminger's vacancy on the Commission. MINUTES: Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the minutes of January 4,1999.Seconded by Mr. Ernst.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Subdivisions: Lappans Estates.Preliminm:y Plat,Lots 11-18: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary plat and forest conservation plan for Lappans Estates.The property is located on the south side of Lappans Road (MD 68)at the end of Country Horne Lane,which was built to serve the existing 10 lots.Mr.Lung stated that this plat is for the remaining 18.5 acres of Lappans Estates,and is zoned Agriculture.The developer is proposing to create 9 lots ranging in size from approximately an acre to 5.5 acres.Mr.Lung noted that 750 feet of new road will be constructed and will end in a cul-de-sac.The lots will be served by individual wells and septics and all agency approvals have been received.In regards to the forest conservation plan,Mr.Lung stated that the delineation indicated there are 11.36 acres of existing forest on the site and that the worksheet stated that they would be allowed to clear 9.09 acres without mitigation.The plan calls for 5.39 acres to be cleared and 5.97 acres will be retained in the form of an easement on Lots 19, 18,17 and 16.Mr.Lung stated that there are some details of the forest conservation plan that still need to be worked out between the consultant and staff and that staff recommends that approval be contingent upon the forest conservation plan issues being addressed with staff.He also requested that staff be given the authority to grant final subdivision approval.A discussion followed.Mr.Ernst made a motion to grant preliminary plat approval giving staff the authority for final plat approval.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the forest conservation plan retaining 5.97 acres of forest subject to staffreview of the contingencies.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Silverman Companies L.L.C.: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary plat for Silverman Companies LLC.He stated that the concept plan has been before the Commission as well as a request for payment in lieu in order to meet the forest conservation requirements.He explained what is before them tonight is the preliminary subdivision plat for this development located along the east side of Robinwood Drive south of Robins Glenn townhouses.This site contains 13 acres zoned Residential Suburban.The developer is proposing 27 lots,25 of which are designed for semi-detached dwellings and two for single family or 2 family dwellings.There will also be a 1.8 acre common open space area.Along the front of the property near Robinwood Drive there will be a 5.13 acre 86 lot which is the site of a proposed senior living facility.Mr.Lung noted that the Zoning Appeals Board recently approved a request for a special exception to create the senior living facility.He said that a site plan for this facility was submitted but that formal Planning Commission approval of a site plan for uses in the RS district is not required.He stated that the development will access off of Rose Bank Way and that the storm water management area will be located towards the front.Mr.Lung stated the entire property will be served by public water and sewer by the City of Hagerstown.He stated that they are waiting for revisions to address agency and staff comments and added that there are some items that they want to review with the Planning Commission.Mr.Lung stated that when they reviewed the concept plan,the Planning Commission asked for pedestrian access and vegetative screening and the developer has provided an interior path system with access to the street.He noted that with open section streets it is difficult to use sidewalks.In regards to the screening,Mr.Lung stated that there will be plantings along the rear property line where there are adjacent residential properties,but the plan does not indicate type and size of plantings.The other item is the design of the open space area. Mr.Lung stated that it is not a requirement but that the developer wanted to provide additional amenities and keep the lots as small as possible.He said that when they look at the open space area they have to consider it as a lot.He said in order to meet subdivision requirements they need 25 feet of road frontage,which the open space area does not have.The developer has submitted a variance request to allow the open space area to be created without public road frontage with easements provided to access it.He said that staff does not have any objection to the variance as long as it is clear that this lot is for open space only.In regards to the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance,the County Engineer has stated that prior to final approval,an agreement between the County and the developer must be reached regarding the developers contribution to the Robinwood Corridor.Mr.Moser asked the consultant what was proposed for the buffer to the rear.Mr.Tucker,consultant,from Associated Engineering Sciences stated that they were proposing Leyland Cypress in a 10 foot wide buffer.Mr.Moser asked about the interior walkways and why they do not have sidewalks.Mr.Lung stated that the County Engineer asked for open section streets,which are difficult to have sidewalks and that there is no requirement that sidewalks be provided.Mr.Lung stated that in reviewing the site plan at the last Planning Commission meeting there was a discussion to extend the pathway to Robinwood Drive because the County wants to see an interconnective pedestrian system in the Robinwood area.A discussion followed regarding the open space,the fact that the open space area should be mentioned in the deeds,parking,the size of the buffer,whether they could have a wider buffer, the fact that the Ordinance does not require a buffer between residential properties and that the proposed 10 foot buffer is above and beyond what is required.Mr.Ernst asked about the setbacks for the houses.Mr.Lung stated that there is a 40 foot rear yard set back and with the additional 10 feet a house could not be built closer than 50 feet from the rear property line.A discussion followed regarding elevations,the adjacent residential properties and extending the pathway to Robinwood Drive.Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant a variance to allow no frontage on the open space to the streets.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ardinger abstained. So ordered. At this time,an adjacent property owner,requested an opportunity to speak.He said that he spoke to everyone along the road and they do not oppose the subdivision but are concerned with the buffer,erosion,and in regards to the walkway located to the rear of their lots are concerned with privacy and security.He added the would like to see a wider buffer and want to know more about the type of vegetation.A discussion followed regarding the pathway and its location and the fact that the trees will be planted 5-6 feet apart and will be staggered.The developer,Mr. Silverman stated that he would do whatever the Planning Commission wanted in regards to the buffer and path,however,he wants to provide amenities for the occupants of his development. Mr.Ernst made a motion to grant preliminary plat approval,with the condition that there be continuity of the walkway though the open space,final resolution of the walkway between the developer and staff,contingent on agency approvals and that the final plat will come back to the Planning Commission.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Ardinger abstained.So ordered.A discussion followed. 87 Site Plans: Phase 3 -Prime Retail: Mr.Goodrich presented the site plan for Phase 3 of Prime Outlets at Hagerstown.The property is located in the northeast quadrant of the intersection ofI-70 and Route 65.He referred to the exhibit plat and noted the existing buildings in Phases I and II and the location of the proposed Phase III buildings and parking.Phases I and II have a total of 303,000 square feet of gross leasable floor space and 1968 parking spaces.Phase III will have approximately 110,000 additional square feet of gross leasable floor space and almost 500 additional parking spaces.He explained that a portion of the current road around the parking lot will be moved.The site will be served by public water and sewer and all of the improvements that needed to be made were worked out during Phase I.Mr.Goodrich noted that four remaining issues are forest conservation,bus parking,sidewalks and buffering.He said remaining forest area figures needed to be checked and provided to insure that the site can maintain its exempt status by not clearing more than 40,000 square feet of forest.He mentioned that the bus parking has been moved and the number of spaces reduced from 8 to 5.During the approval of Phase II the Commission discussed sidewalks to allow for pedestrian access.Staff is recommending them to MD 65 and West Oak Ridge Drive.Additional buffering will be needed in light of the new development and its relation to existing adjacent dwellings.A small amount of buffering was not installed as proposed in the previous phases appears now to be inadequate. A discussion followed.Mr.Ernst made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon resolution of the sidewalk issue and that they should be completed at the time of the phase located behind the existing AC&T building by January 2001,additional buffering as recommended by staff and agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.Mrs. Lampton made a motion in regards to the buffer to give staff the authority to determine the best placement for additional buffer being required.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.A discussion followed. PUD's: Rosewood Village -Final Plan: Mr.Lung explained that this is the last step in the process of laying out the overall design of the PUD and that the next step will involve subdivision plats and site plans for the individual phases. He stated that the property is located on the west side of Robinwood Drive between the Community College and Robinwood Medical Center and consists of 79 acres.Mr.Lung stated that the final development plan is basically the same as the preliminary plan approved in June except that some of the townhouse units have been designated as rental units.He stated that the project contains a mixture of residential and commercial development.There is a total of 520 residential units proposed.There will be 362 townhouses with 121 of them being rental townhouses,158 apartment units which includes an assisted living facility and elderly living units.There are two commercial areas proposed and there will be just under 20 acres of open space provided,which will include the required forest conservation area.Mr.Lung stated that sidewalks are provided along the public streets and an internal path system linking the tot lots, play lots,the commercial area and the recreational area.Mr.Lung said that most of the reviewing agencies have approved the plan and that they are waiting for approvals from the Hagerstown Water Department and the Permits Department.Mr.Lung stated that he had a meeting with the developer and the Permits Department on Thursday regarding revisions to the plan.He stated that the only major change is the designation of some of townhouse lots being rentals and referred to their location on the exhibit plat and noted they will be on a private street system.He stated since they are rentals,they will not be dealing with subdivision and they have eliminated the interior lot lines.There will be a "building envelope"around the townhouse units for management purposes.He stated that the other townhouse units are designed to meet the normal setback requirements in the Zoning regulations.He said that at this time it is difficult to know where the rental townhouses will fall inside the building envelope and there is latitude permitted in the Zoning Ordinance for PUD's for the Planning Commission to approve any 88 arrangement of setbacks etc.He stated that when the site plan comes in,there may be a need for some modifications to the setbacks for those units that fall inside the envelopes and that setbacks will be addressed at the site plan stage.Mr.Lung stated that since they were going to be rental units,the staff was concerned about the need for additional buffering along the property lines adjacent to property zoned for single family residences.He stated that the developer is proposing a combination of screen planting and berms along the property lines.The site plans will clarify the location of the plantings and berms once the grades are worked out.Mr.Lung reviewed the requirements outlined in the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to PUD's,which includes providing provisions for ownership and perpetual ownership of common open space,recreational facilities, private roadways and parking areas and finalize agreements for responsibilities between the County and the developer for providing on site and off site improvements.Mr.Lung stated that the developer has been working with the Planning Staff,County Engineer,and the County Attorney to come up with acceptable homeowners association documents for the affected areas. He stated that storm water management was also an issue and that it appears that it will be maintained by the homeowners association.He said that they have received a set of revised homeowners association documents that still need review.In regards to the developers agreement,Mr.Lung stated that the County Commissioners and the developer have been having a continuous dialogue discussing APFO issues and the developers contributions to off site improvements to Robinwood Drive.He said that it is recommended that any approval be conditioned upon the execution of the developers agreement.He said that for approval action they are requesting any outstanding agency comments be addressed,the County review of the .revised Homeowner's Association documents,the agreement between the developer and the County Engineer regarding the storm water management and the developers agreement.A discussion followed regarding the recreational areas and when they should be completed (Phases I and 2),the developers agreement,the phases,and the rental units. Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the final plan contingent upon final approval of the homeowners documents,execution of the developers agreement and outstanding agency approvals.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. OTHER BUSINESS: Distinguished Achievement Award -Forest Conservation Fund Program: Mr.Goodrich explained that Washington County has received a 1998 Distinguished Achievement award from the Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory Committee for the Forest Conservation Fund Program.The MD Department of Natural Resources submitted the program for consideration citing the possibility of duplication statewide.He said that the Soil Conservation District played a large role in developing and implementing the program and deserves recognition for making the program successful.Mr.Moser commended staff on their efforts in working with the development community in meeting their requirements of the Forest Conservation Ordinance and felt that the recognition of the state is well deserved.A discussion followed. WS-98-0 I,City of Hagerstown Water and Sewer Plan Amendment -Rezoning Recommendation: Mr.Lung stated that the only additional testimony at the hearing was by Alice Towne of the Health Department regarding a problem with contaminated wells in a nearby area.He said they were aware of the situation and it should be looked at in the future and identified as a problem area in the update of the plan.A discussion followed.Mr.Ernst made a recommendation that the proposed amendment be is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and recommend that the Commissioners adopt it.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. 89 RZ-98-l6.Sharpsburg Pike Inn L.L.C.-Rezoning Recommendation: Mr.Moser stated that the applicant's case was made on a mistake in the zoning.He stated that in the staff report valid points were made regarding looking at a comprehensive rezoning of that area.He said that the applicant did make a case for a mistake in the zoning and that a case could be made for a change in the neighborhood.He said he would like to see a line drawn out there or they will have a sprawling commercial development.Mr.Arch commented that the update of the Comprehensive Plan will address that.Mr.Ardinger commented that it would be hard not to recommend approval and noted that it keeps happening out there and would like to see the Comprehensive Plan address it.Mr.Ernst made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that they adopt RZ-98-l6 based on the applicant's demonstration that there was a mistake in the zoning,the findings of fact outlined in the Staff Report and that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is logical and appropriate.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.A discussion followed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. a~~~ Bernard L.Moser,Chairman 90 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -MARCH 1,1999 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,March I, 1999 in the Commissioners meeting room. Members present were:Chairman,Bernard Moser;Vice-Chairperson,Paula Lampton;R.Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger,Robert Nichols,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,Bertrand 1.Iseminger. Staff:Planning Director,Robert C.Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen Goodrich;Senior Planner,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. OTHER BUSINESS: RZ-98-18,Marcella Klinger,Text Amendment Recommendation: ,Mr.Goodrich stated that he did not have anything to add to the staff report.He said that even though it appears there may be a need to amend the Zoning Ordinance,staff did not feel this proposal is the way to do it.Mr.Moser commented that he concurs with the staff report and agreed that this text amendment is not the proper way to address the problem.He noted that the staff report indicates that mobile home parks faced with these situations do have the option of going to the Board of Appeals on an individual basis.A discussion followed regarding concern with eliminating setbacks.Mrs.Lampton made a recommendation that the County Commissioners deny RZ-98-18 based on the fact that the Commission felt that the proper way to address the setback situation in this mobile home park was not through an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance that would affect all mobile home parks but through requesting a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered. Woodbridge PUD -Revision to Approved Development Plan: Mr.Lung stated that they received a request from the developer's consultant to eliminate the interior lot lines in one of the townhouse sections of Woodbridge PUD,which is located off of Robinwood Drive.Mr.Lung explained that when the plan was originally approved in February 1990,the lots were designed as individual townhouse lots.He said that the developer has decided to rent the units instead of selling them and noted that apparently there is a tax:advantage to not having each townhouse unit on a separate lot.Mr.Lung stated that the developer is requesting permission to do a replat to eliminate all the internal lot lines for Section B at this time.He pointed out that there is a similar situation in the other sections.He said that he spoke to the Zoning Administrator about this request and he does not see a problem with the setback standards.Mr.Lung stated that with a PUD the amenities are located in a common area and that the site plan indicates three recreational areas along with an extensive path system to link everything together.He commented that he made a site inspection and most of the amenities are not in place.He recommended that if the Planning Commission is inclined to approve this request that they make it conditional upon the developer complying with the approved site plan. He noted that neither the developer nor his consultant were present.A discussion followed regarding maintaining the common area,the fact that since the units are all being rented,there would be no homeowners association,the fact that this development has been before the Planning Commission for modifications on two different issues,the fact that the path system and tot lots have not been completed according to the site plan.The Planning Commission was not inclined to approve anything tonight until the developer complies with the site plan.Mr. Ardinger made a motion to table the request until proper documentation is received regarding all 91 of the discrepancies,that the amenities shown on the site plan be complied with and that the Permits Director,Paul Prodonovich,review the site plan to see if it is in compliance as well as inspect the site,report back to the Planning Commission in writing and that the developer verifies how he intends to handle the maintenance of the common area.Seconded by Mrs. Lampton.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr.Arch stated that Mr.Tischler would not be here until 8:00 p.m.and added that the CIP is not ready but that he did have two other items for review with the Planning Commission. Site Plan -Bon Ton Expansion: Mr.Arch presented a copy of the site plan showing the proposed expansion of the Bon Ton.He requested that the Planning Commission grant staffthe authority for final site plan approvaL He explained that they are proposing a 30,000 square foot expansion and will have additional parking and landscaping that will blend in with the parking at the Hechts site.A discussion followed.Mr.Ernst made a motion to grant staffthe authority for final site plan approvaL Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. A discussion followed regarding the proposed University of Maryland site,the Priority Area Funding Map and the Rural Legacy Program. Fiscal Impact Study: Mr.Arch introduced Mr.Paul Tischler of Tischler and Associates to the Planning Commission. Mr.Tischler stated that it has been a year since he was last before the Commission and that at that time they were just beginning the study.He said that the studies have been completed and have resulted in the following documents:Service Level,Cost &Revenue Assumptions;Fiscal Impact Analysis of Future Growth Scenarios (executive summary is critical);Prototype Fiscal Impact Analysis;Impact Fees Study;and An Analysis of the Desirability and Feasibility of a Special Assessment District for the Hopewell Road Economic Development Area.He reviewed the process for preparing the documents,and the five scenarios used in the study -base case, economic development,dispersal,high residential and low growth.He explained that once the scenarios were defined,they interviewed the service providers.He commented that for General Fund Revenues they have two sources of income -property tax and income tax and noted that 31 %of the income comes from income tax.He said that another component of the revenue side is the market values and pointed out that due to the high market values,new homes are generating more revenue per house and are receiving the same level of service as existing homes. He referred to the expenditures and noted that Public Schools is the highest with 51.8%,which reflects the current levels of service.He explained that they took the information and put it into a fiscal model base,ran the results and came up with the fiscal impact analysis on the 5 scenarios. He said that the findings can be considered fiscally neutral with the average net revenues ranging from 4.3%to 9.4%of the current budget over the 22 year analysis study.He noted that the revenues increase over time because they are increasing infrastructure and more people are paying for it.He said that the major finding for all of the scenarios is that they have slight net revenues and the growth.He referred to the chart showing the Countywide Average Annual Net Revenues as a percent of the General Fund.He stated that for General Fund expenditures,the big one is schools,the second is public safety,community college and general goverument.He said that public schools would be worse ifthey had to build schools.In regards to the capital costs public schools is second to the streets because for a number of years they had excess capacity. Mr.Tischler proceeded to review the fiscal impact analysis and the three scenarios they used (marginal focus,average school costs and student generation rate increase).He pointed out that 92 townhouses and apartments show revenue deficits and that single family homes are more than self-supportive positive revenue for the County,apartments are negatives and townhouses are neutral.He said that this indicates the importance of more expensive housing to the County, because the higher market values generate more property taxes.He added that ifthey increase the levels of service they would have deficits.A discussion followed regarding when the consultant felt the County should start collecting impact fees for the schools (6 years),school capacity and the fact that some of the schools may reach capacity within 6 years.Further discussion followed regarding the Capital Expenditures,the fairness of impact fees on the new purchaser,the fact that in the past a large percentage of the infrastructure was funded by the State and the Federal Government and that is no longer the case and now falls on the local governments and whether a transfer tax would be better than an impact fee.Mr.Ardinger commented on the APFO and asked why it was not addressed in this study.Mr.Arch stated that they had discussed the possibility of a road impact fee but it was concluded that it was not a good way to approach it and that there was concern if they went with a road impact fee per trip that it could put them at a disadvantage for economic development projects with adjacent states.He referred to the impact fee section in the report which deals with public road equipment.He said that is a major expenditure category for Washington County and the that impact fee associated with that acts as an impact fee for road development.A discussion followed regarding the current levels ofservice including the fire service,the APFO,impact fees versus transfer tax, how impact fees will affect the growth of the area and the next step in this process.Mr. Iseminger stated that the next step will be for the Commissioners to discuss the impact fee study .and to hold a public hearing. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ~~~~ernard 1.er,Chairman 93 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -APRIL 5,1999 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,April 5, 1999 in the County Commissioners meeting room. Members present were:Chairman,Bernard Moser;Vice-Chairperson,Paula Lampton;Robert Nichols,Don Ardinger,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,Bertrand Iseminger.Absent was R.Ben Clopper.Staff:Planning Director,Robert C.Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich; Senior Planners,Lisa Kelly Pietro and Timothy A.Lung and Secretary,Deborah S.Kirkpatrick. CALL TO ORDER: MINUTES: In regards to the minutes of February 1,1999,Mr.Ardinger referred to the first paragraph on page 5 and noted that the beginning of the paragraph was missing.The planning secretary was instructed to review the tape and amend accordingly.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the minutes of March 1,1999.Seconded by Mr.Ernst. So ordered. Before proceeding with Other Business,Mr.Moser stated that he received a letter from the Commissioners reminding him that Paula Lampton's term will be expiring on May 31st and that he would like a motion from the Commission to recommend to the Commissioners that Paula's term be renewed.Mr.Ernst made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that they renew Paula Lamptons term.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Mr.Iseminger and Mrs.Lampton abstained.So ordered.Mr.Moser commented that Jim Brittain of the Planning Department retired effective April 1st. OTHER BUSINESS -I: RZ-99-04,Text Amendment (Site Plan)Staff Report and Recommendation: Mr.Arch stated that there was no additional testimony during the 10 day comment period but noted that Joe Swope did speak at the public hearing in favor of the amendment and that the staff report would be amended to reflect that.Mr.Ernst made a motion to recommend that the County Commissioners adopt RZ-99-04 based on the fact that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered.A discussion followed regarding starting the May meeting at 6:00 p.m.since the map amendment for the quarry and the Clear Spring interchange will be on the agenda and the Planning Commission felt they would need additional time for discussion. CIP: Mr.Arch referred to the CIP and stated that the Planning Commission's activity with the CIP is to recommend whether or not it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.He then proceeded to review the CIP.A discussion followed.Mrs.Lampton made a motion that the CIP is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered. APFO 6 Month Report: Mr.Arch reviewed the report and noted that Sharpsburg is the only school that they need to keep 94 an eye on at this time.He stated that the Board is looking at impact fees and that staff will be going back to the Board after the budget has been approved regarding alternative funding.Mr. Nichols made a motion that the Commissioners maintain the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.A vote was taken.Mr.Nichols,Mr.Ernst,Mrs.Lampton and Mr.Moser voted aye.Mr.Ardinger voted nay.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Agricultural Preservation Districts: Mr.Goodrich reviewed the three applications for the Agricultural Preservation District. AD-99-001,LAWRENCE IZER.The property is located along the west side of Maryland Rt.63 and north of Natural Well Road 1/4 mile west of Downsville.Mr.Goodrich referred to the exhibit map and pointed out the fact that there is a concentration of agricultural districts and one easement in that area.The farm consists of 148 acres and is currently a dairy farm.Mr.Goodrich stated that is contains 60 percent Class I,II and III soils. AD-99-002,PAUL STIZEL.Mr.Goodrich stated that this farm is located north of Clear Spring and contains 254 acres and 95 percent of the soils are Classes I,II and III.He noted that the Commission has seen some development proposals for the property and that there is an 'arrangement between the owner and an operator of the farm to be in the program. AD-99-003,CARL STUMPF.Mr.Goodrich stated that this farm is located along Mountain Road,west of Hancock.He said they do not currently have any agricultural districts in that area but that this is a good start.He noted that the farm contains 109 acres with 68 percent being Classes I,II and III and woodlands. Mr.Goodrich stated that the Planning Commission is charged with the responsibility of determining the consistency of the applications with the Comprehensive Plan.He stated that all three applications are located in the Rural Agricultural area according to the Comprehensive Plan and the program is designed to preserve agricultural land.A discussion followed regarding the Stizel property.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that AD-99-00 I,AD-99-002 and AD-99-003 be included in the Agricultural Land Preservation Program because they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Mr. Iseminger abstained.So ordered. Subdivisions: Crosspoint Shopping Center,Lot I.Preliminary/Final Plat: Mr.Moser referred to the memo they received this evening from Terry McGee,County Engineer, requesting that final approval be withheld subject to clarification on the road agreement.Mr. Arch stated that Mr.McGee has requested more information regarding the construction of Cole Road due to the fact that the proposal that the County has advertised for bid and what is now being discussed for the construction alignment are not the same.A discussion followed regarding the time frame and the Planning Commission's options -table it until the next meeting or since it is a one lot subdivision,give staff the ability to approve it once the issues were resolved.It was the consensus of the Commission to proceed with the presentation.Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final subdivision plat for Lot I,Crosspoint Shopping Center.The subject site is located south of the Valley Mall and south of relocated Cole Road.It consists of 8.7 acres and is primarily zoned Business General with a small area of Highway Interchange I and Planned Business zoning.Mr.Lung stated that the Planning Commission reviewed a preliminary site plan several months ago and this is the first phase,which will contain the Target Department store.Mr.Lung stated that all agency approvals have been received except for Soil Conservation and Engineering departments.A discussion followed regarding the County Engineer's concerns.Mr.Lung stated that originally Cole Road was designed to be four lanes 95 based on the traffic study for the Mall expansion.He said when the traffic study was done which included the Crosspoint Shopping Center,it showed that Cole Road needed to be five lanes in one area.He explained that the problem was that the right-of-way had already been set and the bid process had begun to build the road as a four lane road.He said they are now talking about five lanes and the need for additional right-of-way which may affect the number of parking spaces,building setbacks,etc.A discussion followed regarding the need for an additional lane. Mike Shifler,consultant,of Fox and Associates spoke.He stated that in regards to the fifth lane the developers were aware ofthe possibility of five or six lanes and that the drawings on the street are for five lanes and that it is a right-of-way issue.He stated that he hoped it can be worked out in one or two weeks.A discussion followed regarding the Massey Boulevard extension.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant preliminarylfinal plat approval subject to agency approvals and to give staff the authority to grant final approval.Seconded by Mrs. Lampton.So ordered. Site Plans: Sharpsburg Pike Inn,LLC,-Cracker Barrel &Waffle House Preliminary Plat/Site Plan: Mrs.Pietro explained that she would be presenting the preliminary plat for the Sharpsburg Pike Inn,and the Cracker Barrel and Waffle House restaurants as well as a site plan for the Inn and a site plan for the two restaurants.She stated that the subject site consists of 6.09 acres and is 10cated on the west side of Sharpsburg Pike and south of Col.H.K.Douglas Drive.The majority of the site is zoned HI-I and was the subject of a rezoning a year and a half ago and a small portion,Lot I,is currently under review for rezoning and is part of the 10 acres and that case is still pending. Mrs.Pietro proceeded to review the site plans.The Waffle House will be on .57 acres,the Cracker Barrel will be on 2.79 acres and the motel on 2.73 acres.There will be one access onto the Sharpsburg Pike,two entrances off of H.K.Douglas Drive.The site is to be served by public water and sewer.The Cracker Barrel will be 9,500 square feet in size,the Waffle House 1,600 square feet in size and the motel 12,000 square feet in size.Mrs.Pietro proceeded to review the number of employees,parking,hours of operation,deliveries and lighting (pole and building mounted)for each site.In regards to the signs,Mrs.Pietro stated that variances from the Board of Appeals were needed for all of the signs and they were granted.She said that the stormwater management area will be in the comer of the property and will serve the three sites.She noted there were some problems with the present facilities and that the consultant is working with the County Engineer and State Highway on an additional stormwater management area.She said that in talking to the developer and his consultant,they are in the process of trying to acquire additional land from the Arnetts for the additional stormwater management area.She said that landscaping appears to be adequate and noted that the developer will be paying the fee in lieu of to meet the forest conservation requirements in the amount of $4,574.00.She said that there are some outstanding agency approvals needed for both sites -Engineering,State Highway,Water and Sewer and Soil Conservation.She said that the biggest issue now is the storm water management issue and the road improvements.A discussion followed with the developer's consultant regarding the need for the expansion of the storm water management facility and the fact that they will have another area up stream to provide additional storage to handle the site because the present facility is undersized.A discussion followed regarding the 10 acres currently being rezoned and the fact that the lane along the rear of the property and the strip along the side to be conveyed to Mr.Petre are part of the rezoning,the internal traffic flow,the traffic along the Sharpsburg Pike and the traffic study for St.James PUD,which is close to this site.Mrs.Pietro stated that there was a study done for St.James Square and it mentioned the possibility of a light at the intersection of Sharpsburg Pike and Lyles Drive.It was determined at this time that it was not needed.Further discussion followed with the developer of St.James Square,Mr.Brown,regarding the traffic study and the traffic on the Sharpsburg Pike.Mr. Brown informed the Commission that he wants the signal and will pay for it. Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant preliminary plat approval for the Cracker Barrel,Waffle House and the Sharpsburg Pike Inn.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ernst abstained.So 96 ordered. Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant site plan approval for the Cracker Barrel and the Waffle House restaurants contingent on agency approvals and a formal agreement with Mr.Arnett on the storm water management issue.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant site plan approval for the Sharpsburg Pike Inn contingent on agency approvals and a formal agreement with Mr.Arnett on the storm water management issue.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Mr.Iseminger made a motion to allow the developer to use the payment in lieu option to meet the forest conservation requirements.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. St.James Square -Shopping Center,Site Plan: Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for the St.James Square shopping center.The property is located on the west side of the Sharpsburg Pike and is zoned Rural Residential PUD,The developer is proposing a Food Lion grocery store,a strip shopping center and a pharmacy on 6.9 acres.There will be no remaining commercial property left.The building area will be 54,000 square feet.The site will be served by public water and sewer.Mrs.Pietro referred to the exhibit 'plat and proceeded to review the site plan.She stated there will be approximately three deliveries to the site each day,storm water management will be provided by a pond,pole mounted lights in the parking area and building mounted lights,signage,reviewed the number of employees for the entire site,the hours of operation and deliveries.Mrs.Pietro stated that the pharmacy will have a drive thru window and that a variance was approved by the Board of Appeals in January of this year for the reduction of the front yard set back to 26 feet for the construction of a canopy over the drive thru window.She stated that landscaping appears to be adequate and reviewed what was proposed.A discussion followed regarding the developer providing additional screening along the intersection of College Road and the Sharpsburg Pike and the fact that the developer wants to install a traffic signal.The site is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance and all approvals have been received.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to grant site plan approval for St.James Square.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.A discussion followed regarding amending the motion to grant approval subject to additional screening being provided. Mrs.Lampton amended her motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon additional screening along the parking lot at the intersection of College Road and the Sharpsburg Pike. Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. Mennonite Home: Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for the Mennonite Home.The property is located on the west side of Maugansville Road adjacent to Maugans Meadows Subdivision and is zoned Agriculture. The developer is proposing to construct a one story addition to their nursing home.Mrs.Pietro stated that the site will use the existing access off of Maugansville Road and the site will be served by public water and sewer.She stated that the hours of operation will be continuous, lights will be building mounted,and 40 parking spaces will be provided.Mrs.Pietro stated that landscaping was an issue because this site adjoins the Maugans Meadows Subdivision and, therefore,more screening should be provided.The developer is now proposing Leyland Cypress along the rear of the property line.All agency approvals have been received.A discussion followed regarding the storm water management and the fact that there will not be any outside amenities.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mrs. Lampton.So ordered. 97 OTHER BUSINESS -II: SO-99-0I.Text Amendment (Immediate Family Members Without Public Road Frontage)Staff Report and Recommendation: Mrs.Pietro stated that she had nothing to add to her staff report.Mr.Nichols made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that they adopt SO-99-01 due to the fact that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton. Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered. SO-99-02,Text Amendment (Simplified Plat Procedure),Staff Report and Recommendation: Mr.Goodrich stated that he had nothing to add to his staff report.Mr.Nichols made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that they adopt SO-99-02 due to the fact that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton. Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered. RZ-99-0I.Text Amendment (Commercial Communications Towers),Staff Report and Recommendation: Mr.Lung stated that he had nothing to add to his report.A discussion followed regarding comments made withing the comment period by a cellular service provider and the setback requirements for towers to power lines.Mr.Lung commented that the amendment did not include the new zoning category for Ft.Ritchie and that Commissioner Snook noted it should be added.He said that he would verify with the County Attorney that this addition could be made without another public hearing.It would be staffs recommendation that commercial communications towers be included as a special exception in the SED district.Mr.Moser stated that it was also brought up at the public hearing that Frederick County is going through this process.A discussion followed.Mr.Nichols made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that they adopt RZ-99-01 with the change recommended by staff,due to the fact that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mrs. Lampton.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered. RZ-99-02 and RZ-99-03,Text Amendment (Animal Husbandry).Staff Report and Recommendation: Staff had nothing to add to the report.Mr.Nichols made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that they adopt RZ-99-02 and RZ-99-03 due to the fact that the proposed amendments are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr. Iseminger abstained.So ordered. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. Q6~~ '.,/ Bernard L.Moser,Chairman 98 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -MAY 3,1999 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,May 3,1999 in the County Commissioners meeting room. Members present were:Chairman,Bernard Moser;Vice-Chairperson,Paula Lampton;Robert Nichols,Don Ardinger,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,Bertrand Iseminger.R.Ben Clopper arrived at 6:50 p.m.Staff:Planning Director,Robert C.Arch;Agricultural Preservation Administrator,Eric Seifarth;Senior Planner,Timothy A.Lung and Secretary,Deborah S. Kirkpatrick. ROLLCALL: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 6:00 p.m. Before proceeding with Other Business,Mr.Moser commented that Paula Lampton has been reappointed to the Planning Commission for another 5 year term.He commented that there was an article in the newspaper that incorrectly called tonights meeting is a public hearing.He .explained that it is instead a public meeting and that no further testimony would be taken,but that the citizens in the audience were welcome to listen to the Planning Commission's discussion and recommendation. Mr.Arch requested that two changes be made to the agenda.He asked to delete under Old Business the Woodbridge PUD and to add under Subdivision Plats the Fulton Property for plat approval and approval of the request to use the payment in lieu of option.No objection. OTHER BUSINESS: RZ-98-l7,H.B.Mellott.Inc.: Mr.Lung stated that he had nothing to add to the staff report.Mr.Moser referred to the staff report and stated that in summary,staff is recommending that further studies are needed and that there is still the question of what the impact this operation will have on the Beaver Creek Hatchery.He stated that he concurs with the staff report and added that if this Commission expresses the desire for further studies,then their option would be to recommend denial and to request more information.Mr.Arch stated that Asmat Hussein,Geologist with the Engineering Department reviewed the reports submitted by both the applicant's and the citizens geologists and he believed that there were issues that had not been completely answered.Mr.Arch said he spoke to the County Attorney regarding obtaining additional information and was advised that it would be improper to take any additional testimony at this time.He said they had two options. One being to recommend denial of the application.The applicant may then withdraw the application and submit a new application for another hearing allowing the additional information to be presented.The other option being to approve the request based upon the fact that there was enough information that the Plmming Commission felt comfortable to place the 1M zoning classification in position.He added that a site plan will be required and that the 1M overlay does not take affect until the site plan is approved and that the issues could be addressed at the time of the site plan approval.A discussion followed regarding the fact that MDE would not review the mining plan until the rezoning had been acted on,the citizens concerns with water quality, whether they should request more information,the fact that the Beaver Creek special planning area was created to protect the hatchery and the spring,the reports they already have,whether the spring has been affected since the 1967 -73 report,whether they need more information to determine that the spring is protected and whether their concerns would be addressed at the time that the MDE permit is applied for.Mr.Moser commented that in the previous years the Planning Commission has imposed restrictions on subdivisions in the Beaver Creek Special 99 Planning Area and noted that during the Highway Interchange rezoning process,this site was rezoned to Conservation.He stated that when they rezoned it to Conservation he did not foresee the expansion of the quarry.He stated that of all the issues to be considered in the rezoning the most important one is the spring.He said that many of the issues and concerns expressed by the neighbors can be addressed during site plan review,however,until the questions are addressed regarding the impact of this proposed operation on the spring,he is inclined to be opposed. Further discussion followed regarding the fact that the quarry has been a good neighbor,the fact that the 1M overlay does not go into effect until the approval of the site plan and the fact that since it is in a Special Planning Area they could put strict requirements on it and the fact that MDE will not get involved until the zoning has been changed.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that they adopt RZ-98-17 based on the findings of fact outlined in the Staff Report and that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Nichols.A vote was taken.Mr.Ardinger,Mr.Nichols,Mrs.Lampton and Mr.Ernst voted aye.Mr.Moser voted no and Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered.Mrs.Lampton asked that the record show that their decision was based on a desire to move forward in order to trigger the submission of a mining permit application to the State which in turn would generate comments from the State which may be used by the Planning Commission to better assess the impacts of the proposed quarry expansion. RZ-96-05.L Group V Highway Interchange Study (1-70 and MD 68): Mr.Arch proceeded to review the plat.He explained that three changes were requested as follows:Mr.Bragunier would like to be able to have a convenience store on his property which is proposed to be rezoned to Agriculture.Mr.Arch stated that it would be allowed and that staff does not recommend changing the Agriculture district;Lee Downey requested that his property be rezoned to HI-2.Mr.Arch stated that this site is served by water and sewer and is adjacent to a proposed HI-I area.He noted that they do not have any HI-2 in the area and said that stafffeit that introducing a high density residential development is not consistent with the density of the types of development taking place around Clear Spring.He said that staff s concern is with having a lot of multiple family units along 1-70 and how that would substantially contrast the character of that entire area;Vincent Groh is requesting that his property be zoned HI-I because it was zoned HI when he purchased the property in 1992 and he felt it should remain that way. Mr.Arch stated that staff did not agree and as they stated in 1996 that area is not within the Water and Sewer Plan and feels they should not zone it in that manner.He added that once a development is proposed for that site and if the town agreed to supply water and sewer and that would be considered a substantial change in the character of the neighborhood and a piecemeal rezoning could take place.Mr.Arch stated that staffs recommendation is that they mal(e no changes at this time as to what was presented at the public hearing and they would recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval.Mr.Arch stated that if they do,he requested pennission to draft and forward to the Board of Commissioners the standard resolution we nonnally send without it coming back to the Planning C0111111ission for review.A discussion followed regarding the fact that water and sewer may be extended to that area by the Town of Clear Spring.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to recommend that the County C0111111issioners approve RZ-96-05.1 and to approve resolution 99-1.Seconded by Mr.Nichols.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger left at 7:00 p.m. NEW BUSINESS: Agricultural Preservation Districts: AD-99-006,LeRoy Myers.Jr..AD-99-007.Robert and Helen Beckley andAD-99-008, Zepp/Stiles: Mr.Seifarth presented the three agricultural districts.He explained that the Beckleys want a five year district so they can sell an easement and the other two want a 10 year district.Mr.Seifarth stated that all three applications have been approved by the Agricultural Advisory Board,all three are located outside water and sewers service areas,and outside the growth area.He 100 proceeded to review each application.A discussion followed.Mr.Clopper made a motion recommend to the County Commissioners that they approve AD-99-006,AD-99-007 and AD-99- 008.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Mr.Ernst abstained on AD-99-006 (Myers).So ordered. Variances: Potomac Manor Section H,Preliminary Plat,Request for One Year Extension: Mr.Arch stated that the developer is requesting a one year extension of the preliminary plat for Section H of Potomac Manor.He stated that the Planning Commission changed the policy and that in speaking to Dennis Swope,developer,it will be some time before they get to Section H and that they are still working on Section G.Mr.Arch stated that staff does not see a problem because they are working on the development.A lengthy discussion followed regarding the fact that several extensions have been granted to this subdivision,and the fact that it may be two to three years before they get to this section.Mr.Ernst made a motion to grant a one year extension and at the end the developer would need to submit a final plat.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.A vote was taken.Mr.Ernst,Mr.Ardinger,Mr.Clopper,Mrs.Lampton,and Mr.Nichols.Mr. Moser voted nay.So ordered. RPS Distribution Center (Lot 3 Hunter's Green)Preliminary/Final Plat and Site Plan: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final subdivision plat and site plan for the RPS Distribution Center.The subject site is Lot 3 of Hunters Green Business Park located on the west side of Hopewell Road and is zoned HI-I.The proposed lot consists of5.99 acres.There are wetlands on the west side,which will have a 25 foot buffer.Mr.Lung stated there is no existing forest on the site and that the developer is requesting to utilize Forest Conservation payment in lieu of in the amount of $3,876.84.He added that on the 13 acres of remaining lands,there is a dwelling identified as the Summers Wintermoyer farm on the east side.As part of the CDBG grant involved with the development ofTru Serv,the County entered into a memo of understanding with Tiger Development and the Maryland Historic Trust that at such time that Tiger Development tal,es title to the property including the farm buildings,an application would be filed to place the historic site on the National Register.Mr.Lung stated that Tiger Development has not yet purchased the property and as part of the development proposal of this lot they are proposing to remove a woodshed and a barn.He stated that the original historic site survey was not specific with which buildings were associated with the house and that the Maryland Historic Trust has requested that they be allowed to review the two structures to make sure they are not associated with the historic farm.A discussion followed regarding the buildings,the fact that they still need the Historic Trust's verification and approval from the Engineering and the Permits Departments. Mr.Lung reviewed the site plan as follows:The proposed building will be 150'x 212'in size, will be open 24 hour a day,32 employees per shift,automobile parking will be in front and truck parking and loading docks will be on the west side,reviewed the landscaping,stated that there are several storm water management areas,public water and sewer will serve the site,reviewed the signage (one building mounted sign and one free standing sign),and lighting (building mounted lights and one pole mounted light with three fixtures).Mr.Lung noted that staff was concerned with spillover from the single light and added that the major issue is with the Summers Wintermoyer house.He explained that per the Zoning Ordinance,when a HI-I property is adj acent to a residential property,the Ordinance requires that a 25 foot buffer yard be provided.He explained that in this case there was not enough room for the buffer on the lot because of the constraints of the site.The developer is proposing to put 15 feet of the buffer yard as part of an easement on the adjacent property and do the required screen planting on the adjacent property.Mr.Lung stated that the house is being rented through Section 8 to a low income family and it is the developer's intention that the house will eventually be converted to an office,however,they have not taken title to the house yet.The staff recommends that the property line be moved to accommodate the buffer yard on the new lot.He added that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to waive the buffer requirement and that would 101 be an issue to be taken up with the Board of Appeals.He stated that Soil Conservation and Engineering approvals are still outstanding.Mr.Frederick stated that they are requesting contingent approval so when they do obtain Engineering's approval staff would be able to go ahead and approve the plat. A discussion followed regarding the buffer issue and the options. Mr.Arch expressed concern that a note on the plat would be hard to enforce and that he would rather see a property line established because it could be months or years before Tiger purchases the adjoining property.A discussion followed regarding the 25 foot buffer,the storm water management pond,the purpose of the buffer zone,the fact that the developer will be adding another light,the Planning Commission's options,the fact that there are similar situations throughout the County,the fact that they should comply with the Ordinance and the fact that they may not have an answer from the Historical Trust for a while and that staff will bring this back to the Planning Commission to let them know how this issue has been resolved.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the site plan,subdivision plat,payment in lieu of forest conservation, and to give staff the authority to grant final site plan approval,contingent on agency approvals. Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.A vote was taken.Mr.Ernst,Mr.Ardinger,Mrs.Lampton,and Mr. Clopper voted aye.Mr.Nichols and Mr.Moser voted no. Crosspoint Shopping Center,Preliminary Site Plan: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary plat and site plan for Crosspoint Shopping Center Section 1. He stated that the subject site is located on the south side ofrelocated Cole Road behind the Valley Mall.He stated that last month the Planning Commission gave staff the authority to approve the snbdivision plat for Lot 1 which consists of an 8.8 acre parcel where the Target Store is to be located.I-Ie noted that the major issue was the Cole Road right-of-way which has been addressed,and that both the subdivision plat and site plan have been revised to accommodate that additional road width.He said that what is before the Planning Commission tonight is the Target Store for Lot 1 and preliminary subdivision plat and site plan for Lot 2,which are additional retail development on a 9 acre tract.The total area of the Target Store is 104,000 square feet and on Lot 2 there are three additional retail stores.Mr.Lung reviewed the parking,green space and landscaping,lighting,and loading area.I-Ie stated that there is a 25 foot landscape buffer provided between the Business General zoned portion and the Residential Multi-Family zoned portion of the property.Storm water management will be provided in a regional facility located to the west of the site and will also be used by the Valley Mall expansion.The site is served by public water and sewer and forest conservation is to be handled by payment in lieu of.All reviewing agencies have received copies of the plan and have issued comments and a revised plan has been rerouted to the agencies.Mr.Lung said that most of the outstanding comments were technical,however,there are two major issues that need to be addressed:I)Impact of the additional right-of~way required for Cole Road,the affect it may have on the parking area and the required set backs within that parking area.2)State Highway Administration approval of the intersection at Massey Boulevard extended and Route 11.Staff recommends that if the Planning Commission approves this plan that they make it contingent upon the agency comments being worked out.A discussion followed regarding the forest conservation,the fact that the forest conservation plan has been submitted for Sections 1 and 2 and Engineering's comments.Mr. Ardinger made a motion to approve the site plan contingent on agency approvals.Seconded by Paula Lampton.So ordered. Fulton Properties: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final subdivision plat for Fulton Properties.The property is located on the west side of Byers Road and north of Route 11 at the Hagerstown Airport.Fulton Properties is proposing to purchase 12 acres from an adjoining 32 acre parcel owned by Terry Shaw.This parcel will be added to the Fulton's existing property creating a total of just under 52 acres.The property is zoned Agricultural.Mr.Lung stated that the purpose of the addition is to allow expansion of an existing trucking terminal distribution center.He referred to the exhibit plat and pointed out the location of the existing building and stated that they have already obtained parcel A and now they want to obtain parcel B.He stated that this was taken to the Board of Zoning Appeals for approval of 811 expansion of this use in the Agricultural Zoning 102 district and it was approved some time ago.He said that this is the subdivision plat to do the transfer of land and that a site plan will need to be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission prior to any development.The site is served by public water and sewer.Mr.Lung stated that they are waiting approval from County Water and Sewer and the City Water Department.There is no existing forest on the site and the site is eligible for the express procedures payment in lieu of in the amount of$7,906.14.Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve payment in lieu of to meet the forest conservation requirements.Seconded by Mrs. Lampton.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the preliminary/final subdivision plat contingent on agency approvals.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. ~~t---,- Bernard 1.Moser,Chairman 103 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -JUNE 7,1999 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,June 7, 1999 in the County Commissioners meeting room. Members present were:Chairman,Bernard Moser;Vice-Chairperson,Paula Lampton;Robert Nichols,R.Ben Clopper,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,Bertrand Iseminger.Staff:Plarming Director,Robert C.Arch;Chief Senor Plarmer,Stephen T.Goodrich;Senior Plarmers,Lisa Kelly Pietro and Timothy A.Lung and Secretary Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Absent was Don Ardinger. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. Before proceeding with regular business,Mr.Moser commented that he received correspondence regarding the Planning Commission's recommendation of the Beaver Creek Quarry from Mr. and Mrs.William Riggle and Mr.and Mrs.Tom Heaton.The letters requested that the Plarming Commission reconsider their vote based on provisions in Roberts Rules of Order pertaining to reconsidering a decision.Mr.Moser stated that he asked for a response from the County Attorney and that the County Attorney felt there was no basis for reconsideration. MINUTES: In regards to the minutes of Apri15,1999,Mr.Moser noted that "Call to Order"was missing. Mr.Iseminger noted that at the top of page two that Mr.Ernst's motion should be prior to the vote taken.He also referred to page three under Sharpsburg Pike LLC at the bottem and questioned the fact that there were four motions.The secretary was instructed to check the tape regarding the motions.A motion was made by Mr.Iseminger to approve the minutes as amended,seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. OLD BUSINESS: RZ-96-05.l -Clear Spring Interchange: Mr.Arch referred to his memo regarding the discrepancies between the map and what was approved.He stated that it pertains to a small area between Mill Street and Martin Street owned by Mr.Bragunier.He stated that they are proposing the property to be Agricultural but that on page 8 of the staff report it referred to the property being proposed for Residential Rural.He stated that staff is recommending that they adopt the map as shown with the Agricultural area instead of the Residential Rural and to recorrect the staff report to indicate that it would be Agricultural and it would be consistent with what the property owner requested at the public hearing.Mr.Arch said that it is not an item that staff would recommend to go back to a public hearing.Mr.Ernst made a recommendation to amend the staff report and readopt the amended staff report as outlined in Mr.Arch's memo.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered.Mr.Ernst made a motion to adopt resolution 99-1.Seconded by Mrs. Lampton.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered. 104 NEW BUSINESS: Variances: Bahega Ganim: Mr.Lung stated that the variance request is from the Subdivision Ordinance and is to create two new lots via the simplified plat process and not for purposes of development.He added that the COlmty Commissioners recently amended that section of the Ordinance to be more specific and that the intent of the simplified process is not to create new parcels for development either immediately or in the future.He added that it does give provisions that other purposes,not specified,may be considered individually by the Planning Commission.He explained that Mrs. Ganim currently owns two lots,consisting of2 acres,zoned Residential Rural,located on Emmert and Hebb Roads.The property is served by wells and septics.The owner is proposing to subdivide and create two new lots out of the existing two lots.Mr.Lung said that the problem is that there is not enough land area and due to the topographic conditions the Health Department would not approve additional septic systems.He stated that an existing sewer line is located on the other side of Route 40 and the subject property is in a Plarmed Sewer Service area.He further stated that Mrs.Gamin wants to create the lots via the simplified process and at such time someone wants to develop,they would have to do a development plat and provide water and sewer to the lots.The purpose for doing this now is to allow Mrs.Gamin to subdivide the _property and not having to extend the water and sewer lines to the property at this time.A discussion followed regarding the Ordinance,the cost of extending the water and sewer,whether there will be water and sewer to the property and the fact that a development plat will have to come back to the Planning Commission for review.Mr.Iseminger asked if they could make a condition that they need water and sewer in order to develop the property.Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant the variance with the stipulation that the property cannot be developed until public water and sewer is extended to the property.Seconded by Mr.Nichols.So ordered. Bill Ball-Wavier of preliminary consultation,panhandle length and panhandle width: Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Bill Ball.The property is located on the south side of Ridenour Road west of Crystal Falls Drive.The request is for a variance from several sections of the Subdivision Ordinance -preliminary consultation waiver for the fifth lot,panhandle length and panhandle less than 25 feet in width.Mr.Lung stated that the subject site is located off of Ridenour Road.The original lot (Lot 4)was created a number of years ago and is 10.2 acres in size.At that time when it was created a variance was granted to allow a panhandle length exceeding 400 feet with a condition of approval that there would be no further subdivision of Lot 4.Mr.Lung stated that Mr.Ball wishes to purchase this lot and divide it,and in order to do that he would need additional variances to override the Plarming Commissions previous action to not allow any additional subdivision,a variance for panhandle length (proposed panhandle exceeds 1200 feet in length),and since the lot has only 40 feet of road frontage to begin with,a request to reduce the panhandle width for each lot,down to 20 feet.Mr.Lung stated that staff did not see any hardship in this case because the applicant does not own the property and it is clear the lot does not meet his needs for subdivision.He said that it is in the minutes of November 7,1990 Plarming Commission meeting that the property owner's representative at the time stated that the lot was designed this way so there would be no further subdivision.Mr.Lung noted that there are some remaining lands and they may be able to reconfigure the original lot and may be able to divide the property to meet all of the requirements ofthe Ordinance.A discussion followed.Mr. Ball said that he likes the property but that 10 acres is too much land and that he has someone interested in a 5 acre lot.A discussion followed regarding how this property has been developed over the years,concern that the remaining 40 acres would be developed,the fact that the owner has been piecemealing this subdivision,the panhandle length,reconfiguring the lots so the variances would not be needed,the fact that there are so many variances required and whether the fire department has commented on it.Mr.Ernst made a motion to deny the variance request.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger commented that they can go to the Board of Zoning Appeals or try to negotiate with Mr.Fazenbalcer to obtain additional land. i' 105 Subdivisions: Cave Hill Estates -Lots 1-4,Preliminary/Final Plat: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final plat for Lots 1-4 of Cave Hill Estates,He said that this plat was previously before them as a preliminary consultation,The property is located at the corner ofItnyre and Cave Hill Roads,The owner is proposing to create four lots on 6.33 acres ranging is size from 1 acre to a little over 2 acres,There are no remaining lands,He stated that when they brought this to the Planning Commission last Fall,the proposal was for six lots and due to site conditions they only ended up with four,He added that when the Plarming Commission reviewed the plan they indicated that they would only approve three accesses onto Itnyre Road,Mr,Lung stated that they now have four lots with three accesses onto Itnyre Road and one access for Lot 4 on Cave Hill Road.The lots will be served by individual septics and wells,He said that at the preliminary consultation stage the Planning Commission approved the use of payment in lieu of to meet the forest conservation requirements in the amount of $5,532.12 and that there were no priority areas on the site,All agency approvals have been received,Mr.Nichols made a motion to grant preliminary/final plat approval.Seconded by Mr. Clopper.Mr.Ernst abstained,So ordered, Site Plans: Microtel Hotel: Mr.Lung presented the site plan for the Microtel Hotel.The subject site is located on Lot 1 of a previously approved subdivision at the end of Oliver Drive on the north side of Maugans Avenue for Assad Ghattas,The site consists of 3,14 acres and is zoned HI -1,The developer is proposing a 52 room motel,two stories high,Mr.Lung reviewed the parking,stated that the storm water management facility will be located to the rear of the building,lighting (pole mounted)and landscaping,He stated that there are wetlands in the corner of the site and a wetlands buffer has been established.Mr.Lung stated that the site had been previously approved for the payment in lieu of forest conservation,and public water and sewer will serve the site.He said that the County Engineer and the Soil Conservation District have completed their review of the site plan, however,the County Engineer will not sign the site plan until the required traffic study has been started,which should occur this week.He added that the State Highway Administration needs verification that drainage will not impact 1-81,A discussion followed regarding the traffic impact study,the buffer between this site and the proposed residential development (FB One), sidewalks,and the stream buffer.Mr.Moser infonned the residents in the audience that this is a public meeting and not a hearing,however,would hear comments from a representative of the Maugansville area.No one commented.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon agency approvals and subject to the conditions outlined in Mr. McGee's letter dated May 3,1999 to Diamond Development Corporation.Seconded by Mrs. Lampton.So ordered. Fulton Properties: Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Fulton Properties.The subj ect site is located on the west side of Byers Road intersection with Industry Drive.The site contains 51 acres zoned Agriculture.The developer is proposing to create a 39,000 square foot truck distribution center with office.The site will be served by water and sewer.Mrs.Pietro reviewed the car and trailer truck parking,no new signs are proposed,lighting will be building mounted,hours of operation are 6:00 a.m.until 4:00 p,m.,approximately 60 truck trips per day and reviewed landscaping. She stated that a special exception was granted by the Board of Appeals to allow the proposed use in an Agricultural district.Forest Conservation requirements were met by paying fee in lieu of $7,927.92.She stated they are waiting on approvals from City Water,Water Pollution Control,Soil Conservation and Permits.She stated that at last month's meeting the Planning Commission saw the preliminary plat for this site.Mr.Frederick,consultant,stated that all 106 comments had been addressed and the revised plat was submitted this afternoon.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon agency approvals.Seconded by Mrs. Lampton.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Preliminary Consultation: Field Stone Acres: Mr.Lung presented the concept plan for Fieldstone Acres.The property is located on Beaver Creek and White Hall Roads and is zoned Agriculture.Mr.Lung said that the developer is proposing 30 additional residential lots to be served by two new streets constructed off of White Hall Road and the extension of an existing cul-de-sac off of Fieldstone Drive.The Health Department has begun the perc testing and there were some questions raised at the consultation that some of the soil types may require seasonal testing.The Health Department also indicated that there may be an intermittent stream through the property.From a Sensitive Areas standpoint,they would need to determine ifit meets the County's criteria for an intermittent stream.If it does,it would require a stream buffer.Mr.Lung stated that the Engineering Department is requiring storm water management for this development and that two stormwater management areas are proposed.In regards to the road design,the Engineering Department is recommending a connection with the existing section of Fieldstone Acres to eliminate cul-de- .sacs and additional entrances onto White Hall Road.Mr.Lung presented a design proposed by the Engineering Department that involves one entrance off of White Hall Road,one long cul-de- sac and a short cul-de-sac with a street coming through to Fieldstone Drive.He said that one of their reasons for this design in addition to eliminating one access point onto White Hall Road was that it would provide better access for safety equipment.He noted that the FlIl1kstown Fire Department has verbally indicated that they did not have any objections to the design as originally proposed because of the short length of cul-de-sacs.He said they just want to make sure that the cul-de-sac is designed to accommodate a pumper,tanker truck or ladder truck which they have specifications for.He said there will also be APFO considerations for the adequacy of White Hall Road and Beaver Creek Road and the developer would have to meet those requirements.He proceeded to review the Engineering Department's comments regarding road adequacy.He said that the other issue dealt with the Forest Conservation.He said that this development would be subject to the Forest Conservation Ordinance and based on 20 percent of the net tract area they would be looking at 10.5 acres for afforestation.He said there is no existing forest on the site.He said that the developer is proposing to use the payment in lieu of. Mr.Lung said with a development ofthis size the Planning Commission has to approve payment in lieu of and the Forest Conservation Ordinance has a preferred sequence for forest conservation techniques and payment in lieu of is at the bottom of the list.He reiterated that there may be an intermittent stream on this site,which may need a buffer.In addition,this property is adjacent to two active farms,which are in the County's Agricultural Preservation Program.The Forest Conservation Ordinance talks about providing buffers between land uses and there might be a need for some type of a buffer provided by planting trees along the perimeter of the development that borders those farms.He said that the minimum width in a forest area is 35 feet,this would be equivalent to approximately 2 acres offorest.He said that if the road way design stays as it is,staff would like to see a pedestrian path to connect the new section of the development to the old section of the development.A discussion followed with the developer's consultant regarding the fact that petroleum was found in a well years ago,the street design,the fact that the developer in selling three of the lots had conversations with the purchasers who expressed concern with the road being extended,the fact that the Fire Company does not have a problem with either design, the Engineering Department's comments,the fact that Engineering wants to see the through street,the adequacy of White Hall Road,and planting along the intermittent stream.Mr. Iseminger stated that Mr.Lung brought up two good points that this property is in the rural agricultural area and believes they need to establish a buffer along the property line.He said they are looking at a 10 acre forest conservation requirement and a 50 foot buffer would amount to 3 acres.He said he would like to see a 50 -75 foot buffer to minimize the conflict of uses.Mr. Iseminger stated that he was in agreement with staff and would like to see a pedestrian connection.Mr.Moser expressed concern with the conditions of White Hall Road and Beaver 107 Creek Road.At this point Mr.Moser asked ifthere was a spokesperson in the audience.Mr. Lynn Kendall,owner of the adjacent farm spoke.He expressed concern regarding water supply, the fact that the houses would be between three AG preservation properties,and existing traffic. He requested that this development be delayed until upgrades are done on Beaver Creek and White Hall Roads and until public water and sewer is installed.Several other citizens commented regarding drainage problems in the area.The developer,Mrs.Valiente,briefly spoke regarding the drainage problems.Mr.Iseminger suggested that a note be added to the plat stating that this subdivision is in an Agricultural Area.Mr.Arch stated that staff strongly recommends that all forest conservation mitigation talce place on the site.Mr.Clopper commented that when the Planning Commission reviewed a plat on Durberry Road the Planning Commission made a motion that a note be added to the deeds and the plat that made reference to the fact that the development was in an agricultural area.He feels that when they have developments in the Rural Agricultural areas that they need to put that note on the plat.A discussion followed regarding Agricultural zoning,the Right to Farm Ordinance and AG preservation districts. Forest Conservation: Water and Sewer Department: .Mr.Goodrich explained that the Water and Sewer Department is requesting approval to pay the fee in lieu of planting to meet their forest conservation obligations for additional development at the Conococheague Wastewater Treatment Plant.He said the Department must now remove the .41 acres of forest retained during the recent construction of a storage building in order to construct a berm to deflect flood waters.There is no additional forest on the site that can be retained.The fee in lieu of is $2,221.56,shown on the worksheet distributed during the meeting. A discussion followed.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to allow the payment in lieu of to meet the forest conservation requirements.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.A discussion followed regarding forest conservation at the landfill. Mr.Arch stated that he had one other item.Mr.Lung stated that in the Forest Conservation Ordinance,the Express Procedure allows people doing a one lot subdivision to be automatically qualified to use the payment in lieu of option without going to the Planning Commission.He stated that the problem is they are only allowed to do that once and they are running into is someone who did a one lot subdivision two years ago and coming back for one more lot and staff does not have the authority to approve it and felt to expedite these smaller subdivisions where there is no problem with forest conservation that it may be a good idea to give staff the authority to allow the use of express procedures.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission for staff to develop a policy. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. /:!()~\V3\Ck_~ChaIrman 108 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -JULY 12,1999 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,July 12, 1999 in the County Commissioners meeting room. Members present were:Chairman,Bernard Moser;Vice-Chairperson,Paula Lampton;Robert Nichols,R.Ben Clopper,Don Ardinger,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,Bertrand Iseminger. Staff:Planning Director,Robert C.Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen T.Goodrich;Park and Environmental Planner,Bill Stachoviak;Senior Planners,Lisa Kelly Pietro and Timothy A. Lung and Secretary Deborah S.Kirkpatrick.Also present,Director of Permits and Inspections, Paul Prodonovich. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. ELECTION OF OFFICERS: Mrs.Lampton made a motion to nominate Bernard Moser as Chairman of the Planning .Commission.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered.Mr.Ernst moved to close the nomination.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered.Mr.Clopper made a motion to nominate Paula Lampton as Vice-Chairperson.Seconded by Mr.Nichols.So ordered.Mr.Ernst moved to close the nomination.Seconded by Mr.Nichols.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Variances: Anita Morningstar -Request From Panhandle Length Requirement: Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Anita Morningstar.The subject site is located on the southwest side of Walnut Point West and is zoned Agriculture.Mr.Lung stated that Parcel B is 3.5 acres in size and was previously approved as a simplified parcel to be added to Lot B.He explained that Mrs.Morningstar wants to make Parcel B a development lot to be sold by itself. He said that by itself Parcel B has no public road frontage.It has a deeded right-of-way across a the residual tract.He stated that the Staff had administratively denied a request to turn this lot into a development lot because it did not have any public road frontage,based on a Planning Commission policy which indicated that they would not entertain requests for creating lots without public road frontage.He said that Mrs.Morningstar appealed that decision to the Board of Appeals and they upheld the Planning Department's denial.He stated that Mrs.Morningstar is now proposing to convey in fee simple ownership the 25 foot strip of land to Walnut Point Road in the form of a panhandle.The panhandle would exceed 400 feet in length.This would require a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance.Mr.Lung explained that the panhandle would result in the creation of another lot by default and that it would be required to be treated as a development lot requiring perc testing.He added that a perc test had been done and it failed. He stated that the lot cannot stand by itself as a building lot and that if the Planning Commission approved the variance to allow the panhandle they would be creating two parcels of remaining lands.Another variance would also be required by the Planning Commission and a note would need to be added to the subdivision plat stating that this parcel could not be sold separately from the residual tract.Mr.Lung stated that the only other alternative would be to try to locate the panhandle around the northern property line.He noted that there is an existing farm shed that goes with the Agricultural use on the rest of the property and is most likely too close to the property line to get a 25 foot panhandle and still meet building setbacks.Another option would be to allow the lot to be created without road frontage and use the deeded right-of-way as originally requested.A discussion followed regarding the length of the panhandle (800 feet),the fact that Mrs.Morningstar's brother farms the remaining lands and uses the shed,the location of 109 the panhandle,the fact that there may be no hardship,the residual tract,the fact that the variance request is for the panhandle length and to allow two parcels of remaining lands not to be separated,and possibly scheduling a site inspection.Mr.Clopper made a motion to table the variance request in order for the Planning Commission to make a site inspection.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.Mr.Ardinger stated that he wanted a workshop to discuss the variances for the panhandle lengths. Tara Yost -Request to Create a Lot Without Road Frontage for an Immediate Family Member with an "R"Assessment: Mrs.Pietro presented the variance request for Tara Yost.The site is located on the north side of Broadfording Road and is zoned Agriculture.The applicant is receiving approximately 10 acres from her grandfather's estate which is served by an existing lane.The request is from Section 4.5.11B.1.B (recently approved amendment to the Ordinance)which states that all lots to be conveyed to immediate family members be assessed as Agriculture.Mr.Arch stated that even though the lot is assessed "R",stafffeeis it meets the intent and spirit of the Ordinance.Mrs. Pietro commented that this plat came in during the approval process of the amendment and that it would have the family member statement on it.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant the variance to allow the use in a residential area and not in an agricultural area.Seconded by Mr. Clopper.So ordered. Randy Dick -Request to Use the Simplified Plat Process for a Stand Alone lot for Agricultural Purposes: Mr.Arch stated that the applicant is in the process of selling his house as well as 5 acres to an adjacent property owner.In case the sale of the 5 acres does not materialize,Mr.Dick is requesting permission to create a lot via the simplified process.Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the variance.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Subdivisions: Burgesser,Lots 5-18 preliminary/final plat and resubdivision of Lot 4 and Forest Conservation Plan: Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat for the Burgesser subdivision Lots 5 through 18 and the resubdivision of Lot 4.The subject site is located on the south side of Fairview Road and is zoned Agriculture.The developer is proposing to develop 14 single family lots ranging from one to five acres in size for a total area of 40.7 acres.The lots will be served by wells and septic systems as well as a public street system.In regards to the Forest Conservation Plan,Mrs. Pietro stated that they are proposing to retain the existing forest around the flood plain area.All agency approvals have been received except for the Health and Engineering Departments and those comments are being addressed.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the preliminary/ final plat,the resubdivision of Lot 4 and the Forest Conservation Plan subject to agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. Wildflower Meadows.Lots 14-16 Preliminary/final Plat and request to use the Express Procedure: Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat for Lots 14-16 located on the north side of Fairview Road zoned Agriculture.The developer is proposing to create three single family lots approximately 1.5 acres in size out of a total of 4.6 acres.All lots will be served by individual well and septic systems and all lots will access onto Fairview Road.Mrs.Pietro stated that lots 14 and 15 will have a combined access and 16 will have its own.All agency approvals have been received.In regards to forest conservation,the developer is requesting to pay the fee in lieu 110 of planting on site.Mrs.Pietro stated that they do not meet the requirements for the express procedure because they have developed over the years and are over the allowed five lot requirement. She stated that there are 42 acres of remaining lands and there are no priority areas. Mr.Iseminger stated that if there is further development,they will need to plant.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to grant preliminary/final plat approval.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant approval of the request to use the payment in lieu of. Seconded by Mr.Iseminger.So ordered. Stonehenge Farms,Preliminary Plat and Forest Conservation Plan: Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary plat for Stonehenge farms.The property is located on the north side of Spielman Road and is zoned Agriculture.The developer is proposing to create 21 single family lots between two and five acres in size out of a total of 58 acres.The lots will be served by individual wells and septic systems.All agency approvals have been received except for Engineering Department.Mrs.Pietro explained that they need additional information for storm water management.The developer is proposing to retain existing forest to meet his forest conservation requirement.Mrs.Pietro reviewed the forest conservation plan and pointed out that the forest conservation areas will be owned by the property owners.Mr.Arch stated that he wanted to be sure that the developer understood that signs will need to be posted in the forest conservation areas and that they will want to see a signing plan.Mr.Frederick,the consultant, _stated that they would do that.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the preliminary plat and forest conservation plan,contingent on agency approvals.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Huyetts Business Park Lot 12,Preliminary/Final Plat: Mr.Lung stated that under Site Plans on the agenda,they will be reviewing the preliminary/final plat and the site plan for Lot 11 and requested that they do both lots one right after the other (no objection).He proceeded to review the preliminary and final plat for Lot 12 in Huyetts Business Park.The property is located on the south side of Business Parkway off ofMD 63 north ofI-70, zoned HI-I.Mr.Lung stated that 10 lots have previously been subdivided along Business Parkway.Lot 12 is 5.95 acres in size and will be served by public water and sewer.Storm water management for this lot will be handled in a regional facility for the business park.At this time there are no development plans for the lot and a note is on the plat stating that a site plan will be required when a use is proposed for this lot.A 35 foot buffer yard is designated on the west side of the lot and was approved by the Board of Appeals to allow a reduction of the buffer yard.All agency approvals have been received.Mr.Lung stated that one of his comments to the consultant was that there was no information provided regarding forest conservation.He stated that in later submittals the consultant indicated that they were preparing a forest conservation plan for submittal and that it still has not been received.Mr.Lung stated that when forest conservation first went into effect,a preliminary plan for Walnut Point Heights was submitted and that plan showed proposed lots in the Walnut Point Heights residential area as well as some lots along Business Parkway.He stated that they have granted exemptions for the lots shown on the preliminary plan because it was submitted prior to Forest Conservation.He added that this lot as well as Lot 11 and some other lots along Business Parkway were not on that original plan and would be subject to Forest Conservation.He added that on previously approved lots the developer was required to address forest conservation and opted to pay into the fund.Mr.Lung stated that staff would not object to them paying into the fund for Lot 11,however,a forest stand delineation would still need to be submitted.He said that based on 15 percent mitigation, approximately.848 acres of forest conservation would be required,which would amount to $3,659.00 payment in lieu of.The deve10per's's attorney,John Urner spoke regarding Forest Conservation.He stated that they believe they are exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance and referred to a copy of the preliminary/final plat filed in December of 1992.He said that both Lots 11 and 12 are located within this property.He said that in November of 1993 with reference to this plat they received a memo from Ralph France,County Attorney at that time,which stated that this plat was filed before the Ordinance went into effect and that the III opinion exempts this development.Mr.Umer stated that it is their position that the memo was exempting the entire development and not just the lots shown on the plan.He said they are requesting that these lots be exempted from the Ordinance and feel they should not be required to submit a delineation.A discussion followed regarding the memo,the State Law regarding Forest Conservation and the fact that there is no exemption for a subdivision or development plat and the fact that it is staff s recommendation that these plats be denied until forest conservation is complied with.Further discussion followed with the developer regarding his time frame for the lots,the possibility of addressing everything except forest conservation at this time until the County Attorney could review their request and the possibility of going ahead and approving the plats and the payment in lieu and come back at another time for a refund if the opinion is determined to be correct.Mr.Moser stated for the record that the Planning Commission feels that Forest Conservation does apply to these lots.Mr.Urner stated that they would be reserving their right to get the funds back.Mr.Lung commented that they have not received the forest stand delineation so he could not make a recommendation as to whether or not the payment in lieu of would be appropriate for this site.Further discussion followed.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to grant preliminary/final plat approval for Lot 12 with the condition that a forest stand delineation be submitted with the understanding that payment in lieu is acceptable.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Lot 11 Huyetts Business Park.Convenco Inc ..Preliminary Plat.Site Plan and Final Plat: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final plat and site plan for Lot 11 in Huyetts Business Park. He stated that this lot is located on the south side of Business Parkway and is 3 acres in size.The site will be served by public water and sewer with two proposed entrances onto Business Parkway.All approvals are in.The applicant is proposing to use the payment in lieu option to meet his forest conservation requirements in the amount of $1,960.00.Mr.Lung stated that there is also a site plan that goes along with this subdivision for a company called Convenco. The proposed building is 100'x 125'in size with a 100'x 165'Phase 2 expansion.He stated that Convenco is in the food distribution business,will be open 24 hours a day,car parking will be separate from truck parking,landscaping is provided around the building and parking areas.The site will be served by a regional storm water management facility.There will be both pole and building mounted lights with a note on the plan indicating that there will be no offsite glare from these lights.Mr.Lung stated that the only outstanding agency is the Permits and Inspections Department and they are reviewing a revision that was recently transmitted to them.Mr. Iseminger made a motion to grant preliminary/final subdivision plat and site plan approval contingent on agency approvals and to allow for payment in lieu to meet their forest conservation requirements.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. Site Plans: Tiger II,Lot 4 Preliminary/Final Plat and Site Plan (Pilot Travel Center): Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary/final plat for Lot 4 Hunters Green and the site plan for Pilot Travel Center.The subject site is located along the east side of Greencastle Pike and is zoned HI-I.The developer is proposing to construct a travel center on 9.7 acres with two access points onto Route 63.The complex will house a 2,000 square foot restaurant,a 3,100 square foot convenience store and a 950 square foot shower facility and a center island for fuel and gasoline. Mrs.Pietro reviewed parking,signage,lighting (pole mounted),hours of operation (24 hours per day),employees (80),deliveries and the landscaping plan.Public water and sewer will serve the site.In regards to the forest conservation,they previously presented a plan for Hunters Green and in order to meet their requirements for this site they planted on the remaining lands in the priority areas.A discussion followed regarding the special exception that was granted and the easement going back to the 33 acres.Mrs.Pietro stated that they are still waiting for approval from Engineering,Soil Conservation and State Highway but that they should be coming shortly. A discussion followed.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to grant preliminary/final plat and site plan approval subject to agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Nichols.So ordered. 112 Lakeside Mobile Home Park -Revised Site Plan for a Portion of Section 1: Mr.Prodonovich presented the revised site plan for Lakeside Mobile Home Park.He commented that when Section 2 was presented questions were raised regarding the existing section including the six items listed in a resident's (Mrs.Doran)letter of September 10,1998. He stated that items 2 and 3 still need to be addressed and in doing so he requested that Lakeside Partnership prepare a revised site plan for a portion of Section 1 identifying the entrances along Bentwood Drive and the connection to what used to be a parking lot off of Bentwood Drive. Mr.Prodonovich noted that the road is only paved for 13 -14 feet in width,has a posted speed limit of20 MPH and the County has a 30 foot right-of-way.He said the County requires at least a 200 foot sight clearance.He stated that the County Engineer has indicated that he wants the entrance to remain and there is also room to relocate entrances onto Lakeside Drive.Mr. Prodonovich referred to the revised plan and stated that the areas designated in green are areas have been determined to be safe locations.He stated that the areas striped are areas that are outlined as gravel area.He said that the County Engineer has stated that if they approve the entrances they should be reduced in size so they are only 20 feet wide.He noted that the areas designated in red are unsafe driveways.In addition the plan also shows storage buildings which are encroaching on the rear property line.Mr.Prodonovich requested that the Commission study this matter and give him clear direction with regard to the entrances and the parking lot cut through,which was recommended by the fire department.He stated that if the Commission is considering approval of the site plan,he said would be approaching this issue from a road ,adequacy standpoint.Deletions and modifications to the entrance and the gravel parking area should be considered and new entrances should be discouraged or prohibited and if it is determined that the driveways would be permitted,Mr.Prodonovich asked that a permit be taken out and a bond be posted so they can get the gravel areas paved to County Standards unless someone can show proof that a permit had been issued.A discussion regarding the driveways and parking areas and the sheds,and the fact that if the revised plan is not approved then all the driveways would be in violation.Mr.Charles Martin,ofthe Lakeside Homeowners Association commented that the driveways have been open for 25 years and wants to know why they are allowing one person to disrupt their lives and that they are putting a hardship on the residents.A discussion followed regarding accesses to the residences,their options and whether emergency vehicles could access the properties.Mr.Moser asked what would happen if they turn the plan down tonight.Mr.Prodonovich stated that it would give him the force to direct the owner to come up with another method.Mr.Iseminger suggested that the Planning Commission make a site inspection.Mr.Moser requested that they get the County Attorney's opinion on the driveways.Mr.Clopper made a motion to table the site plan so the Planning Commission could inspect the site.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Islamic Society of Western Maryland Day Care: Mr.Lung presented the site plan for the Islamic Society of Western Maryland Day Care.He stated that the site is located on a 1.19 acre parcel along the east side of Day Road zoned HI-2. He stated that the proposal is to convert an existing dwelling into a child day care facility for children ages 2 to 10.The plan also involves additional paving and parking area and handicap facilities.There will be a maximum of three employees and the hours of operation are 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m..He stated that since it is an existing lot of record it would be exempt from Forest Conservation.All agencies have approved with the condition that there is to be a simplified subdivision plat submitted to abandon an existing property line between the two parcels that make up the site.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the site plan subject to a simplified plat being submitted.Seconded by Mr.Iseminger.So ordered. Prime Retail Phase III-A: Mr.Goodrich presented the site plan for Prime Retail Phase III-A.He referred to the exhibit plan and pointed out the existing buildings and parking.He explained that Phase III-A consists of one building and a parking area.He stated that the site is located on the east side of the main road. 113 The developer is proposing a 64,000 square foot building for an outlet furniture store.There will be an additional 260 parking spaces and there will be some relocation of sewer lines going down to Route 65.Mr.Goodrich stated they are expecting to see a landscaping plan.He noted that in the previous phases concern was expressed regarding the lighting in the parking lot closest to the adjacent properties.He stated that the lighting plan was re-evaluated and adjusted to reduce spillover onto adjacent residential property.He said that the storm water management area will be reconstructed.One additional fire hydrant will be added to the Phase III plan and there will be sidewalks West Oak Ridge Drive and MD 65.He said they are waiting for approval from Engineering.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent upon all agency approvals and to give staff the authority for review and approval of the landscaping plan. Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Preliminary Consultations: Tracey Thomas: Mr.Moser stated that he has dealt with the Thomas's in the past and that he would turn the Chair over to Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Lung referred to the summary and stated that staff had some concerns with the original design for 8 lots.He noted that a revised concept plan was included in their agenda packet.He said they were concerned with the original design which left open the .possibility for development of the remaining lands.Since the consultation,Mr.Lung discovered that they had a preliminary consultation in February of 1997 handled by a different planner for Cavalier Developers,contract purchasers at that time.He said that plan involved the creation of 34 lots in conjunction with the development ofthe Jeff Kearns property.In July of 1998,Jim Brittain discussed with the Washington County Planning Commission a determination that a portion ofthe Thomas property be considered within the Boonsboro Town Growth Area.He said this went with the proposed plan which involved development of a portion of the Thomas property as well as the adjacent Kearns tract and that is where the proposed Boonsboro Bypass is to be located.According to Mr.Thomas his contract with the previous developer has expired and he is no longer pursuing that plan.The plan that was presented at the April consultation is his attempt for developing his property.Mr.Lung stated that after the consultation he met with Mr.Thomas and Fred Frederick and that they developed a revised concept plan which eliminated the future street connections into the remaining lands and created a cul-de-sac street. He stated that it added 3 lots for a total of 11.Mr.Thomas also discussed putting the remainder of the farm in permanent ag preservation (117 acres).In regards to forest conservation they are proposing to retain existing forest on the remaining lands.Mr.Lung stated that they would need approximately 4.5 acres of forest conservation and they have that and more in existing forest and it would be close to the existing growth area boundary.He stated that staff is more comfortable with the revised plan.It was the consensus ofthe Planning Commission that they did not object to the revised plan,however,they would like to have Boonsboro's comments on this plan as it relates to the development of nearby property and the Boonsboro bypass. At this point,Mr.Moser took over the Chair. Pine Glen,Inc.: Mr.Lung summarized that the developer is proposing to add four additional lots to an existing three lot subdivision and that is what triggered the requirements for a preliminary consultation. The site is located east of Ringgold on Route 418 and is zoned Agriculture.Mr.Lung said that staff had some concerns with the design,the entrances and a panhandle utilizing shared accesses because of the access separation requirements on Rt.418.He said that all ofthe lots have road frontage but may not be able to have direct access because of the access separation requirements and that is why they have that unusual lot design.He added that staff does not have a problem with the design due to the small number of lots involved as long as their statement regarding no further subdivision is accurate. 114 AC&T: Mr.Lung reviewed the consultation and stated that the engineer for Packaging Services is doing stonn water management calculations and is working with Terry McGee,County Engineer, regarding the entrance.He stated that forest conservation will be addressed in a regional plan for the parle.It is expected that a revised simplified plat will be submitted that addresses all of the agencies concerns. Forest Conservation: Fieldstone Acres: Mr.Lung stated that the preliminary consultation was presented at the June meeting.He stated that the consultant would like to make a presentation this evening regarding what they have done in response to the Planning Commission's concerns in regards to forest conservation and buffering.Mr.Holmes,consultant,of Associated Engineering presented the plan.He stated that at the June meeting they had requested to use the payment in lieu of option to meet their forest conservation requirements.He added that it was turned down due to the fact that they have a priority area of buffering between land uses.He said that the requirement for the entire site is 10.37 acres of afforestation.He said that they are proposing to plant a 50 foot buffer al()ng the Agricultural land which amounts to 2.54 acres and do the remainder in payment in lieu because there are no other priority areas on the site.Mr.Iseminger commented the Plarming Commission had stated when they reviewed the preliminary consultation that they wanted all forest conservation requirements taken care of on site since the development is close to the Special Planning Area.Mr.Holmes said that they can plant on site without losing any lots but that the developer is concerned with losing the views and that it would change the character of the development.A discussion followed regarding correspondence received from two of the neighbors regarding their concerns with the road and stonnwater management and the fact that at the June meeting that the Commission had indicated that they wanted to see forest conservation taken care of on site since the property is in the rural agricultural area.Mr.Clopper made a motion to reject the proposal for the planting of 2.54 acres and using the payment in lieu of option for the remaining acreage and instead to require that afforestation be done on site to meet the forest conservation requirments.Seconded by Mr.Nichols.A vote was taken.Mr.Nichols, Mr.Clopper,Mr.Ernst,Mr.Iseminger and Mrs.Lampton voted aye.Mr.Ardinger voted no.So ordered. Hagerstown/Washington County Industrial Foundation Planting Plan: Mr.Stachoviak stated that a conceptual overall comprehensive forest conservation plan for the three CHIEF industrial parks was already approved and that tonight he is presenting the planting plan.He explained that the three industrial parks included the 70/81 park,Airport Business Park, the Interstate Industrial Park and stated that the acreage of the industrial parks is 116.3 acres.He stated that the total amount offorest on all of the sites is 57.8 acres,the forest to be cleared is 41.1 acres and the forest to be retained is 16.7 acres,which also includes a forest conservation easement on 4.4 acres on Packaging Services Inc.property.Mr.Stachoviak stated that the planting requirements are 10.1 acres according to the worksheet and that is to take place in the Interstate Industrial Park and the Airport Industrial Park.He said they will be planting a total of 10.7 acres.Planting required is 11.7 acres and they are proposing to pay fee in lieu of for one acre in the amount of $4,356.00.Mr.Stachoviak stated that the planting in the Industrial Park is 10.1 acres and that is adjacent to an existing forest and the .6 acres of forest will be planted in the Airport Industrial Park adjacent to existing forest.He then proceeded to review the planting plan and the types of trees proposed to be planted.A discussion followed.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the forest conservation planting plan.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. 115 Ghattas Enterprises: Both Mr.Ardinger and Mr.Ernst stated that they would be abstaining.Mr.Lung presented the forest conservation plan for Lot 3 and the concept plan for that portion of the remaining lands on the east side of Crayton Boulevard adjacent to Orchard Hills.He stated that the first issue is the forest conservation obligation for the subdivision plat for the Hampton Inn,Lot 3.He said that in the previous review of the development the Planning Commission stated that forest conservation obligations for this development should occur on site.They are currently reviewing a subdivision plat and site plan for Lot 3 which is to be located at the end of Peake Circle off of Crayton Boulevard.He explained that the area of Lot 3 is 3.52 acres and according to the approved forest stand delineation plan there are no priority areas on Lot 3 nor is there any existing forest.The developer is proposing to meet his forest conservation obligation by establishing an easement over 0.721 acres of existing forest on the remaining lands.The easement area is located adjacent to an existing easement area established for Lots I and 2.Mr. Lung stated that according to the forest stand delineation,this is the highest priority forest on the entire property and that staff does not have any objection.He said there is one other issue,the subdivision plat for Lot 3 involves the dedication of the road bed for Peake Circle and for the remaining part of Crayton Boulevard to be dedicated to the County which amounts to a forest conservation obligation of approximately 16,000 square feet.Mr.Ghattas has requested to take care of the forest obligation for Lot 3 at this time and to address the road dedication area when the next phase of the development comes in.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger made a .motion to approve the Forest Conservation Plan for Lot 3 using the indicated forest retention area to meet the forest conservation obligation for Lot 3 and to allow the deferment of the additional forest conservation obligation for the dedication of Peak Circle and Crayton Boulevard,prior to any further subdivision approvals.Seconded by Mr.Nichols.Mr.Ardinger and Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Mr.Moser commented that in regards to the concept plan he felt that they should make a site visit before a plan is formally submitted.Mr.Lung proceeded to review the concept plan for the remaining lands along Crayton Boulevard.He stated that the developer is proposing a strip commercial center with a proposal of a buffer yard between the commercial development and the existing Woodland Heights residential development.The initial concept plan shows an approximately 35 -37 foot wide strip of forest conservation along the common property boundary.He said that the forest stand delineation shows the vast majority of the existing forest on the site is not included in that buffer yard area and that in order to meet their forest conservation requirements there,they would have to plant trees.He stated that he made a site inspection last week with the developer and his consultant and they identified a number of problems.There is a considerable amount of rock in the area,there is also an Allegheny Power above ground electric line that runs along a portion of the property and there is an existing 10 foot wide easement.Mr.Lung stated that he talked to the forester at Allegheny Power and was told that they do allow forest conservation to occur under their power lines.They have specific requirements for the types of trees and do not allow them to grow over a certain height.The last issue is the encroachment of some of the improvements of some of the adjacent property owners. He said that in the meantime Fred Frederick has been working on some alternatives and has discussed them with the neighbor's attorney,Roger Schlossberg.Mr.Frederick stated that he met with Mr.Schlossberg earlier this evening to discuss it and they are just beginning to work on a resolution.He said they are looking at putting a 4 foot berm in the 25 foot buffer as well as a fence 12.5 feet inside the property line and allowing the property owners to plant on their side and maintain it and Mr.Ghattas would plant on his side and maintain it.A discussion followed regarding buffering the residences.Mr.Frederick stated that he is working on forest conservation for this site and requested that the Planning Commission allow the Penske site to proceed because they are anxious to expand.Mr.Moser stated that the Penske Plan should not be approved until they resolve the buffer situation.Mr.Martin,a resident of the area,stated that he and the other residents are concerned with truck noise and would be concerned with the expansion of the Penske parking lot until those issues are addressed.Mr.Moser stated that they would make the site visit and go from there.Mr.Iseminger stated that they can proceed with the plan and submit it and they will address it when the time comes. 116 Donald Bragunier -Request for additional use of express procedures: Mr.Lung stated that this request is related to an item coming up regarding adoption of staff policy for additional use of the Forest Conservation express procedure.He stated that one lot had previously been subdivided and that under the Ordinance you are only allowed to use the Express Procedure once and this is now the second lot.He said they would like to pay into the fund but that they are not eligible to use the Express Procedures and the Planning Commission has to give their okay.He said that there would be a .291 acre obligation,in the amount of approximately $954.00 and that there are no priority areas or existing forest on the site.Mr. Clopper made a motion to approve the use of payment in lieu.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.(Mr.Nichols left at 10:25 p.m.) OTHER BUSINESS: Woodbridge -Change in the Concept Plan: Mr.Goodrich explained that the developer is proposing a change to the approved development plan.The issue is the change in the use of part of the PUD from what was proposed for commercial on 6.5 acres to residential development.The Planning Commission has the authority to approve those changes without additional public hearings when they are minor in a PUD.Mr. .Goodrich stated that it is staff s position that it could fall into the category of a minor change in the PUD since there would likely be less traffic and less storm water management.He said that the consultant's plan also shows the proposed realignment of Robinwood Drive through the Woodbridge subdivision.He provided a drawing for reference.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the change in the concept plan noting that it applied to both pieces created by relocated Robinwood Drive.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Forest Conservation Express Procedures -Resolution 99-02: Mr.Lung presented Resolution 99-2 and explained that it gives staff the authority to approve the additional use of Express Procedures beyond the first subdivision,up to a maximum of four lots. Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve Resolution 99-2.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. RZ-99-07,Larry Younker: Mr.Ernst made a motion that the County Commissioners adopt RZ-99-07 based on the findings of fact outlined in the staff report and because the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as well as being logical and appropriate.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr. Iseminger abstained.So ordered. RZ-99-08,Todd &Tracey Bowman: Mr.Ernst made a motion that the County Commissioners adopt RZ-99-09 based on the findings of fact outlined in the staff report and because the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as well as being logical and appropriate.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr. Iseminger abstained.So ordered. RZ-99-05,The Volunteer Fire Company of HalfWay: Mr.Moser referred to the staff report and stated that Mr.Prodonovich raised some good points. A discussion followed regarding that the wording as presented may cause more problems than solve them.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to recommend denial ofRZ-99-05 due to the fact that the Planning Commission felt that approval of this amendment may lead to similar requests from 117 other agencies and institutions and that this could generate a substantial proliferation of signs. Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered. RZ-99-06,Daniel Staley: Mr.Moser commented that the applicant showed the change in the character of the neighborhood.Mr.Clopper made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that they adopt RZ-99-06 based on the fact that the applicant demonstrated a change in the character ofthe neighborhood,the findings offact outlined in the staff report and because the proposed rezoning is logical and appropriate and consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered.Mr.Iseminger and Mr.Ardinger abstained.So ordered. A discussion followed regarding the upcoming site inspections. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m. a~~ Bernard L.Moser,Chairman 118 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -AUGUST 2,1999 The Washington County Planning Conunission held its regular meeting on Monday,August 2, 1999 in the County Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Vice-Chairperson,Paula Lampton;R.Ben Clopper,Robert Nichols;Don Ardinger,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,Bertrand Iseminger.Staff:P1auning Director,Robert C.Arch;Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa Kelly Pietro and Secretary,Deborah S. Kirkpatrick.Also present,Director of Permits and Inspections,Paul Prodonovich and Chief Engineer,Terry McGee.Absent was,Chairman,Bernard 1.Moser. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Vice-Chairperson at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES: .In regards to the minutes of May 3,1999 Mr.Iseminger noted that he is shown as leaving at 7:30 p.m and voting and that the minutes should state that he arrived af"7:30 p.m.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to approve the minutes as amended.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the minutes of June 7,1999.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger. So ordered. OLD BUSINESS: Anita Morningstar Variance: Mr.Lung stated that this item was tabled from the July meeting in order for the Commission to make a site inspection.He explained that Mrs.Morningstar was requesting a variance for the panhandle length.He stated that the way the panhandle was configured would result in two parcels of remaining lands.He stated that the Commission expressed concern regarding the proposed length of the panhandle (800 feet)and that it was determined in the field that it was the only viable way to provide the parcel with fee simple road frontage.Since that time,Mrs. Morningstar has reconfigured the design to follow the suggestion of the Planning Conunission to shorten the panhandle by running it behind the existing shed.This design would eliminate the existing right-of-way,as well as reducing the length of the proposed panhandle to approximately 650 feet in length.A discussion followed regarding the remaining lands.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to grant the variance with the condition that a note be placed on the plat stating that neither of the two parcels of remaining land could be sold separately of each other.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Lakeside Mobile Home Park Revised Site Plan,Section 1: Mr.Prodonovich stated that this item had been postponed from the last meeting in order for the Plauning Commission members to make a site inspection with staff to review the driveway entrances.He stated that he has come up with three options and proceeded to review them,as well as the permits and bonds that are involved.He added that they are just dealing with the entrances and not the sheds,which will remain where they are.Mr.Prodonovich stated that he spoke to the owner of Lakeside,Mr.Wyman,and reviewed the options with him.He said that Mr.Wyman did not care what decision the County made and would abide by it but was not interested in paying to relocate the driveway entrances.A discussion followed regarding putting 119 driveways on Lakeside Drive,whether it was the owner's responsibility to put the driveways in and not the residents,the fact that the original approved plan did not show driveway entrances but has parking areas,the fact that Mr.Wyman is not interested in putting in the driveways,the fact that the current situation has been like this for at least 12 years and the fact that the issue of the driveways is before the Planning Commission because it came up during the review of Section 2 and the concern over the fact that the residents may be penalized for something that the developer cannot be held responsible for.In regards to the bond required for the driveways,Mr. Arch asked that since these are existing driveways could there be some modification in the bond so they would be dealing with only a permit for the driveway and give them a certain amount of time to update the driveway to meet the County standards.A discussion followed regarding the fact that this is a unique situation and that they should be lenient and the fact that the Planning Commission was in agreement with Engineering's comments regarding removing the entrances with inadequate site distance,and the fact that they feel it is Lalceside's responsibility.Mr.Arch suggested that they require a permit,but not the paving,and allow the gravel areas as long as a permit is obtained,since they have been there for approximately 12 years.The County Engineer commented on why he would like to see the driveways paved.A discussion followed regarding putting a time frame on acquiring a permit and bond and waiving the permit fee and granting site plan approval with the condition on applying for the permit,making Lakeside comply and the fact the Commission does not want to add hardship to the residents.Mr.Clopper made a motion to accept the site plan as presented.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Mr.Clopper stated that the only thing he did not like about the motion is that it requires the paving and the bond.He said that he .would be willing to waive the paving because it is a unique situation and feels they would not be setting a precedent,but that they would still require a permit.Fuj;ther discussion followed regarding Lalceside's responsibility,the Planning Commission's options,the fact that this is a unique situation,the driveways,and the parking areas on the original site plan.Mrs.Lampton stated that a motion is on the table to accept the site plan as modified by County staff.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.A vote was taken.Mr.Clopper,Mr.Nichols,Mr.Ardinger and Mr.Iseminger voted aye.Mr.Ernst voted no.So ordered.Mrs.Lampton stated that they have accepted the site plan as modified which means that the driveways in red and the cross hatched areas will have to be removed.She said that the second issue is how they want to handle the entrances.Mr. Clopper made a motion that a permit and the $25.00 fee will be required,that the paving requirement would be waived and that the driveways would need to meet all County standards and would need to be completed within 60 days.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.A discussion followed regarding the fact that this is a unique existing situation and the fact that the Planning Commission does not want to create a hardship for the residents.A vote was taken.Mr. Clopper,Mr.Nichols,Mr.Ardinger and Mr.Iseminger voted aye.Mr.Ernst voted no.A discussion followed with the residents of Lakeside explaining that there were two separate motions.The first motion was that they would accept the site plan that was presented showing the entrances and that the entrances marked in red and cross hatched will need to be removed due to safety issues and that all the other driveways will stay the way they are.The second motion was that the residents will be required to obtain an entrance permit in the amount of$25.00 and will have 60 days to do that and that the existing gravel driveways can stay that way,will not need to be paved but will need to meet County standards. Fieldstone Acres -Road Alignment -Terry McGee: Mr.Lung stated when this plan was presented at the Preliminary Consultation stage,the Engineering Department commented that they would not approve the street layout as proposed and instead wanted to see a connection between the new section and the old section of Fieldstone Acres and had presented an alternative design.He said that Mrs.Valiante,the developer, indicated that the redesign would not work because she entered into agreements with the property owners on the existing street that the connection would never be made.Mr.Lung stated that both concept plans were presented to the Planning Commission at the June meeting.An opinion one way or another was not expressed by the Planning Commission in regards to the road design. As a result,the developer prepared the preliminary/final subdivision plat based on their design. Mr.Lung stated that a subdivision plat was received and was routed out to the agencies for their review.The Engineering Department denied the plat because it did not meet the criteria outlined 120 in their original comments at the consultation.Mr.McGee,the County Engineer,briefly spoke. He explained that his department wants to see multiple ways into a development to help with congestion and for safety issues.He stated that fire and rescue companies like to have more than one way to access a development and added that school buses will not enter cul-de-sac streets. A discussion followed regarding the developer's agreement not to have a through access,the fact that the developer is proposing two accesses close to one another,and the covenants.Mr. Nichols made a motion that they approve the plan proposed by the Engineering Department. Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Reichenbaugh,consultant,of Associated Engineering briefly spoke.He said that when the plan was presented to the Planning Commission in June,it was his understanding that the Planning Commission did not have a problem with either design,but that the Commission wanted a pedestrian access between the two sections,which has been done.He said that in regards to cul-de-sacs,both designs have two cul-de-sacs.He stated that their design is in accordance with County standards but just does not have a connection.Mrs.Lampton stated that there is a motion on the table that they accept the recommendation of the County Engineer as to the interconnection in regard to this particular design.All in favor.So ordered. A discussion followed. NEW BUSINESS: Variances: James Reeder -Create a parcel through simplified procedure: Mrs.Pietro presented the variance request to create a parcel for conservation purposes using the simplified procedure.The subject site is located along the north side of Amos Reeder Road and is zoned Agriculture.The applicant is proposing to create a 5.8 acre parcel out of 36.9 acres for Conservation purposes only,which would contain the existing stream and pond.She stated that the applicant did not indicate his plans for the remaining 30 acres.She added that the applicant is claiming that due to the existing pond,the stream and the stream buffer,they would be unable to get a successful perc.She said that the consultant submitted a preliminary simplified plan to review.It was noted that even with the building setbacks there would still be a considerable building envelope.She said that she spoke to Randy Dick in the Permits Department and he did not see any problem in constructing a house on the site if they could get a perc.She said that the consultant feels they could not get a perc because of the wet soils but no information was submitted from the Health Department supporting this claim.Mrs.Pietro explained that the Subdivision Ordinance was amended several weeks ago where lots created for Conservation!Agricultural purposes are no longer permitted unless allowed by the Planning Commission.She stated that staff is concerned with the adequacy of Amos Reeder Road, especially if the owner decides in 5 to 10 years to sell the property.She stated that the consultant submitted a road adequacy worksheet.This was reviewed by the County Engineer's office which confirmed that there would be problems if this were submitted as a preliminary/final plat.A discussion followed with the applicant's consultant Carl Thomas of Thomas,Moore and Associates regarding the fact that he started working on this plat prior to the approval of the text amendment and that he was given the standards for a simplified plat.Mr.Thomas noted that the property according to the Washington County Soils maps is 100 percent in flood plain and that Mr.Reeder is willing to put a note on the plat that the parcel will not be developed.A discussion followed regarding the soils,the flood plain,concern with developing in the flood plain,the fact that the Planning Commission wants to be assured that this parcel will not be developed and that a note should be added to the plat stating that the parcel would not be developed.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant a variance to create the parcel via the simplified plat with the stipulation that a note be placed on the plat stating that no building take place in perpetuity on that parcel and that no where in the future will off site septic be allowed for this lot.Seconded by Mr. Nichols.So ordered. 121 Ethel Deibert c/o Lloyd Horst -Create a parcel through the simplified procedure: Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Ethel Deibert.He explained that Mrs.Deibert owns an 85 acre farm zoned Agriculture located on Lehmans Mill Road.He stated that Mr.Horst has been farming 30 acres of the Deibert farm for the past 24 years and owns a farm nearby,not adjoining the Deibert farm.He stated that they want to sell Mr.Horst 30 acres of the farm via the simplified plat procedure.Mr.Lung stated that the property has limited potential for development due to flood plain and access.The staff believes this is a legitimate use of the simplified plat process.The property is classified as prime long term farm land according to the agricultural inventory map,however,the size of the parcel is not large enough to go into an Agricultural Preservation area.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to grant the variance.Seconded by Mr.Iseminger.So ordered. Carl Eby -Panhandle Length: Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Carl Eby.He stated that Mr.Eby is proposing to create a new lot with a panhandle length in excess of 400 feet and an access separation less than 300 feet along a major collector highway.The property is located on the north side ofMD 68 west of Ridge Road.Mr.Lung explained that Mr.Eby owns an approximately 170 acre farm and wants to convey a building lot to his son near the front of the farm with its own access so as not .to disturb the existing pasture.The proposed panhandle is 810 feet long and the entrance onto MD 68 is less than 300 feet from an existing entrance to the east.Mr.Lung stated that they have a letter from SHA stating that they do not have any objections to the request and staff does not have any objections.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant the variance request for the panhandle length and the access separation with the stipulation that the immediate family member statement be on the plat.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. Colonial Park East,Final Plat.Section E: Mr.Lung presented the plat for the final section of the Colonial Park subdivision.The subject site is located north of Route 40 and west of Yale Drive.This section consists of 38 lots on 13 acres,zoned Residential Suburban.Public water and sewer is available.Mr.Lung stated that the main factor with this plat is that when the Planning Commission approved the preliminary plat it showed Stanford Road ending in a cul-de-sac.A condition of the approval ofthe preliminary plat was that once the final plat came in,it was to be reengineered to show the connection of Stanford Road to Yale Drive.This has been done on the final plat.All agency approvals have been received except for Engineering,they are reviewing a revision to address some technical items that was just received.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant plat approval subject to Engineering Department's final approval.Seconded by Mr.Nichols.So ordered. Ghattas Enterprises,Lot 3 (Hampton Inn Site Plan),Penske and Concept Plan for Strip Center and Buffer: Mr.Lung stated he would be reviewing the subdivision plat and site plan for Lot 3,Hampton Inn;the site plan for the expansion ofPenske Trucking parking facility;and a concept plan for a proposed strip center with review and recommendation of the Planning Commission on a buffer yard.The development is located off of Maugans Avenue near 1-81.The Hampton Inn is situated on 3.5 acres and involves the dedication of Peake Circle and the remainder of Crayton Boulevard.Zoning is Highway Interchange-I.The site will be served by public water and sewer and storm water management will be handled by a regional facility.Mr.Lung stated that forest conservation is addressed by preserving existing forest elsewhere on the site,which was reviewed and approved last month.All agency approvals have been received except for the Engineering Department. 122 Mr.Lung proceeded to review the site plan for the Hampton Iun,which will be 39,672 square feet in size,3 stories,79 rooms with swimming pool,12 employees,open 24 hours a day,2 entrances proposed onto Peake Circle,with an access road circling the building.There will be a total of 96 parking spaces and 3 bus spaces provided.Mr.Lung reviewed the lighting (pole mounted),signage,the landscaping plan proposed around the site.The lighting and landscaping is designed to eliminate any glare onto 1-81.All agency approvals have been received except for Engineering Department. Mr.Lung presented the site plan for the Penske truck expansion.He explained that it is an additional parking area for the existing truck leasing facility on the property.The existing truck leasing business is on 3.5 acres zoned Highway Interchange I.This plan calls for an additional 2 acres.Mr.Lung proceeded to review the parking,the lighting (down directed lights),and landscaping.He stated that there is a residential development across Crayton Boulevard and in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance they are required to provide a 25 foot wide buffer yard based on a Business General use.He said that in cases such as this when the Business General use is on the opposite side of a street from the residential development,the Planning Commission has the ability to waive the requirement of buffer yard.The staff believes a buffer is necessary and through discussions with the developer and his consultant they believe the best way to buffer this site is to split the buffer yard between both sides of Crayton Boulevard and provide vegetative screen planting.He stated that the outstanding comments on the plan are Soil Conservation and Permits and that the following comments need to be addressed:1)Unclear on .the hours of operation;2)Need for clarification regarding idling of trucks on the site;3) Concerned with designation of spaces on the east side for tractor parking when other spaces may be available further away from the residential development;4)Unclear on the plan of who will be responsible for the ownership and maintenance of the vegetative screen planting on the east side of Crayton Boulevard. In regards to the buffer issue,Mr.Lung stated that last month they reviewed a proposed concept plan for a strip center on the east side of Crayton Boulevard and that it was tabled until the Planning Commission could look at the site.He said that the neighbors expressed concern with noise,security,and preserving existing vegetation.He said that the plan presented last month called for a forest conservation planting area and a 35 foot wide strip across the back of the property.After a closer review,it appeared due to several factors -including a considerable amount of rock in the area,and an existing power line,that to use this area for planting trees will not work in this situation.Based on the information from the site visit,staff is ready to make a recommendation for buffering based on the concept plan for a low intensity retail center.Mr. Lung stated that their recommendation is for the 35 foot wide buffer yard to stay as shown. However,using it for forest conservation does not appear to be viable unless there is existing forest within this 35 foot area that could be preserved.The staff has not been provided with detailed information from the developer regarding this.Mr.Lung said that the primary goal in the 35 foot wide area is to leave as much of the area including existing vegetation as undistrubed as possible.In order to meet the requirement for permananent screening they recommend a solid fence a minimum of 10 feet in height to be placed inside the boundary of the 35 foot buffer as far back as possible so as not to disturb the area on the residential side of the buffer yard.He noted that there is an area where two lots extend further back into the commercial property.One of the lots has an existing fence across the back.He said that the consultant is proposing and staff would endorse that the new fence tie in with the existing fence in that area and since they would not have the 35 foot buffer in this area they would be provided a 25 foot buffer with a double row of evergreen planting that would meet the minimum requirements.On the north side of the proposed commercial development they are recommending the standard 25 foot buffer as per the Zoning Ordinance with a double row of evergreens as specified in the Ordinance. Terry McGee,County Engineer,spoke in regards to the traffic study.He stated that as a condition of the Microtel site plan approval they required a traffic impact study be started and that his office would not approve the Hampton Inn site until they had the results of the study.He said that the study is almost completed and that he has had conversations with State Highway and the developer and at this time they do not believe any off site improvements are necessary. He commented that the study showed that in the not too distant future they will require some 123 traffic signals in that area,mainly at the ramps ofI-81 and that there will be most likely be a three signal system.He said that he has held off in approving the Hampton Inn site plan until they get a commitment to have the traffic impact study revised to include the detail operational analysis of the signal system showing how the three signals would work together,the lane configurations and how that whole area will work.Mr.McGee said that his only condition is that they want to meet with the consultant to outline the actual scope of the signal work within three weeks of this meeting and within 45 days of that meeting have the study back. Mr.Ghattas commented on items brought up in Mr.Lung's review of the Penske site.He said that there is no reason for the trucks to be idling since they use that facility just for fuel and leave.In regards to the hours of operation,he does not see them working weekends or after midnight. Mr.Al Martin,a resident in the area,requested an opportunity to speak.He stated that they are pleased with the proposed screening and in talking to the four neighbors on Webber Way their concerns continue to be with the development that is occurring there and the open area that has been created.He said that the residents are requesting a fence in addition to the planting in the vicinity of the Penske site.A discussion followed regarding the fact that there may not be enough room for both and that the residents stated that they would prefer the fence on the east side of Crayton Boulevard. .Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant subdivision approval for Lot 3 with the condition of the County Engineer's approval.Seconded by Mr.Nichols.Mr.Ernst and Mr.Ardinger abstained. So ordered. Mr.Iseminger made a motion to approve the site plan for the Hampton Inn,subject to the County Engineer's approval.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Ernst and Mr.Ardinger abstained.So ordered. Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant site plan approval for the Penske site with the condition on providing screen fencing on the east side of Crayton Boulevard in lieu of planting,conditioned upon addressing the concerns of staff in regards to moving the truck parking,hours of operations and whether or not trucks are idling and subject to outstanding agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Nichols.Mr.Ernst and Mr.Ardinger abstained.So ordered. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to approve from a conceptual standpoint the buffer plan recommended by staff,based on the commercial development as presented,for the 35 foot buffer strip,retention of existing vegetation and provision of a solid 10 foot high screen fence along the inside of the buffer,options for buffering along the north side would be kept open based on the final design presented at site plan stage. Site Plans: Williamsport Storage Bins: Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for the Valley Storage Company located on the southeast side of Robinwood Drive.The property consists of 1.85 acres and is zoned Business Transition.She stated that the property was rezoned in 1997 and is adjacent to the Elks Club.The developer is proposing to construct a 30,000 square foot mini warehouse with office.She reviewed the parking,fencing,sidewalks,signs,lighting (building mounted),employees (1-2),and hours of operation (9:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.customers will have 24 hour access).She reviewed the landscaping and stated that they are exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance.The developer,Todd Snook briefly spoke.He stated that there is a future dedicated right-of-way on Robinwood Drive 40 feet from centerline for a future second lane and was requested by the County Engineer to retain an additional 20 feet in the front for Mr.Shaool to purchase from him in the future for a deceleration lane.All approvals have been received.Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the site plan.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. 124 American Tower -Cedar Ridge: Mr.Lung stated that they received two site plans from American Tower.He explained that these are the first two applications they received under the new Commercial Communications facilities zoning regulations.He noted that both towers were before the Board of Appeals and their permit applications were made prior to the adoption of the Ordinance,but since the permits were not issued and construction had not begun at the time the Ordinance was enacted,these applications did fall under the new requirements. Mr.Lung stated that the first site plan is located in the Cedar Ridge vicinity.The proposal is for a 195 foot lattice type tower on property leased from the Cedar Ridge Ministry on Cedar Ridge Road near 1-70.The other tower is a 190 foot lattice tower located east of Hagerstown also along I-70 west of the MD 66 interchange on property owned by Charles Martin.Both properties are zoned Agriculture and required special exceptions by the Board of Zoning Appeals that were approved in July.Mr.Prodonovich gave a brief history of the application,the amendment and the Appeals Board decision.He noted that there was a third application but it was withdrawn because the property is involved with an agricultural preservation district.Julie Henn,of American Tower stated that the Board of Appeals approvals were contingent upon 5 conditions: 1)they understand the approval is for a 195 foot tower 2)the tower will not be lit unless required by law 3)the site plan process is required 4)that the tower will be removed if it is more than 6 months of disuse 5)No advertising on the tower.A discussion followed regarding the ,users,the location of the towers,whether they will build more towers inWashington County,and the fact that they will be using a lattice tower. Mr.Lung stated that he routed the site plans for agency comments and that on the Cedar Ridge site they still have outstanding approvals needed from the County Engineer and the Permits Department.He said that State Highway commented that before they would issue an approval they want to see construction drawings for the tower to assure that if the tower were to collapse that it would not fall on the interstate.Mr.Lung stated that regarding the Beaver Creek site there are still outstanding comments from Permits and Engineering.He said that the Planning Department was copied on a letter from the Maryland Historic Trust to a company that was working in conjunction with American Tower in regards to the FCC 106 review,which is when there is a project involving Federal Permitting or licensing has to go through this review and that triggered the review by the MD Historic Trust.The Historic Trust responded with comments on both of the sites regarding the impact of the towers on surrounding historic areas.They had a considerable number of comments.If the FCC takes the comments into consideration,it could affect the location of these towers.Julie Henn of American Tower stated that they are working with PSI,the company that does their analysis for the FCC,and they are working with the MD Historic Trust.She explained that the original analysis was done on a 300 foot tower which meant a 2 mile radius of possible historic properties,They notified the Historic Trust that they will have a 200 foot tower and wanted to know how that will be affected and want to know what they can do to minimize the impact on the historical properties.Their time frame is the next 30 to 60 days.Mr.Iseminger asked if they would have all agency approvals by the next meeting and the decision from the Board of Zoning Appeals.A discussion followed regarding agency approvals.It was the consensus of the Commission to wait until the September 13th meeting to make a decision on the site plans. RZ-99-06,Maurice Johnston,Map Amendment.Staff Report and Recommendation: Mr.Arch stated he received information after the 10 day period from a citizen who requested that it be given to the Plarming Commission.It was the consensus that since it was received after the 10 day comment period that they would not review it as part of the record.Mr.Lung stated that he had nothing more to add to the staff report.He stated that there was a considerable amount of discussion and testimony at the hearing and correspondence following the hearing relating this case to the Sheets and Tritch rezoning case to the south.He stated that it is staff's opinion that each case must be reviewed and considered on its own merits and the circumstances on the 125 Sheets and Tritch case were different than the circumstances in this case and the comments made in the appeal of Sheets and Tritch are not applicable to this case.A discussion followed. Mr.Clopper made a motion to accept the findings of fact outlined in the staff report,accept the definition of neighborhood as presented by the applicant,that they find the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is logical and appropriate and that the applicant proved a change in the character of the neighborhood in accordance with the application, therefore the Plarming Commission based it on that the recommended approval.Seconded by Mr.Nichols.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. ~e.&~ Bernard L.Moser,Chairman 126 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -SEPTEMBER 13,1999 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,September 13,1999 in the County Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman,Bernard 1.Moser;Vice-Chairperson,Paula Lampton;R.Ben Clopper,Robert Nichols;Don Ardinger,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,Bertrand Iseminger. Staff:Planning Director,Robert C.Arch;Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung and 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. MINUTES: Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 12th regular meeting.Seconded by .Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. OLD BUSINESS: American Tower -Cedar Ridge Site Plan: Mr.Lung stated that this item was tabled from the August meeting because they were waiting for a response to comments from the Maryland Historic Trust regarding their review.He stated that the tower is to be located on property owned by the Cedar Ridge Ministries east of Cedar Ridge Road and south ofI-70.He said that this use falls under the requirements of the recently adopted amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding commercial communications towers. Since the property is zoned Agriculture,a hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals for a special exception was required.That hearing was held on July 7th and in addition to the special exception,variances were requested from the 300 foot setback for property lines down to 108 feet and the 500 foot setback to any existing dwelling down to 200 feet.The Board of Appeals approved all the requests with five conditions.Mr.Lung referred to a copy of the opinion in the agenda packet and reviewed the conditions. The proposed tower is a free standing lattice type design 195 feet high with a galvanized finish.Mr.Lung stated that the proposed use of the tower is to support wireless communications antennas.He said that the site will be fenced,an identification sign will be provided,the tower will not be lighted and it is not in a special planning area.The Maryland Historic Trust has reviewed and commented that they do not have any objections.They did comment that the tower should be painted to reduce visual impact and to submit plans at 90 percent completion for tower construction and painting for their review. All agency approvals have been received except for State Highway.Mr.Lung said that State Highway requested that their Engineering Department review the constructions plans due to the location near 1-70 but those comments have not been received,but State Highway's representative said they would approve the site plan.A discussion followed regarding the conditions of the Board of Appeals,the requirements of the Maryland Historic Trust,and the painting of the tower.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant site plan approval for the Cedar Ridge site 'contingent upon their agreeing to the conditions from the Maryland Historic Trust,the amended opinion from the Zoning Board of Appeals and final approval from the State Highway Administration prior to building permit.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. 127 American Tower Beaver Creek: Mr.Lung presented the site plan for a commercial communications tower to be located in the Beaver Creek area.The site is located on the Charles E.Martin property,consisting of approximately 110 acres zoned Agriculture near 1-70 and is not in any special planning area. Mr.Lung stated that this application went before the Board of Appeals and was granted a special exception and a setback variance with the same conditions as the Cedar Ridge site.The Maryland Historic Trust had the same comments and all agency approvals are in.Mr.Nichols made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon their agreeing to the conditions from the Maryland Historic Trust and the amended opinion from the Zoning Board of Appeals.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Variances: R.Lee Downey -Request to use the simplified plat process to create a parcel for agricultural purposes: _Mrs.Pietro presented the variance request for R.Lee Downey.She explained that this request is to use the simplified plat process.The property is located on the east side of Kemps Mill Road and is zoned Agriculture.Mr.Downey is proposing to create a 1.3 acre lot for agricultural purposes.The property is currently owned by George Gossard.Mr.Downey wants to purchase it from Mr.Gossard to continue farming,which he has been doing for 22 years.Mrs.Pietro stated that over half of the site is covered in flood plain.The request is from Section 318.1 of the Ordinance.Mr.Clopper made a motion to grant the variance.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. Allen and Nancy Long: Mrs.Pietro presented the variance request for Allen and Nancy Long.The subject site is located on the north side of Cress Pond Road east of Rockdale Road and is zoned Agriculture.The owner is proposing to create Lot 1,a 3.74 acre lot,for an immediate family member.A panhandle approximately 576 feet long will serve the site.Mrs.Pietro stated that the panhandle which has frontage on Cress Pond Road is 16 feet wide instead of 18 feet.She stated that there is an existing trailer on proposed Lot 1 and an existing dwelling on the remaining lands.She noted that there is a septic reserve area for Lot 1 on the remaining lands and stated that this is the best place according to the Health Department.The Engineering Department does not have a problem with this request since everything is existing,but need additional sight distance information before they will approve it.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the variance request and the location of the septic reserve area,contingent on Engineering Department's approval.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Washington County/Phoenix Color Property Transfer: Mr.Arch presented the variance request for the Washington County/Phoenix Color Property transfer.He explained that the County is acquiring a piece of property from Phoenix Color,via the simplified plat process and that Parcel A is where the retention pond is and will also serve a portion of the airport.Mr.Arch explained that they want to use the simplified plat process for the change over,because both Mr.Rohrer and Mr.McGee do not want the property tied into the airport because it becomes encumbered by FAA regulations.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to grant the variance.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. 128 Subdivisions: Pine Glen.Inc.Lot 4-6 Preliminary/Final Plat and Forest Conservation Plan: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final plat for Pine Glenn.The subject site is located on the east side of MD 418 east of Ringgold and is zoned Agriculture.The developer is proposing three residential building lots ranging is size from 1.06 acres to 1.83 acres in size.The site will be served by individual wells and septics.All three lots will utilize a shared entrance onto MD 418. State Highway has issued verbal approval conditioned upon possible need for a pipe under the entrance to be reviewed prior to issuing an entrance permit.A preliminary consultation was held in July for 4 lots and the new plan is for 3.Three lots were previously approved a few years ago. There is a forest conservation plan associated with this plat.Based on the formula they would need 8/1 Oths of an acre and will handle it by planting on site.The owner will do the plantings and a surety bond will be posted in the amount of$3,484.80.All agency approvals have been received.There will be 2.48 acres of remaining lands.A discussion followed.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the preliminary/final plat as well as the surety bond in the amount of $3,484.80.Seconded by Mr.Nichols.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Site Plans: Tiger Development Warehouse: Mr.Lung presented the site plan for Tiger Development for a spec warehouse on Lot 2 in Hunters Green Business Park on Hopewell Road.The site consists of approximately 35 acres zoned Highway Interchange 1.The developer is proposing to construct a 466,000 square foot,44 foot high warehouse building to be constructed in two phases.There will be two entrances, employee parking will be to the front,loading docks for phase 1 are located along one side ofthe building and loading docks for future phase 2 are located along both sides of the building.There will eventually be an access road around the building which will be paved.Two storm water management ponds are proposed on each side of the building.Mr.Lung stated that a tenant has not been announced for the building.Lighting will be building mounted,landscaping will be across the front of the building,public water and sewer will serve the site.All agency approvals have been received.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to grant site plan approval.Seconded by Mr. Clopper.So ordered.A discussion followed with the consultant,Fred Frederick,regarding the surety bond in the amount of$125,000 required to meet the forest conservation requirements for the Hunter's Green Business Park.He requested that instead of posting a bond for the entire amount if they could instead post a bond for 60 percent ofthat amount since they have only developed 60 percent of the site.It was the consensus of the Commission that the consultant and developer should work this issue out with staff. Preliminary Consultations: Cross Creek: Mr.Iseminger suggested that they table this issue until after the rezoning hearing.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to table.A discussion followed regarding checking the minutes to see if the railroad right-of-way had been fenced (condition of approval of this development)and the connection to Poffenberger Road.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Harsh Farms: Mrs.Pietro stated that she had nothing else to add to her summary.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they were in agreement with the comments in the summary. 129 OTHER BUSINESS: Letter from Town of Boonsboro: Mr.Lung stated that last year based on the original concept plan,the County Planning Commission also made a determination that Mr.Thomas's property would be considered in the Boonsboro growth area.He explained that the concept plan for development of the farm,has changed,public facilities are not proposed and Mr.Thomas is pursuing agricultural preservation for a portion of his farm.The town of Boonsboro has issued a letter stating that they no longer consider the property to be in the growth area.The County Planning Commission should also go on record as to saying that a portion of his property is not in the growth area.Mr.Iseminger made a motion that upon rereview,the Planning Commission has determined that this piece of property is not associated with the Boonsboro Town Growth Area.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. WS-99-01 -Staff Report and Recommendation: Mr.Lung stated that no additional testimony was received in the 10 day comment period.Mr. Ernst made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that they approve WS-99-01 because it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the County.Seconded by Mrs . .Lampton.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered. WS-99-02 -Staff Report and Recommendation: Mr.Lung stated that no additional testimony was received in the 10 day comment period.Mr. Ernst made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that they approve WS-99-02 because it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the County.Seconded by Mrs. Lampton.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered. Policy #18: Mr.Moser stated that Policy 18 proposes granting staff the ability to approve the use of the simplified plat process.A discussion followed.Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve Policy 18. Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered.A discussion followed. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. ~=b----- 130 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -OCTOBER 4,1999 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,October 4, 1999 in the County Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman,Bernard 1.Moser;Vice-Chairperson,Paula Lampton;R.Ben Clopper,Robert Nichols;Don Ardinger,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,Bertrand Iseminger. Staff:Planning Director,Robert C.Arch;Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung and 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. MINUTES: Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the minutes of August 2,1999.Seconded by Mr. Nichols.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Variances: Level 3 Communications -Lot without road frontage: Mr.Lung presented the variance request for Level 3 Communications.The subject site is located on the south side of 1-70 between the new Downsville Pike interchange and the Sharpsburg Pike. Mr.Lung explained that Level 3 is in the process of developing an interstate fiber optic communications line and that a portion of the line will be located adjacent to 1-70.He stated that according to the applicant,they need to locate an amplification site along the line,which requires a small unmanned building and an access road.In order to do this,Level 3 needs to acquire a 5 acre lot from Frank and Larry Artz.The proposed lot is approximately 4,000 feet north of Rench Road,which would be their point of access.The applicant believes it would be impractical to obtain 25 feet of road frontage and a 4,000 foot long panhandle for fee simple road frontage when there will only be approximately one site inspection per month.Mr.Lung said that they are proposing to obtain a right-of-way across the Artz's remaining lands which will run parallel with the railroad.Mr.Lung stated that staff does not object to the request since it is associated with an unmanned use that will require infrequent visits.The staff recommends if approved,that there be a condition that the use on this site be for an unmanned communications facility.He added that the Board of Zoning Appeals approved a special exception for this use under Agricultural zoning in September.A discussion followed.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the variance request with the condition that the site be used for an unmanned communications facility.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.So ordered. James and Mary Dick -Panhandle length and the creation of a lot without road frontage: Mr.Arch presented the variance request for James and Mary Dick.He explained that it is part of a concept plan presented in 1990 for an 8 lot subdivision off of Leitersburg/Smithsburg Road. He stated that a formal proposal has not been submitted at this time.The subject site contains 16.8 acres with a house to the back of the property and access is via an existing farm lane.The variance request is for a panhandle length of 600 feet.In addition,Mr.Arch explained where the panhandle would intersect the Leitersburg/Smithsburg Road,due to sight distance considerations,the access for the proposed subdivision is the best location.As a result,the applicant is requesting for zero road frontage and would instead access the new proposed road 131 when it is built and lmtil such time there will be an easement over the property to access the roadway.A discussion followed regarding the fact that the contract purchasers of the house want to use the existing tree lined lane instead of driving through a subdivision.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the variance request for the panhandle length and to create a lot without road frontage,with the condition that no further subdivision of the 16 acres would take place and with the condition that the panhandle will connect with the future street.Seconded by Mr.Nichols. So ordered. Subdivisions: Fieldstone Acres,Preliminary/Final Plat: Mr.Lung stated that this proposal has been before the Plarming Commission for the preliminary consultation and in August to consider the County Engineer's opinion on the road design.He said that at the August meeting the Plarming Commission unanimously voted to accept the County Engineer's recommendation regarding his requirement that there be an interconnection between the existing subdivision and the proposed new lots.He said that following that meeting, the staff prepared a letter to the applicant explaining the Plarming Commission's action and outlining the route of appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals.He said that the applicant filed an appeal and the Board of Appeals deferred their action because they need a formal subdivision .denial by the Plarming Commission prior to them taking any action on the appeal.Mr.Lung stated that at this point they have routed the plat for agency comments.In addition to the denial from the Engineering Department,both the Health Department and Soil Conservation District have denied the plat.Mr.Lung stated that in light of the agency comments,staff s recommendation would be for denial.A discussion followed regarding the Health Department and Soil Conservation District's denial and the fact that ifthis plat is denied that the applicant's next step would be to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals.Mr.Russell Horman,attorney for Mrs. Valiante briefly spoke.He reviewed the history of the development and stated that a through street would affect their forest conservation area and the perc tests.Further discussion followed with Mr.Reichenbaugh,consultant,of Associated Engineering regarding the differences in Mr. McGee's design and his.Mr.Horman also stated that he has a petition from the residents in Fieldstone Acres against having a through road and noted that the School Board and the Fire Department did not object to their design.Mr.Clopper made a motion to deny the preliminary/final plat for Fieldstone Acres based on the County Engineer's plan for a through street,and based on the fact that the Engineering Department,the Health Department and the Soil Conservation District have denied this plat.Seconded by Mr.Nichols.So ordered. Silverman Companies LLC,Final Plat: Mr.Lung presented the final subdivision plat for the Silverman Companies.The property is located on the east side of Robinwood Drive and access is off of Rosebank Way.The site consists of 13 acres zoned Residential Suburban.The subdivision involves 24 lots for semi- detached dwellings,2 lots for either single family or duplex dwellings and a parcel of remaining lands designated for a 120 unit senior living facility.Mr.Lung stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals granted approval of the special exception for the senior living facility and that the other uses are allowed by right in the residential suburban zoning district.He said that the preliminary plat was before them.He referred to the plat and stated that Rosebank Way will be extended into a cul-de-sac with the lots for the semi detached dwellings around the cul-de-sac.Mr.Lung stated that when the preliminary plat was approved in February,there were conditions that the final plat address the buffer issues and off site improvements to the Robinwood Drive corridor.He said that those issues have been addressed.He added that at the February meeting some of the adjoining neighbors had expressed concern with the need for buffering and concerned with a path serving this site being located behind their properties.Since that time,staff met with the developer's consultant and staff recommended that the path be eliminated behind the houses and brought out to the street.In addition,the developer is providing a row of 4 - 8 foot high Leyland Cypress for a buffer and are providing additional landscaping in the open space area.In regards to the improvements to Robinwood Drive,the County Engineer issued a letter to Mr.Silverman 132 on August 24th outlining what needed to be done in regards to the developer's contribution to Robinwood Drive and that it will be phased based on construction of this development.The phasing plan is to be made part of the subdivision plat.There will be a formal agreement drawn up by the Director of Public Works and what they would need prior to approval of this plat is verification from the developer that he is willing to accept the County's condition for the developer's contribution.Mr.Lung stated that they are waiting for approvals from the Permits and Health Departments.Mr.Nichols made a motion to approve the subdivision plat contingent on agency approvals.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ardinger abstained.So ordered. Site Plans: Midas: Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for Midas.The property consists of .66 acres,located along the northeast side of the Dual Highway and is zoned Business General.The owner is proposing to remove the existing building and replace it with a new building 5,800 square feet in size. There will be 6 employees,hours of operation will be from 7:00 a.m.to 8:00 p.m.Monday through Saturday,26 parking spaces,building mounted lights,and one pole and one building mounted sign.The site is exempt from forest conservation and all approvals except for Permits Department are in.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to grant site plan approval contingent on agency approvals.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. Huyetts Business Park Lot 12.Ryder Truck: Mr.Lung presented the site plan for Ryder Truck.The site consists of 5.5 acres and is located long the south side of Business Parkway off ofMD 63 north ofI-70 and is zoned Highway Interchange I.Mr.Lung stated that last July the Planning Commission approved the subdivision plat that created Lot 12.The proposed use is a Ryder Truck rental and leasing facility and will be developed in two phases.Phase 1 involves a 10,260 square foot building and to the back is a canopy over some gas pumps and fueling facilities.In the front is parking to accommodate cars and on the side and the rear is the truck parking area.He stated that phase 2 consists of additional truck parking.There are two access points proposed onto Business Parkway which is a county road.Mr.Lung reviewed the landscaping which will be around the front of the building and in the comers.There will be a chain link fence around the entire site.The site will be served by public water and sewer,storm water management will be handled via a regional pond.There will be 7 employees,hours of operation will be from 7:00 a.m.to 11 :00 p.m.Monday through Friday and 7:00 a.m.to 3:30 p.m.on Saturday.Mr.Lung stated that in 1996 the Board of Appeals granted a variance to allow a reduction in the required buffer yard adjacent to residential zoning to the west from 75 feet to 35 feet.He stated that since that time a text amendment has been passed that reduced the buffer from 75 feet to 25 feet so the buffer they are using is actually 10 feet more than what is currently required.Mr.Lung stated that the appeals case was not specific in the type of planting in the buffer yard and that the developer is proposing 35 white pines 5 feet in height and an access is being proposed in a portion of the buffer yard for the County to have access to the storm water management facility.Mr.Lung stated that the Engineering Department did recommend that this access road be located there so that County vehicles would not have to go through the fenced portion of the site.The planning staff does not have an objection to the access road but are concerned with the design and some other aspects of the site.These have been related to the developer and they have responded in writing but have not revised the plan.Mr.Lung stated that staff is concerned with the use of white pines because as they mature they tend to die out on the bottom and suggested that they use something like Leyland Cypress.The consultant's response was that the developer wants to use the white pines. Mr.Lung stated that he requested more information on the building mounted light,because without a shield on that type of light could present an off site glare problem.He said that he requested more information on the type of trucks to use the site,where they would be parked and whether there would be any extensive idling.He said that the developer stated there would not be that situation and that the type oftrucks they would be renting or leasing would be the smaller type of truck.Mr.Lung suggested that they put a note on the plan stating that there will not be any extended idling of the trucks.He stated that the final item was that the condition of approval 133 of the subdivision plat was the payment in lieu offorest conservation of$3,659.04 be made and that has not been paid yet.All agency approvals have been received.A discussion followed regarding the access road through the buffer,the fact that white pines are not a good buffer and the issue of truck idling.Mr.Iseminger requested that staff express the Planning Commission's concerns to Terry McGee regarding the access road through the buffer.Mr.Moser asked if they could make a recommendation for the County Engineer to reconsider and that their recommendation would be to access by way of the parking lot.Further discussion followed regarding the access.Mr.Iseminger suggested that they show the right-of-way through the property.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon payment in lieu of being met,that the plan be revised to use a more appropriate type of screen planting,the elimination of the access road through the buffer,adding a right-of-way by way of the parking lot to the storm water management pond,give staff the authority to renegotiate the lighting issue for a nonglare light and that the developer should be on notice regarding truck idling.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Pristine Springs Water Company: Mr.Lung presented the site plan for Pristine Springs.The property is located on the north side ofRt.40,west side of Fairview Mountain in Clear Spring.The applicant is proposing to construct a 32 x 60 foot metal building to house a spring water bottling operation.The hours of operation would be 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.Monday through Friday with 6 employees.The property is zoned Conservation and is located on 66.32 acres.Mr.Lung stated that they are waiting for Permits,Health Department and State Highway approvals.He said that the Health Department coordinates with the State with regards to the permits for the bottling of water and they also need to obtain a water appropriations permit.Mr.Ernst made a motion to approve the site plan contingent on agency approvals.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. A discussion followed with staff regarding the fact that the Board of the County Commissioners received a letter from the Washington County Historic Trust regarding preliminary consultations and will be on the November agenda for discussion. ADJOURNMENT: '-.-/ Bernard L.Moser,Chairman There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m. aP4f!;~ 134 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -NOVEMBER 1,1999 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,November 1,1999 in the County Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman,Bernard 1.Moser;Vice-Chairperson,Paula Lampton;R.Ben Clopper,Robert Nichols;Don Ardinger,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,Bertrand Iseminger. Staff:Planning Director,Robert C.Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen Goodrich;Farmland Preservation Administrator,Eric Seifarth;Park &Environmental Plauner,William Stachoviak; Senior Planners,Timothy A.Ltmg and Lisa Kelly Pietro. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. Minutes: Mr.Iseminger made a motion to approve the minutes of September 13,1999.Seconded by Mrs . .Lampton.So ordered. Mr.Iseminger made a motion to approve the minutes of October 4,1999.Seconded by Mrs. Lampton.So ordered. NEW BUSINESS: Agricultural Land Preservation District Applications: AD-99-09, AD-99-10,AD-99-11, AD-99-12,AD-99-13 and AD-99-14: Mr.Seifarth presented the six agricultural land preservation district applications.He explained the criteria and stated that all six properties qualify and have been approved by the Agricultural Advisory Board.He proceeded to review each applicant as follows:AD-99-09,Donald and Carol Johnson,74 acres located on the east side of Reed Road;AD-99-10,David and Linda Shank,200 acres located on Lehman's Mill Road;Tracey and Brenda Thomas 116 acres located on Maryland Rt.68;AD-99-12,Robert and Margarete Coffman,260 acres located on Maryland Rt.63 and 188 acres on Rt.63;and Lewis and Linda Taulton,42 acres contiguous to a permanent easement located on Brownsville Road.A discussion followed regarding the Thomas property and the fact that they had recently submitted a preliminary consultation and the fact that they will be excluding 24 acres from the application and the criteria the Agricultural Advisory Board follows.Mr.Clopper made a motion that the County Commissioners adopt the six agricultural land preservation districts based on the fact that they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered. Rural Legacy Program Applications: RL-99-001, RL-99-002,RL-99-003 and RL-99-004: Mr.Seifarth explained that these are the first four applications for permanent easement for the Rural Legacy Program and that they need to determine consistency with the Comprehensive Plan.He stated that this is a new program from the State and is similar to the Agricultural Preservation Program in that it will be permanent easements.He said that the State has limited them to the area near Antietam consisting of approximately 37,000 acres.He said that the State wants the County to build on this block and permanently preserve land around Antietam.He 135 presented an exhibit map showing prime forest land,forest land,agricultural land and prime agricultural land,endangered species and historic sites.He said they picked these properties based on the State's criteria,based on agriculture,environmental and historic features.He said that the four applications will cost in total approximately 1.3 million dollars out of the original 1.8 million dollar grant.He proceeded to review them as follows:RL-99-00 1 William,Mary and Scott Poffenberger,176 acres;RL-99-02,David Foltz,50.14 acres;Terry Karn 329 acres;and Carl and Melanie Heron 131.41 acres.A discussion followed regarding the fact that the next step would be to take these applications to the County Commissioners tomorrow for public hearing and then to the State.Mrs.Lampton made a motion that the four applications were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered. Subdivisions: DOT Foods: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary/final plat for DOT Foods.He explained that the property is owned by the County and is to be conveyed to DOT Foods.He stated that it is part of the County's Water and Sewer Department complex in the 70/81 Industrial Park and consists of approximately 30 acres.The site is located off Elliott Parkway.The proposed lot consists of 4.25 acres and is zoned IG -Industrial General.Mr.Lung stated that this is just a subdivision plat .and that they are not proposing a site plan at this time.He said that it is DOT Food's intention to use the property for additional truck trailer parking and stormwater management facility.All agency approvals have been received.Mr.Lung stated that the method of forest conservation needs to be addressed.A forest stand delineation was submitted for the 4.25 acres which is completely forested.DOT foods is proposing to clear the entire site and to use the payment in lieu of option to meet their forest conservation obligations.Mr.Lung stated that based on a 15 percent mitigation factor plus the fact that the site is completely forested,they would be looking at 2.28 acres of reforestation or a payment in lieu of amount of $9,496.80.He stated that there are no priority areas on the site,however,there is adjacent forest on CHIEF property and it is not under easement.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger made a motion to approve the preliminary/final plat and the forest conservation plan for use of payment in lieu of.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Site Plans: Distribution Center: Mrs.Pietro presented the site plan for the Distribution Center.The subj ect site is along the southeast side of Governor Lane Boulevard and is zoned Planned Industrial.Mrs.Pietro stated that the owner is Governor Lane LLC and currently on the remaining lands is a building owned by Maryland Paper and there is no business proposed for this site at this time.The developer is proposing to create a 91,500 square foot distribution center on approximately 6.12 acres.Mrs. Pietro stated that the site is served by public water and sewer,hours of operation are Monday through Friday,10 hours per day with 6 employees,24 parking spaces are provided and there will be all day delivery.She proceeded to review the location of the sign,the proposed landscaping,the lighting (building and pole mounted)and the regional stormwater facility.All agency approvals have been received.A discussion followed regarding the size of the proposed building.Mr.Nichols made a motion to approve the site plan.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Forest Conservation: Michael Spikier -Approval for use of Natural Regeneration: Mr.Lung stated that the developer's consultant is requesting the Planning Commission's 136 consideration of the method to address forest conservation for a proposed subdivision.He said that the forest stand delineation shows no qualifying forest on the site,however,there is some existing tree cover present and approximately one third of the site is in the 100 year floodplain. The property is located at the end of Will Rich Drive off of the south side ofDoub Road near Williamsport.The forest conservation obligation on this proposed 6.76 acre lot would be .684 acres.Mr.Ltmg stated that due to the fact that flood plain area is considered a priority area for afforestation,the automatic use for payment in lieu of approval under Express Procedures is not an option and the Planning Commission must approve the method of forest conservation.In this case the owner is requesting to use natural regeneration to meet his obligation.Mr.Lung stated that according to the Forest Conservation Ordinance,natural regeneration is the last option tmder the sequence.He referred to the consultant's letter in the agenda packet which stated that there was an adjacent forest which would provide sufficient seed stock.He said that it is staff s recommendation that instead of natural regeneration on the entire area that they consider supplemental planting to bring the existing tree cover up to meet the definition of forest.Mr. Lung added that their limited experience with natural regeneration has been that it is difficult from an administrative standpoint to keep track of the progress of the natural regeneration and the required tree count for compliance.If the natural regeneration does not work within a certain period of time they would have to plant trees.Staff feels that supplemental planting would be more appropriate.A discussion followed regarding the time period involved with the natural regeneration,how it is enforced,when they would have to do the supplemental planting and the site inspections.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the request for natural regeneration. .Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.So ordered. Candidate Sites Forest Conservation Planting: Mr.Goodrich said he had intended to request Plamting commission approval offorest conservation planting sites but Elmer Weibley of the Soil Conservation District was unable to attend the meeting and the property owners have not signed the initial letter of intent.He suggested approval of candidate sites be delayed to a future meeting.Mr.Iseminger moved to table the candidate sites until the December meeting.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Mr.Goodrich proceeded to review the fund summary.He explained that since the program began in February I,1993 through the end of September of this year,they have collected $578,355.72 in plan review fees and PIL.He added that for the month of October they have collected an additional $120,000 in payment in lieu offunds,bringing the total collected to date to approximately $698,000.00.He stated that the amount spent to date is accurate $394,168.56 and that $270,000.00 remains in the fund.Mr.Goodrich referred to the sununary of the 1999 planting fund.A discussion followed regarding future planting sites and the bidding process for contractors. Preliminary Consultations: LeRoy Myers: Mr.Lung presented the preliminary consultation for LeRoy Myers.He stated that forest conservation is the issue that the Planning Commission needs to address.The site is located in the Interstate Industrial Park near Williamsport and consists of 14 acres zoned Planned Industrial. Mr.Lung stated that the property is currently owned by Maccaferri Gabions and Mr.Myers is the contract purchaser.He said that Mr.Myers is proposing to subdivide the property into 5 lots for 5 separate buildings such as small warehouse or small commercial buildings.He explained that the forest stand delineation shows approximately 3.5 acres of existing forest and that 1.12 acres could be cleared without any mitigation as long as the remaining 2.38 acres were retained.He said that if all the forest is cleared the obligation would be 4.55 acres or a payment in lieu of in the amount of$19,819.80.He said that with industrial parks the owner normally wants to utilize as much of the property as possible for development.He said that he recommended at the consultation that they retain as much of the forest as possible along the property lines,in between 137 the buildings and work it in with the landscaping.The only problem with that is that the site needs to be graded in order for the water to run to the storm water management area.Mr.Myers is requesting to remove all of the existing forest and pay into the forest conservation fund.Mr. Lung stated that at this point the intention is to get one building under way and no forest needs to be removed for this first phase.A discussion followed regarding having to approve the method for forest conservation for the rest of the site this evening,the fact that the developer will be doing some landscaping,the fact that an intermittent stream is shown on the forest stand delineation and that the consultant is to check with Elmer Weibley to see if it qualifies as a stream needing a buffer.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the payment in lieu of request. Seconded by Mr.Nichols.Mr.Ernst abstained.So ordered. OTHER BUSINESS: RZ-99-I 1.Cross Creek Builders: Mrs.Pietro stated that she had nothing else to add to her staff report except that a consultation was held this past Friday on adj acent land for Antietam Development.There was some discussion regarding a proposed right-of-way being set aside and that the consultation will be before the Commission at the December meeting.A discussion followed regarding requiring the proposed right-of-way and the fact that the issue would be addressed when the preliminary eonsultation is presented.Mr.Moser commented that the existing zoning is appropriate and does not feel that the applicant has made a case.He feels that the zoning should remain as HI-I.A discussion followed regarding the comprehensive zoning and how this property was originally zoned,the fact that at the time of the comprehensive zoning the preliminary consultation indicated that the developer was planning for commercial industrial development and was zoned based on that,the fact that this site abuts the interstate and the commercial development along the Sharpsburg Pike and the fact that it was the consensus of the Commission that they needed more information regarding the issue of the road for their review.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to table their recommendation until they receive more information.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr. Iseminger abstained.So ordered. RZ-99-12.Martin Marietta Materials.Inc. Mr.Lung stated that the only thing he wishes to add is that Paul Prodonovich,Zoning Administrator,will be issuing a letter explaining how he will handle the potential zoning violation.He said action will be taken regardless of the rezoning decision.He said that the same thing applies for the situation where the State has approved a mining plan for a portion of the property and that the County had not reviewed and approved the plan.Mr.Lung stated that a site plan will still have to come before the Planning Commission.A discussion followed regarding why the Permits Department would wait until the Planning Commission's decision prior to talcing action,the fact that there is a lack of enforcement on the part of the State for this quarry, the fact that on the whole Martin Marietta has been a good neighbor,proposed night use,the relocation of the asphalt plant,the waste pile location and traffic.Mr.Ardinger made a recommendation that the County Commissioners approve RZ-99-12 as presented due to the fact that it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Nichols.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered. RZ-99-13 Outlet Village of Hagerstown Limited Partnership: Mr.Goodrich stated that he did not have anything to add to the staff report and briefly reviewed it.Mr.Clopper made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that they approve RZ-99-13 based on the fact that the applicant demonstrated that there was a mistake in the original comprehensive rezoning,the findings offact outlined in the staff report and because the proposed rezoning is logical and appropriate.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered. 138 Solid Waste Plan Recommendation: Mr.Stachoviak reviewed the process involved with the update of the Solid Waste/Recycling Plan and reviewed some of the comments and revisions.A discussion followed regarding the landfill and recycling.Mrs.Lampton made a motion that the Solid Waste/Recycling Plan is consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Mr.Ernst.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered. Washington County Historical Trust Letter: Mr.Arch explained that this letter had been sent to the Board of County Commissioners and they took action of accepting this letter and then took a second action sending it to the Planning Commission for comments.He stated that the Historical Trust is requesting that property be posted when a preliminary consultation is scheduled.In addition,the Trust would like to see one member of the Historic District Commission present at all preliminary consultations for their review and comment.Mr.Arch stated that from a staff standpoint,Steve Goodrich is the Planning Departments representative with the Historic District Commission and any preliminary consultation coming through the system is reviewed by him.Mr.Arch stated that it would not be a problem to take a preliminary consultation to the Historic District Commission for their comments,like they do with the Planning Commission.He said that in regards to the posting, .they would most likely need to amend the Subdivision Ordinance.He added that staff had concerns with posting because many preliminary consultations do not materialize and the preliminary consultation is designed as a process where the applicant gets information from the agencies and it is not a public hearing.A discussion followed regarding action if a property is on the National Historic designation list and taking preliminary consultations to the Historic District Commission for comment.Further discussion followed regarding how to include the Historic District Commission in the reviewing process.Mr.Arch suggested giving the Historic District Commission a copy of all preliminary consultations incorporating any comments they may have into the record just like the Planning Commission.Mr.Nichols made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that a copy of each preliminary consultation will be submitted to the Historic District Commission for their review but at this time it is not appropriate to post the consultations nor to have a representative from the Historic District Commission present at the consultations.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Iseminger abstained. So ordered. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ~~~ Bernard 1.Moser,Chairman 139 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -DECEMBER 6,1999 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,December 6,1999 in the County Commissioners Meeting Room. Members present were:Chairman,Bernard L.Moser;Vice-Chairperson,Paula Lampton;R.Ben Clopper,Robert Nichols;Don Ardinger,Robert Ernst,II and Ex-Officio,Bertrand Iseminger. Staff:Planning Director,Robert C.Arch;Chief Senior Planner,Stephen Goodrich;Senior Planners,Timothy A.Lung and Lisa Kelly Pietro and Associate Planner,Jill Baker. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 7:00 p.m. OLD BUSINESS: RZ-99-1I,Cross Creek Builders and PC-99-008 Antietam Center: Mr.Arch stated that since this item is tied into the Antietam Center preliminary consultation,he _recommended that the Planning Commission discuss both items at the same time.Mrs.Pietro stated that she did not have anything to add to the staff report. Mrs.Pietro presented the preliminary consultation for the Antietam Center.The developer is proposing to construct a restaurant,convenience store with gas islands,several retail stores and a motel on 14 acres zoned Highway Interchange -1.The property is located on the east side of the Sharpsburg Pike and is adjacent to the Cross Creek Development.Mrs.Pietro stated that there were two agency comments that were important and that they tied into the Cross Creek rezoning. She referred to the County Engineer's comments regarding the provisions to provide a public through street from Sharpsburg Pike to the Cross Creek development which is located to the rear of the site.She added that Cross Creek was approved with that right-of-way set aside and the County Engineer's office continues to support this idea.They would also require a traffic impact study.She stated that State Highway is also requiring that a traffic impact study be developed and reviewed the intersections they want included.She said they also made the comment that consideration of a public road from Rt.65 to the Cross Creek property is presently being discussed and that they will address this as part of the traffic study.She stated that Jim Bishop, Water and Sewer Department,stated that in the near future the County will be contacting Bowman Development regarding setting aside a 30 foot right-of-way for a pressure main to be located between Bowman Development and Cross Creek,which will continue south to the St. James area.Mrs.Pietro referred to Mr.Fletcher,an adjacent property owner,whose letter was included in the agenda packet.He had concerns over access and how this development will affect his property.State Highway is also aware of this issue.She referred to the comments made by Mr.Urner,attorney for the developer,in the preliminary consultation summary regarding the issue of the right-of-way.Mrs.Pietro reviewed the three options that he would like to see the Planning Commission act on.She added that the Antietam Center ties into the rezoning for Cross Creek and added that the rezoning deals with the acreage adjoining 1-70 which is currently zoned HI-I,The owner is requesting to change it to HI-2.The way the property is situated,there is no good access to the HI-1 property either from Poffenberger Road or through the existing street system of Cross Creek.Thus,the right-of-way could have a bearing on whether the property be developed HI -lor HI -2.A discussion followed regarding Mr.Urner's request concerning the right-of-way.Mr.Wantz,attorney for Cross Creek, commented regarding the rezoning of the HI-1 property in Cross Creek.He stated that if it turns out that there is no road providing access through this property from MD 65 to Cross Creek,then the argument of mistake would be nullified since they would have HI-1 zoning with access to MD 65.He added that if the road is not constructed,then they would proceed with the rezoning. He proceeded to review the history of the development and the proposed road.A discussion followed.Mr.Urner stated that they are requesting the Planning Commission to consider 140 whether a reserved right-ot~way is a good idea,If the Commission supports this idea,the matter should be referred to the County Commissioners under Article 66 B to let them start the road alignment survey process,He added if the County Commissioners have their public meeting and decide to put a road through there,then they willimow how to amend their plan accordingly, Mr,Shaool,adjacent property owner,commented that he would like to see the road built A discussion followed regarding the fact that in the past the Planning Commission has made it clear that they wanted to see another road and that the road is one consideration in the rezoning but not the only issue, A discussion followed regarding the rezoning request for Cross Creek,the road issue,the fact that during the preliminary consultation,concern with the access was expressed by some of the agencies in regards to developing it as a residential property,Mr,Arch stated that he has discussed this issue with both Terry McGee,County Engineer,and State Highway and the road would possibly preclude the development of that property from a residential standpoint He said that State Highway would be looking at upgrading the current intersection of Battle Creek Boulevard and MD 65 with a traffic signal by the developer,He said there is consideration concerning traffic split that they could get into the situation where Poffenberger Road would have to be improved all the way to Alternate 40,Staff would strongly recommend that noise barriers be in place along 1-70 for the residential development He added that those three items may preclude a residential development Further discussion followed regarding what would happen if they referred the road issue to the County Commissioners for their consideration,Mrs, ,Lampton made a motion to table the rezoning until the time that the County Commissioners can review the road issue,Seconded by Mr,Ardinger,Mr,Iseminger abstained,So ordered, In regards to the preliminary consultation for the Antietam Center,Mrs,Lampton made a motion that the Planning Commission recommends that the County Commissioners consider a road right-of-way through said parcel accessing Cross Creek,the Shaool property and others to MD 65,Seconded by Mr,Ardinger,So ordered, NEW BUSINESS: Variances: Sam and Linda Barnhart,Panhandle Length: Miss Balcer presented the variance request for Sam and Linda Barnhart,The subject site is located on the east side of Orebank Road north of Boyd Road and consists of ]3,27 acres zoned Conservation,The request is from 405.1 LG,5 for panhandle lots where it states that the length of the panhandle shall not exceed 400 feet The applicant is proposing to create a 4,82 acre lot for a family member with a panhandle length of 850 feet Mr,Iseminger made a motion to grant the variance request for an immediate family member,Seconded by Mr,Clopper,So ordered, James and Tracy Sease,Lot Without Road Frontage: Mr,Lung presented the variance request for James and Tracy Sease,The subject site is located on the north side of Leiters Mill Road off a private farm lane zoned Agriculture,The request is from Section 405,11 ,B of the Subdivision Ordinance concerning the requirement that all lots have at least 25 feet of public road frontage,Mr,Lung said that the staff believed this was warranted to bring before the Commission because it involves subdivision around an existing house and would not result in the creation of a new dwelling on a private road,He said that the heirs ofNorrnan Snurr own two adjoining farms one behind the other along the north side of Leiters Mill Road west of Leitersburg,He referred to the existing farm lane on the exhibit drawing and said that there are existing buildings on both the front and back farms and they are zoned Agricultural,The existing lane serves both farms,Mr,Lung said that the Seases would like to purchase five acres around the existing farm buildings and house on the back farm,Mr, Lung stated that this parcel is landlocked except for a small strip of land out to MD Rt 60 which is approximately 2000 feet away from the existing buildings,The Subdivision Ordinance requires that all new lots have at least 25 feet of public road frontage,He said that the Seases are 141 not related to the Snurrs so they cannot use the immediate family option.Staff does not object to the request because it is an existing house and has been using the existing lane and the hardship is due to the irregular shape of the property.A discussion followed.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the variance request.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. Subdivisions: Fountainview PUD,Final Plat Phase I: Mr.Lung presented the final plat for Phase I of Fountainview PUD.He stated that this plan has been before the Planning Commission many times for approval ofthe various phases of the PUD.The property is located along the east side of Pennsylvania Avenue south of Showalter Road.Mr.Lung explained that this is the final step in the PUD process,which is to provide a record plat for the first two phases.He said that nothing has changed on the lot layout since the preliminary plat was approved in April,1998.He said that Phase I consists of 67 townhouse lots,3 single family lots and 1 commercial parcel along with the required ratio of open space/recreational area.He stated that the townhouses are in blocks and will be served by a private road.A variance was granted several years ago to allow the townhouse lots to front and access a private road. Mr.Lung reviewed the final plat for Phase II.He said it contains 19.03 acres and consists of 15 .single family lots,30 lots for semi-detached dwellings,1 commercial lot and an open space area. He said that State Highway will not recommend approval until they have received the complete access permit package for the new roads involved with the development,however,they do not have a problem with the design.He said that water and sewer is provided to the site and they have received approval from the Hagerstown Water Department and the Washington County Water and Sewer Department and are still waiting approval from the City of Hagerstown Water Pollution Control.The Connty Permits Department is currently reviewing a revision and they are waiting assignment of addresses and review of street names.Mr.Lung stated that the ownership of this property has changed since the process began.He said they have requested updated homeowners association documents,which have been received and routed out to the County Engineer and County Attorney.He stated that there is a notice to the property owners on the plat advising them of the proximity to the airport.He added that this development is exempt from the Forest Conservation Ordinance and that the conditions and status of agency approvals are the same for both phases.He said that if the Commission grants approval,it should be conditioned upon the completed access permit application being submitted to State Highway, Water Pollution Control and Permits Department approval and approval ofthe homeowners association documents.A discussion followed regarding the commercial site.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the final plat for Phase I and Phase II of the Fountainview PUD subject to staff recommendation of agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Ardinger.So ordered. Site Plans: Assad Ghattas,Crayton Blvd: Before proceeding with the presentation,Mr.Arch stated that the site plan currently being reviewed is going to be revised to show an enlarged building footprint,which will not substantially change the character of the project.He stated that staff is requesting that if the Planning Commission approves the plan,that they give staff the ability to approve the larger revision.Mr.Lung presented the site plan for Assad Ghattas.The subject site is located on the west side of Crayton Boulevard north of Peal(Circle and is zoned Highway Interchange 1.Mr. Lung stated that the original proposal was for a 225'x 100'building to be located on 3.72 acre leased parcel and the proposed use is an office supply sales office and warehouse.He stated that there will be 46 parking spaces,hours of operation will be from 7:00 a.m.nntil 5:00 p.m., public water and sewer will serve the site,and storm water management will be handled by a regional facility.He proceeded to review the landscaping and buffering,lighting (pole mounted) and stated that there is no forest on the site and this development would be considered exempt from forest conservation to the extent that there is no new subdivision being proposed at this 142 time and there is no forest being disturbed.All agency approvals except for the Health Department,Water Pollution Control and Permits Department have been received.Mr.Lung stated that the developer has indicated that there may be some minor changes made to the plan for an expansion with a larger building including some additional parking in front.He explained that they would have to route the revision to the agencies to make sure they do not have an objection to it.A discussion followed.Mr.Iseminger made a recommendation for approval giving staffthe authority for approval of the revised building footprint,contingent upon agency approvals and giving staff the authority to route the revised plan as presented.Seconded by Mrs. Lampton.Mr.Ardinger abstained.So ordered. Capitol Core Phase I &II: Mr.Lung stated that the preliminary consultation for the site was presented at the November meeting.The site is located in the interstate industrial park off of Industrial and Grurnbaker Lanes near Williamsport.Mr.Lung stated that the Commission looked at a concept plan last month for a proposed subdivision that would divide this property up into 5 parcels for commercial use.This is the first use being proposed for the site and there is no subdivision proposed at this time on the 5.4 acre parcel.He said that the plan is for a 150 x 300 foot prefab metal building to be built in two phases.The occupant will be Capitol Core.They are in the business of warehousing and distributing starter cores for automobiles.Mr.Lung reviewed the parking (10 spaces),landscaping and hours of operation (7:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.)MondllY .through Friday.A sign is proposed at the entrance onto Industrial Lane,building mounted lights are proposed,stormwater management pond,and public water and sewer will serve the site.All agency approvals except for City Water Department have been received.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to approve the site plan contingent on agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Clopper. So ordered. Preliminary Consultations: PC-99-007 -Bonnard Morgan: Mrs.Pietro stated that she did not have anything else to add to the staff report.She stated that the concept plan is for one lot across from the remaining lands and the only reason they had the consultation was because there was other activity that had taken place and this was the 5th lot. She said that there are no other plans for the site.A discussion followed regarding the property fronting on Amos Reeder Road and the fact that it is not adequate for further development.It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that they agreed with the comments in the summary. Forest Conservation: Jim Fazenbaker -Use of Conservation Reserve Program: Mr.Lung stated that Mr.Fazenbaker is proposing to subdivide a building lot out of his holdings located at the corner of Ridenour Road and Crystal Falls Drive.He said to address forest conservation,they are proposing to use an existing planting area,which Mr.Fazenbaker implemented through the State Park and Natural Resources Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP),where property owners are encouraged to establish plantings in sensitive areas. He said that the length of this program is 15 years.Mr.Fazenbaker would like to use this planting area toward his forest conservation obligation for the new lot.Staff does not object and stated that doing this would place the planting area in a more permanent situation.Mr.Lung stated that there are some differences between the two programs.He said that the consultant would still need to determine the amount of afforestation area needed for the new lot,they would need to record the easement with the subdivision plat,they will need to post the surety for the planting area,and they would have to go through the normal inspection process.A discussion followed.Mr.Lung stated that they will be setting aside 3.2 acres.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to approve the request to use the forest conservation reserve program to address the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements for the proposed lot.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.So ordered. 143 2000 FC Fund Planting Sites: Mr.Goodrich noted that this item had been postponed from the November meeting because the property owners had not made firm commitments and Mr.Weibley was unable to attend.The Commission received a chart summarizing the planting and existing forest retention areas on each site and the priority areas that would benefit from the planting.Both sites contain stream frontage,floodplain and steep slopes that would receive protection from forest planting.The Pittman site includes 79 acres of planting and retention area along Licking Creek.Thomas involves 39 acres of planting and retention along Antietam Creek.Mr.Weibley recommended that the 50 acres of planting on the Pittman site be accomplished in two phases.He also suggested that in the future he would like to investigate combining several other similar programs with forest conservation funds to achieve more planting and longer term easements. Mr.Clopper made a motion to approve the planting sites.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr. Iseminger abstained.So ordered. RZ-99-0 IS.Roger Collins: Mrs.Pietro stated that she did not have anything to add to the staff report.Mr.Ardinger made a motion to recommend to the County Commissioners that they adopt RZ-99-15 based on the fact that the applicant demonstrated a change in the character of the neighborhood,the fact that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,staff s findings of facts outlined in the staff ,report and the fact that the proposed zoning is logical and appropriate.Seconded by Mrs. Lampton.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered. RZ-99-010.Antietam Development: Mrs.Pietro stated that she did not have anything to add to the staff report.Mr.Ernst made a motion that the County Commissioners adopt RZ-99-11 based on the fact that the applicant demonstrated that there was a change in the character of the neighborhood,that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan,that the rezoning is logical and appropriate and staff s findings offact as outlined in the staff report.Seconded by Mrs.Lampton.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered. RZ-99-014.Ouarry Text Amendment: Mr.Moser commented that the intent of the amendment submitted by the applicant was well served but as previously discussed at the public hearing,feels that staff should revisit this issue and revise the amendment.Mrs.Lampton made a motion to deny RZ-99-14 and recommend that staff look at developing an alternate proposal.Seconded by Mr.Clopper.Mr.Iseminger abstained.So ordered. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. ~~ Bernard L.Moser,Chairman