The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2009 Minutes180 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -JANUARY 5,2009 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,January 5,2009,in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown. Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Linda Parrish,Andrew Bowen,Sam Ecker,Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley and Ex-Officio James F.Kercheval.Staff members present were:Planning Director Michael C.Thompson,Chief Planners Timothy A.Lung and Stephen Goodrich,Senior Planners Lisa Kelly and Misty Wagner-Grillo,Planner Cody Shaw,and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.Also present was Commissioner Terry Baker. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Kercheval made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 12,2008 Joint City and County Planning Commissions'meeting as amended.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.Unanimously approved.Ms. Parrish abstained. Ms.Parrish made a motion to approve the minutes of the December 1,2008 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented.Seconded by Mr.Kercheval.Unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS Re-adoption of By-laws Mr.Thompson presented the Planning Commission's By-laws for re-adoption at the December 1,2008 meeting.He was asked to verify the number of regular meetings to be held each month.Mr.Thompson reported that the Maryland State statute requires the Planning Commission to hold one regular meeting per month. Motion and Vote:Mr.Ecker made a motion to adopt the Washington County Planning Commission By- laws as presented.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.Unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS -VARIANCES Carl and Michele Fuller (SV-Oa-017) Mr.Shaw presented for review and approval a variance request from Section 405.11.G.5 of the Washington County Subdivision Ordinance,which does not allow a panhandle length of more than 400- feet.The property is located along the west side of Woodmont Road and is zoned EC -Environmental Conservation.The applicant is proposing a two lot subdivision with remaining lands and requesting a panhandle of 696-feet to serve the remaining lands.The Washington County Engineering Department provided the following comments:1)the driveway location will not be approved without an acceptable SSD worksheet showing the stopping sight distance meets the minimum per the posted speed limit;2) the maximum acceptable driveway grade is 15%;and 3)storm water management will be required and must be made part of the subdivision submittal.The Division of Fire and Emergency Services noted that the lane must be wide enough to accommodate large fire and rescue vehicles and turnouts and turnarounds will be reqUired Additional written comments were provided by the Division of Fire and Emergency Services.Mr.Shaw stated that the Planning staff does not support the approval of this request unless the applicant can prove that each lot can support their own entrance location and that all Engineering comments have been addressed. Discussion:Mr.Schreiber of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,consuitant, presented a proposed grading plan for the entrance.He explained that currently there are two parcels of land.The larger parcel of land currently contains a garage owned by Mr.Fuller and has a deeded right-of-way across adjacent lands owned by others.Mr.Schreiber stated that the remaining lands will not use the proposed driveway.The Subdivision Ordinance requires each lot to have its own public road frontage.Lot 2,Lot 3 and the remaining lands have their own road frontage along Woodmont Road and also have access from the pUblic road frontage.The proposed panhandle for the remaining lands is approximately 700-feet long due to the minimum lot size of 3 acres required in the EC zoning district.Mr.Schreiber stated that the applicant is proposing to create less road frontage onto Woodmont Road by creating one driveway with shared access to Lots 2 and 3.He noted that this scenario would be more environmentally friendly because it would save existing forest. Mr.Reiber made an inquiry regarding the remaining lands that would be landlocked.Mr.Frederick of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,con~ultant,stated that the remaining lands would not be developed.Mr. Schreiber noted that the proposed panhandle would provide road frontage and access to Wood mont Road;therefore,the property would not be landlocked.There was a brief discussion regarding additional subdivision of the remaining lands.Mr.Reiber made an inquiry regarding the stream buffer shown on the plans.Mr.Frederick noted this is a dry stream,however,the best management practices for sensitive areas will be used.Mr.Lung noted that based on conversations with the Washington County Soil Conservation District,special permits through the MDE (Maryland Department of the Environment)may be required following a sensitive area review of the site.Mr.Wiley asked how wide each of the driveways are that are shown on the proposed plan.Mr.Frederick stated that the driveways are a standard 10 to 12 feet wide;however,if Fire and Emergency Services would require a wider drive there is room to accommodate the requested width.Mr.Kercheval verified with the consultant that the standard maintenance agreements for the shared driveway would be completed.Mr.Frederick stated the agreement would be completed.Mr.Kercheval recommended that all Fire and Rescue Services' comments be addressed appropriately. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to grant the variance request for a 696-foot panhandle contingent upon approval from the Washington County Engineering Department,the Division of Fire and Emergency Services,and MDE.The Planning Commission requested that the language "no further subdivision"be written in the deed for this property.Seconded by Mr.Ecker.Unanimously approved. -PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS James Harp,Jr.(PC-OB-006) Ms.Kelly presented for review and comment a preliminary consultation for James Harp,Jr.for property located along the northwest side of Paradise Church Road.The developer is proposing 82 single-family lots on 69 acres of land zoned RR -Residential Rural.During the consultation,the Washington County Engineering Department stated that they are not in favor of the long cul-de-sac and a connection to the westernmost street will be required.Paradise Church Road is inadequate for this development;therefore, a Traffic Impact Study with a full road adequacy determination will be required.The Traffic Impact Study will be reviewed prior to APFO requirements being issued for Paradise Church Road and the surrounding road network.The site must comply with storm water management requirements as they are updated and adopted.Storm water discharge easements will be required from adjacent property owners and downstream property owners.A mini roundabout will be required at the first intersection off of Paradise Church Road.Basements are not recommended on specific lots dues to the close proximity of the flood plain.Accel/decellanes will be required for access onto Paradise Church Road.The Washington County Environmental Management Engineering Division stated that the most desirable option for construction of a sewer system for this development would be the construction of a gravity line to the existing pump station,which would also require the construction of a new wet line.The City of Hagerstown Water Department indicated that most of this development is inside the City's Medium Range Growth Area and must comply with all City of Hagerstown requirements.Ms.Kelly stated that she informed the developer there are too many panhandles proposed for the development.The development is located within the Maugansville Elementary School district.Currently,school capacity is not an issue;however,capacity at the school would be determined during the final plat stage.Ms.Kelly informed the developer that there is a historic house located on the property.The historic structure is listed in the County's Historic Inventory Sites Survey.If the developer plans to remove the structure,the demolition permit applicaticJn must be reviewed by the Historic District Commission.During the consultation,Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements were discussed including high priority areas on site,on-site forest retention and off-site planting. Discussion:Mr.Fred Frederick of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,consultant,stated that there have been discussions regarding design issues within the development and the widening of Paradise Church Road with the Washington County Department of Public Works.He clarified that forestation will take place within the priority areas and the developer will save as much existing forest as possible.Off-site forestation,if necessary,will be accomplished in accordance with the Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.Ms.Parrish believes there are additional lots not specified in the consultation summary that should not have homes with basements.Ms.Parrish made an inquiry regarding connectivity to the adjoining property on the west.Mr.Frederick stated that a right-of-way extension will be provided for future connectivity.Ms.Parrish asked what the plans are for the historic house on the property.Mr. James Harp,owner,stated that the house was contaminated with lead and subsequently gutted in the 1990's.The house has been unoccupied since that time.He plans to disassemble the existing barn and reconstruct it on property he owns in Clear Spring.The silos have already been moved.Mr.Kerchevai recommended that the existing forest on the east side should be continued toward the existing houses. He recommended that the cul-de-sac should be shortened and the roads should be connected as recommended by staff to address road adequacy issues.Mr.Kercheval stated that the County's policy requires sidewalks within developments located within the UGA.There was a brief discussion between the developer,the consultant and Mr.Kercheval regarding sidewalks and "open section"and "closed section"streets.Mr.Kercheval stated that sidewalks would be required in this development.Mr. Crampton verified that sidewalks would be provided.Mr.Anikis made an inquiry regarding comments in the preliminary consultation summary about language pertaining to Allegheny Power.Mr.Frederick stated there is a large power line running across the property.Ms.Smith of the County's Engineering Department has requested verification that the County's public right-of-way will not be encumbered by other rights-of-way or easements of Allegheny Power. 181 182 -SITE PLANS Wireless Communication Support Facility -Liberty Tower (SP-08-050) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for a proposed monopole cell tower at Fort Ritchie LLC.The subject site is located along the north side of Pen Mar Road and is zoned SED -Special Economic Development.The total acreage of the Ft.Ritchie parcel is 498-acres.Liberty Towers is proposing to lease a 100'x 100'piece of property to construct a 164-foot monopole cell tower with an equipment shelter pad.A 7-foot gaivanized steel chainlink fence will surround the ieased area and an identification sign will be attached to the fence.An existing paved drive connecting the site with Pen Mar will be maintained by the developer.A storm water management pond will be located adjacent to the leased site for run-off control.A land lease agreement between the developer and property owners has been submitted to the County Planning Department,as well as a signed affidavit stating that the tower will be available to future carriers.The agreements were also submitted to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Photographs simulating the tower's appearance against the sky line were also submitted to the Planning Department.In SeptE?mber 2008,the Board of Zoning Appeals granted a special exception to erect the monopole on the site.A variance was granted for the west side yard setback from 164-feet to 150-feet. All other setbacks of 164-feet have been met.A Forest Conservation Easement plat was submitted to the County's Planning Department showing a retention area of 148-acres of existing forest that is located on other iands owned by Ft.Ritchie LLC.The Forest Conservation Easement plat has been approved and recorded in the land records of Washington County.All agency approvals have been received. Discussion:Mr.Reiber asked if the site plan fits in with the overall concept for Ft.Ritchie.Mr.Lung stated that the cell tower was not part of the original concept plan for the Ft.Ritchie development.Mr. Reiber expressed his concern that a master plan has not been approved for the Ft.Ritchie redevelopment as previously requested and the Planning Commission is reviewing "bits and pieces".Mr. Anikis asked if there would be space reserved on the cell tower for the County's Emergency Services.A representative from Ft.Ritchie LLC stated that the County has requested space for the sewer department. Motion and Vote:Mr.Wiley made a motion to approve the site plan as presented.Seconded by Ms. Parrish.Unanimously approved. Update on Ft.Ritchie Master Plan Mr.Lung stated that a meeting was held between the County Planning Department,County Engineering Department,COPT and their engineer to discuss outstanding issues that must be addressed prior to the Planning Commission granting Staff the authority to approve site plans for this development.COPT is refining the original concept plan (that looked like an artist's rendering)on which to label bUilding locations,roads,etc.They are also preparing a more detailed concept plan for the historic district,the North Lake residential district,and the secure district.An overall Forest Conservation Plan will be prepared in order to set up one large Forest Conservation easement to meet the requirements of the Forest Conservation Ordinance and the traffic study will be updated.COPT will be working with the Engineering Department to determine milestones,which will be used to determine when specific items must be completed.COPT will also work with the Engineering Department and other agencies to determine issues related to storm water management,such as who will own the various facilities and where they will be located,determining ownership of private and public roadways,and implementing a plan for turning over water and sewer facilities to the County.Mr.William Hoffman,a representative from COPT,stated that all plans should be ready for the Planning Commission in approximately 4 or 5 months. John Stoy (SP-08-041) Ms.Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a site plan for John Stoy for property located alon9 the east side of Route 65 in the Tilghmanton area.The developer is proposing to construct an ice cream parlor and a flooring shop on 0.97-acres currently zoned RB-E (Rural Business Existing).Private water and septic will serve the site.Storm water management requirements will be met through the use of a rain garden on-site.Parking required is 5 spaces and parking provided is 11 spaces.Solid waste disposal will be handled by a private hauler and dumpster.The ice cream parlor will be located in an existing building with a drive-thru and an 80-square foot addition.There will be 3 delivery trucks weekly. There will be 2 employees.No new signage or lighting is proposed.The flooring shop will be located in an existing 737 square foot garage with a 578 square foot addition.The hours of operation for both businesses will be 7:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m.,Monday through Saturday and 2:00 p.m.to 10:00 p.m.on Sunday.The flooring shop will employee 1 person and anticipates 1 tractor trailer delivery per week.No new signage or lighting is proposed.The property is exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.Landscaping will be provided using White Spruce trees.It was noted that building mounted signs will be used;therefore,a change will be required to the site plan.Health Department approval is pending.All other agency approvals have been received. Discussion:Mr.Kercheval asked Mr.Schreiber of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,consultant,if there has been any discussions regarding stacking of vehicles along the roadway with the State Highway Administration.Mr.Schreiber stated that discussions have been held with SHA and they have requested a new entrance with new paving and a by-pass lane.Mr.Schreiber stated that an entrance iarge enough to accommodate two vehicles entering at the same time is proposed.Ms.Wagner-Grillo stated that the site plan allows for the stacking of 8 cars. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon Health Department approval.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.Unanimously approved. Jeff Crampton (SP-08-049) Ms.Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a site plan for a proposed self-service warehouse and railroad construction repair facility located along the east side of Route 65.The property is 7.61 acres in size and is zoned IG -Industrial General.The site will be served by public water provided by the City of Hagerstown and individual septic.Storm water management requirements will be handled through an existing pond,which will be upgraded.Parking required is 15 spaces and parking provided is 21 spaces.Solid waste disposal will be handled by use of a dumpster and a private hauler.The self-service warehouse will consist of 3 -24 hour storage units (each unit will be 13,530 square feet in size).An accessory dwelling associated with the business is also proposed.UPS deliveries are anticipated on a weekly basis.Signage and lighting will be building mounted.An eXisting office and garage will be used by the railroad construction contractor's office as well as a 40 x 60-foot proposed addition to be used as a maintenance bUilding and a proposed 2,400 square foot pole barn.The hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday.UPS deliveries will be made daily and one tractor trailer delivery is anticipated weekly.There will be g employees.No signage is proposed and lighting will be building mounted.Th'ls site qualifies for use of the "express procedure"to meet Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements;therefore,the owner will make a payment-in-lieu in the amount of $2,787.84.Landscaping will be provided using six (6)Pin Oak trees along Route 65 in front of the proposed warehouse buildings. Staff has requested additional landscaping due to the proximity of the Westfields subdivision entrance, the approach to the Antietam Battlefield,'and a historic stone house listed on the Washington County Historic sites Survey located on property adjacent to the proposed warehouses.Mr.Adam Hager of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,consultant,has communicated to Staff that the owner wants to keep landscaping to a minimum to provide visibility from Route 65 and to discourage vandalism and theft.Ms. Wagner-Grillo noted there appears to be a commercial use on a property assessed for residential use iocated on an adjoining parcel,which is located back a long drive.She stated that the Washington County Department of Permits and Inspections will be Investigating this issue further.Depending upon their findings,the setbacks on this site may need to be adjusted.Ms.Wagner-Grillo distributed a letter received by the Planning Department from The Ausherman Group (the developer of Westfields subdivision)recommending additional buffering on this site. Discussion:Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that additional landscaping should be provided as recommended by Staff.Mr.Ecker made an inquiry regarding the architecture of the storage warehouses. Mr.Schreiber provided photographs showing examples of other warehouses constructed by the developer.Mr.Bowen made an inquiry regarding the use of the accessory building and the pole barn that is proposed.Ms.Wagner-Grillo stated the bUildings would be used for storage of equipment being repaired.Ms.Parrish and Mr.Wiley supported Staff's recommendations for additional landscaping.Mr. Kerchevai stated that he understands the owner's concern for safety and vandalism of the storage warehouses;however,he supports Staff's recommendation for additional landscaping.He suggested that the developer consider some of the landscaping suggestions detailed in the letter from The Ausherman Group.Mr.Wiley recommended additional buffering along the side of the warehouses adjacent to the historic stone house.Mr.Anikls concurred with Mr.Wiley's recommendation and Staff's recommendation for additional buffering.He made an inquiry regarding lighting on the buildings and spillover onto adjacent properties.Mr.Anikis recommended that the developer work with Staff to provide appropriate lighting.Mr.Crampton stated that a fence might have to be used as a screen along the side yard because there is limited space.Mr.Lung noted that the Planning Commission and Staff do not support the use of chain link fencing with vinyl slats for screening and that he could provide the developer with examples of screen fencing that has been approved on other sites.Mr.Anikis made an inquiry regarding the height of the buildings. Mr.Crampton stated the buildings will be approXimately 16-feet high.Ms. Wagner-Grillo noted that the height will need to be changed on the site plan from 25-feet to 16-feet.Mr. Anikis made an inquiry regarding the entrance to the site when a traffic light is installed at the intersection. Mr.Crampton stated that the consultant has made the necessary provisions at the entrance for a light when designing this site. Motion and Vote:Mr.Kercheval made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon adequate buffering along Maryland Route 65 and the historic structure,which will be approved by Staff,and Staff's verification of required setbacks for the adjoining property depending upon the use of the property. Seconded by Mr.Reiber.Unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Harry and Carrie Gouff Mr.Goodrich presented for review and recommendation Demolition Permit #2008-06286 for property located at 21524 Leitersburg-Smithsburg Road in the Leitersburg Rural Village zone.Mr.Goodrich stated that the Leitersburg Rural Village is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and the subject home is listed as a contributing structure (WA-I-174)within the District boundary.The property is also within the Rural Village zoning district.The Historic District Commission reviewed the demolition application at their December 3,2008 meeting and were opposed to the demolition.The HDC expressed opposition to the demolition for the following reasons:lack of sufficient information on the condition of the structure and the need for demolition and the structure is a contributing structure within the Leitersburg Rural Village zone. Discussion:Mr.Bowen asked the applicant to state their reasons for demolition of the structure.Mr. Gouff,owner,stated that the structure was condemned by the Washington County Health Department 183 184 and the Washington County Department of Permits and Inspections.Mr.Bowen asked the owner if they have any interest in restoring the structure and the owner replied they do not.Mr.Ecker stated that he has not seen the house and would not oppose the demolition if the house is beyond saving;however,he favors the rehabilitation and reuse of historic structures whenever possible.Mr.Reiber expressed his concern for safety issues since the property has been condemned.Mr.Kercheval noted that the Historic District Commission will have architectural review of a new house because the property is within a Rural Village.He believes that the choice to demolish or to rehabilitate an historic structure should be the owner's decision.Mr.Wiley stated that he is in favor of restoring and rehabilitating historic structures. However,he expressed his opinion that there are occasions when historic structures should be demolished and he believes this is one of those occasions.Mr.Anikis concurred with Mr.Wiley's comments and stated he is not opposed to the demolition of this structure.He clarified that plans for the new house must be approved by the Historic District Commission.Mr.Goodrich briefly explained the HOC's review procedures and guidelines used to ensure that new structures are compatible with existing structures within the Rural Village.Mr.Anikis and Mr.Kercheval recommended that the owners discuss their plans with the Chairman of the HOC (who is also an architect)prior to submitting their plans. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to recommend approval of the demolition permit. Seconded by Mr.Bowen.Unanimously approved. Workshop Meeting Mr.Thompson announced that a Workshop meeting is scheduled for Monday,February 16,2009.He asked the Commission for any suggested topics of discussion.Mr.Kercheval suggested discussing new policies and standards for streets.Mr.Reiber suggested discussing alternatives to traditional sidewalks. Announcements Mr.Thompson informed Commission members that the deadline for filing rezoning cases is Monday, January 12,2009.There are several text amendments proposed for the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.The Planning Commission rezoning meeting is currently scheduled for March 16,2009. Mr.Anlkis stated he has asked staff to prepare a map indicating the location of ali celi towers in the County. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Planning Commission Regular meeting,Monday,February 2,2009,7:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown 2.Planning Commission Workshop meeting,Monday,February 16,2009,1:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown ADJOURNMENT Mr.Ecker made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:16 p.m.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.So ordered. Respectfuliy submitted, WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -FEBRUARY 2,2009 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,February 2,2009,in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown. Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Andrew Bowen,Sam Ecker,Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley and Ex-Officio James F.Kercheval.Staff members present were:Pianning Director Michael C. Thompson,Chief Pianner Timothy A.Lung,Senior Planner Lisa Kelly,Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard,and Greg Larsen of the Hagerstown Regional Airport. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 5,2009 regular Planning Commission meeting as amended.Seconded by Mr.Kercheval.Unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS -PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS Showalter Business Park (PC-08-008) Mr.Lung presented for review and comment the Preliminary Consultation for Showalter Business Park located along the south side of Showalter Road,west of US Route 11,east of 1-81 and north of Maugans "Avenue.The property is currently zoned HI-1 (Highway Interchange 1).A rezoning application was approved for a portion of this property in 2004 from residential to the current HI-1 zoning.The developer is proposing a mixed use commercial and light industrial development including one large refrigerated warehouse,severai smaller warehouses,flex offices,retail office space,light manufacturing,a membership warehouse store,restaurants,a convenience store,a hotel,and gas stations on approximately 163-acres,which is currently made up of numerous parcels.All of these uses are principally permitted uses in the HI-1 zoning district.Lots will be subdivided for each purchaser or tenant as needed.The development includes the extension of Crayton Bouievard through the property to Showalter Road.A secondary access will be provided from Showalter Road and will end in a cui-de-sac on the property.The County's Engineering Department will require stubs to be provided to allow right-of- way for street connection to the adjoining property to the west. Discussion:Mr.Kercheval stated that during discussions earlier in the day with Mr.Joe Kroboth, Director of the Division of Public Works,the two property owners will need to work together to determine the best location for the right-of-way connections.Mr.Kercheval does not believe that the County would support two entrances from Showalter Road to two individual property owners due to the close proximity to the 1-81 interchange.Mr.Kroboth discussed three points of access to the property along the interstate (the Bowman property)with one major entrance from Perini Avenue,which is located across the intersection from the "out"road to the Airport.This intersection must be signalized in the future.Mr. Kroboth also stressed the importance of the connection of Perini Avenue to US Route 11.He believes that multiple points would alleviate future impact on the Maugans Avenue intersection.Mr.Reiber expressed his concern regarding the growth of the Airport with increased truck access on Showalter Road. Mr.Lung stated that the statutory authority allowing the Planning Commission to require interconnectivity between properties is found in the County's Subdivision Ordinance.Mr.Lung noted that the connection to US Route 11 has been discussed during previous preliminary consultations on this property.The main issue relative to this connection is the alignment of existing entrances on the other side of US Route 11. Showalter Road is a minor arterial highway with specific access separation requirements.The current design of the proposed development does not meet the access separation requirements;therefore, variances would be required.The storm water management pond must accommodate FAA requirements surrounding the Airport with regard to wildlife hazards.Compliance with the clear zone easement owned by the Airport in the vicinity of Lot 19 with regard to height and other restrictions must be addressed.The building placement and uses in relation to the runway (such as gas stations and hotels)and height requirements must be addressed.The proposed development is located in the City of Hagerstown's Joint Services Area and the Medium Range Growth Area.Water would be provided by the City of Hagerstown and sewer would be provided by the County's Department of Water Quality.Discussions were held regarding the upgrading of pump stations and water connections.Following the consultation,Mr.Lung noted that the developer has met with the Department of Water Quality and the Economic Development Commission regarding ways to "lock up"sewer allocation in order to effectively market the property. Mr.Lung stated that during the preliminary consultation,Staff discussed the placement of bUildings specifically the large warehouse located next to the residential development on the east side of the property.He suggested moving some of the lower impact uses next to the residential development.Mr. Lung noted that during the 2004 rezoning,the County Commissioners granted approval of the rezoning 185 186 with specific conditions for buffering on the property.The conditions require a minimum buffer of 75-feet from any residential property along with adequate screening as determined appropriate by the Planning Commission as part of the site plan or subdivision approvai process.Mr.Lung stated that the concept plan appears to show the required 75-foot buffer;however,It is difficuit to make any further recommendations at this time until profiles and a description of the building and its use are provided.He noted that a six foot fence was proposed;however,he does not believe this wouid provide adequate screening.The deveioper has responded in writing to comments made during the preliminary consultation regarding this Issue.The developer has indicated that depending on how the site is graded, part of the building may be lower than the residential use next to it.Mr.Lung noted that other factors such as noise from and other equipment on top of the refrigerated warehouse,as well as noise and fumes from trucks loading and unioadlng at the back of the warehouse.These issues must be taken into consideration when determ ining adequate screening. Mr.Lung stated that a Forest Stand Deilneation was submitted to the County Planning Department. There is some existing forest Identified on the site;however,most (if not all)of the forest will be removed during construction and mitigation will be required.Due to the close proximity to the Airport,compatibility becomes an issue with wildlife habitat and conflicts with airplanes.Therefore,Mr.Lung believes that the developer may request that Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements be meet by making a payment- in-lieu. Comments:Mr.Reiber expressed his concern regarding larger vehicles between the warehouses and on Showalter Road.Mr.Bowen made an Inquiry regarding sewer capacity and upgrades to Infrastructure.Mr.Kercheval stated that the Department of Water Quality handles capacity and Infrastructure Issues.Mr.Wiley expressed his concern regarding the buffering of the site.He recommended that the developer meet with Director of Public Works to discuss the configuration of traffic through the site and the interconnectlvlty to the adjoining Bowman property.Mr.Wiley expressed his support for the payment in lieu to meet Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements for this development.He expressed support for this type of development in this area . .Mr.Kercheval reiterated his support for limited access to Showalter Road.He expressed his concern for the adequate amount of right-of-way needed on Showalter Road and the design of the road.Sidewalks and pedestrian access will be required on both sides of Perini Avenue and Crayton Boulevard based on County road standards.Mr.Kercheval asked for clarification of the rules relating to easements purchased by the FAA.Mr.Greg Larsen,representing the Hagerstown Regional Airport,stated that the easement in question was purchased through Federal funding and the FAA will be the Airport's guide throughout the development process.According to past records,the FAA has been consulted on two occasions for proposed development of this site.Mr.Larsen noted that In 1999,Mr.Tom Priscilla of the FAA took a firm stand that no construction would take place in the easement area.He stated that the County assumes obligations when taking Federal funds.In 2002,Mr.Priscilla stated that the FAA would oppose a proposed road through the easement area.Mr.Kercheval stated that If there are certain layouts of the road that benefit the Airport and Top Flight Park,there may be a way to work with FAA.Mr.Larsen noted that the consultant,CMX,in their letter (preViously mentioned by Mr.Lung)addressed communication between the developer and the FAA.There is a standard submission process and submittal Form 7460-1 that will be required. Mr.Kercheval stated that in discussions with Mr.Kroboth,it should be noted that closed-section streets do not always mean a closed drainage system.He further explained comments regarding concerns relative to the storm water management pond.Mr.Kercheval stated that a regional pond can take care of water quantity issues required under regulations;however,water quality issues must be treated at the source.Multiple ponds may be necessary to address water quality Issues.Mr.Kercheval expressed his support for the payment-in-Iieu to address Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements based on safety concerns for the Airport. Mr.Kercheval briefly discussed the Comprehensive Plan and Urban rezoning issues.He explained that the County Is currently In the process of updating the urban growth area zoning to coordinate with the County's adopted Comprehensive Plan.He recommended that if the deveioper has any concerns regarding zoning issues and uses allowed on the property,he should contact the Planning Department during the public hearing process. Mr.Anlkis questioned the compatibility of the four story hotel with the Airport.Mr.Larsen stated that the FAA will review and analyze the 7460-1 application to determine if there will be any interference with airspace.Mr.Anlkis expressed his opinion that three gas stations within the development seems to be "overkill".He questioned if the gas stations would be a safety concern for the Airport and the FAA.Mr. Larsen expressed his opinion that the FAA will probably be opposed to the gas station at the southeastern corner of the property.This area is a designated safety area in case aircraft have any mechanical issues on take off or landing.Mr.Anikis expressed his concern regarding traffic studies and their accuracy because the uses within the development have not been specifically designated.Mr.Lung stated that It is his understanding that developers use assumptions based on the proposed use of the site when deveioping traffic studies.If those assumptions change,then the traffic study must be updated.Mr. Anikis stated there is a dense tree line along the southern property line that acts as a buffer for residential development.He asked if the Airport would like to have this tree line removed due to safety concerns. Mr.Lung stated that the tree line in question Is part of an existing Forest Conservation easement and is not associated with this development. 187 Mr.Anikis re.commended that the developer,the FAA and representatives from the Airport should meet to discuss any issues that need to be addressed relative to safety issues and construction in the easement area in question.Mr.Kercheval suggested that Mr.Kroboth be included in any meetings to discuss storm water management and road issues.Mr.Anikis suggested that Mr.Perini,the developer,should carefully consider where the stubs should be placed for the adjacent property to the west for access right-of-way. Mr.Anikis asked for brief comments or questions from the developer,Mr.Perini. Mr.Kirk Halpin,attorney for the developer,briefly addressed the Commission members.He expressed the developer's concern regarding ingress and egress on the eastern portion of the property due to safety and security issues as weii as tractor trailers traveiiing through the residential neighborhood in that area. Mr.Halpin also expressed the developer's concern regarding the dramatic grade change on the eastern side of the proposed development as it relates to a connection with US Route 11.There was a brief discussion regarding the grade change and accessibility issues.Mr.Jascewsky,representative of the consultant CMX,noted that the deveioper has a potential buyer interested in the large warehouse.He expressed concern that the access point to the adjacent property couid reduce the size of the proposed warehouse,which could deter the buyer from moving forward.Mr.Halpin noted that all proposed uses are principaiiy permitted uses by right according to the Comprehensive Plan.He suggested that any issues regarding uses could be "grandfathered"on the property by the Planning Commission.Mr. Kerchevai stated that the County Commissioners have used "grandfathering"in the past and depending upon the status of the project at the time of the adoption of the new zoning in the UGA,"grandfathering" may be a possibiiity for this deveiopment.Mr.Halpin expressed their willingness and interest in working with the FAA.He expressed his opinion that the 100-foot right-of-way wiii be sufficient to comply with the County's expansion plans. Mr.Jascewsky stated that during previous discussions,his understanding was that the verticai construction in the easement area was not an issue.He noted that the ponds shown in that area are dry ponds or surface sand filters,which do not hold water and do not attract water fowl.Mr.Jascewsky stated that he has been working closely with a wildlife management consultant to develop plans that will include using grasses in the easement area that will deter water fowl.Other plans Include using piants .and shrubbery that wiii create blind spots to prevent geese from landing in these areas.Mr.Jascewsky noted that they do not support the use of wire screening over the pond due to safety concerns and aesthetics.Mr.Jascewsky stated that the roadways that cross through the easement area are "at-grade" roadways.He stated that previous comments from the Airport indicated that the at-grade roadways would be aiiowed.He also noted that the alignment of Perini Avenue connecting to Showalter Road was approved in previous plan submissions.Mr.Jascewsky stated that the connectivity to Showaiter Road is based on typical engineering design safety standards providing access directly across from the Airport. He expressed his opinion that the location of Perini Avenue and Crayton Boulevard are proposed to be the most logical locations due to their proxim ity and alignment to the entrance and exit roads to the Airport.Mr.Jascewsky briefly discussed spacing requirements between intersections.He believes that the right turn in/right turn out access points to the individual lots will improve flow through intersections by taking the stacking of cars out of the lanes that feed the intersections.At this time,Mr.Jascewsky stated that the issue regarding connectivity to the Bowman property has not been resolved. Mr.Kercheval noted that the County has a limited number of ED Us available each year for sewer aiiocation within the areas of the County served by the City's treatment plant.This makes it very difficult for the County to reserve ED Us without specific plans that are soon ready to break ground.He stated that the County has discussed ways to reserve part of the annual allocation for only commercial use to limit competition by residential projects,which may help this development.However,another option would be to work directly with the City should the County's aiiocation be insufficient.The City has its own aiiocation based on the MDE consent order,and they hold a portion of that for special projects approved by the Mayor and Council.The County may be able to assist with requesting aiiocation from that pot, however,the county's aiiocation wouid probably have to be exhausted first.He encouraged the developer to discuss their project with the City as it's an economic deveiopment project that could qualify for help under the City's SCAP.Distribution of the County's limited aiiocation wiii continue to be a chaiienge since it has to be divided up over the entire County area served by the City.Mr.Perini, developer,stated that they have met with the City,but it is his understanding that it is now in the County Commissioner's baiipark.The City has limited availability for the next several years.Mr.Perini stated that he has requested available EDUs,which are from a developer who did not accept them.These EDUs must go back to the City if they are not aiiocated by the County.Mr.Perini questioned the use of closed section streets and sidewalks within an industrial development.He explained that construction may take several years and would require streets and sidewalks to be continuously torn up and reconstructed.Mr. Kercheval recommended that the developer discuss these issues and concerns with Staff,specificaiiy the Engineering Department since they set the standards and guidelines for streets and road design.Mr. Perini expressed his concern in working with the owners of the adjacent property and believes that they do not have plans for their property at this time.He questioned how access can be determined for the adjacent property without plans.The Planning Commission recommended that Mr.Perini discuss this issue with Mr.Kroboth to help determine the most logical and appropriate areas for the internal access points for the adjacent property. Mr.Matt Donegan,a representative from Bowman,stated that they are concerned about the access to their property.He offered to meet with Mr.Perini and his consultant and Mr.Kroboth jointly to discuss access issues. 187 188 Bowman North LLC (PC-OB-009) Ms.Kelly presented for review and comment the Preliminary Consultation for Bowman North LLC for property located along the west side of Volvo Way,south of its intersections with Maugans Avenue.The developer is proposing to construct a truck service and sales building on 8-acres of land currently zoned HI-1 (Highway Interchange 1).A 20'x 70'display area with gravel access is proposed.The County Engineering Department will require a traffic impact study for this project.Prior to the issuance of a scope of work,trip generation rates and anticipated distribution will be required for review and approval by the Engineering Department.Traffic counts must be performed during the school year.Volvo Way is a two- lane road with 10-foot lanes in each direction;however,the Engineering Department believes that the 10- foot lanes are too narrow to accommodate tractor trailers.Therefore,the traffic study must address this issue.The Engineering Department stated that it may be necessary to widen the road or to create a single wider lane.If a single wider lane is created,a 12-foot wide decel lane will be required for the entrance site.A turning analysis for the turning movement at the Maugans AvenuelVolvo Way intersection will be required to address both site entrances as well as the internal movement of the site. The Engineering Department believes that the radius on the southwest corner of Maugans Avenue and Volvo Way is too small and is inadequate for tractor trailers;therefore,the radius must be flattened if the proposed business will generate a large number of trips for tractor trailers.The site must comply with the County's Storm Water Management Ordinance and more than one storm water management facility will be required for the site.Mr.Ed Norman of the City of Hagerstown noted that the site is within the City's Medium Range Grow1h Area.Water service will be provided by the City of Hagerstown following the submittal and approval of a pre-annexation agreement.The Washington County Department of Water Quality will proVide sewer service to the site.The County's Planning Department noted that the site will be sold;therefore,the previously approved business use along Precision Lane for Bowman will not change.Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements will be met through the "express procedure"by a payment-in-lieu.A site plan will be required for submittal and must be approved by the Planning Commission.Ms.Kelly informed the developer that the Planning Commission will scrutinize the visual appearance of the site from 1-81.The developer is proposing three signs on the site,one with a height of 150-feet and one with a height of 35-feet.The Board of Zoning Appeals must grant approval for the 150- .foot sign.Each sign may not be more than 300-square feet in size.Ms.Kelly noted that screening requirements for the HI-1 zoning district were discussed during the preliminary consultation.Ten foot side yard setbacks will be required and must be screened or fenced. Discussion:Mr.Kercheval questioned the language in the preliminary consultation,which states that the Planning Commission will "carefully scrutinize the visual appearance"of the buildings from 1-81.Mr. Frederick of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,consultant,stated that the bUilding will not be visible from 1- 81 when travelling north.He explained this is the reason for the 150-foot proposed sign.Mr.Kercheval asked if there are specific guideiines to follow when reviewing the outside appearance of a bUilding.Mr. Lung noted that past developers have provided elevation drawings that show the facade of proposed buildings.He explained that the Planning Commission and Staff do not want the backs of bUildings, storage areas,loading docks,etc.to be visible to the general public from the interstate.Mr.Frederick stated that during the preliminary consultation,he questioned the Engineering Department with regard to flattening the radius at Maugans Avenue and Volvo Way and why this issue was not addressed during the recent reconstruction of Maugans Avenue.He stated that the Engineering Department responded that the right-of-way to address this issue could not be obtained by the County.Mr.Kercheval stated he has spoken to Mr.Kroboth,Director of Public Works,with regard to the comment made during the preliminary consultation relative to the radius at this intersection.Mr.Kercheval noted that the County obtained all of the necessary right-of-way needed for the reconstruction of Maugans Avenue and he believes that the Engineering Department's comment was a mistake.Mr.Frederick commented that tractor trailers are currentiy using this access to Mack Truck and believes that if there is a problem it currently exists.Mr. Kercheval further explained that in conversations with Mr.Kroboth the problem may be able to be resolved with restriping of lanes . ••NOTE:Staff received an e-mail on February 4,2009 from Mr.John Powell,Transportation Engineering Technician,State Highway Administration.Mr.Powell stated that his office does not see the need for three signs on this location and could be a distraction to motorist on 1-81.Signs should not be placed in the State's right-of-way. -SITE PLANS Sunny Meadows Garden Center (SP-OB-052) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for Sunny Meadows Garden Center greenhouse addition located along the east side of the Sharpsburg Pike south of Fairplay and Tilghmanton.The property is currently zoned A (R)-Agricultural Rural.The total parcel is approximateiy 24-acres in size. Currently,there are severai greenhouses,a barn,dumpsters,sheds,two single-family homes,and a gravel and paved area for customer parking.The proposed greenhouse will not be open to the public and will be used for planting and growing purposes only.Greenhouses are a principally permitted use in the A(R)zoning district.The total square footage of the proposed greenhouse will be 13,800 square feet with an eave height of 12-feet.Existing access to the site is by an existing lane from an adjacent property to the south.No new access is proposed.The site is served by individual well and septic.The hours of operation vary depending upon the time of year as follows:March through October,8:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday,Saturday 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.and November through February,8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.There are currently 7 employees.Parking spaces required is 5 spaces and 9 parking spaces are provided.There is currently a sign at the entrance to the existing greenhouses and there are no new signs proposed.One dusk to dawn light is proposed on the new greenhouse.Solid waste will be transferred to an existing dumpster behind the barn at the front of the site.No landscaping will be installed around the proposed greenhouse.A rain garden will handle storm water management requirements for the proposed greenhouse.The site is exempt from Forest Conservation requirements due to a disturbance area of less than 40,000 square feet.All agency approvals have been received. Motion and Vote:Mr.Kerchevai made a motion to approve the site plan as presented.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.Unanimously approved. -OTHER BUSINESS Mr.Thompson distributed copies of a letter received from the City of Hagerstown regarding the old Woodland Way school property that is currently for sale.The Board of Education is not interested in obtaining this site because they believe renovation costs would exceed the cost of a new school. Mr.Thompson distributed copies of the proposed agenda for the Planning Commission Workshop scheduled for February 16th • Mr.Thompson informed the Planning Commission that several text amendments are proposed for the Rezoning Hearing scheduled for March 16'h.He asked members to consider a second public meeting to discuss two requests that need Immediate attention.After a brief discussion,the Planning Commission decided to discuss the two rezoning cases in question on the same evening as their next Regular Planning Commission meeting on March 2"'. Mr.Anikis requested an update from Mr.Gary Rohrer of the County's Special Projects regarding the Route 40/Edgewood Drive intersection.Mr.Kercheval stated that the State has acquired some Federal funding toward their share of the project.The project will go out for bid within the next week or two. Approximateiy $4 miilion has been expended for right-of-way acquisition and engineering design.The project is still scheduled to be completed prior to the completion of the County's new hospital. Mr.Anikis asked if there is a procedure in place for the cancellation of Planning Commission meetings ·due to inclement weather.Mr.Thompson stated he will check on this issue. -UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Planni'fig Commission Workshop Meeting,Monday,February 16,2009,1 :00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown 2.Planning Commission Regular Meeting,Monday,March 2,2009,7:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown 3.Planning Commission Public Rezoning Meeting,Monday,March 16,2009,7:00 p.m.,Washington County Court House,95 West Washington Street,Hagerstown -ADJOURNMENT Mr.Wiley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m.So ordered. Respectfully submitted, ()~/L~- Georbe Ani~is:Chairman 189 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP -FEBRUARY 16,2009 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop on Monday,February 16,2009,in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown. Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Terry Reiber,Sam Ecker,Clint Wiley,Linda Parrish, Drew Bowen and Ex-Officio James F.Kercheval.Staff members present were:Planning Director Michael C.Thompson,Chief Planners Timothy A.Lung and Steve Goodrich,Senior Planner Lisa A.Kelly,Parks &Environmental Planner Bill Stachoviak and Planner Cody Shaw,Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard, Director of Special Projects Gary Rohrer,Director of Public Works Joe Kroboth,and Deputy Director of Land Development Engineering Jennifer Smith. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the workshop to order at 1:00 p.m. DISCUSSIONS Update of Division of Public Works Standard Details Including Roads -Presentation by Gary Rohrer Mr.Rohrer stated that his efforts over the last year and a half have been focused on writing Design Manuals for the County;particularly developing Standard Details &Specifications in cooperation with Joe Kroboth and Jennifer Smith.This update is necessary due to the fact that there are details in existence that have not been updated for 30 years and these details are not meeting the County's current needs. These newly adopted Standard Details will assist the Planning Commission in their future decisions. Mr.Rohrer stated that the premise from which they began was to view subdivisions that were 'broken' and ask the question,"What needs to be done to fix them?"From this point they devised two charts.The first chart entitled Geometric Design Criteria for Subdivision Streets is divided into two sections;Inside and Outside the Urban Growth Area.The standard details contained in this chart are acceptabie in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials which is Maryland Law and recognized world-wide. The fourth column on the chart labeled Maximum Average Daily Traffic (Max ADT-VPD)was devised using the Functional Classification Systems Map and random sampling of traffic volumes across the County.From this information a determination could be made as to whether particular traffic sections were actually handling the recorded volume of traffic.The information to the right of this column is AASHTO Criteria,acceptable Geometric Design Standards. Commissioner Jim Kercheval inquired if the lot size category would actually be determined by the largest lot size,as stated in note #1 at the bottom of the chart.If that is the case he sees a problem due to flood plain and stormwater management issues that affect lot size.Mr.Rohrer stated that they are still in the process of critiquing various areas and looking for issues that trigger exceptions.He thanked Mr. Kercheval for pointing out this situation. Mr.Rohrer explained that roads within a subdivision are referred to as 'streets'.The next chart,intended to be a summary sheet,refers to roads outside of subdivisions.Their designs are based on the Functional Classification System,which are standards that will be followed by the County's design team to bring about consistency from one project to another. Mr.Terry Reiber inqUired as to the difference between a major artery and a principle arterial.Mr.Kroboth interjected that the difference lies in the number of access points along the road and the volume of traffic that it is anticipated to carry.A minor arterial in the Urban Growth Area is designed for up to about 30,000 vehicles per day and a principle arterial is designed for up to about 50,000 vehicles per day.Mr.Kroboth went on to state that the only principle arterial that he can envision the County constructing is the Northeast Bypass.Mr.Thompson inquired as to the current traffic counts on Eastern Blvd.Mr.Kroboth responded that Eastern Blvd.is running around 28,000 vehicles per day.This number is anticipated to rise to 40,000 within 7 years.Mr.Thompson stated that interconnectivity between subdivisions will be advantageous in reducing the volume of traffic on the main roads. Mr.Rohrer explained that the next sheet in the handout was a list of some of the Standard Symbols used by the Washington County Engineering Department.They will be available on the Washington County website once they are adopted.The following page contains various abbreviations and acronyms used in the field of Engineering.Following this are general details regarding various issues such as trees, sidewalks,and steel pipe bollards.Mr.Rohrer stated that the County works very closely with the City of Hagerstown Engineering Department.Therefore,many of these details parallel the City's with modifications made for the County's purposes,taking into consideration annexation potential and consistency. The next couple of pages list the types of trees that would be acceptable for planting in the County right of ways,if the County approves street tree use.An inquiry was made as to the likelihood of the County approving the use of street trees for Forest Conservation purposes.Mr.Rohrer responded that it would be up to the County Commissioners because the FCA would need to be amended.Discussions with the 191 19i. BOCC regarding the expense and maintenance of the street trees prior to a final decision would also be necessary. Mr.Rohrer stated that the next section is labeled Road Details.The first section identifies three categories of local streets.The top section represents subdivision street sections where lots are less than a quarter of an acre.The pavement section increases in width from Section L-1 to L-2 and L-3.The challenge the County is faced with a push for 'green'design which indicates less asphalt in most cases. However,for capacity of the roads and ability to move traffic efficiently and safely through the subdivisions it is necessary for the pavement section to increase in width. Additionally,provisions for a parking lane requirement have been included for lots less than a quarter of an acre.Commissioner Kercheval questioned whether this requirement should extend to iots up to half an acre in size.A discussion followed,in which Mr.Clint Wiley and Mr.Terry Reiber stated that they did not think it was necessary to increase the lot size.Mr.Rohrer stated that the current approach is seeking to minimize the amount of paved surface while still meeting the needs of the community and providing safe parking.He concluded the discussion by stating that the issue would be further reviewed using random sampling of subdivisions comparing current lot sizes and parking conditions at various hours of the day and various days of the week.Based on the information collected modifications will be considered. Mr.Kroboth stated that the new design manual will also be dealing with connectivity between subdivisions from the inception of projects.Commissioner Kercheval inquired if the Subdivision Amendments were concurrent with the proposed design standards.Mr.Kroboth responded that the Engineering Department is working with Mr.Thompson so that they are in agreement. Mr.Rohrer directed the Commission's attention to section R-2.01 stating that this section refers to the County's Standard Pavement Section.Sections R-3.01 begins the section on Curbs and Gutters and Sidewalk Standards begin in Section R-4.01.Many of these details mirror those of the City of Hagerstown for reasons of practicality. .Mr.Reiber inquired as to the next step in the process with regard to an adoption and implementation date.Mr.Rohrer responded that a public comment period would be followed by a presentation to the County Commissioners.Mr.Kroboth interjected that the goal for implementation is before July 1,2009. Mr.Thompson made the committee aware of an ongoing project on which the Engineering and Planning Departments and the City of Hagerstown are collaborating.This project involves reviewing the Urban Growth Area and land use designations in the Comprehensive Plan.Based on this information staff is developing a transportation plan with alignments for future roadways needed to serve that area.The target for completion of this project is the end of 2009. Criteria for Staff Review of Site Plans -Presentation by Lisa Kelly Planner Ms.Lisa Kelly stated that it was the Planning Review Staffs'opinion that for consistency,a Site Plan Criteria Sheet was necessary to aid them in determining which Site Plans were required to be presented to the Pianning Commission and which ones could receive Staff approval.The Consultants will find this helpful in determining a timeline for their projects.Additionally,small projects that meet the criteria can be approved by Staff,therefore speeding up the process for the developer or property owner. The Criteria Sheet is being presented to the Planning Commission today for review and potential revision. Ms.Kelly presented some examples of properties that received a Staff approval due to the fact that they met the Site Plan Review Criteria.The first property was the former Dynamark building on the Leitersburg Pike.The owner desires to convert the bUilding into various offices within the building.It met zoning requirements so it was reviewed and received a Staff approval.However,a revised Site Plan was submitted which included the addition of a church to the interior of the building.This required a special exception from the Board of Zoning Appeals,which was granted.Per the new Site Pian Criteria List,once the special exception was granted and all of the planning and zoning requirements were met,the Planning Staff had the abiiity to grant a Staff Approval since it had been through a public hearing. Mr.Anikis inquired as to whether the addition of the church required a traffic study.Mr.Thompson responded that the traffic study was not required because the church activities would take place on Sunday.He added that Ms.Kelly had numerous discussions with the Engineering Department regarding when they would require a review to be done by their department for traffic issues.A disclaimer has been placed at the bottom of the Criteria List stating that the Planning Department reserves the right to take any site plan before the Planning Commission if there are disagreements between the staff and applicants/consultants on the above criteria or any other issues concerning the subject plan that cannot be worked out at staff level. Commissioner Kercheval suggested that language be added to criteria #6 stating that a home occupation site plan that will have a negative impact on neighboring properties and/or the public should be reviewed by the Planning Commission.Mr.Reiber inquired as to the possibility of devising a list that would quickly alert the consultanUowner that a Planning Commission review is required.Mr.Lung responded that a checklist matrix could be made available on the Washington County website to assist the developer / engineer in making this determination. Commissioner Kerchevai stated that rewording of criteria #1 is necessary in order to make it more concise.Additionally,he stated the disclaimer needs to allow the Planning Staff,more freedom to require Planning Commission review of a site plan based on community concerns or other issues of importance. Mr.Thompson stated that the Pianning Department would incorporate the suggested revisions. Growth Area Text and Map Zoning Changes -Presentation by Steve Goodrich Mr.Goodrich stated that at the Planning Commission's request he was there to give them an update on the Urban Area Rezoning and specifically on what the Growth Area Committee is accomplishing as part of that project.He reminded them that the Growth Area Committee was assigned six tasks by the Washington County Commissioners.They completed five of the six tasks in the summer of 2008.They presented a report to the Commissioners with their recommendations on five of the six tasks in the fall of 2008.The sixth and final task on which they are currently working is their recommendations for the comprehensive rezoning in the Urban Growth Area.They are meeting on a weekly basis. The map prOVided shows two zoning designations.The first one,prior to the slash,is the Staff's original recommendation.The second one,after the slash,is the zoning recommendation of the Growth Committee.Often the recommendations are going to coincide.However,there are thirty-three sites on which the committee differed from the Staff's opinion.Therefore,a chart was devised to represent the committee's zoning decisions for these sites.Currently the committee is working on the text of the various zones. The Planning Staff has prOVided the committee with the proposed changes to the text for the Residential Transitional Zone,formerly the Rural Residential District,the Residential Multi-Family,Business Local, Highway Interchange-I,which becomes Highway Commercial,the PUD District which is proposed to be broken into three different floating zone categories,the Airport Zone,and a brand new zone at the college's request,for the Hagerstown Community College site.The college is seeking to promote their joint relationship with business and business incubators.The ORT District is not proposed for change at this time.However,there may be some small changes made eventually to make it more attractive to a wider range of business concerns.The committee has finished its review of the PUD Zone,the Residential Transitional Zone and the Residential MUlti-Family Zones. Mr.Goodrich further stated that the Design Guidelines and the Growth Area Rezoning coordinate to make the Growth Area a more desirabie place to live and to meet the Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. The public meeting next month will include consideration for changes to the parking standards aiong with revised design gUidelines for lighting,landscaping and buffering.These revisions are designed to make development more attractive,more compatible with adjacent owners and to provide a greater degree of amenities for those who live in the urban area as a return for the greater density. Mr.Goodrich pointed out that a version of the Land Use Table similar to that which is in the Zoning Ordinance was distributed.A different version of the Land Use Table was distributed at the October workshop.This version listed all of the zones currently listed in the Growth Area aiong with their purpose statement and the plan for that zone.The Conservation and Agriculture zones will no longer exist in the Growth Area.The Business Transitional Zone and the Industrial Transitional Zone will also be deleted and be assigned a new zoning category.The other zones will receive minor changes. Mr.Thompson clarified that although the Agricultural Zoning District is being deleted,Agriculture is being listed as a permitted use in all districts so that agricuitural activity can continue.Mr.Anikis inqUired if individuals will be able to determine by looking at the distributed map,if their zoning district has changed. Mr.Goodrich responded that the current map will not aide them in making this determination.However, those under going a zoning change will receive a notice informing them of that change.Additionally,the finalized map will allow individuals to clearly view the changes made to their zoning district. Mr.Goodrich stated that the Planning Staff's gUidance for the current rezoning originates from the Comprehensive Plan's Land Use Plan Map.However,the Growth Area Committee felt more freedom to deviate from what was in the Land Use Plan.As a resuit,there are a few cases in which they had a completely different opinion regarding what the zoning should be.Therefore,there will be two proposals presented to the Planning Commission,a Staff Proposal and an Urban Growth Area Committee Proposal. The Planning Commission can then make a determination on the final version to be sent to public hearing. A discussion ensued further clarifying the changes to the Agricultural Zoning District with regard to Animal Husbandry within the Urban Growth Area.Mr.Goodrich stated that the philosophy behind the decision made,was that high intensity animal operations are not appropriate uses in an urban area where there is going to be high density residential development.The question was raised regarding the possibility of special exceptions to this.Mr.Goodrich stated that the Planning Staff's position is that it should not be allowed with in the Urban Growth Area.However,he pointed out that if there is such an operation currently existing it will be allowed to continue and will be allowed to expand.He reminded the Planning Commission that there will be a final workshop review in which they will be able to make changes as well as the final decision as to what will be presented to the Commissioners. Mr.Thompson stated that there are proposed changes to the Growth Area in the Longmeadow section to accommodate the alignment for Eastern Blvd.extended.The Growth Area committee has been reviewing the City of Hagerstown's zoning in these areas keeping in mind compatibility as well as variety and 193 194 balance of land uses around the town and throughout the county.Currently alignments are being decided for these areas.Next the decision will be made as to which classification of roadway and right of way will be necessary. Mr.Anikis stated that he had a variety of questions and comments on some of the zoning designations. First he inquired as to what will happen to existing Conservation Districts within the Urban Growth Area. Mr.Goodrich responded that there is only one such district and it will be rezoned to a Residential area. Mr.Anikis noted that in the Business Local zoning,language regarding improved lighting,site design, landscaping,etc.needs to be added.Mr.Goodrich responded that those improved standards are going to be applied to all of the zones.Next,Mr.Anikis inquired if his understanding of Articie 17 was correct in the disallowance of shopping centers in Washington County.Mr.Goodrich stated that it was the Comprehensive Plan recommendation to delete the Planned Business district from the Zoning Ordinance, but not to disallow shopping centers. He explained that the district probably will not be eliminated but improved.However,if the district is eliminated then shopping centers would be allowed under an alternate plan.Mr.Anikis inquired as to the accuracy of the title of the Planned Industrial District.He stated that the desire was to attract 'clean' industries and when he hears the word 'industrial'he associates it with Industrial Parks,noise,smoke and smell.Additionally,Mr.Anikis noted that in the Airport District,the FAA restrictions need to be clearly stated.Finally,Mr.Anikis stated that a ciearer definition needs to be devised as to what will be allowed in the Office Technology and Research District. A brief discussion took place regarding the upcoming Planning Commission Meeting date,location and time.Mr.Anikis thanked everyone for participating. ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 3:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~j)~lp Geor6e Anlllis,Chairman WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC REZONING MEETING AND REGULAR MEETING -March 2,2009 The Washington County Planning Commission held a public rezoning meeting and its regular meeting on Monday,March 2,2009,in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown. Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Linda Parrish,Andrew Bowen,Sam Ecker,Terry Reiber,Clint Wiiey and Ex-Officio James F.Kercheval.Staff members present were:Planning Director Michaei C.Thompson,Chief Planner Timothy A.Lung,Senior Planner Misty Wagner-Grillo,and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.Aiso present was Board of County Commissioner Terry Baker. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the public rezoning meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. REZONING PUBLIC MEETING RZ-09-002 -"1M"Industrial Mineral Zoning District Text Amendment Mr.Thompson presented a proposed text amendment to Section 15,5 (h)of the "IM"Industrial Mineral zoning district with regard to fencing requirements.Currently,the Zoning Ordinance requires that mineral extraction areas shall be surrounded by a fence.The language,as currently written,requires all areas to be fenced,which mayor may not be applicabie based on the type of mining taking place.The proposed language would allow the Planning Commission to review and modify each request as it is submitted to determine if fencing is appropriate.However,mandatory requirements would apply to areas where water could collect at a depth of more than one and one-half feet or slopes are steeper than one foot vertical to three feet horizontal.All extraction areas that are required to be fenced shall be posted with appropriate warning signs.Mr.Thompson noted that the siope requirement is based on county road standards Discussion:Mr.Kercheval asked if the 3:1 slope is used for safety reasons or for convenience in mowing and maintenance.Mr.Thompson stated that the Department of Public Works uses the 3:1 slope for roads,which could be for maintenance issues but he would need to discuss the issue in more detaii with them.Mr.Kercheval asked for more detail on the 3:1 slope prior to the Board of County Commissioner's public hearing on this text amendment.He also requested more concise language with regard to when the Planning Commission should modify the fencing request. Public Comment:Mr.Barry Miller of Redland Brick stated that the State's permit requires a 2:1 slope. He noted that Redland Brick recently paid $38,000 to fence an extraction area along MD Route 68.They believe this was an undue cost due to the gentle slope of the area.Mr.Miller expressed his support for the proposed amendment. RZ-09-004 -Small Wind Energy and Solar Collection Systems Mr.Thompson presented a proposed text amendment to add Sections 4.24 (Small Wind Energy Systems)and 4.25 (Solar Collection Systems)and to amend Article 28 (Definitions)to allow for alternative energy sources as accessory uses under the County's Zoning Ordinance.Currently,the Zoning Ordinance is silent on the issue of alternative energy sources within the County.One purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to "....promote the conservation of natural resources;prevent environmentai pollution."The use of renewable energy would fall Into this category.However,under Article 2.1 of the Ordinance,"....if the proposed use is not in the list of those permitted,it shall be prohibited as though it were included in the prohibitions."The proposed language would permit alternative energy sources as accessory uses on both residential and non-residential properties with some restrictions.Bulk requirements are proposed that establish setbacks,access,electrical wires,clearance,etc.The bulk requirements would also provide for the placement of systems on existing buildings as well as allowing free-standing units.The proposed text amendment would allow two Small Wind Energy Systems for each property and no variances wouid be permitted with regard to the distances,restrictions and standards. Language pertaining to the abandonment of the system Is also proposed. Mr.Thompson stated that the second part of the amendment would allow for the placement of soiar collection systems as accessory uses on both residential and non-residential properties.The solar collection systems may be free-standing or building mounted,with limitations,and shall not be located within the required front yard.Height and size limitations are proposed. Discussion:Ms.Parrish questioned the restriction that would not permit either system in front yards. She noted there may be instances when the systems could be placed in front yards without being visible to neighboring properties,such as panhandle lots or lots that have forested front yards.Ms.Parrish questioned the restriction for two small wind energy systems per property.She believes that the number of systems should be based on the acreage of the property.Ms.Parrish questioned who would monitor the abandonment of the small wind energy systems.Mr.Thompson stated it would be based on complaints received by the County.Mr.Anikis recommended that the owner should be required to notify the County when the system will no longer be in use.Ms.Parrish questioned the height requirement for the free-standing solar collection systems.Mr.Thompson stated the height is a standard being used in 1 195 196 other counties.Ms.Parrish questioned the coilection system limitation size of 15%of the cross-sectionai area of the roof.Mr.Thompson stated that the structural stability of the buildings is a concern when piacing the solar coilection system on a roof.Mr.Wiley expressed his opinion that technoiogy will develop greatly and he believes that 15%is an unrealistic limitation.He noted that solar shingles have already been developed that would cover an entire roof. Mr.Kercheval questioned the setback requirements of the guy wires from a wind tower.Mr.Thompson stated that if the wind tower fell down It wouid not take the other wires down.He also noted that the language is consistent with the State of Maryland's model ordinance.Mr.Kercheval questioned the color of finish requirement on the wind tower.Mr.Thompson stated it is for appearance oniy.Mr.Kercheval questioned the limitation of no variances for wind towers.He believes there may be instances when wind towers may be appropriately located in front yards.Mr.Thompson stated they may be able to write specific language for standard yard requirements.Mr.Kercheval noted the lack of language regarding maintenance of solar coilection systems and wind towers and the abandonment of solar coilection systems.Mr.Thompson stated that maintenance issues could be addressed in other sections of the Ordinance.However,solar collection systems would operate continually.Mr.Kercheval expressed his opinion that free-standing solar coilection systems should be treated the same as a wind tower.He expressed his opinion that "shading"issues for solar coilection systems should be addressed up front. Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that the number of wind energy systems ail owed should be addressed according to the size of each property.He made an inquiry regarding windmiil farms.Mr.Thompson stated that windmill farms would not be ailowed at this time;thus,the limitation of two wind towers per property.He noted there is a separate approval process required for windmill farms. Mr.Ecker expressed his opinion that the proposed amendments do not take agricultural uses into consideration.He believes that the number of windmills should be based on acreage.Mr.Ecker expressed his opinion that the language for solar coilection systems needs to be clarified and should include language for greenhouse structures for agricultural uses . .Mr.Bowen concurred with other Commission member's comments and concerns.He suggested that separate text and clarification is needed for residential and non-residential uses.Mr.Bowen expressed his opinion that the amendments are written to address too many issues at one time. Mr.Anikis questioned the legal action that can be taken by the Zoning Administrator upon abandonment of a wind energy system.Mr.Thompson stated that the Zoning Administrator could take legal action in the circuit court.Mr.Anikis recommended that the County should be notified of the reason for abandonment,such as repairs or maintenance issues and the length of time the wind tower will not be in operation.Mr.Anikis expressed his opinion that additional language should be included in the text to address requirements for over speed control,automatic braking,and RFI interference.Mr.Thompson stated that the State model ordinance and Carroll County's wind energy ordinance do not address these issues.He stated that Ailegheny County's ordinance addresses RFI interference from commercial wind towers but not residential towers.Mr.Anikis expressed his opinion that this amendment is being "rushed through"and more information should be collected to determine problems that could arise and how they can be resolved.Mr.Wiley agreed with Mr.Anikis'comment;however,he believes there are people that currently have a need for the amendments because they have grant money available.He suggested preparing separate amendments for the wind energy and solar coilection systems.Mr.Thompson stated that separate amendments would be possible.Mr.Kercheval expressed his opinion that more conservative requirements in the beginning would be better and could then be amended as appropriate. Mr.Thompson stated that he would be making changes to the text amendments incorporating comments received during this meeting prior to the Planning Commission making their recommendation on the amendments to the BOCC. Public Comment:Mr.Jim Pierdoon of Standard Solar stated that they are receiving numerous cails from residents of Washington County who want to instail solar systems on their homes.He noted that he previously supplied height restriction,roof space and setback requirements that should be used,via e- mail to Mr.Thompson.Mr.Anikis asked if the company provides the structural engineers that determine the maximum load that a house roof can accommodate for a solar coilection system.Mr.Pierdoon stated they provide the appropriate contractor to insure that the structural integrity of the roof is not compromised.He briefiy discussed different solar applications that are currently being used and newly developed items and efficiency rates. Mr.Clay Herzog of Mountain View Builders expressed his concern regarding the limitation of two wind towers.He also expressed his concern with regard to the limitation of solar energy coilection systems being placed in a front yard and believes that more clarification is needed.Mr.Herzog expressed his opinion that a 20-foot height restriction for a free-standing solar coilection system would be more reasonable than a 12-foot height restriction.He believes that the 15%limitation of the cross-sectional area of the roof is confusing and more emphasis should be placed on the planer area that should be poiluted with solar panels.He also expressed concern with regard to the limitation size of a solar collection system.Mr.Herzog noted there is a solar access law in the State of Maryland. Mr.Mike McKechnie of Mt.View Solar stated that there is a growing interest in solar and wind energy systems for private residences.He expressed his concern with regard to the limitation of two wind towers per property especially for people in the agricultural industry.Mr.McKechnie briefly spoke on the issue of the noise produced by wind towers and abandonment issues.He expressed his concern about the 2 limitation ofplacing solar collections systems in front yards.Mr.McKechnie suggested referring the 15% limitation of cross-sectional area of the roof to the building codes department. Mr.William Fisher spoke in favor of the wind energy and solar collection systems.He expressed his desire to be permitted to use these systems himself. Dr.Paul McAllister of the Smile Design Center stated that he has already designed a solar collection system and has money available for its installation.He expressed his opinion that these amendments are important to the County. The public meeting was closed at 8:20 p.m. REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the February 2,2009 minutes as amended.Seconded by Mr. Kercheval.Ms.Parrish abstained.Unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS -SITE PLANS Centra Bank (SP·09.001) Ms.Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval the Site Plan for Centra Bank located at the west corner of Longmeadow Road and North Pointe Drive.The developer is proposing a 3,600-square foot financial institution with drive-thru on 10.03 acres.The property is currently zoned BG -Business General.Hours of operation will be Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.and Saturday 8:00 a.m.to 12:00 noon.Proposed lighting will be pole-mounted.Two signs are proposed on the site at a height of 25-feet.The number of employees will be six.Public water to the proposed site would be provided by the City of Hagerstown and public sewer would be provided by the Washington County Department of Water Quality.Storm water management will be provided by a pond located off-site. Parking spaces required is 9 spaces and 13 spaces will be provided.There will be two access points to the site.Landscaping will be provided around the building and parking areas using forest pansy redbud trees and a mixture of groundcover and shrubs.Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements were previously met by an off-site forest conservation area per the North Village Development Company.All agency approvals have been received. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the site plan as presented.Seconded by Mr. Ecker.Unanimously approved. Discussion:Mr.Kercheval made an inquiry regarding the storm water management pond and drainage issues across the street from this site.Mr.Jeff Tedrick,President of Construction for Bowman Development,stated that a meeting was held with Ms.Jennifer Smith and Mr.Joe Kroboth of the Department of Public Works to discuss these specific issues.An in-depth study regarding the back-up of water was conducted and it was determined that the improvements would reduce the drainage due to the additional quantity being added by the pond improvements.The back-up of water within the 100-year floodplain would be within the storm water right-of-ways.Mr.Kercheval briefly discussed reserved right- of-way needs along Longmeadow Road and future APFO requirements for a traffic signal at Halifax Way with additional development on the site.Mr.Kercheval suggested Bowman Development work with Mr. Kroboth to get County assistance with the construction of the traffic signal in exchange for right-of-way dedication. Patriot Federal Credit Union (SP·09·004) Ms.Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval the Site Plan for Patriot Federal Credit Union located along the south side of Longmeadow Road,east of Pennsylvania Avenue.The developer is proposing a 3,026-square foot financial institution with drive-thru on 1.23-acres and is currently zoned PB -Planned Business.The hours of operation in the lobby would be Monday through Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,Friday 8:30 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.and Saturday 8:30 a.m.to 12 noon.The drive-thru will be open Monday through Wednesday from 8:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.,Thursday and Friday from 8:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.,and Saturday 8:00 a.m.to 12 noon.The number of employees is 6.Lighting will be pole- mounted with supplemental bUilding mounted lights.One free-standing sign 19-feet in height is proposed.Public water to the proposed site would be provided by the City of Hagerstown and public sewer would be provided by the Washington County Department of Water Quality.Storm water management will be provided by a pond.Required parking is 9 spaces and 33 spaces will be provided. There will be one access point to the site.Forest Conservation requirements were previously met by the North Village Development Company.Landscaping will be provided around the building and parking areas using a mixture of trees,shrubs,groundcover,perennials and grass.The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a variance from the required 50-foot rear setback to a 10-foot rear setback on May 11,2005.All agency approvals have been received. 3 197 198 Comment:Mr.Kercheval noted that the entrance to the site,as development continues,may uitimately have a median in front of it which may alter traffic movement in and out of the site due to safety issues at the intersection .. Motion and Vote:Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the site plan as presented.Seconded by Mr. Reiber.Unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Black Rock P.U.D.(DP-07-001) Ms.Thompson presented for review and approval an extension request for the Site Plan for the community center for the Black Rock P.U.D.in accordance with Section 16.5(a)(5)of the Zoning Ordinance.The community center was originally scheduled for construction during Phase I of the development;however,several issues have occurred and the project has been redesigned. Transportation improvements are being discussed,which could impact this development.The developer is also requesting a revision to the phasing schedule. Motion and Vote:Mr.Wiley made a motion to approve the extension request for one year for the Site Plan and approve the revision to the phasing schedule.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.Unanimously approved. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Planning Commission Public Rezoning Meeting,Monday,March 16,2009,7:00 p.m., Washington County Court House,95 West Washington Street,Hagerstown 2.Planning Commission Regular Meeting,Monday,April 6,2009,7:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown .ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, -(; kis,Chairman 4 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REZONING PUBLIC MEETING March 16,2009 The Washington County Planning Commission held a rezoning public meeting on Monday,March 16, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.at the Washington County Court House,Court Room #1,95 West Washington Street, Hagerstown. Members present were:Chairman,George Anikis,Clint Wiley,Andrew Bowen,Terry Reiber,Sam Ecker, Linda Parrish and Ex-officio James F.Kercheval.Staff members present were:Planning Director Michael Thompson,Chief Planner Tim Lung,Senior Planner Jill Baker and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.Also present was John Gudmundson of the County's Information Technologies Department. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Anikis called the public meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. NEW BUSINESS -RZ-09-001 -Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Ms.Baker presented a proposed Text Amendment to the County's Zoning Ordinance,Article 3;Article 4, Sections 4.5,4.10,4.18 and 4.22;Articles 5A, 5B,5C and 5D;and Article 28A.Ms.Baker explained the proposed changes to the text.She noted that these amendments are necessary to clarify existing language in the Zoning Ordinance. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Reiber made an inquiry regarding the origin of the definitions proposed for measurements.Ms.Baker stated the definitions are derived from current national standards as set forth by the NPA (National Parking Association).Mr.Reiber made an inquiry regarding cemeteries as a permitted use with churches and funeral establishments.Ms.Baker stated that a cemetery would be considered as an accessory use when used in conjunction with a church or funeral establishment in some zoning districts. Mr.Bowen questioned when the new regulations would become effective,if adopted by the Board of County Commissioners,and how it would affect pians currently being reviewed.Ms.Baker stated that the new regulations would go into effect the day the BOCC adopts them,unless the BOCC assigns a specific effective date.Plans currently being reviewed would be "grandfathered",as well as all plans previously approved.The new reguiations would be required to be met if any changes are proposed at a later date that would change the use or the intensity of the site.Mr.Thompson stated that a zoning text amendment typically takes effect ten (10)days after the adopted date,unless a specific effective date is adopted by the BOCC. Mr.Wiley made an inquiry regarding Section 4.22 (Commercial Communication Towers)and questioned if the same language is used by other jurisdictions.Ms.Baker stated that the County's Emergency Services Department requested the language as it pertains to the reservation of space on a tower for use by the County.Mr.Kercheval stated that the County has been requesting space on communication towers for approximately two years.The County is encouraging multiple users on cell towers in order to limit the number of towers being erected. Mr.Kercheval made an inquiry regarding the change of a guest house in an accessory building as a special exception in the RB (Rural Business)district to a non-permitted use.Ms.Baker stated the change was made because special exception uses are not allowed in the RB zone.She also noted that the RB zone is intended to be a business district and not a residential district.Ms.Baker stated that the Ordinance was being misinterpreted as currently written.She explained that a dwelling unit in conjunction with a principal non-residential use is permitted;however,a second dwelling is not permitted. Further clarification was discussed. Mr.Ecker asked for clarification between "home occupation"and "home residential business".Ms.Baker explained that a "home occupation is conducted solely by the member or members of a family residing therein and the use is incidental or subordinate to the main use of the bUilding or dwelling".A "home residential business"is a special exception use and would require an application to be heard before the Board of Zoning Appeals.Ms.Baker explained that a "home residential business is conducted by a family or members of a family residing therein and not more than two non-resident employees".Other criteria is also considered for a "home residential business" such as square footage and the amount of traffic generated. Public Comment:Mr.Jeremy Holder,a resident of Sharpsburg and representing Westfields Investment, LLC,briefiy spoke to the Planning Commission with regard to Article 4,Section 4.22 of the Zoning Ordinance.He encouraged the County to include language to require the installer/operator to demolish cell tower structures when they are abandoned.Mr.Holder also addressed the Commission with regard to Article 28A and the definition of "building height".He expressed his opinion that Staff's proposed text does not clearly define the measurements of cross-slopes along building frontage and from front to rear. 199 200 Conclusion:The Planning Commission requested that Staff include language in the proposed text amendment to require the removal of celi towers by the instalier/operator after it is abandoned. RZ-09-003 -Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Ms.Baker presented a proposed Text Amendment to Articles 22 and 28A of the County's Zoning Ordinance.Staff is proposing to repeal the current off-street parking regulations outlined in Article 22, Division 1 and replace the section with new text being proposed.Also proposed are changes to the definitions outlined in Article 28A to support the amendments being requested in Article 22.Ms.Baker noted that the current regulations were established as part of the original Zoning Ordinance adopted in 1973.Some minor amendments to this section of the Ordinance have been adopted,but a detailed review and analysis has not been completed.The Planning Department has been working in cooperation with the Permits and Inspections Department and the Land Development Engineering Department to update the current standards.Ms.Baker briefly summarized ali of the proposed changes for the Commission. Discussion and Comments:Ms.Parrish questioned the proposed maximum parking requirements.Ms. Baker stated that retail shopping centers tend to go beyond minimum parking requirements,which contributes to the urban heat affect,adds to impervious run-off issues,etc.If additional parking is needed,the developer can add 25%more parking spaces.The expansion of parking above and beyond the additional 25%must be met using a pervious surface pavement approved by the County's Land Development Engineering Department.Ms.Parrish expressed her opinion that the County is "putting in guidelines for something that is a rare occurrence. Mr.Wiley expressed his opinion that the requirement would be burdensome to developers and could deter businesses from locating in Washington County. There was a discussion regarding parking issues during the Christmas season at the Prime Outlets. Members discussed the higher cost of pervious parking lots and the lack of contractors in the immediate .area that use the required materials.Ms.Baker pointed out that the standards are based on an average daily use.Most standards are based on an estimated 80%maximum yield. Ms.Parrish expressed her opinion that bicycle parking should be optional and should not be a requirement for new businesses or the expansion of parking lots.Ms.Baker stated that the bicycle parking requirement is mandated by the State of Maryland (Article 66B).She stated that the proposed language mirrors Aliegany County's ordinance.Bicycle parking is required on parking facilities that contain 50 parking spaces or more. Mr.Wiley expressed his opinion that pedestrian access should also be required.Ms.Baker noted that pedestrian access is addressed within this text amendment. Ms.Parrish expressed her opinion that businesses should be permitted to use their parking facilities for non-parking uses and she believes that the County is "over-regulating". Mr.Kercheval expressed his concern regarding the regulation of parking facilities for non-parking uses. He stated that he understands that if a business has only the minimum required spaces and they set up an outside sales area that causes parking issues off-site.However,if there are significant parking facilities over the required minimum,he does not believe there should be a concern.Ms.Parrish and Mr. Anikis agreed with Mr.Kercheval's comments.Mr.Thompson explained that if minimum parking requirements can be met with the outside sales area there is not an issue.Currentiy,there is no language in the Zoning Ordinance to regulate this type of use. Ms.Parrish questioned the proposed parking aisle width versus the current aisle width.Ms.Baker explained that the aisle width depends upon the angle of the parking spaces.She reviewed the current requirements.Ms.Baker noted that the proposed language would clarify if the aisle is to accommodate one-way or two-way traffic. Mr.Kercheval asked if there are any requirements proposed for truck terminals.Ms.Baker stated that currently one parking space per main shift employee is required.She noted that proposed text states, "parking shali be determined based on a detailed parking analysis and study that shali address number of employees,projected daily use patterns based on terminals of similar size in the area/region,and accommodations offered (fueling stations,showers,overnight parking, food services,etc.).The final determination of adequacy shali be made by the Planning Commission.There was a brief discussion regarding parking spaces for retail services.Ms.Baker noted that Staff is proposing to reduce the number of parking spaces required based upon the square footage of the retail establishment.She stated that the current Ordinance requirements are based on gross leasable area and the proposed amendments are based on gross fioor area.Mr.Kercheval compared Washington County requirements with other jurisdictions using a table that Staff provided in the Agenda materials.Mr.Kercheval expressed his concern regarding the proposed width of streets in developments. Mr.Bowen reiterated the concerns of other Commission members that the proposed parking requirements are too burdensome for developers.He stated he supports the proposed lighting requirements and the maximum number of space required.Mr.Bowen questioned the County's regulation and enforcement of recreational vehicles on private streets and the maintenance of landscaping materials. Mr.Wiley reiterated his concern that several of the proposed requirements are going to be burdensome especially to the small business owners. Public Comments:Mr.Jeremy Holder of Ausherman Development provided written comments to the Planning Commission addressing several of the proposed requirements.He began with comments on Articie 22.12(b)regarding off-street parking for residential,single and two-family.He believes that the issue deals with the overall design of lots and not the streets.Mr.Holder used the Westfields Development as an example for his presentation.Mr.Holder addressed comments on Article 22.12(e) dealing with recreational travel parking.He does not believe that recreational travel parking areas should not be mandated and wouid unfairly burden HOAs.Mr.Holder commented on Article 22.12(f)2 dealing with parking stall and access lane dimensions.He expressed his opinion that for low turn-over environments 18-foot deep stalls and 20-foot wide access lanes work very well.Mr.Holder also commented on Section 22.12(f)8ii regarding landscaping.He expressed his opinion that there should be no limit on the percentage of parking landscape areas that can be utilized for non-structural storm water management practices. -50-09·001 •Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendment Ms.Kelly presented for review and comment text amendments to Article II;Article IV;Sections 301,302, 306.1,307.1,307.2, 307.3,309, 310,314, 315, 318,318.4 and 602 of the County's Subdivision Ordinance.Ms.Kelly briefly summarized the proposed amendments. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Bowen expressed his opinion that Staff should consider recording all approved plats themselves instead of relying on the developer or consultant. Mr.Reiber asked for clarification of language in Section 310 that states,"extensions could not exceed a period of two (2)years."Mr.Lung noted that the two years refers to the review period from the time the plans are submitted to the Planning Department up to the time it is approved.He stated that in the past plats have been submitted and have been inactive for a long period of time. Public Comment:Ms.Debi Turpin,Deputy Director of the Homebuilders Association,briefly commented on the proposed text amendment for Section 315.She expressed her opinion that changing the recordation time of an approved plat from two (2)years to 90 days is too extreme and is a "big mistake". Ms.Turpin noted that when the plat is recorded,the developer begins paying taxes on the property,which based on today's economy could be an economic burden to the developer.Mr.Thompson stated that Ms.Turpin recently contacted him regarding her concern and Staff is going to review this issue. Mr.Holder of Ausherman Development expressed his concern regarding the approval period for a preliminary plan.He noted that a developer performs a "balancing act"in phasing a project and bringing the plans forward for approval.Mr.Holder stated that if a plan is submitted and inactive for a period of time,the developer faces the possibility of regulations changing.He noted that preliminary plans include engineering drawings for the entire project,which includes grading for the site and designing the utilities. Mr.Holder stated,"If you approve a plan,there is an expectation sent to the Planning Commission,that as long as someone is pursuing in good faith the pian that they started,that they are able to finish that." Mr.Holder believes that he has addressed the wrong section of the Subdivision Ordinance,but suggests that his comments be taken into consideration and the appropriate section of the Ordinance should be reviewed.Mr.Thompson stated that the preliminary plan language needs to be addressed in conjunction with the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance. Ms.Kelly noted that the language proposed for review of a preliminary plat approval beyond the two year period would require approval for an extension by the Planning Commission and not the Director. -RZ-09-005 -Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Mr.Stachoviak presented for review the proposed text amendment of Article 22,Sections 22.81 and 22.82 and Article 28,Section 28.47 of the Zoning Ordinance.The purpose of the text amendment is to provide consistent definition for Open Space.Mr.Stachoviak briefly summarized the proposed text amendment. There were no comments from members of the Planning Commission or public. -50-09-002 -Subdivision Ordinance Text Amendment Mr.Stachoviak presented for review the proposed text amendment to Article 2,Section 202 and Article 4, Section 412 of the Subdivision Ordinance.The purpose of the text amendment proposes to require in the Urban Town Growth Areas dedication of Open Space for Parks and Recreation land in developments of a specific size.Mr.Stachoviak briefly summarized the proposed text amendment.He noted that the intent of the amendments will allow the County to continue to meet acreage goals for open space established by the Maryland Department of Planning and the Department of Natural Resources.These goais relate to Program Open Space funding.Mr.Stachoviak expiained that as long as a County continues to meet its goal,the County may use 100%of its Program Open Space funding for development purposes. He noted that Washington County's goal is 15 acres per 1,000 peopie of park and open space area. Counties that do not meet their goal must use 50%of the funding for land acquisition and 50%for development.The goal of the proposed amendment is to insure future residential subdivision development in the Urban Growth Area helps keep pace with the State and County goal and to provide 201 202 adequate neighborhood and community parks for recreation and open space in the higher density areas of the County.The proposed amendments specifically target the neighborhood and community park and recreation land categories,which Is a part of the overall 15 acres per 1,000 people.In this case,the neighborhoOd and community park category is a total of 6 acres per 1,000 people.The amendments exempt smaller subdivisions below a threshold of 74 dwelling units. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Bowen asked if a developer proposes a park would the parking faciiities be considered part of the open space area.Mr.Stachovlak stated it would not count as part of the acreage for open space.Mr.Kercheval questioned that comment because if the County parking areas for a park can be included as part of the acreage to meet State criteria,why wouldn't a developer's parking area be Included.Mr.Stachoviak stated that he would further clarify the statement in the definitions. Mr.Kercheval expressed his opinion that open space should be calculated differently for apartments and condominiums because the units are smaller and the area is more condensed.Mr.Kercheval began a discussion regarding Section 412 (B)(5)that states,"Title to the open space/park land shall be held by an established homeowners association in which membership is mandatory and automatic upon conveyance of title or any lot or unit in the subdivision."Mr.Thompson stated that currently homeowner associations are required only in Planned Unit Developments (PUDs).Mr.Lung noted that open space is not required in any other type of subdivisions.Mr.Kercheval expressed his opinion that off-site open space or payment-in-lieu for open space requirements should be explored.Mr.Thompson stated that he has been advised by the County Attorney's office that payment-ln-Iieu is not an option for open space requirements. Several Commission members objected to the mandatory homeowners associations citing the requirement as an undue hardship on developers and residents.Staff pointed out that the open space iand couid be accepted by the Board of County Commissioners and maintained by the County.However, if the County does not accept the open space area,someone needs to maintain it. Public Comments:Mr.Jeremy Holder of Ausherman Development expressed his personal opinion that while he understands not everyone wants to be part of a homeowners association,open space needs to .be maintained.He expressed his opinion that the 1 acre/73 dwelling units may not be the "right trigger" for open space requirements and suggested that density should be considered.For example,if the residential lots are larger (such as 2-acres),there might not be the need for open space area.However, smaller lots,such as those located within the UGA,should have a planned open space area.Mr.Holder believes that smaller developments as well as larger developments should be required to provide open space area.Mr.Holder noted that the definition of a "flood plain"is very broad.He briefly discussed the "flood plain fringe",which can be an appropriate open space location.Mr.Holder questioned the 50% use of remaining parkland as Forest Conservation areas after all other open space requirements have been met. ADJOURNMENT Mr.Anikis adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~/LL: Ge/Jrge A'11ikis,Chairman 203 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -April 6,2009 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,Aprii 6,2009,in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown. Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Andrew Bowen,Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley and Ex- Officio James F.Kercheval.Staff members present were:Chief Planner Timothy A.Lung,Senior Planners Lisa Kelly and Jill Baker,Land Planner Sara Edelman and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.Mr.Ecker and Ms.Parrish were not in attendance. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 2,2009 meeting as amended.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.Unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS -AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION DISTRICT APPLICATIONS Ms.Edelman presented for review and recommendation nine (9)Agricultural Land Preservation District applications for the establishment of 10-year agricultural districts.Ms.Edelman noted that the Washington County District Program was established as a County program on January 13,2009.The applications being presented this evening have previously been approved by the Agricultural Advisory Board.Ms.Edelman stated that the County benefits from the District Program by the preservation of agricultural culture,preservation of land from development,and limits the need for infrastructure.The Program benefits the landowner with the opportunity to apply for easement from the State,tax credits and protection under the Right to Farm Ordinance.Ms.Edelman presented maps and a brief description of each property applying for the 10-year agricultural district. 1)Wilmarie Hopkins,202.41-acres located on Licking Creek Road;Beeffarm;AD-08-005 2)Robert Jennings Smith:97.83-acres located on Big Spring Road;Crop farm;AD-08-007 3)Rodney and Mariann Saloom,51.04-acres located on Seibert Lane;Crop farm;AD-08- 013 4)Maria Salgado,152.70-acres located on St.Paul Road;Crop farm;AD-09-002.Ms. Edelman explained that the total parcel acreage is 162.70-acres;however,Ms.Salgado has excluded 10 acres from the district.Ms.Salgado is proposing to put 5 acres into the Historic Preservation overlay and 5 acres she is proposing to subdivide. 5)Alice Backman,51.28-acres located on Manor Church Road;forest land;AD-08-003 6)Donald Beard,139.88-acres located on Mill Point Road;Dairy farm;AD-08-011 7)Baker Farm,LLC,115.99-acres located on Benevola Newcomer Road;Pasture and flood plain;AD-06-006; 8)Payne/Holder Farm,110.52-acres on Monroe Road;AD-08-004.Ms.Edelman stated that the Payne/Holder Farm was previously in a District;however,they had to terminate the district at the end of their 10-year district due to estate issues.Fifty (50)acres has been taken out for development. 9)Anitetam Farm,71.25-acres located on Ringgold Pike;Crop farm;AD-06-011 Comments:Mr.Kercheval requested that in future presentations,Staff calculate the number of potential developable lots that would be permitted if the land was not being protected through the Agricultural District Program. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the Agricultural Land Preservation District applications as presented.Seconded by Mr.Wiley.The motion passed with Mr.Bowen,Mr.Wiley and Mr.Reiber voting "Aye".Mr.Kercheval abstained. -SUBDIVISIONS Downsville E,F &G,LLC -Lot 1 (S-09-012) Mr.Lung presented for review and approval the subdivision plat for Lot 1 of the Downsville E,F &G,LLC located on the northeast corner of Downsville Pike and Rench Road in the Friendship Technology Park. This project has been given a "fast-track"designation by the Washington County Economic Development Commission.The property is zoned aRT -Office,Research and Technology.The owners of the property will be conveying the parcel to T.Rowe Price for a proposed remote support center.Access to the lot and 30-acres of remaining lands will be via a new public cul-de-sac street (Progress Lane),which will be approXimately 650 linear feet.The new street will be dedicated to the County.Public water will be provided by the City of Hagerstown and public sewer will be provided by the Washington County Department of Water Quality.Forest Conservation requirements will be met through a combination of on- site forest retention and a payment-in-Iieu.The Forest Conservation Plan is part of the Site Plan currently under review by the County Planning Department.However,the Forest Conservation Plan should be approved as part of the subdivision plat approval.All reviewing agencies have reviewed and commented 204 on the subdivision plat;however, approvals are pending.The "fast-track"designation permits the project to be presented to the Planning Commission prior to receiving agency approvals.Mr.Lung stated that most of the comments relate to the new public street that will involve the installation of utilities and the relocation of utility easements as well as storm water management facilities to handle the run-off from the street.Mr.Lung noted that there are two different consultants working on this project. Discussion: specifications. standards. Mr.Reiber made an inquiry regarding the cul-de-sac being constructed per County Mr.Lung stated that the road will be designed in accordance with the County's public road Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the Subdivision Plat contingent upon all agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.Unanimously approved. Discussion:Mr.Reiber made an inquiry regarding the proposed Forest Mitigation requirements.Mr. Lung stated that according to the original plat submittal the developer is proposing on-site retention of .8- acre and a payment-in-lieu for 1.93-acres.He noted that the acreages may change depending on requested revisions and the impact on the retention area due to moving utility easements around for the proposed street.Mr.Lung clarified that the .8-acre retention was calculated with the easements included. No major changes are anticipated;however,there could be a slight change in the easement area and the amount of the payment-in-lieu. Ms.Kelly interjected that she had updated calculations for the Forest Conservation mitigation as reflected on the site plan.She stated that .68-acres would be retained on-site and a payment-in-lieu would be based on 1.13-acres or $4,922.28.The .68-acres reflect the removal of the easement in question.Mr. Reiber questioned the calculations because the figures reflected on the site plan are less than those shown on the subdivision plat.Mr.Lung stated that Staff would need to review the Forest Conservation Worksheets to insure that the site pian Information matches the subdivision plat information and to determine the appropriate amounts.He noted that it is not unusual for economic development projects to be approved based entirely on payment-in-lieu to meet Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.Mr. Wiley expressed his opinion that the Forest Conservation proposals should be approved even though changes to the calculations may be necessary. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the amended Forest Conservation mitigation of on-site retention and payment-in-lieu.Seconded by Mr.Kercheval.Unanimously approved. -SITE PLANS T.Rowe Price (SP-09-013) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a Site Plan for T.Rowe Price for property located on the northeast corner of Downsville Pike and Rench Road in the Friendship Technology Park.This project has been given a "fast-track"designation by the Washington County Economic Development Commission. The property is zoned ORT -Office,Research and Technology.The developer is proposing to construct a 58,500-square foot building that will include a warehouse and office space for a data center in Phase I on 14-acres.A future 58,500-square foot addition is proposed for a total of 117,OOO-square feet. Mechanical and electrical equipment areas with fencing are proposed adjacent to the bUilding.Access to the site will be via a new public street named Progress Way.Public water from the City of Hagerstown and public sewer from the Washington County Department of Water Quality will serve the site.Parking required and provided will be 136 spaces.A reduction of the front building setback from 50-feet to 40-feet was granted by administrative approval from the Washington County Permits and Inspections Department for the construction of a guard house at the entrance.Building-mounted and pole-mounted lights are proposed on the site.One sign will be located at the entrance.A screened dumpster will be located to the rear of the building.Hours of operation proposed are 24 hours per day 7 days per week.There will be a total of 15 employees,spiit on 3 different shifts.Storm water management requirements will be met by the use of three storm water management ponds.Proposed landscaping includes Red Maple,Oak, Birch,Dogwood,Holly,Pine,and Leyland Cypress trees,azaleas,juniper and numerous ornamental fountain grasses.Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements were previously discussed during the presentation of the Subdivision Plat.Staff will verify the final mitigation calculations.As previously noted during the Subdivision Plat presentation,this project has been designated as a "fast-track"designation. Approvals from all agencies are pending. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Kercheval noted that the County does not want easements containing fiber optics in the roads due to future expansion and maintenance issues.Mr.Kercheval questioned how many lots would be served in the future by the cul-de-sac.Mr.Jason Divelbiss,attorney for the property owner Mr.Brad Fulton,stated that there are 50 acres of remaining lands and the street could serve as many as three lots in the future.Mr.Fulton noted that during recent discussions with the Department of Public Works and the Engineering Department,the fiber optics do not interfere with the roadway; however,there is interference between the potential storm water access and maintenance easement for one of the proposed storm water management facilities with the existing utility easement.Several options were discussed,including the elimination or relocation of the storm water management facility.Mr. Divelbiss noted that the Engineering Department expressed concern regarding the utility easement for the fiber optics overlapping with the roadway right-of-way.Mr.Kercheval made an inquiry with regard to the number of proposed parking spaces.Mr.Lung stated that the site plan meets the parking requirements based on the proposed use of the building.He noted that the proposed facility will be used for occasional training sessions.He also noted that the use could change in the future to an office complex,which would require more parking spaces.Mr.Lung stated that a subsidiary plan was submitted by the developer to show how additional parking could be accommodated.Mr.Anikis asked if a fence wouid be located around the property.A representative of Century,the consultant,stated that T.Rowe Price requires a fence around the property.An 8-foot high chain-link fence is proposed.Mr.Anikis expressed his concern that the developer is using a chain-link fence next to a farm in a historic preservation zone. The consultant noted that the developer is proposing considerable screening around the property to protect the integrity of the farm.Mr.Anikis made an inquiry regarding the pole-mounted lighting being proposed.The consultant stated that a lighting plan has been added to the site plan,which shows there is no spillover to other properties.Mr.Anikis made an inquiry regarding the architectural appearance of the exterior of the proposed building.Mr.Kercheval stated that the exterior would be similar to the Lyles office building located on Marsh Pike,which is concrete construction. Mr.Kercheval noted that the County is looking at future development of the property and the impact on the road network in this area.He expressed his opinion that the property owner needs to plan ahead with regard to roads and utilities.He stated that he is not opposed to the payment-in-lieu for commercial uses to meet Forest Conservation requirements;however,he believes that off-site retention in undevelopable areas on the property should be considered with future development of the site. Motion and Vote:Mr.Kercheval made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon all agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Wiley.Unanimously approved. North End Storage (SP-09-008) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a Site Plan for North End Storage located along the north side of Leitersburg Pike,southwest of its intersection with Longmeadow Road.The developer is proposing to construct three mini-warehouse storage units on a 1.9-acre parcel zoned BL -Business Local.One access is proposed from Leitersburg Pike.No water or sewer facilities are proposed for the site.Hours of operation will be 24 hours per day,7 days per week.There will be no employees on the site;however,assistance will be available at the John R.Oliver office site across Leitersburg Pike.No parking spaces are required and none will be provided.An 8-foot by 8-foot sign will be constructed at the entrance.Proposed lighting will be building mounted and no lights will be installed on the rear of the buildings.No trash receptacles will be provided.Forest Conservation requirements will be met by retention of 1.45-acres of forest on lands of John R.Oliver located across Leitersburg Pike behind the Oliver office building and existing storage buildings.The remaining .21-acre forest requirement will be met by a payment-in-Ileu In the amount of $914.76.Landscaping will be placed at the entrance of the site using spreading yews.Nineteen Leyland Cypress trees will be placed along the eastern property line bordering the Palmer property.The existing forest behind the Leyland Cypress will be retained to provide additional buffering.A 10-foot landscape buffer is proposed along the northern and western property boundary lines using existing forest located on the site.All agency approvals have been received. Discussion:Mr.Kercheval made an inquiry regarding the setback on the west side of the property.He noted that the building will be set closer to the existing residence.Mr.Oliver,developer,stated that the existing residence is located on parcel of land that is currently zoned "BL"and the vacant property on the other side of the proposed warehouses is zoned residential.Therefore,the setback requirements are larger next to the residentially zoned property.Mr.Kercheval expressed concern regarding the buffering between the site and the existing residence.Mr.Taylor stated that trees will be planted to act as a buffer. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the Site Plan and the proposed Forest Conservation mitigation requirements as presented.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.Unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Fort Ritchie Master Plan Update Mr.Lung presented a brief update of the Fort Ritchie Master Plan.COPT is planning to present their master plan to the Planning Commission in June. Discussion:Mr.Kercheval stated that he has met with Mr.Hoffman,COPT representative,to discuss the progress of the master plan.He noted that due to the economic slowdown and environmental and topographic issues,revisions were needed to COPT's original plans.Mr.Kercheval has suggested that COPT present their master plan to the Planning Commission at the Fort Ritchie site and include a tour of the site.COPT was amenable to the suggestion.The Planning Commission was in favor of the off-site meeting. Mr.Anikis made an inquiry regarding the traffic study.Mr.Hoffman stated that the traffic study has been updated,finalized and approved and will be included in the package that will be submitted to the Planning Department at the end of April.Mr.Hoffman noted that plans will not be ready for presentation at the June meeting due to time needed for review by the Engineering Department and Soil Conservation District.However,COPT will try to present their master plan at the July Planning Commission meeting. RZ-09-001 -Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Ms.Baker presented for review and recommendation Text Amendments for Articles 3,4,SA,5B,5C,50, 23 and 28A of the Zoning Ordinance.The text amendments were presented at a public meeting held on Monday,March 16,2009.Comments were received from the Planning Commission as well as the public 205 206 and revisions to the text amendments were made based on those comments.The first proposed revision is to Section 4.22 "Commercial Communication Towers",the Abandonment clause,which the County does not currently have in the Ordinance.Ms.Baker presented two options for the Planning Commission's consideration.The first option mirrors Frederick County's Ordinance,which requires a surety to be posted by the tower owner upon approval of the communications tower.The second option is similar to the Abandonment clause proposed for the Wind Energy Systems.This option states,"the Zoning Administrator may issue a Notice of Abandonment to the Owner of the Tower that is deemed to be abandoned.The Owner shall have the right to respond in writing to the Notice of Abandonment selling forth the reasons for operational difficulty and providing a reasonable timeframe for corrective action, within thirty (30)days from the date of the Notice.If the Owner fails to remove the Tower and related equipment,the Administrator may pursue legal action to have the Tower removed at the Owner's expense." Ms.Baker noted that a surety could be held for many years without the tower being abandoned.She believes that tracking the surety could be problematic for everyone involved.Staff recommends the second option listed above. Discussion:Mr.Kercheval questioned if the Tower Owner has been notified of the abandonment,could they be fined (like a zoning infraction)rather than taking the Owner to court.He expressed concern regarding the length of time to get the case to court.Ms.Baker noted that the Owner has the right to respond to the Abandonment Notice and corrective action taken within thirty (30)days from the date of the Notice.Mr.Kercheval believes that a fine should be imposed rather than immediate legal action in court. Ms.Baker proceeded with the review of proposed changes in accordance with comments received during the public meeting.She noted that the definition of Grade Plane is proposed for change.The new language has been taken from the County's Building Codes,which would create consistency between the Zoning Ordinance and County Building Codes . .Comment:Mr.Reiber requested that Staff insure that enforcement issues are addressed per Mr. Kercheval's comments and concerns.Ms.Baker stated she will work with the Zoning Administrator to develop the appropriate language,which will be presented to the BOCC at their public hearing on this amendment.Mr.Anikis noted that if both options are presented to the BOCC,a change needs to be made in Option A from "property"owner to "tower"owner. Recommendation and Vote:The Planning Commission recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the text amendment RZ-09-001 with a change in the language to impose a fine rather than immediate legal action in court,per Mr.Kercheval's comments,and with the new definition of Grade Plane as proposed from the County's Building Codes.The recommendation was approved with a 3-0 vote with Mr.Wiley,Mr.Bowen and Mr.Reiber voting "Aye".Mr.Kercheval abstained. 50-09-001 -Text Amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance Ms.Kelly presented for review and recommendation Text Amendments to Sections 202,301, 302, 306, 307, 309, 310,314, 315, 318,404 and 602 of the County's Subdivision Ordinance.The text amendments were presented at a public meeting held on Monday,March 16,2009.Comments were received from the Planning Commission as well as the public and revisions to the text amendments were made based on those comments.Ms.Kelly noted that public comment focused on the proposed recordation time of preliminary/final and simplified plats.The amendment proposes that all plats must be recorded with the Clerk of the Circuit Court within ninety (90)days of plat approval instead of the current two (2)year period. Comments:Mr.Wiley expressed his opinion that the ninety days may not be allow sufficient time for the recordation;however,he does not believe that the time should be as long as two years. Mr.Bowen agreed with Staff's recommendation for the 90 day recordation tlmeframe. Mr.Kercheval expressed his opinion that he does not agree with the ninety (90)day timeframe,but he also believes that two (2)years is too long. Discussion:Mr.Anikis questioned the penalty if the plat is not recorded within the 90 days.Ms.Kelly stated that the plat would be null and void after ninety (90)days.Mr.Bowen asked if an extension could be requested.Ms.Kelly stated that Staff is not proposing that option.Mr.Lung stated that current policy allows the Planning Director,in some cases,to re-approve piats that have gone past the recordation period without the plats being presented again to the Pianning Commission.He noted that plats that have been approved,but not recorded,for a long period have been presented to the Planning Commission for their re-approval.Staff is concerned that standards and physical features may have changed over time.Members discussed the public's concern regarding financial issues and meeting deadlines.Mr.Bowen suggested a six (6)month timeframe for recordation.Ms.Kelly stated that the City of Hagerstown follows a six (6)month timeframe.Staff noted that if there is a problem,the developer will usually request that plat approval be withheld until they are ready to proceed. Recommendation and Vote:The Planning Commission recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the text amendments as proposed in SO-09-001,with the exception of Section 315 to be amended from ninety (90)days to six (6)months for recordation of preliminary/final and simplified plats.The recommendation was approved with a 3-0 vote with Mr.Wiley,Mr.Bowen and Mr. Reiber voting "Aye".Mr.Kerchevai abstained. RZ-09-002 -Text Amendment "1M"Zoning District The Planning Commission reviewed Text Amendment RZ-09-002 for the "1M"Industrial Mineral zoning district with regard to fencing requirements.The text amendment was presented at a public meeting held on Monday,March 2,2009.Comments were received from the Planning Commission as well as the public and revisions to the text amendments were made based on those comments.The only recommended change to the proposed text amendment was that all extraction areas,active or inactive, shall be fenced and posted if the excavation of slopes is steeper than one (1)foot vertical to two (2)feet horizontal (2:1 slope).The original text presented at the public meeting recommended a 3:1 slope. Recommendation and Vote:The Planning Commission recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the text amendment RZ-09-002 as amended with a 2:1 slope.The recommendation was approved with a 3-0 vote with Mr.Wiley,Mr.Bowen and Mr.Reiber voting "Aye". Mr.Kercheval abstained. RZ-09-004 -Text Amendment (Small Wind Energy Systems and Solar Collection Systems) The Planning Commission reviewed Text Amendment RZ-09-004 to add Sections 4.24 (Small Wind Energy Systems)and 4.25 (Solar Collection Systems)to the Zoning Ordinance.The text amendment was presented at a public meeting held on Monday,March 2,2009.Comments were received from the Planning Commission as well as the public and revisions to the text amendments were made based on those comments. Discussion:Mr.Lung began reviewing the changes made following the public meeting.He noted that the Planning Commission members questioned the location of the wind towers located in the front yard. Mr.Lung clarified that the wind towers cannot be located within the front yard setback.For example,a house could exceed the minimum front yard setback requirement and a wind tower could be located in front of the house,but outside of the minimum front yard setback.Mr.Kercheval does not believe the proposed amendment addresses the Commission's concern.He expressed his opinion that if a house is located a greater distance from the road or other residences,it may be appropriate to have a windmill in front of the house otherwise the wind towers should be located behind the house. Mr.Kercheval began a discussion regarding shading of solar panels by neighboring properties.He noted that this has become an issue in other communities where a neighbor's tree (or other obstacle)could block the sun from reaching the solar panel.Mr.Kercheval believes there are solar easements that can be purchased from other property owners to ensure that the sunlight will not be blocked from the solar panels by controlling the height of other structures or the planting of trees and that the County should not become involved with such issues.He requested that Staff investigate this issue further and include language in the text amendment that the County and/or adjoining property owners are not liable for sunlight being blocked from a neighboring solar panel. Mr.Wiley expressed his opposition regarding the proposed language dealing with the size limitations of solar arrays.He believes the size and number of arrays used should be dependent upon the structural integrity of the building,especially for industrial or commercial application.Mr.Anikis concurred with Mr. Wiley's comments. Mr.Anikis clarified his concern regarding electromagnetic interference on emergency communication systems from Small Wind Energy Systems.He noted that his concern was general in nature and not specifically aimed at emergency communication systems.He further explained that as a rotor gets older, his concern was that it may interfere with television,radio or cell phones.He also expressed concern about excessive noise that may be generated by equipment that is not adequately maintained. Mr.Kercheval questioned the proposed language in #9 of Section 4.25 (Solar Collection Systems) regarding the Historic District Commission's review of all permit applications for collection systems within the HP,A01 and A02 zoning districts or adjacent to properties listed in the Washington County Historic Sites Survey.Mr.Kercheval expressed his opposition to the proposed language because the HOC would not have the authority to approve or deny any permit applications. Mr.Anikis requested the Commission's support in recommending to the BOCC the implementation of property tax credits for anyone who implements solar or windmill systems in the County.He noted that five counties in Maryland currently give property tax credits for this type of improvements.He gave a brief description of each county's tax credit rules. Mr.Kercheval asked if there was language included in the text amendment for the maintenance and upkeep of the wind towers. Recommendation and Vote:The Planning Commission recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the text amendment for RZ-09-004 with changes as previously discussed. Recommendations for changes include:1)language to clarify that wind towers should not be located in front of a house unless the house is a greater distance from the road or other residences;2)ianguage that the County and/or adjoining property owners are not liable for sunlight being blocked from a neighboring solar panel and/or language for soiar easements;3)the footprint limitation for industriai/commercial solar arrays;and 4)clarification of the electromagnetic interference and excessive 207 208 noise that may be generated by equipment that is not adequately maintained.The recommendation was approved with a 3-0 vote with Mr.Wiley,Mr.Bowen and Mr.Reiber voting "Aye".Mr.Kercheval abstained. Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that the Planning Commission is not being given all the facts and information necessary to make the best decisions for the "economic environment"of the County.He cited the T.Rowe Price "fast-tract"site plan and subdivision plat that was presented this evening as an example.His concerns included the additional acreage that could utilize the cul-de-sac in the future, reserving right-of-way for the County's use in the future and the impact on roads and utilities.Mr. Kercheval does not believe that anything is being held back.However,he believes that Staff should be prepared to present the "most up-to-date comments"as possible.A brief discussion foliowed concerning this issue and upcoming procedural changes for plan reviews and its impact on the "fast-track"process. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Planning Commission Workshop Meeting,Wednesday,April 15,2009,3:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown 2.Planning Commission Regular Meeting,Monday,May 4,2009,7:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown ADJOURNMENT Mr.Reiber made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 p.m.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.So ordered. Respectfully submitted, (j~~'L- Geo{ge AMkis,Chairman WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -April 15,2009 The Washington County Pianning Commission held a workshop meeting on Wednesday,April 15,2009, at 3:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown. Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Andrew Bowen,Terry Reiber,Linda Parrish,and Ex- Officio James F.Kercheval.Staff members present were:Planning Director Michael Thompson,Chief Planners Steve Goodrich and Tim Lung,Senior Planner Jill Baker,Pianners Cody Shaw and Fred Nugent,Environmental Pianner Bill Stachoviak,and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.Also present was Kathy Kroboth,Department of Permits &Inspections. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. DISCUSSION -RZ-09·003 Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Ms.Baker began a detailed review of the proposed Text Amendment for off-street parking and loading area requirements presented at the public meeting of the Pianning Commission heid on March 16,2009. The review began with a discussion of retail customer and visitor parking spaces.Ms.Baker noted that the average number of parking spaces is 4 to 5 spaces per 1,ODD-square feet.During the public meeting, Staff recommended using gross leasable area rather than the proposed gross floor area.Ms.Baker explained that gross floor area was proposed to simplify the calculation of required parking spaces for Staff as well as developers.She noted that national standards for retail businesses seem to be based on gross leasable area.Ms.Baker suggested that retail sales up to 200,000 square feet should require 4 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area and retail sales above 200,000 square feet should require 5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area.Ms.Baker stated that Staff believes there is a need to reduce the number of parking spaces.She briefly explained the rationale of reducing the number of parking spaces from a planning perspective.She noted that by reducing the number of parking spaces there are environmental benefits and there are cost-saving benefits for the developer.Ms.Baker stated that storm water management regulations are changing.If parking requirements are not reduced,the storm water management ponds will get bigger,they will get deeper, and there will be more maintenance issues.Mr.Kercheval does not agree with Staffs proposal to reduce the number of required parking spaces.He believes that by leaving the required number of spaces at current levels,it will not change any storm water requirements.Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that most retailers now have internet sales access,which reduces the personal visits by consumers to the stores.He believes that the County should slightiy reduce (to 5 spaces per 1,000 square feet)the number of reqUired parking spaces,which will help lower the cost to developers.Ms.Parrish expressed her opinion that some retail businesses could reduce their parking;however,other retailers need the larger parking areas.Mr.Goodrich pointed out that parking is site and community specific and is dependent upon community characteristics,socio-economic characteristics and other retail business in the area.Ms.Parrish stated that without more scientific or numerical data,she would recommend keeping the current required parking standards,which is 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area.Mr.Kercheval expressed his opinion that the required parking spaces should be "kept on the higher side". •Consensus:The Planning Commission recommends that commercial retail sales should require 5 parking spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of gross leasable area. There was a brief discussion regarding community centers,which are currently grouped with banquet halls,dance halls,etc.which require parking of 1 space per 50 square feet of gross floor area (GFA). These uses currently require 1 parking space per 400 square feet of GFA.Ms.Baker recommended separating the community centers out of the grouping and using the current parking standards for this use.Members discussed examples of different types of uses and the parking that would be required. Ms.Parrish began a discussion regarding the parking area at the Hagerstown Regional Airport.Mr. Anikis stated he has spoken to Mr.Greg Larsen of the Airport who recommends a minimum of 100 required parking spaces.Ms.Baker stated she has researched parking for airports,which can be very specific.However,Staff did not believe that changes are necessary at this time since the Airport already exists and no major commerciai expansion is anticipated at this time.Mr.Anikis expressed his concern regarding businesses currently located at the Airport and the spaces they are using for employee parking. Ms.Baker stated that a new category of employee parking has been added to the Ordinance.Mr.Anikis expressed concern regarding parking for students if the Airport would have a flight school in the future. Ms.Baker stated that a detailed parking anaiysis would be required as part of the site pian analysis; however,she believes that a school should provide separate parking.Mr.Kercheval asked if language could be added that states,"Airport parking,commercial,as determined by a detailed parking analysis. Private businesses inside the gates would be modeled after the rest of the chart." Ms.Parrish began a discussion regarding church parking,which is 1 space per 5 seats provided in the main religious assembly auditorium.She pointed out that a lot of families do not ride together and there are more single people than in the past.As an example,Ms.Parrish cited problems with parking at the church she currentiy attends.Ms.Parrish expressed her opinion that the parking criteria for churches is 209 210 based on a past lifestyle and lifestyles are changing.The next issue she addressed was the maximum number of parking spaces and the use of pervious pavement for additional parking.She stated that the contractors In this area do not have the expertise to use pervious materials,which are also very expensive.Ms.Parrish expressed her opinion that the County needs to be able to supply developers and others with Information and a list of contractors familiar with the permeable materials if they are going to make pervious pavement a requirement.Mr.Kercheval expressed his opinion that if the parking requirement for churches were to be changed,it should be no less than 1 space per 4 seats.He noted that the problem for churches exists only 1 day per week,whereas retail parking issues exist 6 or 7 days per week. Ms.Baker stated that language is being added to the ordinance to encourage the sharing of parking areas with a written recorded easement.Mr.Kercheval supports that recommendation. •Consensus:The Commission recommends changing the required parking for churches to 1 space per 4 seats and warrants additional discussion by the BOCC. Mr.Anikis made an inquiry regarding the requirement for a detailed parking analysis and study.Ms. Baker stated that sharing of recreational facilities has become an issue.Mr.Anikis asked who is required to perform the detailed analysis.Ms.Baker stated that would be required of the developer. Mr.Kercheval began a discussion regarding parking for restaurants,which is proposed for 1 space per 100 square feet of GFA.Mr.Kercheval recommended that the required parking should be 1 space per 75 square feet of GFA and should be the same for restaurants with a drive-thru. Ms.Baker began a brief discussion regarding the maximum number of spaces.She gave a brief explanation of the proposed language.Mr.Bowen and Mr.Kercheval expressed their opposition to the proposed concept. •Consensus:The Commission recommends eliminating the paragraph regarding the maximum number of spaces due to cost issues and contracting availability.. The Commission moved on to a review of the drive-up/drive-thru facilities.Ms.Baker noted there have been queuing issues in the past where back-ups occur onto the road or blocking of parking spaces.She stated that the County has tried in the past not to become too involved in internal flow issues.However, some issues have arisen over the years and Staff is proposing new language to address some of the problem issues and safety concerns.Discussions focused on car wash facilities.Mr.Kercheval and Ms. Parrish expressed their opinions that 4 on-site spaces per washing stations are not enough. •Consensus:The Commission recommends 6 spaces per washing station for automatic carwashes and 3 spaces per washing station for self-serve bays. The next issue discussed by the Commission was bicycle parking requirements.Ms.Baker noted that bicycle parking is required under Article 66B of the State of Maryland.Currently the County's Zoning Ordinance does not address bicycle parking.Ms.Baker briefly reviewed the proposed requirements and noted that the language was taken from Ailegany County's Ordinance.She described several types of racks and lockers available for bicycle parking. Ms.Baker reviewed recreational travel and recreational/off-road vehicle parking.She noted that #2 and #3 in this section are In the current Zoning Ordinance.Ms.Baker further explained that the County does not want these types of vehicles parked on private or public streets because it causes congestion and sight distance problems.Some developers provide parking areas within their developments or provisions within their covenants and restrictions for dealing with recreational vehicles.Mr.Kercheval asked why the County has language within the Zoning Ordinance requiring developers to provide parking areas for recreational vehicles.Ms.Baker stated that the requirements only apply to multi-family zoning districts (RM and PUDlo She explained that two parking spaces are required within these zoning districts and does not allow extra space for residents to park recreational vehicles.Mr.Anikis expressed his opinion that developers should not be required to provide parking spaces for recreational vehicles.Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that recreational vehicles are becoming a growing trend and there needs to be a place to park them.He believes that the HOAs or the developer should deal with the issue.Mr.Bowen suggested that the language be changed so that parking is not required,but should be considered by the developer.Ms.Baker stated that the text can be taken out of the Ordinance;however,another section of the Ordinance would also need to be amended. •Consensus:The Planning Commission does not want to take any action on this issue at this time. Ms.Baker noted that parking stall size requirements have not been changed.Parking stalls of 9'x 20' are required for regular parking and stalls of 9'x 22'are required for parallel parking.She noted that a modification has been added that the parking spaces can be reduced in length by two feet if they show an overhang.Ms.Baker stated that the access lane sizes have changed.Currently,aisle widths are determined by the angle of the parking spaces and vary from 14'to 24'.Staff is proposing changes in the aisle widths depending on one-way traffic or two-way traffic.Ms.Parrish made an inquiry regarding current parking aisle widths and the "grandfathering"of them if the number of parking spaces increases. Mr.Thompson stated that the State of Maryland considers the re-striping of parking lots as a modification and therefore all new ADA requirements must be met.However,the County does not require a permit for re-striping of parking lots and therefore,we are unaware until after the fact. Ms.Baker continued a review of the proposed changes and briefly explained minor changes to the text. She noted that changes to the lighting section include the requirement for fully-shieided,downward directed lighting to avoid giare onto adjacent properties and street right-of-ways.Ms.Baker stated that other text amendments for lighting are currently being proposed by Staff and wouid be presented in the future.Mr.Anikis asked if the height could be limited.Ms.Baker explained that height has been a debate among staff because there are so many other issues to consider,such as how many more lights are needed to sufficientiy light the area,how much more energy is needed,etc. Ms.Baker noted that changes are proposed for the landscaping section including a minimum requirement of 10%of the total impervious area of the parking facility.She stated that if the developer uses storm water management bio-retention areas,sunken islands,rain gardens,etc.within the confines of the parking facility,the 10%requirement could be modified to 5%.This provides incentives for the developers to use improved storm water techniques.Mr.Kercheval questioned the proposed 10% requirement because he believes that the new storm water regulations require using these techniques in parking facilities.Ms.Baker stated she would check on the new storm water reguiations. •Consensus:The Planning Commission recommends that if the new storm water regulations are required for parking facilities,the minimum required in the Zoning Ordinance should be 5%of the impervious area. Ms.Baker stated that shade trees are being proposed to be required as part of the landscaping requirement.This requirement will help to lessen the urban heat island effect and heip improve air quality.Mr.Kercheval made an inquiry regarding the type of trees that can be used.Ms.Baker stated the only requirement for trees will be a minimum size requirement of a two (2)inch caiiper at the time of pianting.Mr.Bowen expressed concern regarding trees in parking areas citing issues with birds and damage to cars during storms.Ms.Parrish expressed her opinion that trees should be recommended at the option of the developer,but they should not be required.Mr.Reiber and Mr.Bowen agreed.Mr. Anikis expressed his opinion that trees should be required.Mr.Bowen inquired if street trees could be used as an incentive to get credit for other requirements. •Consensus:The Planning Commission does not believe that street trees should be required, but should be recommended. A brief discussion started regarding the requirement of landscaping islands after every 15 spaces.Ms. Parrish voiced her opposition to this requirement.Mr.Bowen expressed his concern that the developers would put their drainage outlets in the sunken islands instead of providing curbing.Ms.Parrish suggested that if the developer prOVides linear landscaping,the landscaping every 15 spaces should not be required. •Consensus:The Planning Commission recommends that linear landscaping should be permitted in lieu of the landscaping islands every 15 spaces.If linear landscaping is not used, then the developer would be required to place landscaping islands every 15 spaces. Ms.Baker began a review of the proposed language for screening.She noted that item (ii)states, "screening may be in the form of a solid fence,vegetative screening or both,from grade to the specified height as determined by the Planning Commission or its designee."Ms.Baker noted there is a modification for screening when there is a grade or slope differential between properties.Mr.Kercheval noted that item (ii)states that natural materials shall be used for fencing.He stated that the Planning Commission has been requiring vinyl fencing due to maintenance issues. •Consensus:The Planning Commission recommends that on item (ii)the second sentence should read,"Fencing shall be construction of solid,low-maintenance materials " The Commission began a discussion regarding surfacing requirements and focused on item (vi).Ms. Baker stated that this is existing text in the Ordinance and is based on today's regulations. •Consensus:The Planning Commission recommends that item (vi)be deleted from the Ordinance. The Commission began a review of the proposed language for loading areas.Ms.Baker noted there is currently very little language in the Ordinance dealing with loading areas.The loading area dimensions have been revised based on the current size and type of delivery vehicles.There was a brief discussion regarding delivery times and prOViding parking spaces for deiivery trucks.There was a brief discussion regarding loading areas and where they should be located and screening issues for them. •Consensus:The Planning Commission recommends deleting items (b)(c)and (d)(1).Add (d) (2)as another sentence under (a). Ms.Baker stated that Section 22.14 (Non-Parking uses in Parking Facilities)is a proposed new section of the Ordinance.This section is intended to deal with seasonal sales in parking facilities (such as fireworks,tent sales,etc.).Ms.Baker briefly explained Staff's reasons for proposing this section of text and cited examples of problems that have been encountered in the past,such as storage containers permanentiy piaced that are taking away from the number of required parking spaces. 211 212 •Consensus:The Planning Commission recommends that language should be included in this section that allows non-parking uses in parking facilities as long as the minimum number of parking spaces are not encroached upon.A zoning certification would be required. Ms.Baker briefly reviewed the proposed definitions and noted that "gross leasable area"will need to be defined and added to this section.She noted that the definition for the Pianning Business Center was modified due to the changes in size.Ms.Baker stated that a clause was added stating,"not more than 25%of the gross floor area may contain uses other than retail sales."She stated this is due to recent problems with developers preparing sites plans for office space,which are approved,and then restaurants moving into these spaces.Parking then becomes an issue and Ms.Baker cited an example on Rosewood Drive.Definitions have also been added for retail sales and retail service uses.Ms.Baker noted that new definitions have been included for vehicles. ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~ Geori:Je Anifds,Chairman WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -May 4,2009 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,May 4,2009,in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown. Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Andrew Bowen,Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Linda Parrish,Sam Ecker and Ex-Officio James F.Kercheval.Staff members present were:Planning Director Michael Thompson,Chief Planner Timothy A.Lung,Senior Planners Lisa Kelly and Jill Baker,Planner Cody Shaw and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.Also present was Debra Murray,Director of Budget &Finance. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 6,2009 meeting as amended.Seconded by Mr.Wiley.The motion passed on a 5-0 vote with Ms.Parrish abstaining. (Mr.Bowen arrived at 7:03 p.m.) NEW BUSINESS -VARIANCES Mitzi Carbaugh (SV-09-003) Mr.Shaw presented for review and approval a variance from Section 405.11.G.1 of the Subdivision Ordinance,which requires a minimum width of 25-feet for all panhandles The property is located along the east side of Tollgate Ridge Road and adjoins the Pennsylvania state line to the north.The property is zoned EC -Environmental Conservation.The applicant is proposing to create a new lot with a panhandle width of 16.2-feet at its narrowest point due to the irregular shape and size of the property. The applicant's claim of hardship Is due to existing conditions of the original lot purchased In 1959.After an exchange of land between the Carbaughs and Mr.Barton (adjoining property owner)in 1988 to improve both lots,there is not enough room along the corner of the block garage to allow for the required 25-feet.There is an existing macadam driveway that leads around the garage to an existing gravel driveway to the rear parcel,which once housed a mobile home with a well and septic system.Approvals have been received from the County's Engineering Department and the Hancock Fire Department.The County's Fire and Rescue Department sent comments that included three guidelines for panhandle lots. These comments were forwarded to the Hancock Fire Department for their review.Chief Greg Yost reiterated that he has no objection to this variance.Based on the comments received from the reviewing agencies,the Planning Department has no objection to the variance. Discussions and Comments:Mr.Bowen questioned if the County's regulations have changed since the original subdivision and if the applicants have created their own hardship.Mr.Lung stated that the parcel to the rear was an addition to the Carbaugh's property in 1988,which was approved via the Simplified Plat process.A panhandle was not established at the time of the property exchange. Mr.Reiber expressed his concern regarding the width of the panhandle and access to the subject property. Motion and Vote:Ms.Parrish made a motion to approve the variance as presented.Seconded by Mr. Reiber.Unanimously approved. Barr Family LLC (SV-09-001) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a variance from Section 405.11.B of the Subdivision Ordinance,which restricts lots created for immediate family members to be said to members outside of the immediate family for 10 years.The property is located along the northeast side of Fairview Road (Route 494)and is zoned A(R)-Agriculture Rural.The pi at for Lots 4,5 and 6 for the Barr Family LLC was approved in December 2002.Three lots were created for immediate family members on a private lane,which is known as Fairview Hill Lane.The 10-year restriction to transfer the property outside the immediate family was applied and was indicated on the plat.The owner of Lot 4 is requesting that the restriction be removed in order to sell the property outside of the family.The applicant cited that his family is outgrowing their current home and wish to build a new home on property owned by his parents. Fairview Hill Lane is a private lane owned by the Barr Family LLC and currently serves several lots.Two of the lots are occupied by members of the Barr family and three of the lots are unoccupied.Mrs.Lester Fiery currently owns two lots along Fairview Hill Lane,which are occupied by her son and daughter.A letter was distributed to the Planning Commission prior to this evening's meeting from Mr.Barr.When reviewing the application,the Planning Department expressed concern because there was no legal document citing maintenance responsibilities or a use agreement for the lane.The Barr Family LLC has informed Staff that their attorney will be preparing an agreement to address these issues. 213 214 Discussion and Comments:Mr.Ecker is not opposed to the variance and encouraged Barr Family LLC to obtain the appropriate agreements for maintenance and use.Mr.Reiber concurred.Mr.Wiley expressed his concern with regard to early release (less than 10 years)of the property to a member outside of the Immediate family.Ms.Parrish made an inquiry regarding Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.In accordance with the approved plat,the family has met their five year obligation for Forest Conservation. Mr.Anikis asked if Fairview Hill Lane is paved or gravel.Mr.Johnnie Barr,the applicant,stated that the lane is paved.Mr.Anikis made an inquiry regarding tile proposed maintenance and use agreement.Mr. Schreiber of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,the applicant's consultant,stated that everyone using the lane would be responsible for maintenance.He noted that Mrs.Fiery's son and daughter do not have any property which actually touches the paved portion of the road. Motion and Vote:Ms.Parrish made a motion to approve the variance contingent upon ratification of the maintenance and use agreement.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.Unanimously approved. Paul N.Crampton,Jr.(SV-09-005) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a variance from Section 22.24A of the Zoning Ordinance, which specifies the restrictions for permanent,residential identification signs.The property is located aiong the east side of Marsh Pike and is zoned A(PUD)-Agriculture Planned Unit Development.The applicant is proposing to construct two (2)monumental signs at the entrance of the Emerald Pointe development.Each sign will be approximately 41-feet in length and 7-feet in height at its tallest point. The Zoning Ordinance dictates that the size of an identification sign shall not exceed 35-square feet in area,which includes script and monument.The sign will be a total of approximately 200-square feet. The approved site plan shows the proposed location of the sign and indicates signs significantly smaller than what the applicant is currentiy proposing. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Kercheval made an inquiry regarding sight distance and setbacks.Ms . .Kelly stated that the signs will meet all setback requirements and visibility will not be an issue.Ms. Parrish expressed her concern with regard to setting a precedent by not following the Zoning Ordinance requirements.Ms.Kelly stated that many large developments use larger monumental signs such as this one.Mr.Kercheval stated that the bulk of the sign is the decorative brick work and not the actual script (like you would see on a billboard).Mr.Thompson asked the applicant the actual size of the script work. Mr.Crampton stated that the script is approximately 3-feet in width and 10 Y,-feet in length.Mr.Anikis asked if the sign would be lit.Mr.Crampton stated the lights would be in the flower bed and shine directly on the sign. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the variance as presented and re-approval of the site plan contingent upon revisions to show the new sign.Seconded by Mr.Wiley. Comment before the Vote:Mr.Kercheval questioned if Marsh Pike would be expanded to a four-lane road would the sign sit back far enough or would it need to be moved.Mr.Crampton stated that the sign would not need to be moved.Mr.Bowen commented that there are AASHTO standards for the location of permanent structures and the distance needed from the main road for safety reasons.Mr.Crampton stated that the County Engineering Department approved the original site,which has not changed.He noted that there are other impediments that vehicles would hit before the sign if they run off the road. Vote:The motion passed with a unanimous vote. -SITE PLANS Pilot Travel Center (SP-09-017) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for the Pilot Travel Center located along the east side of Greencastle Pike,north of Interstate 70.The original site plan was approved in 1999.The updated plan shows changes in traffic patterns entering and exiting the site,as well as internal traffic patterns.The changes have been recommended by the County's Public Works Department and the State Highway Administration.The proposed changes show truck traffic entering the site via French Lane onto a new driveway off of the cul-de-sac.Ms.Kelly pointed out on the site plan the proposed traffic movement onto the site.The proposed one-way driveway will be 40-feet in width to accommodate two trucks side-by-side.Pavement markings and directional signs will be provided.Seven truck parking spaces will be removed to accommodate the new traffic pattern;however,the site will still comply with the required minimum number of parking spaces.The State Highway Administration is constructing a traffic light at the northernmost exit of the site,which is indicated on the site plan.No other changes to the site are proposed.The site plan has been sent to the Engineering Department,Soil Conservation and State Highway Administration for review and approval.Final approvals have not been received at this time from the reviewing agencies. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Kercheval stated he met with Mr.Joe Kroboth of the County's Public Works Department for an update.Mr.Merle Saville of the County Engineering Department designed the new route.Mr.Kercheval briefly expiained the problems with the current traffic flow pattern and the improvements that are proposed to address the problems. Mr.Anikis qsked how mqny pqrking spqces qre required for the site qnd noted thqt this informqtion is not provided on the site plan.Ms.Keily stated that she would ask the consultant to add this information to the plqn. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon final approval of the reviewing agencies.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.Unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS -RZ-09-003 Text Amendment for Off-street Parking Requirements Ms.Baker presented for recommendation the Zoning Ordinance text amendment for off-street parking requirements.The amendment was presented to the Planning Commission during a public meeting on March 16,2009.The Planning Commission held a Workshop meeting on April 15th to discuss the text amendment and mqke recommendations for proposed chqnges.A summmy of the Plqnning Commission's recommendations were distributed in the meeting qgendq pqcket for review. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to recommendation approval of RZ-09-003 with the recommended chqnges qS discussed during the April 15,2009 Workshop meeting.Seconded by Mr. Reiber.Unanimously approved.Mr.Kercheval abstained. -Capital Improvements Plan (2010-2015) Mr.Thompson presented for recommendation the Capital Improvements Plan for 2010 -2015.As part of the approval process,the Planning Commission is to review the plan and determine its consistency with the County's Comprehensive Plan. Discussions and Comments:Ms.Debbie Murray,Director of Budget and Finance for Washington County,was present at the meeting.She gqve a brief summary of the documents that were provided to the Planning Commission.Ms.Murray briefly explained the process the CIP Committee used in determining the proposed budget bqsed on figures provided by the various County departments and available State and local funding.Mr.Kercheval and Ms.Murray explained how the CIP can be adjusted to accommodate projects that may come to fruition earlier than originaily expected. Mr.Reiber commended Stqff for including projects in the CIP that they believe will come to fruition and not "wish list"projects. Mr.Kerchevql noted thqt the current borrowing level in the proposed CIP is $14 million qnd the County's borrowing cqpacity is around $16 million.He advised the Planning Commission to consider the County's investment in the majority of the infrastructure in the Urbqn Growth Area because the Comprehensive Plan states that 80%of the County's growth should be in the urban areas.There was a brief discussion regqrding q few of the proposed projects listed in the CIP.Ms.Murray noted that each road improvement project has q detailed data sheet that shows where ail the funding will come from and what is included in each project. Mr.Bowen expressed his opinion that the detailed data sheets along with an explanqtion of how each project relates to the County's Comprehensive Pian would be useful when making a recommendation for consistency.Mr.Kercheval expressed his opinion that q summary including the percentage of money being used inside versus outside the UGA,the percentage of money designated for education,roads, etc.,and a list of projects qnd the type of project being proposed.Mr.Thompson stated that Mr.Kroboth prepared a map showing each of the CIP projects,which he believes may be helpful to the Planning Commission as well. Mr.Anikis stqted thqt the proposed Eastern High School has been moved two years out in the budget. He asked if this WqS q recommendation of the Staff or was the decision made by the Board of Education. Ms.Murray stated it was a joint decision after reviewing current trends in permitting and the housing market.Mr.Anikis made an inquiry regqrding updqtes to the sewqge treqtment plqnts.Ms.Murmy stqted there are upgrades proposed in the current CIP.Mr.Anikis made inquiries regarding projects at the Airport. Mr.Anikis qsked if the Commission members would like to have a Workshop next year regarding the CIP prior to making their recommendation.Members agreed that a Workshop would be a good idea. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the CIP qS presented is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan.Seconded by Ms.Parrish. Unanimously qpproved.Mr.Kerchevql abstained . •Water and Sewer Plan Update Mr.Lung presented a brief status report of the Water and Sewer Plan Update.A copy of the "Draft"Plan has been submitted to the Maryland Department of Planning for their preliminary comments.Due to other commitments of MDP Staff,comments have been delayed and may not be available prior to the public heqring.Under Stqte regulqtions,the Plqnning Commission qnd the Board of County Commissioners can hold a joint public heqring. 215 216 Discussion and Comments:Commission members believe that an Executive Summary would provide adequate information prior to a public hearing.Staff will also provide a hardcopy and CD of the Water and Sewer Plan Update to all members. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Planning Commission Regular Meeting,Monday,June 1,2009,7:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown ADJOURNMENT Mr.Wiley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:55 p.m.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.So ordered. Respectfully submitted, e;~fILc George Anikis,Chairman. 217 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -JULY 6,2009 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,July 6,2009,in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown, Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Linda Parrish,Sam Ecker,Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley and Andrew Bowen,Staff members present were:Planning Director Michael C,Thompson,Chief Planner Timothy A Lung,Senior Planner Misty Wagner-Grillo,Planner Cody Shaw,and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard,Absent:Ex-Officio James F,Kercheval. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p,m, MINUTES Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 16,2009 Planning Commission Workshop meeting as presented,Seconded by Mr,Reiber.Unanimously approved, Ms,Parrish made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 16,2009 Pianning Commission Public Rezoning meeting as presented,Seconded by Mr,Ecker.Unanimously approved, Mr,Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 15,2009 Planning Commission Workshop meeting as presented,Seconded by Ms,Parrish,Unanimously approved, Ms,Parrish made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 4,2009 Planning Commission regular ,meeting as presented,Seconded by Mr.Wiley.Unanimously approved, NEW BUSINESS -VARIANCES Mae A.Timmons (SV-09-008) Mr,Shaw presented for review and approval a variance from Section 405.2,A of the Washington County Subdivision Ordinance,which requires access spacing of 300-feet The applicant,Mae Timmons,is requesting a reduction of the required access spacing of 300-feet to 11 O-feet from the existing driveway on the east to the proposed driveway for Lot 1,The property is located along the north side of National Pike,approximately 2,200-feet west of the corporate limits of Clear Spring,The property is currently zoned A(R)-Agricultural Rural and is 2A4-acres in size.The applicant is requesting the reduction due to safety issues and topographic conditions,Mr.Shaw noted that to maintain the 300-foot access spacing,the proposed driveway would need to be moved westward to a point that would require a guardrail opening and a steep approach,which would reduce sight distance and create a safety hazard, He aiso noted that the variance would allow access spacing at a 25 mph speed limit zone as opposed to a 50 mph speed limit zone,The Washington County Engineering Department and the Fire and Emergency Services Department have no objection to the variance,The State Highway Administration requested that the entrance be moved west approximately 50-feet to give the adjoining property owner approximately iSO-feet of space between his house and the proposed entrance,The applicant has agreed to move the entrance west iSO-feet as opposed to the 11 O-feet requested, Comments:Mr.Mark Bowman of Triad Engineering presented a sketch showing the proposed entrance moved west 50-feet per SHA comments,However,there is a telephone pole that would be in the middie of the proposed entrance.The consultant proposed moving the entrance slightly (approximately 10-feet) to avoid the telephone pole and still meet SHA's requirement There was a brief discussion regarding the location where the speed limit changes from 50 mph to 25 mph,Mr.Bowen and Mr.Reiber expressed their opinions that the entrance should be kept in the 25 mph speed zone,Members requested that Staff work with the developer to ensure that the entrance is located within the 25 mph speed zone, Motion and Vote:Mr,Reiber made a motion to approve the variance contingent upon Staff working with the developer and the State Highway Administration regarding safety issues as discussed,Seconded by Mr,Bowen,Unanimously approved, -SITE PLANS High's at Smithsburg (SP-09-018) Ms.Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval a site plan for High's at Smithsburg located along Jefferson Boulevard in Smithsburg,which is the current site of Lewis'Fruit Stand,The fruit stand will be removed,The property is currently zoned BL -Business Local and is 2,04-acres in size,The developer is proposing a High's convenience store with gas pumps and a bank on the site.The hours of operation for High's will be 5:30 a,m,to 11 :00 p,m"7 days per week,There will be two empioyees per shift Required parking is 15 spaces and 1 handicapped space,Proposed parking will be 23 parking spaces 218 and 1 handicapped space.Lighting will be building mounted.The hours of operation for the bank wiii be 8:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m ..Monday through Friday and 9:00 a.m.to 12:00 p.m.on Saturday.Required parking is 6 spaces and 1 handicapped space.Proposed parking wiii be 15 spaces and 1 handicapped space.The total spaces for both uses on the site will be 38 spaces and 2 handicapped spaces.The bank wiil have 4 employees per shift.Lighting wiii be building mounted.One shared sign of 70 square feet,double-faced is proposed.One fuel tanker and three delivery trucks per week are proposed.Solid waste will be handled by a dumpster for each business.Water wiil be provided by private wells and sewer service wiil be provided by the Washington County Department of Water Quality.A photometric plan has been prepared which shows zero light trespass on the adjacent residential properties and the road.Ms.Wagner-Griilo noted that the landscaping plans have been revised per Staff's comments.Staff requested additional screening to protect the adjacent residential areas from vehicular lights.The site is exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.Storm water management will be handled through an underground water facility.The State Highway Administration is requiring the construction of a left-turn only lane,which is 735-feet long starting at the proposed High's and running to the existing A C &T.Ail agencies approvals have been received.A sign variance will be required;however,the developer has not made application at this time.The proposed sign is located in the SHA right-of-way of Maryland Route 64 and will be larger than the existing sign;therefore,a variance will be required for the size of the sign. Comments:Mr.Reiber expressed concern regarding the landscaping on the east side of the site where there is an existing field that could be developed in the future. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the site plan contingent upon additional landscaping on the east side of the site and approval of the sign variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.Unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Dual Crossing -Assad Ghattas Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a buffer for proposed development on property located at the intersection of Mt.Aetna Road and Dual Highway.In 2005,the property was rezoned from Residential to Business Local.At the time of the rezoning,the Board of County Commissioners gave a conditional approval requiring adequate buffering between the subject property and the adjacent residential property when the site was developed.A preliminary consultation was held approximately 2 years ago for a proposed fast food restaurant on the site with a 15-foot buffer yard.The Planning Commission requested a 25-foot buffer yard with a fence and plantings along the residential properties,which the developer at that time agreed to.The fast food restaurant was not constructed and the property is now being proposed for development by Assad Ghattas.Mr.Ghattas is proposing to construct a 3-story office building with a bank on the ground floor.The developer is proposing a 20-foot buffer with a double, staggered row of evergreen plantings.The proposed use is a principal permitted use in the Business Transitional (BT)zoning district,which is the lowest commercial zoning classification.Mr.Lung noted that the proposed use is a lower intensity use than the previously proposed fast food restaurant and Staff supports the request.He stated that in the BT zoning district no buffering is required,only setbacks are required when commercial uses adjoin residential property.Mr.Lung stated that the building wiii be constructed to LEED standards,which uses high efficiency level lighting. Comments:In Mr.Kercheval's absence,Mr.Anlkis read comments that he received from Mr.Kercheval regarding this development.Mr.Kercheval requested that a note be placed on the plat stating that an outdoor dumpster is not ailowed on the southeast side of the site.He is not opposed to a dumpster being placed close to the entrance at Mt.Aetna Road.Mr.Kercheval also requested that a vinyl fence be placed along the property line next to the residential properties as requested for the previous developer. Mr.Reiber and Mr.Ecker concurred that a fence should be placed along the residential properties. Mr.Lung noted that in a letter received from the developer's consultant,Frederick,Seibert &Associates, there will be no outside dumpster.Ail trash and recycling will be handled within the proposed building. Ms.Parrish expressed her opinion that the proposed office building is a "much better use"of the property. Mr.Wiley concurred. In response to the request for a fence,Mr.Holmes of Frederick,Seibert &Associates noted that if a fence is installed,it would need to be placed very close to the Leyland Cypress proposed for screening.The developer,Mr.Ghattas,suggested that he work with the neighboring property owners to instail additional plantings as agreed upon by the owners.Planning Commission members briefly discussed this option and concurred that additional plantings,if agreed upon by the neighboring property owners,would be acceptable.It was also noted that at this time,the request is for approval of the buffer dimension and that planting versus fencing would be reviewed as part of the site pian.Mr.Reiber requested that a note be added on the plat that if negotiations between the property owners and the deveioper fail,a vinyl fence would be instailed. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the 20-foot buffer modification request contingent upon the developer and the neighboring property owners agree upon additional plantings or the instailation of a vinyl fence along the site bordering the residential properties.Seconded by Mr. Ecker.Unanimously approved. 219 Water and Sewer Plan Update Status Report Mr.Lung stated that the Water and Sewer Plan Update is now available for distribution to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners.Both hard copies and CD's are available at the member's discretion.Mr.Lung and Ms.Pippel of the Department of Environmental Management were scheduled to present the Update to the Board of County Commissioners during its meeting last week; however,due to time constraints,the presentation was not made and has been rescheduled for July 14th A summary of the changes made to the Water and Sewer Plan will be prepared and presented to the Planning Commission.A public hearing will be required prior to adoption of the Water and Sewer Plan Update. Wind and Solar Ordinance Mr.Anikis noted that members received a copy of the recently adopted Wind and Solar Ordinance in their agenda packets.He expressed concern regarding the language pertaining to noise tests.Mr.Thompson stated that the Ordinance will be reviewed and possibly revised in the future. Announcements Mr.Thompson announced that Ms.Parrish has been reappointed by the BOCC to the Planning Commission for another 5 year term. Mr.Thompson stated that the State of Maryland has awarded the contract for the Route 40/Edgewood Drive intersection.He noted that the project is scheduied for completion prior to the completion of the new hospital on Robinwood Drive. Mr.Thompson announced that a public meeting wiii be held during the Planning Commission's regularly scheduled meeting on August 3"'.Amendments to the Forest Conservation Ordinance are required due to changes in State law.Amendments must be adopted prior to October 1,2009 in order for the County to be in compliance with the State statute.Mr.Thompson gave a brief overview of proposed changes. Mr.Thompson noted that the County is in the process of hiring a consultant to prepare the Water Resources Element for the Comprehensive Plan.Four companies have been chosen for interviews. Mr.Thompson announced that Staff is in the process of changing the forms for variances from the regulations of the Subdivision Ordinance,which wiii now be called "modifications".He noted that more information wiii be required when making a modification request. Mr.Thompson announced that changes are being made to the development review process,which will be implemented on August 1st.Currently,plans are submitted to the Engineering Department for their review prior to submittal to the Planning Department.The new process will require all plans to be submitted to the Planning Department for distribution to all reviewing agencies.A Development Advisory Committee (DAC)has been formed with representatives from each reviewing agency.DAC wiii meet on a weekly basis to discuss the reviewing agencies'comments prior to sending the comments to the consultants or deveioper.The applicant may request a meeting with DAC after receiving its comments. The new process was developed as a result of recommendations by the Development Review Committee,which was appointed by the BOCC. Mr.Thompson noted that the UGA Advisory Committee held its final meeting last Thursday.The Committee has made all of its recommendations on proposed changes to the text and map of the UGA. Staff will be reviewing all of the proposed zoning changes and findings of the report. Election of Officers Mr.Bowen made a motion to appoint Mr.Anikis as Chairman of the Planning Commission for the 2009- 2010 fiscal year.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.Unanimously approved. Mr.Anikis made a motion to appoint Mr.Reiber as Vice-Chairman of the Planning Commission for the 2009-2010 fiscal year.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.Unanimously approved. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Planning Commission Regular Meeting,Monday,August 3,2009,7;00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown. ADJOURNMENT Mr.Wiley made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:15 p.m.So ordered. Respectfully submitted, Gebki:,::~n' 220 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -August 3,2009 The Washington County Planning Commission held a public meeting and its regular meeting on Monday, August 3,2009,in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown. Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Linda Parrish,Andrew Bowen,Sam Ecker,Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley and Ex-Officio James F.Kercheval.Staff members present were:Planning Director Michael C.Thompson,Chief Planner Timothy A.Lung,Senior Planner Lisa A.Kelly,Environmental Land Planner Wiiliam Stachoviak,and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the public meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC MEETING FCO-09-001 -Text Amendment Mr.Stachoviak presented for review and comment text amendments to the Washington County Forest Conservation Ordinance.He noted that most of the proposed amendments are mandated by Senate BiiI 666,which was approved on June 7,2009 and will become effective October 1,2009.Mr.Stachoviak briefiy summarized the proposed changes beginning with Section 3.2 that deals with exemptions.The forest disturbance threshold for activity conducted on a single lot is being changed from 40,000 to 20,000 square feet.The "immediate family member"exemption is being changed to a child of the owner with a forest disturbance threshold of 20,000 square feet.State law is removing the exemption for development on existing paved surface;therefore,the Ordinance language Is being revised to reflect this change.Mr. Stachoviak noted that the rate for payment in lieu (PIL)amount is being changed,per SB 666,from a -minimum of $.10 to $.30 per square foot.This rate will be in effect until September 3D,2014,at which time the rate may be adjusted for inflation.Mr.Stachoviak stated that the rate for payment in lieu in Article 11 has not changed since the Ordinance was adopted 14 years ago.The Ordinance will also be amended to allow the use of Forest Conservation Fund money for maintenance of existing forests and achieving urban canopy goals.Staff is proposing to add definitions and language to the Forest Conservation Ordinance to allow planting of approved street trees in the Urban Growth Area and Town Growth Areas.Mr.Stachoviak noted that the County Engineering Department is revising the street standards in order to allow street trees within rights-of-way. Discussion:Mr.Anikis asked if the type of street trees that would be allowed would be specified.Mr. Stachoviak stated they would be specified in the street standards and is consistent with the City of Hagerstown's standards.Mr.Reiber asked if there would be a minimum size requirement.Mr. Stachoviak stated that there would be a minimum trunk diameter. Mr.Stachoviak stated that all of the proposed changes have been reviewed by the DNR Regional and State Forest Conservation Program Coordinators.Staff has been reminded that House BiiI 972,which was passed last year,changed some of the reporting requirements and needs to be added to the Forest Conservation Ordinance.Mr.Stachoviak noted that language for reporting enforcement activity,areas of 1DO-year floodplains,and the size and location of forest areas must be reported in GIS format. Public Comments:Ms.Henryetta Livelsberger made a brief statement on behaif of the Citizens for the Protection of Washington County.The CPWC welcomes the proposed upgrades to the Forest Conservation Ordinance because it believes that the County's water quality,as well as the quality of life, wiil be enhanced.Trees play an important role in controlling and abating run-off,which is a major contributor to pollution in streams,rivers and ultimately the Chesapeake Bay. (Mr.Ecker arrived at the meeting at 7:10 p.m.) Discussion:Mr.Stachoviak clarified that the State is anticipating a "no net loss"by the year 2011 through the increase in the rate amount for the payment in lieu.Mr.Kercheval asked for clarification of using Forest Conservation Fund money for the maintenance of existing forests and achieving urban tree canopy goals.Mr.Stachoviak stated that currently the money from the FC fund was used only for the planting of trees.With the proposed revisions,money from the Fund could be used for the maintenance of plantings and sites. Mr.Anikis closed the public meeting at 7:15 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 6,2009 regular Planning Commission meeting as presented.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.Unanimously approved.Mr.Kercheval abstained. 221 NEW BUSINESS -PRELIMINARY CONSULTATIONS The Good Shepherd Ministries (PC-09-002) Ms.Kelly presented a preliminary consultation for The Good Shepherd Ministries iocated along the west side of Longmeadow Road at the intersection with Leitersburg Pike.The church is proposing a 23,400 square foot addition on approximately 13-acres and is zoned BL -Business Local.An existing 8,000 square foot church currently exists on the site.Additional parking and a new access point on Leitersburg Pike is proposed.An existing access point exists on Longmeadow Road.Two bio-retention areas and a septic field are proposed.Ms.Kelly briefiy summarized comments received from the reviewing agencies during the preliminary consuitation.Mr.Mark Stransky of the County's Engineering Department indicated that a traffic impact study will be required.Trip generation rates and anticipated distribution will be required for review and approval.The traffic counts must be performed during the school year.Mr. Holsinger of Civil Planning &Design,the church's consultant,objected to the traffic study due to the fact that the traffic generated at the site will be primarily during off peak hours.Mr.Stransky stated that the Engineering Department would be open to discussion on this issue.He noted that the project must comply with the County Stormwater Management Ordinance.New regulations will require the use of environmental site design concepts when developing the site.The project must comply with the County's Down Stream Easement Policy.The City of Hagerstown Water Department representative noted there is a 4-lnch water meter existing,which is reqUired for fire protection purposes.The Good Shepherd Ministries is proposing two sewer plans for consideration.The first proposed plan will be the construction of a wastewater pumping station with a line along Maryland Route 60 that will discharge into a manhole. The second proposed plan will be the construction of an onsile sewerage system on the property across the ravine.The property is technically in the County;therefore,the County will be responsible for the sewerage system if it is within the Joint Service Area.A representative from the County Health Department noted that perc tests will be required.A 72,900 square foot septic reserve area will be required.However,it is not likely that this requirement will be attainable on the property due to the rocky terrain.The Sheriff's Department expressed concern with regard to the exit on Longmeadow Road and in close proximity to Leitersburg Pike. Discussion:There was a bit of confusion regarding this comment due to the fact that the exit already exists.Ms.Kelly noted there was discussion and concern expressed during the consuitation regarding the proposed exit onto Leitersburg Pike.Mr.Kercheval expressed his concern regarding the proposed access onto Leitersburg Pike.Mr.Holsinger reiterated that the site would be used during off-peak hours. Ms.Kelly stated that forestation requirements have preViously been met for the entire site and must be noted on the site plan.She also noted that the use of the addition for worship and education must be noted on the site plan and that parking requirements will be based on these uses.The height requirements for landscaping along the entrance(s)must be met.A photometric plan will be required to show the lighting spillover. Discussion and comments:Mr.Wiley asked if the proposed parking would be sufficient to address the needs of the church.Mr.Holsinger stated that the number of proposed parking spaces would meet the County's parking standards.However,the need for additional spaces will be dependent upon the number of people attending services.Mr.Wiley expressed his concern for people parking along Leitersburg Pike if an entrance is approved there.Currently,there are 339 parking spaces proposed. Mr.Kercheval made an inquiry regarding the proposed on-site sewage system.He expressed concern whether the Health Department would allow a septic system in the Urban Growth Area when public sewer is in the vicinity.Mr.Holsinger clarified that the church was proposing an on-site subsurface disposal area (septic system).However,the church would prefer to connect to a public sewer system.There was a brief discussion regarding the location of current sewer lines. -SITE PLANS Wooden Keg (SP·09-023) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for the Wooden Keg Liquor Store iocated along the south side of Jefferson Boulevard.The site is currently zoned RR -Rural Residential and is approximately 1.5 acres in size.In July 2008,a site plan was reviewed and approved for a 1,300 square foot addition to the existing liquor store.A new site plan has been submitted for a 2,250 square foot addition to the existing store on the west side.The existing building is 1,700 square feet in size and is 18- feet in height.The proposed space wiii be used for sales.Water service is currently provided by the City of Hagerstown and sewer is on-site.Hours of operation will be 9:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m.Monday through Thursday,9:00 a.m.to 11:00 p.m.on Friday and Saturday,and 12:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m.on Sunday. There will be two employees.Parking spaces required is 6 spaces and there are 10 spaces provided including handicapped spaces,which are signed and striped.No new signs are proposed.There is an existing 20-foot high,25-square foot sign on the eastern side of the entrance.The existing dumpster will be relocated and screened.There will be one delivery truck per week.An appeal for expansion of a non- conforming use and a variance from the 40-foot setback to 20-feet was granted on May 27,2009 by the Board of Zoning Appeals.New landscaping is proposed around the northeast corner and along the side of the bUilding.The site is exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements due to the disturbed area being less than 40,000 square feet.Access to the site will be via Jefferson Boulevard and Sun Valley Drive.All approvals have been received. 222 Discussion:Mr.Reiber asked what affect,if any,the proposed addition would have on water proplems that currently exist in the neighborhood.Ms.Kelly noted that the site is located in a floodplain.She stated that the developer has been working with the County's Engineering Department to resolve any issues.The Engineering Department has not indicated that there would be additional water problems in the area. Motion and vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the site plan as presented.Seconded by Mr. Wiley.The motion passed on a 5-1 vote with Mr.Reiber voting "No". OTHER BUSINESS Paradise Manor,Lot 4 Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a request to use the payment in lieu method to meet Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements for Lot 4 of Paradise Manor.The site is located along the north side of Cranberry Court and the east side of Paradise Church Road and is currently zoned RR - Residential Rural and A -Agriculture.Lot 4 is currently 30.32 acres in size.Lot 4 was originally approved in 2004 as a 1.54 acre lot.In 2007,a replat of several lots in Paradise Manor incorporated all of the forest conservation easement onto Lot 4 and removed the easement from portions of Lots 5 through 11 and Lots 30 and 31.As indicated in a letter from the developer's consultant,Frederick, Seibert &Associates,the developer would like to construct a house on the re-platted Lot 4.Access to the site would be via a long driveway from Paradise Church Road.A total of 3.12-acres of forest conservation area would need to be removed to allow for the driveway and proposed house.The consultant is proposing that the developer,Mr.Paul Crampton,be allowed to make a payment in lieu in the amount of $13,590.72 to meet Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.The aforementioned letter includes information discussing the priorities outlined in the Forest Conservation Ordinance and the reasons why these priorities cannot be met on this site.Ms.Kelly reviewed the FCO priorities with the Planning Commission and noted that payment in lieu is the lowest priority.Mr.Lung pointed out that the existing forest conservation area is a priority retention area that was identified on the original Forest Stand Delineation.lt was also noted that the applicant's statement that staff made an error when .approving forest conservation in a power line easement was incorrect because the recorded plat for Lot 4 calls for the abandonment of this power line and easement.Ms.Kelly stated that correspondence has been received by Staff from several neighbors expressing their concern with regard to the Forest Conservation easement that was originally established.She noted that Ms.Carolyn Motz,Manager of the Hagerstown Regional Airport,expressed her concern with regard to bird strikes at the Airport with the additional planting of trees.Ms.Kelly has received correspondence from Commissioner Aleshire as well. All correspondence was forwarded to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting. Ms.Kelly stated that during previous discussions with Mr.Crampton it was indicated that he would like to remove part of the forest conservation easement area for a sanitary sewer easement.Mr.Lung of the County Planning Department has contacted the Water Quality Department with regard to this issue.Mr. Lung noted that the sewer easement would be used to accommodate Mr.Crampton's proposed development on the Harp Farm on the opposite side of Paradise Church Road.However,the sewer easement is not the only option to serve the Harp Farm property,although it is the preferred option. Discussion:Mr.Reiber expressed his concern with regard to relocating the house on an approved existing lot that has been designated as a forest conservation area.Mr.Reiber made an inquiry regarding the agreement with the Homeowner's Association and the forest conservation area.Ms.Kelly noted that the County does not enforce HOA agreements and any disagreements between the parties would become a civil issue.Mr.Reiber questioned the replanting of trees on-site because there would be remaining lands.Mr.Ed Schreiber of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,the developer's consultant,stated that there is not enough space remaining in the designated forest conservation area. Mr.Kercheval expressed his opinion that Lot 4 is currently a buildable lot without disturbing the forest conservation area and although he understands that moving the location of the house would be more desirable,he does not believe there is a hardship that would warrant removing the forest conservation area.Mr.Kercheval noted that many of the neighbors are opposed to the request because they purchased their properties with the understanding that Lot 4 was to remain a permanent Forest Conservation area.He stated he would not support the request for approval of the payment in lieu to meet Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.Mr.Schreiber stated that the closest house is located 500-feet through a densely wooded forest.Mr.Kercheval stated that the County must report changes in conservation areas to the Department of Natural Resources and why the decisions are made to remove these areas.He does not believe the DNR would favor removing a number one priority forest area.Mr.Wiley and Ms.Parrish concurred with Mr.Kercheval's comments. Mr.Anikis expressed his opinion that removing the 3+acres of Forest Conservation Area to create a lot that would need to be served by a well and septic is not favorable.If the house is located on the lot as previously approved,it would be served by public water and sewer.Mr.Anikis did not agree with the Airport Manager's view and believes that removing part of the forest would cause more hazardous conditions for the Airport because it would disturb the existing bird habitat. Motion and Vote:Ms.Parrish made a motion to disapprove the revised Forest Conservation Plan for Lot 4,Paradise Manor as presented.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.The motion passed unanimously. Mr.Thompson noted that Staff has been researching alternatives for the maintenance of parks and open space areas in developments where Homeowner's Associations are not present.This research is based 223 in part from qiscussions held during the public meeting held in March and subsequent discussions heid in April for a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance for Parks and Open Spaces (RZ-09-005).Mr. Thompson asked the Commission for suggestions at the next meeting. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Planning Commission regular meeting,Monday,August 31,2009,7:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown 2.Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners Joint Public Hearing,Monday, September 14,2009,7:00 p.m.,Washington County Court House,Court Room #1,95 West Washington Street,Hagerstown ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ihL-Ge~Chairman="-------- WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -August 31,2009 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,August 31,2009 in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baitimore Street,Hagerstown. Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Linda Parrish,Sam Ecker,Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley, Drew Bowen and Ex-Officio James F.Kercheval.Staff members present were:Planning Director Michael C.Thompson,Chief Planner Timothy A.Lung,Senior Planner Lisa Kelly,Environmental Land Planner Bill Stachoviak,and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikls called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 3,2009 meeting as amended.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.Unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS FCO-09-001 Mr.Stachoviak presented for review and recommendation a text amendment to the Washington County Forest Conservation Ordinance,which proposes changes to the Ordinance to bring It into conformance with new state laws established by Senate Bill 666,approved on June 22,2009,and House Bill 972, passed in 2008.The Planning Commission held a public meeting to consider the application and hear comments from the public on August 3,2009.Mr.Stachoviak briefly summarized the proposed changes beginning with Section 3.2 that deals with exemptions.The "immediate family member"exemption is being changed to a child of the owner with a forest disturbance threshold of 20,000 square feet.The amendment proposes language to allow the planting of approved street trees in the Urban Growth Area and Town Growth areas.The amendment also proposes the payment in lieu amount of 30 cents per square foot,which is the minimum amount required by the new State law.The new State law would allow the use of forest conservation fund money to be used for maintenance of existing forests and achieving urban canopy goals. Discussion:Mr.Anikis made an inquiry with regard to allowing trees in parking lots as part of Forest Conservation requirements.Mr.Stachoviak stated this issue is being considered under separate text amendments for parking and landscaping standards.Mr.Thompson noted that trees in parking lots are aiso being considered in conjunction with new storm water regulations.Currently,it is not an acceptable practice to count trees as part of the Forest Conservation requirements.Mr.Anikis made an inquiry regarding the maintenance of street trees.Mr.Thompson stated this issue is being considered by the Public Works Department as part of the new street standards.Mr.Kercheval stated that the Public Works Department is more concerned with street trees within the County right-of-ways and interference with public utilities rather than the maintenance of the trees. Mr.Bowen asked if the County Commissioners have held their public hearing for this text amendment. Mr.Thompson stated that the County Commissioners have held their public hearing;however,no action was taken by the BOCC pending the Planning Commission's recommendation.He noted it was necessary to proceed quickly with the amendment in order to meet the State's deadline for adoption of October 1,2009.Mr.Thompson stated that a representative of the Homebuilder's Association was present at the hearing to provide comments.Their major concern was the increase in the payment in lieu amount from 10 cents to 30 cents. Mr.Reiber asked if there are restrictions that would prevent a child who has received a parcel of land from giving that land to their child and asked how long the lot would need to be retained before passing it on to someone else.He expressed concern because there is no way to regulate or enforce the exemption.Mr.Stachoviak stated there is a ten year exemption for a declaration of intent,which is cited in another section of the Ordinance. Mr.Kercheval stated that the Board of County Commissioners expressed concern with the change in the family member exemption.He stated that there is some question as to the interpretation of the new requirement and if the County must be as strict as the State.Mr.Kercheval noted that the old State law exempted "children and grandchildren"and the County Ordinance was written to exempt children, grandchildren,mother and father.The State approved the County Ordinance as previously written and submitted with justification.Mr.Kercheval stated that the BOCC is also concerned with the increase in the minimum payment in lieu amount.Of utmost concern is the impact on economic development specifically on sites where there were no trees,but because the land has been disturbed the developer must now plant trees or make the payment in lieu.Mr.Kercheval believes that the increase would make it more difficult to attract new businesses and bring employers to the area. 224 225 Mr.Wiley believes that the increase in the payment in lieu amount could help preserve more trees in residential developments because developers would pay a higher payment in lieu amount or would need to plant more trees. Mr.Thompson noted that another significant change in the law is the removal of the exemption for development on existing paved surfaces. Mr.Kercheval explained that the BOCC will review all comments received from the public and other agencies regarding the proposed changes.A draft will be prepared of the Ordinance with recommended changes and justification for the changes that do not follow the State law as passed.The draft will be sent to the State for its approval. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed text amendments to the Board of County Commissioners,noting the following concerns:the increase in the payment of lieu amount will have a negative impact on economic development in the County;the lack of enforcement on the transfer of lots to family members;and the removal of the exemption for development on existing paved surfaces and its impact on the County.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.The motion passed on a 6-0-1 vote with Mr.Kercheval abstaining. NEW BUSINESS -SUBDIVISIONS Agape Properties,LLC -Lots 2R and 3R (S-09-017) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval the Preliminary/Final plat for the re-allotment of Lots 2R and 3R located along the northern side of Shepherdstown Pike (Route 34)southwest of the Town of Boonsboro.The property is currently zoned P -Preservation.Lots 2R and 3R were previously approved in 2006 for residential development.A site plan for the remaining lands was approved in 2007 for a pet ·crematory.The developer is proposing to re-align the previously approved property line shown on the original plat of this property.Parcel D is proposed to be added to the existing Lot 3R and increasing its size to 6-acres.Lot 2R would have the northern property line adjusted;however,the size of the lot will remain 3-acres.The remaining lands would be reduced from 41-acres to 38-acres in size.Both lots would be served by individual well and septic as previously approved.Both lots will be used for a landscaping service and retail business and will be served by a single entrance onto Route 34.On-site retention of 13.48-acres of existing forest was previously approved in order to meet Forest Conservation requirements.All agency approvals have been received. -SITE PLANS Mike Van Fleet (SP-09-024) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for Mike Van Fleet for the construction of a landscaping business on Lots 2R and 3R.Lot 2R will contain a 3,200-square foot office building for a landscaping retail business.A 4,800-square foot storage building is also proposed for the sale of nursery plants,mulch and stone.Lot 3R is proposed for a landscape service.No commercial or retail sales will be conducted on Lot 3R.A 6,000-square foot building for the storage of lawn equipment is proposed. The remainder of the lot will be used to store landscaping plants.All buildings will be 3D-feet in height. Exterior lighting on all buildings will be wall-pack dusk till dawn lights.The hours of operation for both sites will be 6:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.Monday through Saturday.Lot 2R will have 3 employees and Lot 3R will have 5 employees.Parking spaces required for Lot 2R is 4 spaces and 6 spaces will be provided. Parking spaces reqUired for Lot 3R is 5 spaces and 5 spaces will be provided.One handicapped space per lot will be provided.There will be one tractor trailer delivery per week.Storm water management is provided by one bank pond and three sand filters.No signs are proposed at this time.All agency approvals have been received. Discussion:Ms.Kelly stated that she made a site visit to check on bUffering requirements that may be needed for the site.There is a 50-foot buffer requirement from the property line and the existing trees would provide adequate buffering between this site and adjoining properties,which are currently used for growing crops.No development currently exists between this site and Monroe Road. Mr.Kercheval made an inquiry regarding a future sign for the property.Ms.Kelly stated that if the owners decided to install a sign,a bUilding permit would be required.A scaled draWing would be required at that time and the Department of Permits and Inspections would oversee conformity of the sign to the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms.Parrish made an inquiry regarding the panhandle located on the right side of the property.Mr. Schreiber of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,consultant,stated that the panhandle was created during the original subdivision of the property. Mr.Anikis expressed his concern with regard to the height and appearance of the buildings because "this is the gateway to the National Battlefield".Ms.Kelly suggested that the Planning Commission could require the developer to retain or plant trees as a buffer.Mr.Schreiber noted that the property is located next to agricultural property and he did not believe that additional buffering is necessary.He also pointed out that there is a lot of grading that will need to be done on the site and part of the trees may need to be / removed within the 50-foot buffer area to accommodate the grading.Ms.Parrish expressed her opinion that,if possible,the trees shouid be preserved.She indicated that there could be development in the future on adjoining properties and buffering would be needed.Mr.Schreiber pointed out that the trees in the buffer are not located in a priority area and the developer is retaining more than 13 acres of trees to meet Forest Conservation requirements.Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that the trees in the buffer area shouid be retained.Mr.Anikis concurred.Mr.Schreiber used a copy of the site plan to show Commission members the tree line and buffer area being discussed and approximateiy how much of the buffer area contains trees.Mr.Wiley expressed his opinion that if the landscaping business exists when adjoining properties are developed,it should be the developer's responsibility of the adjoining property to provide the buffering.Mr.Kercheval concurred with Mr.Wiley's comment.He also noted it is not always feasible to keep trees especially if it prohibits the best grading for a site.Mr.Schreiber stated they would work with the Planning Department,Engineering Department and Soil Conservation District during the pre-construction phase to save as many of the trees as possible. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the Preliminary/Final plat for the re-allotment of Lots 2R and 3R as presented.Seconded by Mr.Kercheval.Unanimously approved. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the site plan with the condition that the developer preserves as many trees as possible in the buffer area.Seconded by Mr.Wiley.Unanimously approved.Unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS RZ·09·005 AND SO-09-002 -Parks and Open Space Text Amendments Mr.Thompson began discussions regarding the Parks and Open Space Text Amendments which were presented at a public meeting on March 16,2009.Members expressed concern during the public meeting with regard to the ownership and maintenance of the open space areas.Mr.Stachoviak has been researching other counties ordinances to see how they deal with ownership and maintenance .issues.He distributed a comparison chart summarizing the criteria used by the City of Hagerstown, Frederick County and Harford County.Members briefly reviewed the chart and Staff's proposal for the dedication of parks and/or open space areas.There were discussions regarding mandatory homeowners associations,the number of lots that would require homeowners associations and the requirements for square footage,slope,floodplain,etc.Currently,the County does not require the dedication of parks/open space area except in Planned Unit Developments.Mr.Bowen asked if storm water management areas could be counted as open space area in the future.Mr.Thompson does not believe it would be counted because many of the storm water management areas must be fenced;therefore,they are not accessible.Mr.Stachoviak noted that the definition of open space states,"storm water management facilities shall not constitute open space". Mr.Bowen expressed his opinion that requiring open space in developments is a good idea;however,it should not become a burden on the County. Mr.Thompson stated that he contacted the County Attorney's Office with regard to collecting a payment in lieu amount for open space area.He noted that money is collected for parks in the excise tax and therefore,the County cannot collect a payment in lieu. Mr.Kercheval expressed his opinion that some of the regulations used in Harford County should be looked at more closely. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners Joint Public Hearing,Monday, September 14,2009 at 7:00 p.m.,Washington County Court House,Room 1,95 West Washington Street,Hagerstown 2.Planning Commission Regular Meeting,Monday,October 5,2009,7:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown 3.Planning Commission Workshop Meeting,Monday,October 19,2009,1:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown ADJOURNMENT Mr.Ecker made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.So ordered. Respectfully submitted, _4~.0 IcLL h ... IS,airman 226 227 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -October 5,2009 The Washington County Planning Commission held its regular meeting and a public rezoning meeting on Monday,October 5,2009 in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown. Members present were:Linda Parrish,Sam Ecker,Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Drew Bowen and Ex-Officio James F.Kercheval.Staff members present were:Planning Director Michael C.Thompson,Chief Planners Timothy A.Lung and Stephen Goodrich,Senior Planner Lisa Kelly,Planners Cody Shaw and Fred Nugent,Environmental Land Planner Bill Stachoviak,and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. Also present was Elmer Weibley,District Manager of the Washington County Soil Conservation District. CALL TO ORDER In the absence of the Chairman,Vice-Chairman Terry Reiber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. REZONING PUBLIC MEETING RZ-09-006 -Text Amendment Mr.Goodrich presented for review and comment a proposed text amendment for Article 22,Section 22.21 (g)Signs Permitted without Zoning Permit.Currently,the Zoning Ordinance limits the placement of election and campaign signs to 45 days prior to election day and removal 15 days after election day.The proposed amendment would remove the 45 day and 15 day time limits for election and campaign signs. The amendment will state that election signs are permitted without a permit and they may not interfere with traffic visibility.The amendment is needed because it has been determined that time limits on election or campaign signs are an unconstitutional limitation on freedom of speech.Mr.Goodrich cited two federal district court cases and a Supreme Court case,which decided that the time limitations were unconstitutional.He clarified that the time limitations were added to the Zoning Ordinance in 1987 as a result of guidelines established by the State Highway Administration with regard to signs placed along SHA roads. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Kercheval questioned whether an election sign could be erected prior to the 45 day limit if a permit was obtained for the sign.He also questioned how the cited court cases pertain to the County's Ordinance with regard to permits for election signs.Mr.Kercheval stated he would discuss this issue further with the County Attorney's office. The Rezoning Public Meeting was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. MINUTES Ms.Parrish made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 31,2009 meeting as amended. Seconded by Mr.Ecker.Unanimously approved. NEW BUSINESS - MODIFICATIONS Robert Firey,Lot 2 (5-09-050) Mr.Shaw presented for review and approvai a request for a waiver of the 50-foot agricultural land use setback to 15-feet.The property is located along the west side of Rockdale Road in Clear Spring and is identified on Tax Map 8,Grid 23,Parcel 30.The proposed lot is 1-acre in size and is zoned Agricultural- Rural -A(R).According to Section 5.A.5 of the Zoning Ordinance,the Planning Commission may increase the minimum setbacks up to 50-feet for properties adjacent to parcels that are actively farmed or parcels with an Agricultural district designation.The applicant,Mr.Robert Firey,is requesting a waiver from the 50-foot setback requirement for a proposed dwelling.The proposed dwelling meets the minimum setbacks reqUired for the A(R)zone,which are 40-feet for the front yard setback,15-feet for the side yard setback and 50-feet for the rear yard setback.However,the proposed lot cannot meet the 50- foot agriculturai setback.Mr.Firey submitted the following information for the Planning Commission members to consider when reviewing this request:the lot is being given to an immediate family member who is very familiar with farming practices;the 50-foot setbacks imposed on a 1-acre lot drastically reduce the available building envelope;the potential to subdivide adjacent lots off in the future negates the need for agricultural setbacks;and,the land directly to the south is wooded with no need for the spreading of manure or spraying of pesticides.Staff has no objection to the modification request. Discussion and comments:Ms.Parrish asked if a reduction in the setback on the south side is also necessary.Mr.Schreiber of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,the applicant's consultant,stated that a reduction is needed on both sides;however,the south side could accommodate a 25-foot setback.The 15-foot setback on the north side is needed due to the geographic features of the lot. Motion and Vote:Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the modification request as presented. Seconded by Mr.Wiley.Unanimously approved. Paradise Manor,Lot 4 Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a request to create a stand-alone parcel along the east side of Paradise Church Road and adjacent to Cranberry Court in Paradise Manor.The property is currently zoned A (Agriculture)and RR (Residential Rural)and the total site is 30.3 acres in size.During the August 31,2009 Planning Commission meeting,a request was heard by members of the Commission to subdivide the 30 acre parcel into two single-family lots.The Planning Commission denied that request. The developer is now proposing to create a .77-acre building lot adjacent to Cranberry Court,which was the lot size proposed on the previousiy approved final plat of Paradise Manor in 2004.The remaining 29- acres would be presented on a simplified plat as a lot not for development and for conservation purposes only,which would include all of the forest retention and afforestation areas for the entire Paradise Manor subdivision.Section 318 of the Subdivision Ordinance states that the simpiified plat procedure is for the purpose of property line adjustments or for the enlargement of an existing lot of record;it is not intended to be used to create a stand-alone lot for agricultural or conservation purposes.The developer's claim of hardship is that 3D-acres would be too large for a single-family residential lot because the forest conservation easement prevents most of the property from being used.The developer purchased the 30- acre lot to construct a gravity sewer line system that would link to an existing sewer pump station on Emerson Drive to serve a proposed development on the west side of Paradise Church Road (known as the Harp property).In order to construct the proposed sewer line,1.15-acres of land currently in a forest conservation easement area would need to be removed.There are currently no trees in this proposed easement area.The trees were planted;however,they did not survive.The developer is proposing to relocate the forest conservation easement area onto the Harp property and plant trees at a 2:1 ratio. There Is no other place on the site (Lot 4)to plant the 1.15-acres of forest.A letter was distributed prior to the meeting to Planning Commission members from the Department of Water Quality regarding the proposed gravity sewer line.A letter was also received by the Commission from adjoining neighbors voicing their concerns with regard to the proposal. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Ecker asked why the trees could not be replanted on the property.Mr. Schreiber of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,the developer's consultant,stated that the proposed sewer line needs to be placed on the property for the development across the road and there is no other place on the property to plant the trees.An inquiry was made with regard to the sewer easement area and the maintenance of the grass in this area.Mr.Schreiber stated that the owner/developer (Mr.Paul Crampton)would be responsible for cutting the grass in the sewer easement area.Mr.Kercheval noted that the proposed sewer line easement area has not been definitely established.Mr.Schreiber stated that the proposed sewer line is the preferred method to serve the proposed development across the street instead of constructing a new pumping station,which would be an on-going cost to the County.The existing pumping station could be retrofitted with a gravity feed line to serve the proposed development. Mr.Kercheval made an inquiry regarding the upgrades to the existing pump station.Mr.Schreiber noted that the upgrades would not change the appearance to the outside of the pumping station.Mr. Thompson stated that the Department of Water Quality would prefer a gravity feed sewer line;however, there are other options. Mr.Jason Divelbiss,the developer's attorney,stated that the developer would replant the 1.5-acres of forest on the subject site if the Commission prefers.However,the developer is offering to plant 4.6-acres of forest off-site (on the Harp property)as an alternative.There was a brief discussion regarding a surety bond posted by the previous developer and held by the County for the 1.5 acres of afforestation. Commission members discussed enforcing the bond with the original developer. Ms.Parrish expressed her opinion that the original developer should replant the 1.5 acres of trees on the original site because it is in a sensitive area and the adjoining property owners were expecting to have the forest there.Mr.Wiley agreed that the original developer should replant the trees,but he is not opposed to the off-site planting.Mr.Bowen expressed his concern with regard to approving an easement for a sewer line for a development that has not been approved by the County.He expressed his opinion that because Mr.Crampton owns the 29-acre parcel,a sanitary sewer easement could be requested anytime after a plat for the proposed development is approved.Mr.Divelbiss pointed out that because the area is encumbered by the forest conservation area,ownership of the property does not guarantee that it would be usable for the intended purpose of a sewer easement in the future.The developer wishes to design the proposed development around a viable course for the sanitary sewer.Mr.Bowen believes that a plat should be prepared shOWing the proposed forest conservation area for the off-site planting. Mr.Divelbiss stated that the developer would not be opposed to preparing a plat shOWing the proposed forest conservation area for the off-site planting.Mr.Wiley agreed that a plat should be prepared showing the proposed forest conservation area;however,he believes that the Commission should consider the least expensive cost to the County. Mr.Kercheval began a brief discussion regarding changes he believes are necessary to the "not for development"note shown on the plat.Mr.Thompson stated that Staff would work with the County Attorney's office regarding this issue. Motion and Vote:Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the request to create a .77-acre stand-alone parcel with a 29.54-acre remaining parcel "not for development",which should be noted on the plat with language determined acceptable by Staff and the County Attorney's office.Seconded by Mr.Wiley. Unanimously approved. 228 229 Motion and Vote:Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the request for the sanitary sewer easement with Staff to determine where the trees should be planted to meet the requirements of the Forest Conservation area.Seconded by Mr.Wiley. Discussion:Ms.Parrish asked for ciarification to determine the amount of afforestation that is needed to meet the requirements of the Forest Conservation area.Mr.Bowen stressed his opinion that a plat is needed to show where the Forest Conservation area would be located. Vote:The motion failed with Mr.Ecker and Mr.Kercheval voting "Aye"and Mr.Wiley,Ms.Parrish and Mr.Bowen voting "no". Motion and Vote:Ms.Parrish made a motion to table the approval of the sewer easement and Forest Conservation area until plans have been submitted showing the proposed development (on the Harp property),the proposed sanitary sewer line location (where they are running and how they are feeding the sewer)and the area proposed for afforestation.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.The motion passed with Mr. Bowen,Mr.Kercheval and Ms.Parrish voting "Aye"and Mr.Ecker and Mr.Wiley voting "No". -SITE PLANS Allenburg Orchards (SP-09-033) Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a site plan for Allenburg Orchards located adjacent to the owner's private lane,Barth Spring Lane,and Raven Rock Road along Route 491 northeast of Smithsburg.The property is zoned A(R)-Agriculture Rural.The owner is proposing to construct a 3,328 square foot produce stand and pole bUilding for his orchard business.The building will be located on Mr. Allenburg's property along with other existing sheds and storage buildings.No new sign age is proposed. Proposed lighting will be wall-pack and dusk to dawn lights.Solid waste will be collected in an indoor storage receptacie and disposed of by a private hauler.The hours of operation would be July through November,9:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.Monday through Friday,9:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.on Saturday and 12:00 .noon to 4:00 p.m.on Sunday.There will be two employees.Parking required is six spaces and 12 spaces will be provided inciuding one handicapped space.There will be one box truck per week making deliveries.A sand filter will be used for storm water management purposes.The site is exempt from Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements because there will be less than 40,000 square feet of disturbed area.Final approvals are pending from the State Highway Administration and the County Engineering Department. Discussion and Comment:Mr.Kercheval asked who owns Barth Springs Lane.Mr.Schreiber of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,the owner's consultant,stated that the property owner owns the lane in fee simple title.Mr.Allenburg,owner,noted that the produce stand will contain 660 square feet of space and the rest of the building will contain cold storage facilities and a sorting area. Motion and Vote:Mr.Ecker made a motion to approve the site plan as presented.Seconded by Mr. Bowen.Unanimously approved. Eastern Primary School (SP-09-026) Mr.Lung presented for review and approval a site plan for the proposed Eastern Primary Schooi located at the northeast corner of Mt.Aetna Road and Yale Drive.The property is located in the Urban Growth Area and is zoned RS -Residential Suburban.The site is approximately 52-acres in size,contains approximately 17 acres of forest,and currently contains the Children's Village of Washington County and a barn.As noted on the Staff Report,the site contained a log house and barn referenced in the County's Historic Sites Inventory as 1-438,which was demolished in 1975.An existing storm water management pond is iocated in the northwest corner of the property.There is a 100-year flood plain area associated with the site,which is contained within the confines of the storm water management pond.The proposed primary school will be a single-story structure consisting of Area A -kindergarten wing,Area B - a central area containing the administration and facuity offices,etc.,Area C - a common area gym and cafeteria, Areas D and E will house the first and second grade classrooms.The site plan also inciudes alternates for an activity room and community gym located to the rear of the building as well as an extension to the canopy at the bus and student drop-off area.The total area of the building is 79,263 square feet with an additional 3,516 square feet of alternate space.Provisions for deliveries and the coilection and storage of waste and recyclables are provided to the rear of the center section of the building.Public water and sewer from the City of Hagerstown would serve the site.Access to the site would be via Yale Drive.Two entrances will serve the dedicated bus loop as well as the maintenance and delivery loop.There will be a separate entrance for staff and visitor parking in the student drop-off loop.Based on the County Public Works Department's review,improvements will be required on Yale Drive.The Zoning Ordinance requires that parking for schools be based on 1 space per employee and ample student and visitor parking.According to the site data shown on the site plan,75 employees and 695 students are proposed.Proposed are 110 parking spaces inciuding 6 handicapped spaces.An additional 32 spaces would be provided with the community gym alternative.Approximately 19.7%of the ultimate parking area will be green space;5%is the minimum required by the Zoning Ordinance.No bicycie parking is provided and none is required at this time.Several fenced play areas are proposed near the building.A large multi-purpose athletic field is proposed,which will be unfenced and will be located approximately 150-feet away from any public road.A lighting plan was provided which shows high efficiency lighting and a photometric plan showing zero trespass onto any nearby residential development.Sidewalks are proposed along Yale Drive and Mt.Aetna Road and will tie in with existing sidewalks.Several pedestrian crosswalks will also be provided.Storm water management quantity control will be via the existing pond on the northwest corner of the site.A new water quality structure will be built adjacent to the quantity structure and no fencing is proposed.Landscaping will be provided around the bUilding,in parking Islands and along Yale Drive.Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements will be met on-site by retention of 8.08 acres of existing forest and 2.4 acres of forest will be planted.An easement plat will be required.All agencies have reviewed the site plan and are in the second revision cycle.At this point,no significant design changes are anticipated.All of the comments from the Planning Staff have been addressed. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Reiber made an inquiry regarding the road improvements that will be required along Yale Drive.Mr.Lung stated there will be alignment of some of the entrances between this school and the existing Eastern Elementary school.The proposed bus loop entrance has been laid out to provide for the best method of ingress and egress for buses on both sites.Mr.Mark Felton of Triad Engineering,the applicant's consultant,explained that the significant change in Yale Drive will be the revision from two 11-foot lanes to four lanes.This improvement will be made from Mt.Aetna Road to Stanford Road.Mr.Felton briefly explained the County Engineering Department's requirements.Mr. Reiber expressed concern regarding the safety of buses crossing the road from one school to another. Mr.Felton briefly explained the proposed traffic pattern between the two schools.Mr.Reiber expressed concern regarding the traffic for residents and the new hospital on Yale Drive.Mr.Felton stated that an intense traffic study was performed and submitted to the County Engineering Department.No negative comments have been received regarding traffic issues. Ms.Parrish asked if the existing barn would be used and if so,for what purpose.Mr.Lung stated the barn will be used for the storage of maintenance equipment by the school. Mr.Bowen also expressed concern regarding traffic issues.Mr.Kercheval stated that Staff has been working with the Board of Education on traffic related issues.Mr.Bowen expressed concern regarding the stacking of buses on Yale Drive.Mr.Chad Criswell,a representative of the Washington County Board of Education,stated that the proposed school is a "third-lier school",which means there would only .be two or three buses coming in to the schools at a time.He also noted that the traffic study performed was extensive and included the new hospital and other future development.All of this information was reviewed extensively with the County Staff and incorporated into the design of road improvements needed. Mr.Kercheval made an inquiry regarding the sidewalks on the south side of Yale Drive.There was a brief discussion regarding this issue and Mr.Felton stated the plan would be revised to include sidewalks in the area in question.Mr.Kercheval questioned the amount of proposed parking.Mr.Felton noted that there is an advantage to having both schools so close together to share parking.He also noted that the bus loop could be used for after school activities.He believes there is adequate parking for day to day activities.Mr.Kercheval expressed his opinion that parking must be adequate to insure that cars are not parking along Yale Drive or Mt.Aetna Road.Mr.Bowen asked if crossing guards have been considered in order to keep parents from crossing the road to pick up students at each school.Mr.Felton stated that parents will need to cross the street to pick up and drop off students at each school.Cross walks are proposed for students walking to school from nearby residential developments. Motion and Vote:Mr.Kercheval made a motion to approve the site plan as presented contingent upon adjustments to the sidewalks as discussed and all agency approvals.Seconded by Mr.Wiley. Clarification:Mr.Bowen verified with the consultant that there will be 80-feet of right-of-way for future road expansions. Vote:Unanimously approved. Motion and Vote:Mr.Kercheval made a motion to approve the Forest Conservation Plan as submitted. Seconded by Mr.Wiley.Unanimously approved . •FOREST CONSERVATION Larry and Vicky Rollins Mr.Weibley of the Washington County Soil Conservation District presented for review and recommendation for approval a proposed Forest Conservation easement purchase and tree planting for property located in Hancock.Mr.and Mrs.Rollins are requesting that 12.2-acres of existing forest be placed in a forest conservation easement and are proposing to plant 17.7 acres of forest.Two priority areas will benefit from the existing forest and the additional plantings including a steep slope of 24%and a tributary to Little Tonoloway Creek.The total cost for the easement and tree plantings would be approXimately $96,000,which would include maintenance of the plantings for two years. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed project to the Board of County Commissioners.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.The motion passed on a 4-0 vote with Mr. Kercheval abstaining. Brookmeade Apartments Mr.Stachoviak began by giving the Commission a brief background of this project.He stated that during site development of Brookmeade Apartments located along 1-81 near Williamsport,8.3-acres of forest 230 231 was cleared and .27 acres of forest was retained.A portion of the clearing occurred prior to site pian approval within an area intended for Forest Conservation.Based on the Forest Conservation Plan Worksheet,5.01 acres of afforestation was required for the site.Approximately .81 acres of forest was planted on-site and the remaining Forest Conservation requirement was met by planting 4.2 acres of forest aiong Whitetail Road east of Smithsburg.The property along Whitetaii Road was owned by a development company that is now in foreclosure by its lender.Because the bank did not consent to the easement,the easement will terminate when the foreclosure is finalized.Therefore,Shaool Brookmeade Development,LLC (the owner of Brookmeade Apartments)is requesting the use of the payment-in-Iieu method to now meet the Forest Conservation requirements. Discussion and Comment:Mr.Kercheval also gave a brief history of this project.When Brookmeade Apartments were first constructed,the developer claimed that the contractor made a mistake in clearing some of the trees and requested approval of the payment-in-lieu method to meet Forest Conservation requirements.The Planning Commission denied the request and approved the off-site retention of forest on property located on Whitetail Road.First United Bank and Trust (the "Lender"),the beneficiary under a deed of trust secured by the property servient to the afforestation easement,claims it did not authorize or consent to the granting of the afforestation easement.Consequently,if the foreclosure proceeds,it would extinguish the easement.Mr.Kercheval stated he would not support the approval of a payment-in- lieu at this time.He recommends that the developer find another off-site retention area or is in violation of the Forest Conservation Ordinance,which carries a fine of $1000 until the issue is resolved. Mr.Thompson stated that Mr.Shaool would like to find another property for forest retention or the planting of trees.However,this resolution would take more time.Mr.Anikis expressed his opinion to Mr. Thompson that a new off-site retention area should be located. Mr.Schubel of Schubel &Hadigian,attorney for Shaool Brookmeade Development LLC,stated that there is no pending foreclosure on the property at this time.He further explained that there was a tax sale on adjoining property in 2008 and foreclosure has been started on that property.However,the case has been dismissed.Mr.Schubel stated that until there is a foreclosure,the easement is not in danger.He .recommended that no action should be taken at this time.Mr.Kercheval expressed his opinion that the County does not have a secure easement because the Lender has not signed an easement agreement. Therefore,the developer should be responsible for getting the agreement signed or obtaining a new easement on another piece of property. Mr.Weibley stated that if there is a lien on the property,an easement cannot be obtained without a subordination agreement.He noted that without a subordination agreement,the easement is not secure. Mr.Reiber suggested that Mr.Schubel contact his client and discuss alternatives to resolve this issue and to bring the recommendations back at the next Planning Commission meeting.Mr.Thompson suggested that Mr.Schubel contact Andrew Wilkinson in the County Attorney's office to discuss alternatives. Motion and Vote:Mr.Kercheval made a motion to deny the request for payment-in-Iieu to meet Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements and to table the issue for 30 days in order to give the applicant time to work with the County Attorney's office to determine alternatives to resolve this issue.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.Unanimously approved. Mr.Kercheval left the meeting at 9:00 p.m. OTHER BUSINESS 2008 Annual Report Mr.Thompson began the presentation by informing the Commission there is new information required in Annual Reports submitted to the State each year and noted that the State must also file Annual Reports each year.Mr.Nugent explained the process and forms Staff used in preparing the Report.He noted that zoning map amendments and text amendments as well as changes to the Comprehensive Plan are included in the Report.A large section was included regarding Transportation.The Annual Report for 2009 will be due on July 1,2010 using the new format adopted by the State. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Reiber asked if the data incorporated in the UGA Report is included in the Annual Report.Mr.Goodrich clarified that development activity is not identified in the UGA Report; however,the boundary of the UGA is the same in both Reports.He noted that,"in the much,much bigger picture the proposal is designed to impiement the overall State policy of concentrating growth in the existing urban areas and the Report is a way to document that the growth is happening".Mr.Nugent noted that next years report will include many of the text amendments proposed in the UGA Report.Mr. Thompson noted that the affects of the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance is not required in the Annual Report for 2009;however,it will be required in the 2010 Annual Report.He stated there are specific goals that need to be set as part of the APFO and the County will be rated on meeting those goals.Staff is asking the Commission members for comments on the Annual Report.After a brief discussion,it was decided that the Commission members will make their comments at the Workshop scheduled on October 19th • UGA Report Update Mr.Goodrich began by stating that in the State of Maryland the Planning Commission is vested with the responsibility to develop and present a land use plan and regulations to implement the plan for adoption by the elected officials (Board of County Commissioners).He cited the Comprehensive Plan (adopted in 2002)and the Rural Area Rezoning (adopted in 2005)as examples.Staff is now ready to present a proposal for Zoning Ordinance text and map amendments for the Planning Commission to accept as its document or for modification to be presented during the public hearing process.Mr.Goodrich suggested that the Planning Commission members review Staff's proposed changes to the zoning text prior to the Workshop meeting on the 19th . Mr.Goodrich explained that the UGA Committee was appointed by the BOCC in 2007 and was assigned 6 tasks relative to the Urban Growth Area.In September 2008,the Committee made its first report to the BOCC relative to the first 5 tasks assigned.The final task,which was the Zoning Ordinance text and map amendments,have been reviewed by the Committee during the past year.The Committee's final Report was presented to the BOCC on September 15,2009.Staff anticipates conducting workshops with the BOCC to review the recommended changes.Mr.Goodrich briefly reviewed the UGA Committee's report and its contents.There was a brief discussion regarding individual requests for zoning of properties, which Staff recommends be considered during the public hearing process.Mr.Goodrich asked the Commission members to focus on Staff's recommendations on the proposed text and maps for further discussion during the Workshops. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Planning Commission Workshop meeting,Monday,October 19,2009,1:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown 2.Planning Commission Regular meeting,Monday,November 2,2009,7:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown ADJOURNMENT Mr.Ecker made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:40 p.m.Seconded by Mr.Wiley.So ordered. ~. v'"'L7 ' Terry Reiber,Vice-Chairman 232 233 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -October 19,2009 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Wednesday,October 19, 2009,at 1:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown. Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Andrew Bowen,Terry Reiber,Sam Ecker,Clint Wiley and Linda Parrish (arrived at 1:15 p.m.).Staff members present were:Planning Director Michael Thompson,Chief Planner Steve Goodrich,Senior Planner Jill Baker,Planners Cody Shaw and Fred Nugent,GIS Technician Meghan Hammond and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard.Also present was Kathy Kroboth,Department of Permits &Inspections. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. DISCUSSIONS 2008 Annual Report Mr.Thompson began the meeting by asking Commission members for their comments regarding the 2008 Annual Report,which was presented to the Commission at its regular meeting on Monday,October 5th .The State of Maryland requires an annual report to be filed by the Planning Commission each year. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to accept the 2008 Annual Report and to have the Report submitted to the State of Maryland as presented.Seconded by Mr.Ecker.Unanimously approved . .Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Ms.Baker presented a proposal for a text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding "administrative adjustments".In accordance with Articie 66B of the Annotated Code of Maryland,"administrative adjustments"are permitted.Ms.Baker explained that "administrative adjustments"are an abbreviated process of the Board of Zoning Appeals handled through the County's Department of Permits and Inspections.Variances to very limited and very specific bulk requirements would be permitted by the Zoning Administrator and inciude setback requirements,distance requirements as outlined in Section 4.9, building height,and parking space and parking aisle dimensions.The variance should not exceed a 20% reduction of the unmodified standard.Ms.Baker stated that a notification process would be adopted to notify adjacent and confronting property owners when a variance has been requested.If there is any opposition to a variance request,an administrative adjustment would not be granted and the applicant would be required to file the request with the Board of Zoning Appeals.Ms.Baker explained that decisions of the Zoning Administrator could be appealed and the applicant could continue the process with the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms.Baker noted that during a meeting with the County Attorney's Office,recommendations were made for changes to the proposed document.Staff will continue working with them on the recommendations. Ms.Baker explained that the "administrative adjustments"are not intended to correct problems "after the fact".Ms.Baker presented samples of the letter used during the notification process and a handout that will be given to applicants explaining the process in detail. Discussion:Mr.Reiber and Mr.Wiley expressed their opinions that the proposed text amendment will be a benefit to the County as well as applicants.Mr.Anikis expressed his concern regarding a proposed use and asked how this type of request would be handled.Ms.Baker explained that uses and intensity would not be covered under this procedure.Mr.Anikis made an inquiry regarding the cost for this process.Ms.Baker stated that staff has proposed a fee of $75.00,which would be non-refundable.Mr. Anikis asked if a sign could be placed on the property in lieu of sending letters.Ms.Baker stated that the intent is to notify only the ciosest neighbors that would be impacted by the change.She also noted that placing a sign on the property would add to the costs and could increase the time frame for granting the variance. Review of Zoning Ordinance Text Changes for the UGA During the October 5th regular Pianning Commission meeting,copies of the Urban Growth Area Advisory Committee's (UGAAC)Recommendations for proposed zoning map and text amendments in the Urban Growth Area were distributed to Commission members.The original proposed text changes were Staff's first draft to implement the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan adopted in 2002.The same concepts of growth areas and rural areas that had opposite but complimentary land use policies remained throughout the 2002 update.The comprehensive rezoning of the rural area was adopted in 2005.The Urban Growth Area includes the City of Hagerstown,Funkstown and Williamsport.The town growth areas for Boonsboro,Hancock,Smithsburg and Clear Spring will be completed at a later date. Mr.Goodrich briefly explained the process and materials used to prepare the proposed text and map amendments for the UGA.He cited examples of proposed changes such as requiring traffic data as part of the PUD submittal process and issues regarding hazardous wildlife around the Airport. Mr.Goodrich stated that the Commission will be using the UGAAC's report,which includes the Staff's proposed text and map amendments.He stressed that the UGAAC's recommendations were submitted directly to the Board of County Commissioners and are not submitted to the Planning Commission for its review or approval.Planning Commission members are encouraged to read the report and may use recommendations from the UGAAC if appropriate.Mr.Goodrich reiterated that the Planning Commission should make recommendations based on the Staffs proposed map and text amendments or the Commission's own proposed changes. Mr.Goodrich introduced members of the UGAAC in attendance at the Workshop meeting (Linda Irvin- Craig,Hank Livelsberger,Jerry Ditto and Mike Armei). Mr.Goodrich summarized briefly proposed changes to the text of the various zoning districts in the UGA. The proposed changes are as follows: •Agriculture and Conservation zoning districts -Eliminate from the UGA •Change the RR (Rural Residential)zoning district to RT (Rural Transitionai)zoning district >-Reduce the lot size to increase density >-Remove some commercial uses as Special Exception uses •RS (Residential Suburban)zoning district -Remove some commercial uses from the Special Exception uses,no change in lot size •RU (Residential Urban)zoning district -generally the same changes as the RS zoning district •RM (Residential Multi-family)zoning district >-Improve the design gUidelines >-Limited density to 12 dwelling units (du)per acre (currently 16 du per acre) •BT (Business Transitional)zoning district -Remove from UGA •BL (Business Local)zoning district >-Less intense uses to be permitted -make more "neighborhood-friendly" >-Improve design guidelines •BG (Business General)zoning district >-Better development standards >-Reduction of impervious surface from 90%to 80% •IT (Industrial Transitional)zoning district -Eliminate from the UGA •IR (Industrial Restricted)zoning district -Improved design guidelines •IG (Industrial General)zoning district -generally unchanged •Change the PUD (Planned Unit Deveiopment)zoning district to Mixed Use Floating Zone,which will have 3 zoning categories -residential,residential/commercial and residential/commercial! Employment,improve process and design gUidelines •PB (Planned Business)zoning district >-Improved process >-Improved design guidelines •PI (Planned Industrial)zoning district (for industrial parks)-Improve advanced planning and development review process •HI (Highway Interchange)zoning district -Abandon completely -no longer exists on map •Change HI-1 (Highway Interchange 1)to HC (Highway Commercial)zoning district -Remove industrial uses •HI-2 (Highway Interchange 2)zoning district -Eliminate from the UGA •AP (Airport)zoning district >-Better describe the Overlay zone that currently exists in the rural area >-Addition of the Hazardous Wildlife Attractant Management zone •ORT (Office/ResearchlTechnology)zoning district -No changes •ERT (Education/Research/Technology)zoning district -A new zone created cooperatively between the Hagerstown Community College staff and the Planning staff. •ORI (Office/Research/Industry)zoning district -A new zone created by the UGAAC.This is not part of the Staffs proposal. Mr.Bowen made an inquiry regarding the "grandfathering"of existing uses on property that has its zoning designation changed.Mr.Goodrich stated that the use will be allowed to continue as a non-conforming use.Once the use has stopped for six months or more,it will no longer be permitted in that zoning district. The Zoning Ordinance aiso allows some uses to expand,but the amount of expansion could be limited to 35%.Mr.Goodrich noted that in most districts lot size requirements have not been changed in order to allow uses to comply. The Commission began with a review of Article 7 -RR (Rural Residential)zoning district.Staff is proposing to change the title to RT (Residential Transition)to better reflect the intent of the zoning district. The RT district is a transition district from the urban area to the rural area.The "purpose paragraph"has been revised to better describe the purpose of the district.The improved "purpose paragraph"provides more guidance to enable staff to implement requirements on a day to day basis.Staff is proposing to add the folloWing,"All new development in the RT district shall be served by public water and sewer facilities." Mr.Goodrich noted that this requirement may be difficult to implement "across the board"and Staff is 234 235 considering ways to moderate and encourage the requirement as often as possible without preventing development.Mr.Bowen expressed his opinion that a list of special exceptions should be provided when public water and sewer would not be required.He believes the threshold needs to be very high.Mr. Wiley concurred.Mr.Wiley expressed his opinion that exceptions could be made to properties on the fringe of the growth area.Members discussed cost issues for water and sewer connections versus the use of wells and septic areas. Mr.Goodrich began a discussion of the principal permitted uses in the RR (RT)zoning district.He noted that modifications have been made to Agriculture as a principal permitted use.New animal husbandry facilities are discouraged due to the monetary investments needed for large scale operations and the conflict between urban uses (residential development)and animal husbandry operations.Mr.Goodrich noted that Staff is proposing to define a "large scale"operation and a "small scale"operation.The special exception uses have been modified to remove commercial uses.Mr.Anikis made an inquiry regarding half-way (rehabilitative)houses and where they would be permitted in the County.Mr.Goodrich stated they would not be allowed in the RT zoning district.Mr.Anikis also made an inquiry regarding bed and breakfast operations.Ms.Baker stated that Staff has been discussing owner occupied bed and breakfast facility.Mr.Goodrich stated that bed and breakfasts are a permitted use in the A(R)(Agriculture Rural), EC (Environmental Conservation)and P (Preservation)zoning districts.Mr.Anikis expressed his opinion that bed and breakfasts should be a special exception use if it is owner-occupied.Mr.Goodrich stated that minor changes to the lot area with yard requirements are proposed.The changes will slightly reduce the lot area requirements for single-family and semi-detached dwelling.Related lot width requirements and front yard depths are proposed to encourage more density.Mr.Goodrich briefly reviewed the table for minimum lot area requirements in Section 7.5.There was a brief discussion regarding minimum lot area requirements for schools.Mr.Thompson stated that the State currently does not have any minimum requirements for lot sizes.It was noted that minimum lot requirements for schools has been reduced in the County thereby reducing the amount of land needed for new schools,which would cut costs. Mr.Wiley suggested that bike trails or lanes should be added to the requirements as well as sidewalks in the UGA.Ms.Baker noted that the County is currently in the process of drafting new road standards 'based on lot size requirements.Requirements would include sidewalks,road widths,on-street and off- street parking,street trees,etc.There was a brief discussion that these requirements should be carried over in all residential zoning districts,not just the RM zoning district as currently proposed. •Consensus:The Planning Commission recommends strict adherence to the requirement for public water and sewer with a concise list of exceptions. •Consensus:Requirements for sidewalks and bicycle lanes should be required in all residential zoning districts. •Consensus:Owner-occupied bed and breakfast facilities should be allowed in the RS (RT) zoning district as a special exception use. •Consensus:Staff needs to define "large-scale"and "small scale"animal husbandry facilities. Mr.Goodrich began reviewing Article 8 -RS (Residential Suburban)District zone.He noted that the purpose statement has been improved to provide a better description and reflect the intent of the RS zone.The principal permitted uses listed in Section 8.1 are currently allowed.The commercial uses have been eliminated as special exception uses in the RS district.Mr.Goodrich noted that the proposed front yard depth requirements were recommended by the UGAAC.The lot size requirements are not proposed to be changed.There was a brief discussion regarding the front yard depth requirements.Staff does not support the proposed changes to the front yard depth.Mr.Thompson noted that a smaller front yard depth causes problems for parking of larger vehicles that block the sidewalks or parking more than one vehicle in the driveway. •The Commission recommended that public water and sewer shall be required in this zoning district and there would be no exceptions. The Commission began its review of Article g -RU (Residential Urban).Mr.Goodrich briefly noted the proposed changes.He noted the proposed lot area requirements recommended by the UGAAC.Two minor corrections were pointed out:the spelling of the word incidental on page 2 (Section 9.3)and consistency in the wording for the public water and sewer requirements.There was a brief discussion regarding "home occupations",which has been clearly defined in the Zoning Ordinance.Ms.Baker noted there are several restrictions that apply to "home occupations".Ms.Parrish made an inquiry regarding the change from one and one-half (1 )1,)stories to two (2)stories as recommended by the UGAAC.Mr. Goodrich explained there is not a definition for half-stories in the building code,which is creating problems for administering the Ordinance.Staff is not opposed to the recommendation to eliminate half- stories.Staff is in fact proposing to recommend the elimination of all references to stories and refer to height by feet only in the Ordinance.Ms.Baker stated that recent text amendments have been adopted that defines building height by feet. Mr.Goodrich began a review of Article 10 -RM (Residential,Multi-Family)zoning district.He noted that the permitted density has been reduced from the current 16 dwelling units (du)per acre allowed for apartments to proposed 12 du per acre for all multi-family uses.The following reasons were given to support the recommendation:the Comprehensive Plan recommends reducing the density in this zoning district,there has never been a request for development using 16 du per acre,and Staff believes that 12 du/acre is more appropriate in the County to reduce competition with development in the City of Hagerstown.Ms.Parrish questioned the increase to a four story building with a limitation of 12 units.Mr. Goodrich reiterated that Staff is proposing to eliminate stories from the Ordinance and measure the height in feet.There was a brief discussion regarding the reduction in the dweiling units per acre and other requirements that must be met.Ms.Parrish expressed her opinion that the UGA is intended for growth. She believes that the increase in the height restrictions could encourage more dweiling units per acre; therefore,the County should not reduce the number of dwelling units per acre.Mr.Reiber expressed his concern with Staff's recommendation with townhouses and condominiums as examples.There was a brief discussion regarding smaller building footprints thereby reducing density and increasing green space.Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that in the future,the four-story,50-foot limitation will become a problem especially on apartment complexes. •Consensus:The Pianning Commission agrees with Staff's proposal of 12 dwelling units per acre. In conclusion,Mr.Goodrich asked Commission members to consider the concept of a residential zoning district in the UGA for single-family dwellings only as recommended by the Comprehensive Plan.This concept will be discussed during the next Workshop meeting. FUTURE MEETINGS 1.Monday,November 16,2009,3:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street 2.Monday,November 23,2009,3:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 3:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Q-<AY<(j1 rL k GEflrgei'Anikis,Chairman 236 237 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING -November 2,2009 The Washington County Pianning Commission held its regular meeting on Monday,November 2,2009 in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown. Members present were:George Anikis,Linda Parrish,Sam Ecker,Terry Reiber,Drew Bowen and Ex- Officio James F.Kercheval.Staff members present were:Planning Director Michael C.Thompson,Chief Planners Timothy A.Lung and Stephen Goodrich,Senior Planners Lisa Kelly and Misty Wagner-Grillo, Pianner Cody Shaw and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 5,2009 meeting as amended. Seconded by Mr.Ecker.Unanimously approved. OLD BUSINESS RZ-09-006 Text Amendment Mr.Goodrich presented for review and recommendation a text amendment to Articie 22;Section 22.21 (g) to remove the time limit on the posting of election signs.The text amendment was presented during a public meeting on October 5,2009.Mr.Goodrich noted that no persons spoke in favor of or against the proposed text amendment.After the Planning Commission makes its recommendation,the Board of County Commissioners will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment. Discussion:Mr.Kercheval stated that he spoke with the County Attorney's Office regarding the 45 day time limit for the erection of campaign signs.The County Attorney will further investigate the time limitations for compiiance with the freedom of speech act.Ms.Parrish expressed her opinion that the proposed change to the Ordinance is not needed. Motion and Vote:Ms.Parrish made a motion to recommend denial of the proposed text amendment to the Board of County Commissioners.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.The motion passed with Ms.Parrish,Mr. Bowen and Mr.Ecker voting "Aye",Mr.Reiber voting "No"and Mr.Kercheval abstained. Paradise Manor,Lot 4 Ms.Kelly presented for review and approval a request to reiocate 1.15 acres of existing forest in Paradise Manor for a future sanitary sewer easement.This request was reviewed by the Planning Commission during its October 5,2009 meeting and a motion to table the request was passed pending further clarification by the developer.The applicant/developer,Paul Crampton,is proposing to plant 4.6 acres of forest on an adjacent property (the Harp Farm),which he also owns.The proposed deveiopment of the Harp Farm would require 11.66 acres of forest to meet current Forest Conservation Ordinance requirements.A total of 16.26 acres of forest would be required for retention and afforestation of both properties. Discussion:A drawing was presented showing the proposed areas to be pianted and the sensitive areas that would be protected. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to amend the reforestation piat for Paradise Manor to allow the proposed sanitary sewer easement by relocating 1.15 acres of forest plantings on the Harp Farm property.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.Unanimously approved. Brookmeade Apartments Mr.Thompson presented a request from the County Attorney's office for a continuance of the Brookmeade Apartments Forest Conservation request.He noted that discussions between the attorney for Brookmeade Apartments,Mr.Schubel,and the County Attorney's office are on-going.The Planning Commission,during its October 5,2009 regular meeting,denied a request by Brookmeade Development LLC for payment-in-lieu to meet Forest Conservation requirements. Discussion:Mr.Kercheval expressed his disappointment that the issue was not resolved within the 30 day time frame given to the applicant at the October 5th meeting.He further stated that the land on which the forest easement was placed was owned by Whitetail Development LLC.Mr.Kercheval stated that he believed the land was owned by the applicant (Brookmeade Development LLC). Commission members discussed setting a definitive date on which the issue must be resolved or the applicant will be fined $1,000 per day for non-compliance.Mr.Anikis recommended that the issue be resolved prior to the December ]'h meeting date.If the issue is not resolved,the County will begin assessing the $1,000 per day non-compliance fine.Commission members,by consensus,agreed to the recommendation. NEW BUSINESS -MODIFICATIONS Dale Price (SV-09-013) Mr.Shaw presented for review and approval a modification request from Section 405.11.G.5 of the Subdivision Ordinance,which limits the maximum length of a panhandle to 400-feet.The property is located along the north side of Bakersville Road,approximately 1.23 miles west of the Sharpsburg Pike (Tax Map 66,Grid 18,Parcel 12)in a permanent agricultural easement.The total site acreage is 252.9 acres and is zoned A(R)-Agricultural Rural.The existing and proposed use of the property is for agriculture.The property is proposed to be conveyed to an immediate famiiy member.The applicant is requesting the creation of a 1603 foot panhandle to access an existing landlocked lot of record.The applicant's reason for the variance is due to the irreguiar shape of the parcel and the explanation of hardship cited on the modification application states:"The two existing parcels in question,both owned and farmed by the applicant,are currently divided in an east-west direction,which landlocks the 88 acre parcel.The applicant wishes to divide the property in a north-south direction thus providing both parcels with road frontage (one parcel by way of the proposed panhandle).This is primarily being done for estate planning purposes."Mr.Shaw stated that the modification request was sent to the County's Engineering Department and Fire and Emergency Services.The Engineering Department responded with the fOllowing comments that must be addressed prior to approval:the proposed entrance must meet the County's requirements for adequate sight distance,new entrances must be spaced a minimum of 100- feet from any existing entrance,a 3D-foot right-of-way dedication is required,the panhandle width must be 25-feet (the proposed panhandle is 3D-feet wide),the panhandle should be widened to 50-feet along the frontage on Bakersville Road and the project must comply with the County's Storm Water Management Ordinance at the time of permitting.The Department of Fire and Emergency Services responded with the following comments:access roads should have an unobstructed width of 20-feet and 13.5 feet of vertical clearance,supporting driveways over 150-feet in length should have an unobstructed width of 12-feet and 13.5 feet of vertical clearance,the road shall be designed and constructed to accommodate the load and turning radius of large apparatus typically used to respond to a specific location,and any road in excess of 300-feet in length shall be provided with approved turnarounds.Staff has no objection to approving the request contingent upon all issues cited by the Engineering Department and Fire and Emergency Services being addressed. Discussion:Mr.Kercheval asked for clarification of the location of the proposed right-of-way in relation to the existing driveway for Cedar Hill Farms.Mr.Schreiber of Frederick,Seibert &Associates,Inc.,the owner's consultant,stated the right-of-way is on the east side.He noted that the plan has been changed slightly and there will be a shared driveway.Mr.Kercheval stated that a maintenance agreement will be required for the shared driveway and a turn around for emergency vehicles will also be required.Mr. Reiber expressed his opinion that the maintenance agreement should be recorded as part of the deed. There was a brief discussion regarding the maintenance agreement and the responsible party for its preparation.The maintenance agreement for the shared driveway should be noted on the subdivision plat as well as the requirement for a turn around when a dwelling is built on the parcel.Mr.Bowen clarified that final approval of the subdivision plat will be granted following recordation of the maintenance/use agreement. Motion and Vote:Mr.Kercheval made a motion to approve the modification request for a panhandle length of 1603-feet to the eXisting landlocked lot of record contingent upon all County Engineering Department and Department of Fire and Emergency Services requirements being met,the use/maintenance agreement for the shared entrance between this lot and the lot owned by Cedar Hills Farm LLC is noted on the subdivision plat,the turn around requirement is noted on the plat and proof must be provided that the maintenance agreement has been recorded prior to final approval of the subdivision plat.Seconded by Mr.Reiber.Unanimously approved. -SUBDIVISIONS Williamsview I (PP.07-003) Ms.Wagner-Grillo presented for review and approval the preliminary plat for Williamsview I (Ebersole property)located along the north side of Kendle Road west of Maryland Route 632.In February 2007, the Planning Commission approved the clustering concept for this development,which allows the reduction of lot areas without increasing the density.The property is zoned A -Agriculture and is located in the Urban Growth Area (UGA).The developer is proposing 214 single-family lots on 138.15 acres. The development is located in the Williamsport Elementary,Springfield Middle and Williamsport High school districts.The Halfway Volunteer Fire and Rescue Company would serve the development.Water service would be provided by the City of Hagerstown and sewer service would be provided by the Washington County Department of Water Quality.No floodplains or wetlands exist on the parcel. Minimum building setbacks will be 3D-feet in the front,10-feet on the side and 40-feet in the rear.The average proposed lot size is AD-acre.Storm water management will be proVided through four storm water management ponds,containing approximately 12.14-acres.Open space area is approximately 19.9%or 21.9 acres of the net tract area.Forest Conservation requirements would be met by planting trees on-site,which would be contained in the open space areas and the majority of the rear part of the proposed lots.No construction draWings were submitted with the preliminary plat;therefore,no traffic studies have been submitted to the County Engineering Department for their review.Mr.Mark Stransky of the County Land Engineering Department submitted the following comments to Staff:"Land Development Engineering has not seen,reviewed or approved any improvement plans or construction plans for this project.We have only approved the preliminary plat;therefore,we have not given final 238 239 approval to any roadway sections,storm water management or grading."Ms.Wagner-Grillo stated that a note has been added to the plans on Sheet 6,which states,"The configuration and number of lots may change in order to comply with roadway design criteria and storm water management regulations."The new storm water management regulations must be used for any project that does not have a grading permit by May 4,2010.Gatling Drive wili be a designated through road and will connect to Maryland Route 632 (Downsvilie Pike).It will also go through the Halteman property and connect to an industrial area as indicated by the future right-of-way extensions shown on the plat.The roadway sections shown on the plat may be revised on the improvement/construction plans.Previously,Staff recommended that some of the open space areas should not be used for Forest Conservation areas as proposed because these areas cannot be used for recreational activities.In 2007 during its review,the Planning Commission recommended access to the open space areas for walking trails.Access has been provided to a majority of the open space areas.Staff is recommending that ali lots have access to the open space areas and that some of the open space areas should be reserved for recreation.Ms.Wagner-Grillo showed Commission members the historic properties surrounding the proposed development.The historic dwelling on the Halteman property is bordered by storm water management and forest conservation areas.There is a historic dweliing across Kendle Road and another at the point of Edward Doub Road,which is next to a storm water management area.There is also a historic dwelling on the Britner property.The Historic District Commission,in 2007,recommended buffering for ali of these properties.Ali agency approvals have been received. Mr.Jeremy Ruiter,the developer's representative,was present at the meeting.He stated that in other developments that his company has built,forest trails in the conservation areas do not work weli due to privacy and safety issues.He stated that the forest is being used as a buffer.Mr.Rutter noted that by using the cluster concept design,11 acres of forest would be saved.He believed that the open space issue had previously been resolved. Discussion and Comments:Mr.Reiber expressed his concern regarding pedestrian access and sidewalks.Ms.Wagner-Grillo stated that the developer was provided with copies of the Planning Commission meeting minutes from 2007 and they were made aware of this issue.Mr.Rutter stated that 'ali lots wili be given access to the open space areas and sidewalks have been added.However,the developer did not believe that walking trails were needed because sidewalks have been provided.Mr. Kercheval stated that the Department of Public Works has been reviewing the overall transportation needs of the County during the past year.He noted that this area has been examined and Gatling Drive was proposed in an effort to get traffic diverted toward Downsville.Mr.Kercheval noted that the industriai area to the north of the site has been recommended by the Urban Growth Area Advisory Committee to be rezoned for residential uses.The Economic Development Commission agreed with that recommendation and believes that the railroad tracks to the rear of the industrial area would be a good dividing point between residential and industrial development on the other side of the tracks.There was a brief discussion regarding the transportation plan for the County and how the design of this development would help alieviate some of the issues.Mr.Anikis asked what guarantee the developer has that he wili be able to gain access across the adjacent properties to Downsville Pike.Mr.Tim Fagee,the developer's representative,stated there are no guarantees.He noted that the road system was proposed by the County's Public Works Department and not the deveioper.Mr.Anikis expressed his concern that if the proposed road does not come to fruition,the only access for the development would be onto MD Route 68 or another route.Mr.Fagee noted that the development would have access to Kendle Road. However,as the area develops other routes would be possible.Mr.Anikis expressed his concern that there is no open space area for recreational purposes in this development.He also expressed his opinion that the Homeowner's Association should be vigilant to insure that the trees in the Forest Conservation areas are not cut down by homeowners.These areas need to be posted with the appropriate signs. Motion and Vote:Mr.Bowen made a motion to approve the preliminary plat contingent upon the developer providing access to all open space areas.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.Unanimously approved. -SITE PLANS 115 Downsville Cell Tower (SP·09-038) Ms.Keliy presented for review and approval a site plan for a monopole cell tower to be located along the west side of Jordan Road near Fairplay.The property is zoned A(R)-Agricultural Rural.A private lane that connects to Jordan Road will serve the site.The developer is proposing to construct a 190-foot monopole communications tower designed for four carriers on a leased area of 60 x 100 feet.The leased property is owned by Downey Farms,Inc.with a total parcel area of 159-acres.The leased area wili include a 40 x 80 foot fenced compound with the monopole tower,a concrete pad and equipment cabinet. Three additional areas for concrete pads for future carriers will also be on the site.An 8-foot fence with barbed wire wili encircle the pads and tower with an identification sign posted on the fence.The minimum setback requirement is 200 feet.The disturbed area of the site will be less than 40,000 square feet; therefore,there are no Forest Conservation requirements.The site will be located in a wooded area, which cannot be seen from Jordan Road.The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a special exception for the proposed tower in March 2009.Ali agency approvals have been received. Discussion and Comments:Ms.Parrish asked if there would be space reserved for the County on the proposed tower.Ms.Keliy stated that a note has been included on the plan providing space for 911 and County use.Mr.Thompson noted there was a recent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance requiring space for the County on ali celi towers. Motion and Vote:Ms.Parrish made a motion to approve the site plan as presented.Seconded by Mr. Reiber.Unanimously approved. Gapland MD -100 Cell Tower (SP-09-028) Ms.Keily presented for review and approval a site plan for a unipole ceil tower located along the east side of Kaetzel Road south of Gapland.The property is zoned P -Preservation and the existing use is agriculture.The developer is proposing to construct a 109-foot unipole communications tower on a leased area of 1.27 acres,with a total tract area of 45.6-acres.The leased area will include a 40 x 80- foot fenced area with a unipole tower,a concrete pad,a cabinet for equipment,and locations for 5 additional pads.A 6-foot fence with barbed wire wili encircle the pads and tower and will include an identification sign on the fence.A 11 O-foot setback is required from ail property lines and a 309-foot setback is required from ail residential properties.There are no overhead transmission lines in the area. The unipole will not be lit and wiil be painted in park service brown as required by the Board of Zoning Appeals.The tower wiil be situated in an area of mature vegetation on a plateau.The 12-foot gravel access road to the site will connect with Kaetzel Road.Easement agreements have been signed with the property owner to insure that the property does border Kaetzel Road.Ail lease documents,photo simulations and environmental site assessments have been submitted to the Planning office and were presented at the Board of Zoning Appeals hearing.The Forest Conservation Ordinance requires the planting of 1.35-acres of trees;however,the developer is requesting to make a payment-in-lieu to meet these requirements,which would equal $5,880.60.The payment-in-lieu meets the requirements established for the "express procedure".The Board of Zoning Appeals granted a special exception in July of 2007 for the ceil tower.County Engineering Department approvals are pending;all other agency approvals have been received. Motion and Vote:Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the site plan as presented contingent upon County Engineering Department approval.Seconded by Mr.Ecker.Unanimously approved. OTHER BUSINESS Mr.Thompson stated that the Maryland Department of Planning will now be requiring Planning Commission members,Board of Zoning Appeals members,etc.to receive training.The MDP will be offering on-line courses in the near future to assist members in meeting these requirements. Mr.Thompson stated that a site plan was received for the new mathematics and science building proposed at the Hagerstown Community Coilege.Staff has also received a copy of the College's overall master plan.Mr.Thompson would like the College to present the master plan to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission to give Staff the authority to approve individual site plans meeting ail County requirements as they are submitted. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Planning Commission Workshop Meeting,Monday,November 16,2009,3:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown 2.Planning Commission Workshop Meeting,Monday,November 23,2009,3:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown 3.Planning Commission Regular Meeting,Monday,December 7,2009,7:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown ADJOURNMENT Mr.Bowen made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m.So ordered. Respectfuily submitted, o~"-~L' Geor/ge Ani19S,Chairman 240 241 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -November 16,2009 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Wednesday,November 16, 2009,at 3:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown. Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Andrew Bowen,Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Linda Parrish (arrived at 3:10 p.m.)and Ex-Officio James Kercheval.Staff members present were:Planning Director Michael Thompson,Chief Planner Steve Goodrich,Planner Fred Nugent,and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 3:05 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Reiber made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 19,2009 Workshop meeting.Seconded by Mr.Bowen.Unanimously approved. DISCUSSIONS Mr.Goodrich began a discussion regarding the concept of a zoning district that would allow single-family dwellings only.He noted that the Comprehensive Plan makes reference to such a district and states,"It is also recommended that at least one of the zoning designations associated with low-density policy area be limited to single-family housing units only."Currently,no zoning district has that distinction.Mr. Goodrich noted that the Comprehensive Plan recommends that the zoning district should be on the ."fringe"of the Urban Growth Area (UGA). Mr.Anikis expressed his opinion that the zoning district is a good idea and believes it would give developers another choice.However,he believes the district should be allowed in more dense areas of the UGA and not restricted to the "fringe"areas.Mr.Goodrich stated that the Comp Plan identifies this zone as a replacement for some of the land currently zoned for agriculture,which is being eliminated. Mr.Kercheval expressed his opinion that a single-family only zone is not necessary.Developers could create developments with single-family homes in zones that are currently available.Mr.Kercheval believes that the "market"will create the need. Ms.Parrish expressed her opinion that conceptually people would like developments around them that contain only single-family homes because the density would be less.However,she believes there is a need for duplex type dwellings with today's family situations and economics.She agreed with Mr. Kercheval that this type of a zoning district is not necessary. •Consensus:The Planning Commission does not recommend the creation of a zoning district for single-family only dwelling units. Continued Review of Zoning Ordinance Text Changes for the UGA Mr.Goodrich began with a review of Article 11 -"BL"Business Local zoning district.He noted that the purpose statement was revised and that the zoning district was re-created to be a more "neighborhood- friendly"or "business friendly"oriented district as recommended by the Comp Plan.The principal permitted uses are intended to be uses that are necessary for the routine daily shopping needs of the nearby neighborhood and should be of an appropriate use intensity and scale to be compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood.Staff reviewed all of the principal permitted uses to determine the uses they believe are inappropriate in a local neighborhood zone.He noted that service stations,pet shops,commercial parking lots,funeral establishments,schools (art,trade,business or nursery schools) drive-in restaurants,and outdoor advertising signs should be eliminated as principal permitted uses.Staff originally proposed size limitations on a few of the permitted uses;however,upon further review Staff believes size limitations might be appropriate for all of the permitted uses.Mr.Goodrich noted that the UGAAC recommended that the proposed size limitations should be removed. The Commission briefly discussed the proposed size limitations noting that the success of the business would be determined by the "market".The Commission also discussed neighborhood shopping centers and size limitations.Mr.Kercheval expressed his concern for allowing major uses (such as a Food Lion) on small parcels.He believes there is an advantage to having the BL zone that allows for small businesses.Members expressed their concern for the small businesses that want to expand because they have outgrown their location within the BL zone.These cases could be handled through the Board of Zoning Appeals.There was a brief discussion addressing a review of the map and the potential for changing the proposed BL zoning to BG zoning on some properties.Mr.Bowen questioned what kind of problems Staff has seen with the BL zoning district in the past,which negate the need for the proposed changes to the district.Mr.Goodrich stated that there have been conflicts between residential uses being next to a business local use and cited a few examples for the Commission. 242 Commission members discussed uses that could be more problematic than others and suggested removing them as principal permitted uses.The hours of operation,trip generations and noise leveis were cited as three of the largest contributors that make business uses undesirable next to residential uses.Mr.Goodrich noted that Staff is proposing stricter design gUidelines for all of the zoning districts. Changes are proposed to screening and buffering standards,loading areas,landscaping,etc.Staff is also proposing the adoption of lighting standards for the County.He noted that there was no rear yard setback requirement,in some cases,in the BL zoning district.Mr.Goodrich suggested that more design guidelines could be used as a way to restrict more of the uses in the BL zone. Mr.Wiley questioned the restriction of "retail only"on bakery shops and not on candy stores or florist shops.He noted that candy stores and florist or garden shops couid also sell their products wholesale.If these businesses are restricted to retail only in the BL district,Mr.Wiley believes that they should be allowed as a wholesale business in the BG zoning district. Mr.Goodrich pointed out that the uses in the BL zone could be limited by size for some or all permitted uses,re-evaluate the permitted uses and potentially eliminate some of the uses or regulate the uses by applying stricter design guidelines.He suggested that the Commission members should consider the previously mentioned limitations and discuss the issue further at the next workshop meeting.Mr.Anikis stated that he is not opposed to size limitations on permitted uses or limiting the size of the expansion of an existing use.He believes there needs to be some type of control so developers know up front what their limitations could be.Mr.Bowen suggested that each case should be evaluated individually. Mr.Anikis asked if Staff could calculate the acreages of the parcels currently zoned BL in the UGA.Ms. Parrish expressed her opinion that the size of the parcel will help to determine the business that will be located on it.She also expressed her opinion that all of the permitted uses currently proposed are businesses that people want in their neighborhood.Members believe that the design guidelines will help to determine the uses proposed on particular parcels of land.This issue will be discussed after Staff has gathered the requested information. Mr.Goodrich continued with the review of Article 11.He noted that agriculture,as an interim use,is a new use in the BL zone.Mr.Goodrich stated that Staff is recommending that animal husbandry facilities should not be permitted in the BL zone for the following reasons:they would be objectionable near residential uses and these facilities are expensive to start and operate.It is an attempt to discourage investment in a use that is known to be incompatible with future adjacent development.He noted that language has been included for "functionally similar"uses and for existing businesses located in the BL zone that are not listed as principal permitted uses.Mr.Goodrich noted that the height limitations in the BL zone have changed from 50-feet to 25-feet.There was a brief discussion regarding "stories"versus "feet"when measuring height. •Consensus:The Planning Commission recommends the 25-foot height limitation in the BL zone. The final issue discussed in Article 11 was the proposed design standards.Staff is proposing to change the impermeable site coverage from 80%of the gross area of the site to 70%,which would mean more green space.Outdoor storage has been better defined.Mr.Goodrich noted that Section 11.6 (H)and (I) were recommendations made by the UGAAC.He stated that the language in Item I was extracted from the City of Hagerstown's guidelines. Mr.Kercheval questioned the refuse collection areas if the parcel is surrounded on all sides by residential properties.Staff will reconsider this issue and propose language to better address It.There was a brief discussion regarding noise from outside sources on businesses,such as drive-thru windows. Mr.Kercheval left the meeting at 4:20 p.m. The Commission began its review of Article 12 "BG"Business General district.Mr.Goodrich noted minor changes that were made to the purpose statement and principal permitted uses.He stated that truck terminals are proposed to be eliminated as a principal permitted use in the BG zone.Mr.Anikis noted that the language regarding the requirement of public water and sewer services should be consistent. Mr.Goodrich noted that language has been included for "functionally similar"uses,which can be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals.Currently,no language exists and appeals cannot be granted by the BZA.Design guidelines have been added to the BG zone and include changes to the impermeable site coverage from 90%to 80%of the gross area of the site.Mr.Goodrich stated that language relative to outside display areas being designated on site plans has been added.This language would provide consistency with the proposed parking standards.Ms.Parrish asked If the outside display areas were previously discussed by the Planning Commission.Mr.Goodrich noted that it was discussed as part of the text amendment for parking standards.The Board of County Commissioners has not acted on those amendments;however,if the parking amendments are not approved,this language will be taken out of the BG text.Mr.Goodrich noted that language was proposed by the UGAAC for square footage limitations for shopping centers in the BG zone.Ms.Parrish expressed her opinion that the size limitations are "too limiting"in the BG zone.Other members agree that size limitations are not appropriate in the BG zone.There was some confusion among members of the UGA Committee that were present regarding the size limitations recommendation.UGA Committee members (Linda Irvin- Craig and Jerry Ditto)did not believe that the Committee made that recommendation and was mistakenly 243 Commission members discussed uses that could be more probiematic than others and suggested removing them as principal permitted uses.The hours of operation,trip generations and noise levels were cited as three of the largest contributors that make business uses undesirable next to residential uses,Mr.Goodrich noted that Staff is proposing stricter design gUidelines for all of the zoning districts. Changes are proposed to screening and buffering standards,loading areas,landscaping,etc.Staff is also proposing the adoption of lighting standards for the County.He noted that there was no rear yard setback requirement,in some cases,in the BL zoning district.Mr.Goodrich suggested that more design guidelines could be used as a way to restrict more of the uses in the BL zone. Mr.Wiley questioned the restriction of "retail only"on bakery shops and not on candy stores or florist shops.He noted that candy stores and florist or garden shops could also sell their products wholesale.If these businesses are restricted to retail only in the BL district,Mr.Wiley believes that they should be allowed as a wholesale business in the BG zoning district. Mr.Goodrich pointed out that the uses in the BL zone could be limited by size for some or all permitted uses,re-evaluate the permitted uses and potentially eliminate some of the uses or regulate the uses by applying stricter design guidelines.He suggested that the Commission members should consider the previousiy mentioned limitations and discuss the issue further at the next workshop meeting.Mr.Anikis stated that he is not opposed to size limitations on permitted uses or limiting the size of the expansion of an existing use.He believes there needs to be some type of control so developers know up front what their limitations could be.Mr.Bowen suggested that each case should be evaiuated individually. Mr.Anikis asked if Staff could calculate the acreages of the parcels currently zoned BL in the UGA.Ms. Parrish expressed her opinion that the size of the parcel will help to determine the business that will be located on it.She also expressed her opinion that all of the permitted uses currently proposed are businesses that people want in their neighborhood.Members believe that the design guidelines will help to determine the uses proposed on particular parcels of land.This issue will be discussed after Staff has gathered the requested information . .Mr.Goodrich continued with the review of Article 11.He noted that agriculture,as an interim use,is a new use in the BL zone.Mr.Goodrich stated that Staff is recommending that animal husbandry facilities should not be permitted in the BL zone for the following reasons:they wouid be objectionable near residential uses and these facilities are expensive to start and operate.It is an attempt to discourage investment in a use that is known to be incompatible with future adjacent development.He noted that language has been included for "functionally similar"uses and for existing businesses located in the BL zone that are not listed as principal permitted uses.Mr.Goodrich noted that the height limitations in the BL zone have changed from 50-feet to 25-feet.There was a brief discussion regarding "stories"versus "feet"when measuring height. •Consensus:The Planning Commission recommends the 25-foot height limitation in the BL zone. The final issue discussed in Article 11 was the proposed design standards.Staff is proposing to change the impermeable site coverage from 80%of the gross area of the site to 70%,which would mean more green space.Outdoor storage has been better defined.Mr.Goodrich noted that Section 11.6 (H)and (I) were recommendations made by the UGAAC.He stated that the ianguage in Item I was extracted from the City of Hagerstown's guidelines. Mr.Kercheval questioned the refuse collection areas if the parcel is surrounded on all sides by residential properties.Staff will reconsider this issue and propose language to better address it.There was a brief discussion regarding noise from outside sources on businesses,such as drive-thru windows. Mr.Kercheval left the meeting at 4:20 p.m. The Commission began its review of Article 12 "BG"Business General district.Mr.Goodrich noted minor changes that were made to the purpose statement and principal permitted uses.He stated that truck terminals are proposed to be eliminated as a principal permitted use in the BG zone.Mr.Anikis noted that the language regarding the requirement of pubiic water and sewer services should be consistent. Mr.Goodrich noted that language has been included for "functionally similar"uses,which can be granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals.Currently,no language exists and appeals cannot be granted by the BZA.Design guidelines have been added to the BG zone and include changes to the impermeable site coverage from 90%to 80%of the gross area of the site.Mr.Goodrich stated that language relative to outside display areas being designated on site plans has been added.This language would provide consistency with the proposed parking standards.Ms.Parrish asked if the outside display areas were previousiy discussed by the Planning Commission.Mr.Goodrich noted that it was discussed as part of the text amendment for parking standards.The Board of County Commissioners has not acted on those amendments;however,if the parking amendments are not approved,this language will be taken out of the BG text.Mr.Goodrich noted that language was proposed by the UGAAC for square footage limitations for shopping centers in the BG zone.Ms.Parrish expressed her opinion that the size limitations are "too limiting"in the BG zone.Other members agree that size limitations are not appropriate in the BG zone.There was some confusion among members of the UGA Committee that were present regarding the size limitations recommendation.UGA Committee members (Linda Irvin- Craig and Jerry Ditto)did not believe that the Committee made that recommendation and was mistakenly 244 incorporated into the text of the BG zone.Mr.Goodrich stated he would re-check this recommendation and make the appropriate corrections,if needed. The Commission did not make any formal recommendations with regard to the BG zoning district. The Commission began its review of Article 13 -"IR"Industrial Restricted zoning district.Mr.Goodrich stated that the Comp Plan does not recommend a lot of changes to this zoning district.The purpose statement was revised to clearly state that the IR zoning district Is Intended for "low density manufacturing and assembly processes that may not require extensive measures to allow compatibility with adjacent land uses."The UGA Committee recommended private,on-site wells to provide "process"water for use in manufacturing instead of paying for water from public water sources.The Health Department does enforce strict regulations for the use of "process"water. Mr.Goodrich pointed out the addition of the detailed language for agriculture as an interim use and animal husbandry facilities that have ceased operations.He explained some of the points of discussion of the UGAAC with regard to agriculture. There was a brief discussion regarding heiiports as a principal permitted use in the IR zone.Mr.Anikls expressed his opinion that helipads should be a speciai exception use rather than a principal permitted use.Mr.Wiley interjected that the County is already competing with other states for business and restricting helipads could be detrimental to the County attracting more businesses.FolloWing a brief discussion,Mr.Anikis agreed that helipads couid be a benefit to businesses in the County. There was a brief discussion regarding the UGAAC's recommendation for parking lots other than those for employees or patrons of the principal permitted use on site.The Commission discussed several examples when these types of parking lots could be beneficial and useful to the County. Mr.Goodrich continued the review of the IR zoning district pointing out minor changes suggested by Staff or the UGAAC.He noted that the design standards as previously discussed would be added to the IR zone.The Commission made no formal recommendations on the IR zoning district. The Commission then focused its review on the IG zoning district.Mr.Goodrich noted that minor modifications were made to this zone.He noted that the UGAAC recommended adding grain milling, storage,feed production and sales as industrial uses related to agriculture.Mr.Anikis expressed his opinion that penal and correctional institutions should be a special exception use and questioned if the County wants to encourage more facilities by allowing them as principal permitted uses.There was a brief discussion about State and Federal governments overriding the County's zoning authority if they want a prison located in the County.Mr.Goodrich noted that the UGAAC recommended that heliports and printing and publishing be added to the list of principal permitted uses In the IG zone.He noted that the UGAAC recommended bio-diesel production and storage should be a special exception use in the IG zone.Staff believes that the bio-dlesel element is a good recommendation.Mr.Goodrich noted that a requirement was added for the Board of Zoning Appeals to consider the effects of mineral extraction and related uses on public roadways to be considered and the BZA may impose additional restrictions according to guidelines contained in Section 15.3 F-H of the Zoning Ordinance.Mr.Goodrich stated that the UGAAC recommended an increase in height from 75-feet to 100-feet to encourage more industry. Mr.Anikis suggested that the language with regard to the BZA's consideration of uses on public roadways should be added to special exception uses In the IR zone. The Commission took a 5 minute recess at 5:05 p.m.Mr.Reiber left the meeting at 5:10 p.m. The Commission began reviewing the current PUD zoning district.This zone is proposed to be renamed Mixed Use Floating Zone.Because this is a floating zone,it may be requested in many of the zoning districts in the UGA.This zone will provide a lot of fiexibility for developers and provides the Planning Commission with the authority to allow the flexibility as well as be strict in development review.The Comp Plan recommended that the PUD zone should be broken down into two districts (one for residential uses only and one for residential and commercial uses together).However,after discussions with the UGAAC,three distinct districts are being proposed.Mr.Goodrich gave a brief explanation of each zone and the principal permitted uses allowed in each.He noted that the bulk storage of petroleum and propane as a principal permitted use in the MXR floating zone was recommended by the UGAAC.These storage facilities wouid be used for distribution only for the residential uses in the floating zones.Mr. Anikis asked If the Commission should recommend these facilities to be located underground.Mr.Bowen expressed his opinion that the tanks would be safer underground and Mr.Wiley expressed his opinion that underground storage would be more aesthetically pleasing.Mr.Ditto (a member of the UGAAC who was present at the workshop)questioned pollution Issues for underground storage.Planning Commission members questioned the joint use of petroleum for heating purposes in a development. •Consensus:The Planning Commission recommends that propane storage tanks should be located underground and the word petroleum should be stricken. As the Commission began its review of the table on page 3 of the Mixed Use Floating Zones,Mr. Goodrich pointed out that the Planning Commission will have the authority to modify the recommended limitations by 10%without additional public hearings.He stated that the Comp Plan recommends minimum areas for the Mixed Use Floating zones.Staff is recommending a minimum area of 25 acres for the MXR zone,50 acres for the MXC zone and 100 acres for the MXE zone.The UGAAC recommended no minimum area for the MXR and MXC zones and 50 acres for the MXE zone.Mr.Thompson explained 245 that the UGAAC's recommendation for no minimum area would help to infill small areas in the UGA.Mr. Bowen expressed his opinion that PUD's need to have minimum areas.However,he agrees that infill is needed in some areas where it would be difficult to get the minimum area requirement.Mr.Wiley and Mr. Bowen supported Staff's proposal.Mr.Goodrich explained that Staff believes that larger spaces are needed in order to get the desired mixtures to operate like an integrated community.Mr.Ditto introduced the concept discussed by the UGAAC of going "vertical"or high-rise buiidings whereby a developer could have commercial uses on the bottom story,office space available on the second story,and apartments or condominiums on the upper floors.Staff beiieves that the "vertical concept"would be appropriate in some areas;however,open space and other requirements are still needed.Height limitations are another consideration that would need to be addressed in order to make the "vertical concept"work.Staff is not proposing adjustments to the height iimitation that would make the "vertical concept"viabie at this time.Members briefly discussed allowing a PUD on a smaller parcel if the structures are going vertical,in which case there should be fewer restrictions on height iimitations.Some Commission members do not beiieve that Washington County is ready for structures larger than four or five stories in height. Mr.Bowen expressed his opinion that even though he believes that Washington County is not ready for high-rise structures,he believes that the option should be available and allowed.Mr.Goodrich read proposed text in the MU zoning district that states,"The Planning Commission may allow reductions or require increases in bUilding spacing or height where it will be consistent with the purpose of the mixed use fioating zone of promoting creativity,allowing fiexibility,efficient use of the iand in creating a compatible mixture and arrangement of iand uses."Members discussed the height limitations and high- rise structures,which would allow for an increase in density.Ms.Parrish expressed her opinion that residents of the County do not want denser development.Mr.Goodrich noted that even though the County has the PUD zoning that allows 12 dweliing units per acre,there has not been a developer that has requested that amount of density.Mr.Wiley expressed his opinion that denser development would help to preserve the agricultural iand and rural areas.Ms.Parrish expressed her opinion that zoning could be changed in the future to accommodate the more dense development. •Mr.Anikis suggested that language be written in a 4th category to encourage developers to be creative.Mr.Goodrich pointed out that the UGAAC recommended 24 dwelling units per acre in high-rise bUildings.Mr.Wiley beiieves that a 4th option wouid clarify the intent for more flexibility in design with the "vertical concept"being the key element on a smaller parcel of land.Mr. Nugent suggested zoning categories to be labeled "MX","SD"(speciai design)or "FD"(flexible design)with no minimum area size.The residential,commercial and employment uses would be subject to review and the maximum dweliing unit per acre would have a minimum of 12 du/a or would be subject to review by the Planning Commission.These categories would be site specific. Mr.Anikis asked if public hearings would be required for the Mixed Use Floating zone.Mr.Goodrich stated that a public hearing would be required to obtain the Mixed Use Floating zone on a property,the same as the requirement for a PUD. Mr.Anikis asked if there wouid be enough water pressure to accommodate high-rise buildings.He expressed his concern because there is currently a strain on the City's water supply.Mr.Goodrich stated that a health requirement for a minimum amount of water pressure at a faucet or outlet,which will be governed by the County's bUiiding codes and health codes.Water pressure is also a function of location in relationship to the water source. The Commission continued its review of the chart on page 3 of the Mixed Use Floating zones.Under the column titled "Residential Uses",Mr.Goodrich noted that minimums have been proposed for the mix of residential uses and the type of units to be placed in each zone.He also reviewed the commercial uses for each zoning designation.The Commission discussed the proposed maximum of 10%commercial uses in the MXC zone.Some members believe this is too restrictive. ADJOURNMENT Mr.Anikis adjourned the meeting at 6:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, (J~o~L Geifge An1kis,Chairman 246 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -November 23,2009 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Wednesday,November 23, 2009,at 3:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown. Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Andrew Bowen,Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Linda Parrish,Sam Ecker (arrived at 3:17 p.m.)and Ex-Officio James Kerchevai (arrived at 3:10 p.m.).Staff members present were:Planning Director Michael Thompson,Chief Planner Steve Goodrich,Senior Planner Jill Baker,Pianner Fred Nugent,and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 3:07 p.m. DISCUSSION Mr.Goodrich began the workshop by distributing charts detaiiing information requested during the November 16th workshop meeting.He reminded members that during the last Workshop,the Commission discussed a possible 4th mixed use floating zone to promote deveiopment of high-rise structures.The first series of charts compared the iand area in the different zoning categories and compared existing acreages and acreages using Staff's proposed changes and the UGA Committee's recommendations.Mr.Goodrich noted there is not a lot of difference in the acreages between Staff's proposal and the UGAAC's recommendations.There is a iarge difference between the existing acreages and Staff's proposal due to the eiimination of the Agriculture and Conservation zoning districts. Mr.Goodrich noted there is approximately 364 acres of land proposed by Staff for Business Local (BL) zoning or 1.2%of the entire growth area.He noted there is currently 255 acres zoned BL in the UGA. .The UGAAC is recommending 36g-acres of land to be zoned BL.There is approximately 30,220 total acres of land currently in the growth area. Staff also prepared a Mixed Use Zone comparison for Washington County,Frederick County and the City of Hagerstown.This chart addressed design criteria requirements,which included setbacks,height, school sites,etc.Mr.Goodrich noted that the City of Hagerstown's mixed use zoning is a Euciidean zone,whereas Washington and Frederick County's mixed use zones are floating zones. The next chart the Commission reviewed was a compilation for the Business General (BG)zoning district. This chart showed all BG zoned parcels that are currently vacant in the UGA,which range in size from less than y,acre to 32+acres.Members discussed minimum area size for the mixed use floating zones. Many of the existing iots would be considered in-fill areas due to their size.The final chart was a similar compilation for the Business Local (BL)zoning district.Mr.Goodrich reminded Commission members that there was a lengthy discussion regarding square foot requirements for principal permitted uses in the BL zones during the first workshop. Mr.Goodrich stated that there are currently no minimum area requirements in the PUD zone.Members discussed no minimum area requirements and believe that factors such as location,other uses in the neighborhood,etc.could be reasons for establishing minimum area requirements.The Commission discussed its role in recommending [to the Board of County Commissioners]appropriate development for the mixed use fioating zones. •Consensus:The Planning Commission recommends a "no minimum area"requirement for the Mixed Use Floating zones (see chart on page 3 of the Mixed Use Floating zone). The Commission began reviewing the residential uses in the chart on page 3 of the Mixed Use Floating zone.Mr.Goodrich noted that Staff is proposing for the MXR and MXC zones that a minimum of 15%of the dwelling units must be multi-family or 25 units,whichever is less.The UGAAC recommended a minimum of 2 types of residential units.Staff is proposing for the MXE zone that a minimum of 15%of the iand use must be residential and a minimum of 15%of the dweliing units must be mUiti-family or 25 units,whichever is less. The commercial uses were reviewed by the Commission.Mr.Goodrich noted that commercial uses are not permitted in the MXR zoning district.Staff is proposing a maximum of 10%of commercial uses to be permitted in the MXC zone.It was noted that the MXC zone is the closest zoning category to the existing PUD zone,which has a maximum requirement of 10%of commercial uses.Staff has further discussed the commercial uses and is proposing a minimum of 10%of commercial uses with a maximum of 20%if the development has 12 dwelling units per acre.Some members expressed their concern for putting limitations on commercial and employment uses in the floating zones and beiieve that limitations could hinder the creativity and flexibility of the developers.Ms.Parrish expressed her opinion that guidelines should be created in order to provide gUidance to developers as well as the Planning Commission and Staff.The discussion focused on various scenarios that included changes in the economy,creating a balance between the commercial and residential uses in a mixed use development,developers who change their plans before completion of approved developments,etc.There was a brief discussion regarding the iimitation of the mixed use floating zones in certain zoning districts.Some members pointed out that there is additional language in the proposed text that would help the Planning 247 Commission to manage or limit the changes that a developer could make in their plans.Ms.Parrish expressed her opinion that the language may be in the proposed text;however,she does not believe that the Planning Commission would require the developer to adhere to the requirements or to their original plans. Members discussed increasing the maximums for residential and commercial uses depending on the original base zoning of the property.In other words,if the base zoning is a commercial district then the mixed zoning should allow for a majority of commercial uses in a mixed use floating zone. •Consensus:The Planning Commission recommends the following for the MXC and the MXE zoning districts:if the base zoning is a commercial district then the mixed use zoning should allow for a maximum of 70%commercial uses;if the base zoning is a residential district then the mixed use zoning should allow for a maximum of 70%residential uses;and if the base zoning is an industrial or aRT district then the mixed use zoning should allow for a maximum of 70%of industrial or employment uses. The Commission continued its review of the chart on page 3.Staff is proposing open space area in the MXR and MXC zones to be a minimum of 25%of the gross land area and the UGAAC recommended a minimum of 5%of the gross land area,not including Forest Conservation areas,which would equal 20% of the gross land area.Staff is proposing open space area in the MXE zone to be a minimum of 20%of the gross land area.Mr.Goodrich noted that 25%is currently the minimum requirement for open space area,which includes green space and recreational areas.Mr.Ecker suggested that for smaller parcels of land,the developer should be able to pay for open space area,which would allow the BOCC to purchase land for a large park somewhere in the County.Mr.Goodrich stated that the County already collects excise tax,which pays for roads,schools,etc.;however,you don't get the open space with the residentiai units that have been created if you allow the developer to pay for open space.Open space areas are meant to provide space for residents to use for recreational purposes,such as tot lots and playgrounds. Commission members discussed requiring small areas for open space versus a payment-in-lieu for open space that could be used by the County to purchase land to establish a park. Discussions moved on to the maximum dwelling units allowed per acre in each of the mixed use floating zones.Staff is proposing 12 dwelling units per acre in each of the zones,which is the current limit in a PUD zone,and the UGAAC is recommending 24 dwelling units per acre permitted in a high-rise buiiding. If the Planning Commission recommends the 24 dwelling units per acre,Staff will need to prepare language for design gUidelines relative to high-rise buildings.Mr.Goodrich noted that the City of Hagerstown's maximum density is 6 to 10 dwelling units per acre in a neighborhood and 10 to 22 dwelling units per acre in the downtown area.Mr.Kercheval expressed his concern that developers would request a mixed use floating zone for the sole purpose of increasing density and suggested that language should be added to allow only a maximum increase in density.He expressed concern for residents currently living in the area and a developer proposes a development much more densely populated than the surrounding area.Mr.Goodrich noted that the mixed use zones are designed to allow for more density,but in turn the deveioper must provide more amenities to make the higher density more compatible with the surrounding properties.He noted that applications for the mixed use floating zones would require a public hearing in which the public can voice their opposition or support.The Planning Commission and the BOCC can then base their decision for approval or denial on factors including public opinion. •Consensus:The Planning Commission recommends 12 dweliing units per acre with a maximum of 24 dwelling units per acre permitted in a high-rise building. Ms.Livelsberger,a member of the UGAAC,stated that the Committee made its recommendation for 24 dulacre based on the purchase of Transferable Development Rights by developers. The Commission continued its review of the Mixed Use Floating zones and reviewed changes to the generai requirements.Mr.Goodrich noted that all of the mixed use floating zones are permitted to be located in the RT,RS,RU and RM zoning districts.The MXE zone is permitted in the HC,IR,PI and aRT zoning districts.Mr.Goodrich briefly explained the difference between zones where the current PUD zones are allowed and the proposed zoning district locations.Staff believes this will give developers more flexibility and encourage them to spread development throughout the growth area.Mr.Anikis expressed his concern for allowing the mixed use fioating zones in the aRT zoning district and questioned if this zoning district should not allow the mixed use floating zones.Mr.Goodrich stated that allowing the mixed use zones in the aRT supports the concept of "working where you live".There was a brief discussion with regard to the mixed use zones in the aRT zoning district.FollOWing this discussion, Mr.Anikis withdrew his objection to the mixed use zones in the aRT. Mr.Goodrich stated that existing PUD's would be allowed to continue without requiring them to comply with the new process.Design and site plan requirements previously approved must be met.Mr. Goodrich reviewed the Review and Approval Process changes with the Commission.He noted that Staff has been reviewing the various stages in the plan review process,with each stage having a time period associated with it.It is difficult for Staff to track each time frame in the process and Staff has determined that many of the time frames are unrealistic.Staff is proposing a ionger time frame (3 years)from the time of zoning approval through the end of final development plan approval.Mr.Goodrich further explained Staff's proposal and steps that are required throughout the plan approvai process.He noted there are more reviews and approvals required than when the time frames were originally written in the Ordinance.There were discussions with regard to establishing more realistic benchmarks,the difficulty in I, 248 tracking the benchmarks,ways to simplify the process and tracking,and economic influences.Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that 3 years is too long.Mr.Anikis suggested that the developer submit a time schedule to meet each benchmark.Members discussed alternatives,such as a maximum number of extensions [to the time frame],losing the zoning if the benchmarks are not met,and taking the rezoning process out of the proposed time frame. •The Planning Commission would like Staff to establish benchmarks that are realistic for both the Staff and the developer in order to review and approve projects. Mr.Anikis expressed his concern that agencies are not giving their approval prior to the Planning Commission's review and approval of projects.There was a brief discussion regarding the approval process and the agencies that are approving agencies.Mr.Thompson explained that Staff is working with other County agencies to have approvals put into the computer system and briefly explained the new development review process.There are agencies such as the individual fire companies that do not have access to the County's computer system or they do not have personnel available to respond to our requests. Mr.Anikis made an inquiry regarding language (page 6 of Article 16)that states,"The Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission shall hold public hearings,jointly or separately."Mr. Goodrich stated that the language is proposed to allow flexibility for the BOCC.The current rezoning process requires separate hearings.There was a brief discussion regarding the reasons that the rezoning process was changed. Mr.Goodrich continued with the Commission's review of Article 16 and requirements for the content and format of applications.Language has been added to require a graphic display of the proposed street and highway network for new developments and connections to the existing surrounding road network,traffic counts for existing roads,preliminary projections of additional traffic to be generated,peak hour projections and the distribution and direction of travel on the concept plan.Mr.Goodrich noted that the new requirements are in response to the Commission's questions regarding new development and the impact on roads.Additional requirements for the concept plan include locating historic resources,pre- existing easements or rights-of-way,the proposed method to insure maintenance of common areas,and proposed school site dedications.There was a brief discussion regarding the advantages of obtaining this information early in the development process. The Commission reviewed the proposed requirements for preliminary development plans.Mr.Goodrich noted that the biggest change is the requirement for an adjustment to the preliminary traffic data submitted with the concept plan to reflect overall changes in traffic and roads.Proposed language for the final development plan requirements were highlighted by Mr.Goodrich. Several changes are proposed for the use mix determination in the design guidelines for Article 16. Landscaping for all developments must comply with the new landscaping guidelines proposed.Language for the buffering requirements has been modified to ensure compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. It was noted that the Planning Commission may reduce or waive the buffer requirements for residential parcels within the mixed use development.Language has been added to provide better guidance for pedestrian systems to encourage walking instead of driving.Language has been added so the Planning Commission may allow reductions or require increases in building spacing or heights.Mr.Goodrich noted that the UGAAC has recommended that unoccupied commercial bUildings shall be subject to maintenance gUidelines contained in Article 17.He stated the guidelines would include keeping the building in good repair,keeping the landscaping neat,keeping the lights on in the parking lot during normal business hours [of the commercial uses surrounding the buildingj and posting contact information, etc.These gUidelines mirror the City of Hagerstown's. Mr.Goodrich stated that final development plans shall include design drawings of improvements necessary to provide needed capacity in the existing road network If it is not currently available.This requirement will insure that the needed off-site road improvements can be accomplished because they have been designed.The final language reviewed was the requirement for the dedication of school sites. Many options were reviewed that are used in different jurisdictions and Mr.Goodrich briefly described some of the options.Staff is proposing the establishment of a threshold using the number of dwelling units that can generate 60%of the school capacity and require a 15-acre parcel.This would be comparable to a development of 1500 dwelling units.There were brief discussions regarding the variables that would make a school site too small or too large and language that could be added to clarify that size is a negotiable issue.Mr.Kercheval expressed his opinion that the 60%requirement is too high. He believes that the school site should also count as part of the open space requirements for a development.Mr.Kercheval expressed his opinion that language should be added that the school site must be conveniently located in the development for bus transportation.There was a brief discussion regarding the thresholds that should be required. •Consensus:The Planning Commission recommends a threshold of 500 dwelling units for requiring dedication of a school site and a 10-acre minimum school site,with each 100 dwelling units over 500 a 1-acre parcel is added up to a maximum of 20-acres,which can be used a part of the open space requirement.If a school site is not needed,the land should be retained and used for other public services,such as a park or fire station. 249 OTHER BUSINESS Mr.Thompson stated that a request has been made by Mr.Joe Kroboth and Ms.Jennifer Smith of the County's Public Works Department for a workshop with the Planning Commission to present the new Storm Water Management regulations.Mr.Kercheval recommended that the workshop be delayed until the regulations are closer to being finalized due to new legisiation that is being proposed by the State of Maryland. The Planning Commission scheduled its next workshop on Monday,December 14th at 3:00 p.m. ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 6:35 p.m. Respectfully subm itted, 1w/kC Geol-ge Jl.Hikis,Chairman 250 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -December 7,2009 The Washington County Planning Commission held a workshop meeting on Monday,December 7,2009, at 4:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baitimore Street,Hagerstown. Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Andrew Bowen (arrived at 5:00 p.m.),Terry Reiber, Clint Wiley,Linda Parrish,and Ex-Officio James Kercheval.Staff members present were:Planning Director Michael Thompson,Chief Planner Steve Goodrich,Senior Planner Jill Baker,and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 4:08 p.m. MINUTES Mr.Anikis questioned proposed language from the MU zoning district that states,"The Planning Commission may allow reductions or require increases in building spacing or height.....",specifically requiring a developer to build a taller structure.Mr.Goodrich stated that the language is proposed to provide the maximum amount of flexibility and taller structures would allow for greater density while still providing green space.Mr.Reiber noted that discussions from the previous workshop focused on square footage rather than height.Mr.Anikis stated that he is not comfortable with the Planning Commission requiring increased height limitations. Mr.Wiiey made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 23,2009 workshop meeting as presented.Seconded by Ms.Parrish.Unanimously approved . .DISCUSSION Mr.Goodrich began discussions on Article 17 -PB (Planned Business)zoning district.He read language from the Comp Plan that states,"It is recommended that the Planned Business and the Business Transition classifications be eliminated.Both classifications have deficiencies in their application and their purposes can be better addressed through other business classifications."Staff is proposing that the zone be kept because it is located in some very significant areas,such as the Valley Mall,and that the zone be a Euclidean zone.Mr.Goodrich briefly described some of the problems with the PB zone and efforts that are being made to correct those problems. Mr.Goodrich stated that efforts to communicate with developers in the PB (Planned Business)and PI (Planned Industrial)zoning districts wouid be eariy in the process.A master plan or overall plan would be required for an entire parcel of land to be viewed as one entity;however,development may take place in phases.Mr.Goodrich reviewed the purpose in Section 17.0 which states,"Comprehensive preplanning will improve function and may increase compatibility with adjacent land uses where random placement of commercial development may not be compatible". Mr.Goodrich explained there are three categories under Section 17.2,which includes:1)existing Planned Business district with existing approved comprehensive deveiopment plans,2)existing Planned Business district without approved comprehensive development plan;and 3)applications for new planned business districts.Members briefly discussed each of the categories.Ms.Parrish pointed out that in Section 17.2.B there is no reference to historic structures.Mr.Goodrich stated the historic structures reference was inadvertently missed and would be added.Ms.Parrish expressed her opinion that the Commission needs to review the map to determine if there are any areas that shouid be pre-designated with the PB zone. Continuing the review of the PB zone,Mr.Goodrich noted that the consultation of the development plan must be completed before the deveioper can apply for the PB zone.He stated that the zoning amendment application shall be accompanied by preliminary traffic data.Mr.Goodrich reiterated that the concept plan is not approved prior to the zoning change;however,the plan review must be completed before applying for the zoning change.Mr.Anikis asked why market studies are not provided by the EDC to determine if a specific business or industry is appropriate.Mr.Goodrich stated that developers typically do their own market analysis.Mr.Anikis questioned why the market studies are not required during the concept plan phase.Mr.Goodrich stated that the Planning Commission can add that requirement if they feel it is appropriate.Mr.Anikis believes that the EDC or another professional would be better qualified to review the market analysis than Commission members.He asked who could evaiuate the information.Mr.Goodrich stated that the Commission could rely on the information provided by the developer,which could be obtained early in the process.The other alternative would be to have a Staff member trained review the information;however,there is currently no one on the Staff qualified. •Consensus:The Planning Commission recommends that the developer be required to provide a market analysis in the concept plan stage. The Commission continued its review of the proposed language for Article 17 with Mr.Goodrich pointing out new language and existing language.Mr.Goodrich noted that Staff has been discussing signage issues in the PB zone.One problem is the large pylon signs that have several stores listed on one sign 251 that are not on the same parcel of land.In accordance with current sign requirements,the sign must be located on the same parcel as the store and uses that are on a different parcei of land are not permitted to be advertised on that sign.Staff is working on ways to address this issue. Mr.Goodrich summarized the proposed language for Section 17.8 Design Guidelines.All of this language is new and is not currently in the Zoning Ordinance.Mr.Goodrich noted that the proposed language in Item I relative to outside display areas will be modified to incorporate the parking text amendment recently approved by the BOCC. Mr.Goodrich began reviewing Section 17.9 relating to additional design standards with a 75,000-square foot threshold.He noted that the Urban Growth Area Advisory Committee recommends that these guidelines be removed from this section of the Ordinance and combined with staff proposed gUidelines for buildings in the PI district to have one set of guidelines for both districts.The proposed standards mirror the requirements adopted by the City of Hagerstown.in reviewing many of the proposed standards,Mr. Goodrich used the recently constructed Stone House Square,which is a "main street"development,as an example.Commission members briefiy reviewed all of the standards.Mr.Wiley expressed his opinion that there is no easy or safe ingress or egress for pedestrians or bicyclists.He believes this is an issue that needs to be addressed within these guidelines.Mr.Goodrich stated that the Staff is trying to take a more active approach to addressing traffic patterns within shopping centers.Mr.Wiiey believes that it would be appropriate to address pedestrian access in this section of the design standards.Mr. Goodrich verified with Commission members that they want a requirement or stronger policy for the connection of pedestrian or bicycie access to the existing systems;and,if a system does not currently exist more responsibility needs to be put on the developer to provide the off-site access.Commission members clarified that they recommend these connections in the Urban Growth Area only and not for development in the rural areas.Mr.Wiley expressed his opinion that in the UGA if residential neighborhoods have Planned Business zones amongst them,then a comprehensive approach should be taken in the way pianned business development is addressed.Mr.Bowen noted that Section 10.6 in the RM zoning district states that a "cohesive and comprehensive network of pedestrian paths shall be provided".He suggested that the same language be Incorporated into all districts within the UGA. •Consensus:The Planning Commission recommends and supports the requirement for a network of pedestrian and bicycle access in the UGA. • Commission members continued their review of Section 17.9.Mr.Goodrich explained the "main street" concept for shopping centers.This concept allows a more "human-friendly"atmosphere by having the parking located around the outer limits of the parcel,stores facing each other and providing pedestrian access inside the perimeter of the store fronts. The Commission then began a review of the UGAAC's recommended design standards with a threshold of 75,000-square feet.Mr.Goodrich expiained that these standards are a combination of the Staff's design standards,which the Commission just finished reviewing,and the standards from the Planned Industrial zoning district that the Staff created.Ms.Parrish and Mr.Anikis expressed their opinions that they were not in agreement with the first sentence,which states,"The Planning Commission shall not approve or deny the exterior appearance of structures in the Planned Business District."Mr.Ditto,a member of the UGAAC,stated that the proposed standards dictate the type of materials that must be used during construction and the Committee did not want developers to be limited if building materials change in the future. •Consensus:The Planning Commission recommends that the first sentence [as noted above]in Section 17.9 be removed as well as the first word in the second sentence [However]. Ms.Parrish expressed her opinion that the proposed guidelines written by Staff in Section 17.9.A "Intent" are very specific and the language recommended by the UGAAC is too generalized.She beiieves the guidelines within the "Intent"need to be more specific to address the "big box"stores.The Commission continued their review of the UGAAC's recommended text for Section 17.9.Ms.Parrish pointed out that the UGAAC recommended the removal of the minimum height limitation language proposed by Staff.Mr. Goodrich stated that the UGAAC made its recommendation because they believe the minimum height limitation is not applicable to an industrial bUilding.Ms.Parrish asked what the Staff's intention was for proposing the height minimum.Mr.Goodrich stated that Staff was trying to encourage a variety of heights and to encourage development to go up instead of out for more compact development where possible.He noted that the Planning Commission can waive the requirement.Ms.Parrish reiterated her opinion that the intent section needs to be more specific.Mr.Anikis expressed his opinion that separate guidelines would be better.Mr.Goodrich stated he would attempt to put the two proposals together and let the Commission review the proposal again. •Consensus:The Planning Commission recommends that the Planned Business "intent" section,preliminary consuitation requirement,and minimum height limitations be added to the UGAAC's recommendations for further review. Mr.Goodrich began reviewing the proposed text for the maintenance of abandoned buildings.He noted that the language was taken from the City of Hagerstown's Zoning Ordinance.There was a brief discussion regarding enforcement of maintenance of abandoned buildings.Mr.Anikis asked why the maintenance of smaller buildings (less than 75,000-square feet)is not being required.Mr.Goodrich stated that 75,000 square feet is the threshold adopted by the City of Hagerstown.It is proposed for the " 252 County to be consistent with City standards.Mr.Kercheval made an inquiry regarding the illumination of surrounding commercial areas.There was a brief discussion regarding this requirement. •Consensus:The Planning Commission recommends changing #6 in Section 17.9.0 from "leasing information"to "current contact information". ADJOURNMENT Chairman Anikis adjourned the meetin9 at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted,, d~,{Au.-L: Geclrge Al1ikis,Chairman 253 WASHINGTON COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING -December 14,2009 The Washington County Planning Commission heid a workshop meeting on Monday,December 14, 2009,at 3:00 p.m.in the Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street, Hagerstown. Members present were:Chairman George Anikis,Terry Reiber,Clint Wiley,Linda Parrish,Sam Ecker (arrived at 4:45 p.m.)and Ex-Officio James Kercheval.Staff members present were:Chief Planner Steve Goodrich,Senior Planner Jill Baker,Planner Fred Nugent,and Administrative Assistant Debra Eckard. CALL TO ORDER Chairman George Anikis called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m. DISCUSSIONS Continued Discussions of the Proposed UGA Rezoning Mr.Goodrich began the workshop with a review of the PI -Planned Industrial zoning district.He noted that the Comp Plan is the guide that Staff is following when preparing the proposed text for the UGA rezoning.On page 277 of the Comp Pian relative to the urban design standards in the Zoning Ordinance, it is stated,"Within the text of neW or modified zoning designations associated with the urban area, substantial recommendations for design guidelines changes will be made.The theme will be to seek a higher level of design for improved function,compatibility and aesthetics.It is the desire to develop design standards in the urban area that will promote a high quality of living environment,personal and community fulfillment,accessibility of public services and cost effective public improvements and environmental protections." .Mr.Goodrich stated that Staff has been making changes in order to be able to apply the PI zoning district on targeted properties.The Commission reviewed the proposed text of the first three paragraphs in the PI zone.Mr.Goodrich noted that the intent of the PI zone is for an industrial park where multiple lots and mUltiple industries are located.The Commission reviewed the permitted and prohibited USeS of the PI ZOne.It was noted that sawmills would not be permitted in the PI ZOne unless it is located within a completely enclosed structure with no outside storage of pre or post processed lumber.Commission members discussed the storage of pre or post processed lumber outside,which they do not believe is objectionable;however,they Were opposed to the storage of waste materials,such as sawdust,outside. •Consensus:The Planning Commission recommends for Section 18.2(f)the following:Delete the words "with no outside storage of pre or post processed lumber". Mr.Goodrich noted that drive-thru services are not a permitted USe in the PI district.He briefly reviewed the language that is proposed for agriculture as an interim use.It was noted that the time period for an animal husbandry facility to begin operation after being shut down has been extended from 6 months to 3 years.This was a recommendation from the UGAAC. The Commission began reviewing the development procedures in existing and new PI districts.Mr. Goodrich briefly explained each of the three categories and showed members areas on the map that are being proposed for new PI zoning districts.Mr.Kercheval expressed his conCern regarding piece-meal development.Mr.Goodrich believes that a slight change to the language may be necessary to indicate the accumulation of three lots or more in Section 18.4.B.1. Mr.Goodrich reviewed the buffering criteria of outdoor storage and Mr.Reiber asked if the requirement for vinyl fencing should be addressed.The intent of the language is to provide a complete visual screen. Members expressed their opinions that fencing should be maintenance free and made of materials that will last a long time. •Consensus:The Planning Commission recommends changes to the language to insure the screening shall be constantly maintained. The Planning Commission began its review of the building design guidelines for the PI zone.Staff's proposed guidelines (page 12)were reviewed first.These guidelines were a compilation of several jurisdiction's guidelines.Mr.Goodrich noted that the UGAAC recommends the deletion of the first sentence in Section 18.84 which states,"The Planning Commission shall not approve or deny the exterior appearance of structures in an industrial park." Mr.Kercheval made an inquiry regarding requirements for noise in the PI district.Mr.Goodrich noted that some noise requirements are addressed in Section 18.83(B)and further addressed in the ORI zoning district as taken from Frederick County's Ordinance with specific numerical references.Mr.Kercheval expressed his conCern for noise from industrial sites next to residential areas.Mr.Reiber expressed his opinion that there should be some requirements for noise levels in the PI zone.Specific numerical standards or hours of operation could address the issue.Several members expressed their opinion that the noise restrictions in the PI zone should apply to areas that are adjacent to residential uses only. 254 •Consensus:Mr.Goodrich will prepare language to address noise levels next to residential properties using restrictions based on hours of operation and adjacent land uses. Me.Anikis asked if there are height and width limitations for freestanding signs in the PI district.Mr. Goodrich stated there would be a 35-foot height limitation.All existing sign requirements would apply. The Commission began its review of Article 19A,which is currently the HI-1 -Highway Interchange 1 zone and is proposed to be renamed HC -Highway Commercial zone.In Chapter 12 of the Comprehensive Plan specific guidance for changes to this zoning district is discussed.The Comp Plan states,"Redesignate the Highway Interchange District to the Highway Commercial district with the main difference being the elimination of industrial restricted uses as permitted uses in the zone."Commission members reviewed the purpose statement and the principal permitted uses,including ianguage for agriculture as an interim use.Me.Goodrich pointed out proposed ianguage with regard to the site plan review and signage in the HC zone.He reviewed the design guidelines that are proposed and maintenance of vacant bUildings.There was a brief discussion regarding a change to the height limitation of signs.Mr.Anikis questioned if the height limitation should be increased so applicants would not have to continue to go to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance.Mr.Kercheval beiieves that the State Highway Administration has a limitation on signs. There was a discussion regarding the limits on the amount of retail uses in the HC zone.Me.Goodrich noted that zoning must be applied evenly across the district and the amount of retaii cannot be limited by a percentage over the entire zone. It may be possibie to limit retail uses by a percentage on individual parceis;however,smaller parcels could be limited to an extent that wouid not be feasible.Retail uses could be limited in multi-use buildings.Mr.Kercheval expressed his concern regarding too many retail businesses on prime land next to the interstate.He believes that some of this land should be reserved for higher end development,such as the ORT zone.Mr.Goodrich stated that the assignment of the zone would be a better way to regulate the zoning at interchanges. The Planning Commission began Its review of Article 21 -Airport (AP)zoning district.Mr.Goodrich stated that the Airport district has two purposes:to provide a place for land uses or services that need to be close to the Airport and to protect the Airport from incompatible land uses.These purposes are accomplished by the use of four zoning designations.The first zone is called the APIC (Airport Clear Zone),which is an overlay zone that places height restrictions on uses permitted by the underlying zoning district and prohibits the construction of buildings within a designated area at the end of the Airport runway.The second zone is called the APIO (Airport Overlay Zone)is intended to reduce the limiting effects on Airport operations and improvements that incompatible development can create.The overlay limits the density of residential development within its boundaries and has different requirements determined by location in the UGA or the rural area.The third zone is the AP district,which is the traditional zoning classification that regulates land use.The last zone is the APIHW -Airport Hazardous Wildiife Management District.The UGAAC recommended that the name be changed to the Airport Hazardous Wildlife Attractant Management District.This zone is intended to manage wildlife and the hazards they create around the Airport.Mr.Goodrich pointed out each zoning district on a map.Me. Anikis suggested that the text should be changed to first define the Airport district and then define each of the three overlay zones. Me.Goodrich pointed out that ianguage has been added to clarify that the Board of Zoning Appeals may not grant a variance from the height restrictions of the APIC zone.He reviewed each of the overlay zones with the Commission members highlighting significant points in each zone.In reviewing the APIO zone,Me.Goodrich described the district boundaries and how they were estabiished.He stated that the overiay zone was already in place in the rural area.Additions were made to the language to better define the clear zone and restrictions were added for the growth area,which includes no mixed use deveiopment and therefore no high density development.Mr.Goodrich noted that the boundary is based on FAA recommendations and the Airport master plan recommendations to limit specific types of development around the Airport within a certain distance and limit the negative effects of airport noise on those uses. Mr.Goodrich began a review of the Airport district,which is the traditional land use zoning classification. The Commission briefly reviewed the list of principal permitted uses,special exception uses and prohibited uses.The final zone to be reviewed was the APIHW zone.The intent of this zone is to manage uses that might attract wildlife and create hazards for aircraft operations.Staff relied on the FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-33B to define the area shown on the map. The Commission moved on to the review of Section 21.6 relative to site plan review.Me.Goodrich stated that the purpose of the site plan review is to receive input from the Airport Director according to a specified set of guidelines and to help the Planning Commission to review development around the Airport and eliminate hazards when possible.Members of the Commission voiced their concerns with regard to the current farming operations around the Airport and the restrictions they believe are being put on these operations for expansion and continuation of operations.Me.Goodrich explained that the Advisory Circular and the proposed language do not disallow agricultural uses outright;however,it creates the opportunity for review and adjustments to the use in order to limit the hazardous attractants. He also noted that current farming operations can continue and will not be affected by the new guidelines unless permits are required in the future.Members expressed their opinions that the proposed five mile radius is too iarge of an area to try to control.They discussed alternatives to the five-mile radius and height restrictions.Mr.Reiber asked what the impact would be on the Airport if the radius is changed from five miles to three miles. 255 Mr.Ditto,a member of the UGAAC,was present at the meeting and stated that he has prepared an alternative proposaL He expressed his opinion that no matter what precautions are taken in Washington County,it will not make a difference because the five mile radius extends well into Pennsylvania. Mr.Anikis asked Staff to provide additional information with regard to the following:1)Is the Airport Director concerned about any grants that could be endangered if the five mile radius is not met;and,2) What does the Airport currently do with regard to bird mitigation?Mr.Anikis asked Commission members to review Mr.Ditto's alternative proposal and be prepared to discuss it at the next Workshop meeting. UPCOMING MEETINGS 1.Planning Commission Workshop meeting,Monday,January 11,2010,3:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown 2.Pianning Commission Workshop meeting,Monday,January 25,2010,3:00 p.m.,Washington County Administrative Annex,80 West Baltimore Street,Hagerstown ADJOURNMENT The Chairman adjourned the meeting at 5:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~-<~, George Anikis,Chairman