Westminster Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

e e e West planing Z commission uh I need to first read a statement for the record we had a closed meeting of Thursday December 19th 2024 in accordance with the provisions General Provisions article section 3-36 C2 of the anotated of Maryland and without objection it is noted that the minutes of tonight's meeting reflect that the planning zoning commission met to close session Thursday December 19 6:54 p.m. pursuant to General provision article section 3-35 57 to consult with Council to obtain legal legal advice and all commission members voted for that the commission took no official action

during the meeting the closed meeting adjourned at 7:16 okay the first item of business is the approval the minutes of August 29 202294 approve okay tonight we have two public hearings on two annexations uh the first public Hearing in this public hearing for anation number 83 Optimum property atlc the request is to review anation 24-11 approving anation 83 indexation plan foration 83 provide a recommendation to the May and council is there anybody that signed up to make comments on this okay just you yes Kelly Miller and Frank comments tonight before we get yeah I just wanted to make the presentation I did want to welcome Gary Alon just want to say he is our attorney for the evening for um everybody who's here so in case anyone should need him just to let you know um yeah so if we're if it's okay to start the presentation right so we're here tonight to talk about the first class for the first one annexation 83 which is Optimum properties this here is stonate this is star night drive this here is part uh one of two properties that we're going to hear tonight to talk about it's part of w Ridge section n um and so this is the first piece that we're going to talk about

today and here is the um annexation plaque it is 3.52 Acres of it was done R 20,000 in County it was uh the petition was for our 10,000 water service areas it's now both in W1 and S1 the um P the petitioner had asked the county for a zoning waiver and the county gave the uh zoning waiver for this for this annexation so there's no nothing to hold up that moving forward the um sorry the uh request is um for this like I said to come in is our 10,000 for from four to seven residential units on the property it was introduced October 28th the very next day I went to the county for their distribution was then um the Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation for the annexation as well as the waiver on December 4th to the County Commissioners and then the board of County Commissioners comment letter on the fth which you have in your packet which does grant that waiver that we talked about um it is scheduled for public hearing um on the 27th with the mayor County Council our recommendation is that um we recommend that the city of West and Zoning commission for resolution 2411 for op properties LFC which is our indexation 83 to the city of westminster's Mayor and Comm council with a favorable recommendation okay any questions of uh Andrea so um here one question so concept that um Kent Terrace from the Woodside is going to interconnect with star night drive is that the concept of what will happen yes yes from a development

standpoint yes and just to move s move that camera here but yes it's so we'll make this this connection through here as well yeah so go Conn and Som there be additionals that for uh not would they necessarily be public or not necessarily any it will be public so the stoneage side is already developed up to the property line so this development would connect from the intersection as exists today um West to that stub on the stone Gage side and it would be public right away well no that's that there will be there will be a road that will be coming into here for the for the development and will they be public too potentially or it really depends okay that's just curious thank you any any further questions all right we'll go to uh Miss Miller thank you good evening K Sher Miller 73 East Main Street Westminster Maryland 21157 I'm here this evening on behalf of the applicant um I will talk kind of uh comprehensive ly if you will about both of the annexations because they are both very similar and related uh understanding that there will be a second public hearing opened on the second one just after we close this one um but you all are familiar with this property this did come before uh you heard introduction but then also um this has recently gone through a water and master plan amendment process to include these properties both properties this annexation and the following annexation as part of the service area um that happened prior to the petition gr xation being filed and all of those water and serum Maps were processed and approved

by the county and by mde so those have been approved this is um as staff stated uh this adjoins the Stone Gate development and so we have requested an r10 zoning designation here what I will say about that is that um when that is done because we have prepared some concept level plans that have showed a potential lot layout and the result of an r10 zoning designation here in the city whereas which is R20 in the county results in no greater lot yield than it would have in the Count's R20 excuse me and that is just by virtue of the site constraints and the environmental features and just general site layout how that has to occur so the reason that the r10 zoning district is necessary is not to get an increased density but it allows us to work with that zoning District because of the setback requirements and those in the r10 district so that is why we have come before you requesting r10 zoning District we understand that tonight you're here processing and recommending on the annexation itself not a specific plan uh that being said VPR has done enough work to have a concept plan is why we've been able to request that r10 and why in the staff report there is an anticipated lot yield number in there because we have provided that information based on concept plans that V has provided so um this is adjacent to County lots that are zoned R20 but if you look at those County lots that are zoned R20 they are actually far under the 20,000 Square F feet lot size they must have been clustered under the County's regulations so this really will be consistent with both the city and the

adjoining County sides um by zoning this r10 and allowing for the lot yield that we've sort of anticipated and is set forth in the staff report we are here and happy to answer any questions that anyone has on this um I have Frank cipan the owner of the property and also Randy ve from DPR so prepared for any questions you have yes I guess I'm not going I have I have one again a curiosity question so the tail that kind of goes behind like the three properties that front along Woodside um just theoretically I'm kind of curious is that wide enough to actually have a lot in there or is it going to be like storm water management or something and I mean I know you don't have a site plan and that's curious show you this understanding that no one's approving this plan tonight we would have to come before the subject but no it is not we do not anticipate that we could fit a lot back here it is just shown as part of another law ah okay um so this is a concept allowed us to then determine the zoning District that we think most appropriate myror driveway to Ser we're anti at this point in time I knew this isn't here ious the county as well about the potential layout and so we did explain this to them as well so thank you

okay any uh any any questions any anyone else would like to comment on this we are here all right well hearing no hearing no further comment we'll call this public closed now do we take do we take action on the motion now or after the other public hearing it will be specifically for this one so it would be now if you have any comments or discussion planning commiss otherwise somebody could make a motion to discuss that motion any any comments question um this being annexed into the city this is not going to have any access than to K terce through the city come the Woodside Drive yeah come to come to the property line now it'll connect yeah interconnects interconnects because that's built to the property line stor night that stem's already built it's already p and yeah the mer not be driveway okay so you are cont this connection gets made from Woodside dve over star night and then come here so just but the part the par that's in the city now is already built that's why

I that's something certainly when this comes back as a preliminary subdivision we discuss about that but the applicant from the very beginning we had that discussion they were accepted okay any any other question okay well it's what's the pleasure of the commission we have a recommendation you I make a motion that we for resolution 24-11 optim Properties LLC and anation number 83 to the city of West Minister mayor and homeing council with a favor favorable recommendation is there a second motion a motion been made and seconded to recommend favorable approval and sanation Council was a favorable recommendation any okay all in favor say I I no the eyes have it and the recommendation will go for the next item is anation number 85 um the property 2435 anation plan for this is about where we were just were right so this is on the other side so um blend into the area over here so it's um

5.47 acres and uh this is being annexed to ask for a potential between 11 to 15 months and here is the so once again r2,000 in County it is coming in as a to r10,000 just like Kelly had said it is going um it did go through water and sewer amendments for both of these properties to come into the service area fully well so the everything is the same as it was for for the other property so got introduced October 28 um they got um then sent to the county on October 29th went to the Planning Commission of the county on December 4th that's where they gave a favorable recommendation to Mayor County Council for that zoning waivers oh I'm so sorry the board of County Commissioners um and then December 5th the board of County Commissioners met they did provide the comment letter that's in your packet where they approve that waiver it is supposed to be going on the mayor and council's agenda on the 27th for a public hearing so the recommendation that we have for this one is that the same as prior but that the we recommend the city of Wester Planning and Zoning commission for resolution 2413 alen photoan annexation which is annexation 85 the mayor and common council with a favorable recommendation so is the is the developer going to be the same yes so the petition actually was for both properties but because they're owned by separate entities and they're separated we broke them out as two annexations but the petition that's Kelly had mentioned that at the beginning that she's representing both because it is the same developer doing

both properties but the city separated them both because again separate owners and is it the same underlying owner or is the same different owners different owners L and individuals for not those are not interconnected it's just the developers to both pieces no it's they all it's Frank Frank pan controls Optimum properties which is the annexation that you just saw this annexation his wife and his two sons thank you the underlying so the family yeah the family the same for both but listed ownerships are different and it used to be when we were going through the water and SE process it was discovered there used the thought was that there was a piece of property in the back here that connected those two lots so that's why we like when we did water and ser we did it as one Amendment but then as the um everything came forward for the annexation it became clear that that that didn't exist anymore it had gone through however it works its way out and these were two separate Parcels so we tried to gr one staff report for two separate Parc did just stop interestes with different ownership with different ownership so um the access to this property would be off GL dve I think they have plans for this one as well it looks like it looks like on you knowers to Stone Gate but it looks like that's a far conservation eement on the other side that part I think you mean what's it brown I'm not sure you know that's you might want to just confirm that because if it if it's in the city if it is a forest conservation easement some kind

of Perpetual easement there's no you know sometimes when you do develop next door to something that could be developed you would let you know you would have a temporary qual ATT for a temporary you know te so that you can join to it just like we did with Kent and in state um but if that's truly a something that can't be divided down the road that makes no sense so agree yeah and I just took a quick look I could be wrong about that so please when we get plan part and all that we want to make sure about that what that what that property any any other questions of Andre at this point okay so well um open the comments and I assume this address this to I am yes thank you good evening again Kelly shaer Miller 73 East Main Street Westminster Maryland 21157 um everything that I just stated for the previous hearing related to annexation number 83 is is the same for this property um it is zoned R20 in the county we are requesting that it be zoned r10 the Commissioners have granted the zoning waiver and again the density of the two Parcels will not result in an increase in density by virtue of the r Zing designation the and other requirements just allow us to develop it with the same lot field um so we do have again understanding that you are not approving a subdivision plan here tonight and that we will have to submit that separately we do have

concept level plans of this as well um so Mr hk's question I don't know if that's actually a conation okay says this it is controlled by the h says yes reason to have this area here sits in right here we are this okay this so the only that's a little awkward is we'll end up having a piece of County I mean City maintained road that comes off of a county maintained Road in Woodside yes maybe we get the county sometimes sometimes they do do work those things out to take advantage of efficiencies yeah Le we used to I can't speak no it's true the this the annexation that occurred down at adale Stone Chapel we had a situation where the county and the city had to cooperatively work I think the county maintains that did we address that in this situation or not really not in this one that the annexation area included right of way that the county Fally owns and the county wanted to maintain ownership of it and the city was more than happy to allow that to continually be owned and and annexation doesn't take ownership yeah that was somewh the confusion yeah that what came up the other the other annexation it came up at the annexation level because we had to Annex across the road and County became a bit confused as whether that meant

that then we were city was taking the road from them and so that's kind of why it forced itself to the center of that I assume that that may be become part of the subdivision review process here maintenance but that not come up with the annexation I can't imagine the count is going to want to maintain the road over the years but still removal might be something nice just we used to do goes through the process we can work with the county you can work with the county on that because that would just kind of seem silly plus the city gets actually get actually Highway Revenue money based on mileage so whatever that mileage is it contributes to money that the city re they have to do a report each year for that yeah no well no I wouldn't expect the county to maintain I mean the developers building the road but then in theory the city's responsible for maintaining it over the years and the county is not going to do that that's fine so but I conceptually I mean obviously you guys have to go through process and all of that and there might be fine tuning but it seems it's nice that it's wide enough that it allows that the call SA yes um yeah and that is that's part of the reason we need our 10 zoning district is because again the setback requirements and the bulk requirements are r10 even if we're not getting an increased lot yield they are more accommodating I'm comfortable with the R1 I the stone gates R1 so right it's very consistent on the city Side the county side like I said is R20 but there's lots closer to r10 because of probably yeah they so again we all dear we happy to hear any other questions that Theiss might have um [Music] anybody else would like to comment on

this he said said repeat yourself you can't build in twice for your time right are you here negotiating comments that will POS a public hearing on anation 85 and consider a recommendation res anation anation number5 City West mayor council the favorable recommendation Mo been made that's the city west commission for resolution 243 coun recomendation second motion made second favor say I iose no ni have it the recommendation will go forth to the council fa recommendation who's oh okay okay we have old business this was discussed last month like development plan s236 shepher sta and you guys you address this first yeah

just share a few points about where we left it last month [Music] so M and in your package you do have the plan that they had submitted for the layout plan and the final landcaping plan you would ask that we get uh more detailed elevation and so we um we asked to be here tonight and he also provided us with them there is the very last sheet of your um packet does have a more blown up version of what is on here um but I do want to say that and Dean please correct me if I'm wrong don't know what we talked about so the the G told that the um histor District commission had requested um so they have it part of their drawing on this part and then on this part as well actually all all along that okay is that the exact is that the molding that the St histri commission recommended or slightly different version of it all I heard was that they asked for a dental M okay and so you all know where the word Dental comes from it looks like Teeth that's I was wondering about that so um I learned something tonight thank you so just want to share you know they they have taken that into consideration what the historic district has has requested and they they did add that it's not physically drawn on here but those are the places in which that they would they would be putting it it look like it's just on the front and the side that correct it's not on the back or the other side that isn't very visible that's correct just on those two sides

and there was a detail uh a close-up detail and that's one their packet okay yeah so that's in the bottom Square here of the what they what they wereing um and so this is what the historic district commission had requested as part of their of their approval so I just wanted to share that they you know they were moving forward with with what um they had asked for um there were two other items that were kind of outstanding that needs to be updated on the plan that we had talked about at the last one we had um talked about the parking there is a um parking agreement that a working on with the church for is agreement um between the two um entities to make sure that there is enough parking for the share parking um and then we kind of adjusted how we were looking at it based on the board of zoning appeals approval um it was and the from the zoning administrator it was considered to be um I wanted to say the exact wording um for a like it was like a fraternal organization it was one of those you remember what the terminology is community community meeting Hall community meeting Hall and so that particular use has its own zoning require I mean his own parking requirements versus what we were talking about last month this would require them um to do one parking space per four per estimated uh people that would be the capacity of the building so Dean provided us with some information that approximately 63 people would be able to fit into this space at any given time therefore um it would be one space for four people that would mean that there were 16 spaces that would be required and then um it would be parking one parking space needed for um each of the two employees so that's where we get the total of 18 spots that will be

cuz this property the the property which the building is on doesn't really have any parking no so there will be an agreement that will run with that property in theory they're owned by the the same underlying entity now but that doesn't necessarily mean it always will be so there will be a formal agreement yes between those two properties to ensure that this property has parking always yes and if for whatever reason as we go through this process if we see that you know the church needs x amount parking spaces and they don't have 18 additional to offer U it is recommended that the applicant would go through an administrative adjustment at that time because you know they have different hours in the church operates and also they operate a lot based on foot traffic so it's a way to minimize the amount of parking spes that would potentially be needed by those 63 folks for the fact that they are doing it on different hours and the you know the rest of parking lot not going to be used by the church since they have different app I'm sorry yeah so the the uh the parking lot's owned by Grace lman yes and there'll be a Common Parking some kind of agreement so you said 18 and he said there was some something different in how the land uses how we're saying this land use now as a fraternal oh no yeah so last month what would have been the difference in parking just out of curiosity spaces how many five five moreos to this okay yeah we had come for with a a little bit more detailed based off of use but it seemed that only the I I thought it was an appropriate thing to do since that's how they got the approval for the use itself to be there that the parking be established with you know to be using the same burgage that's in the code so um but for any reason um you know if we don't know what the parking you know as the parking gri is currently being made but regardless of what what happens we believe that there

I think that there would be parking for this project so don't think necessarily that is something you know that would hold anything up but the parking calculations on the on the plan do need to be changed so that was just why we're bring it up still as an outstanding issue because of the fact that it would need to be as part of a condition of approval that you know the changing of the that information just wanted to be clear again so what will they what will the property be used for I know shepher said what will they actually do for uh emergency crisis center so folks that are in uh needing Carol County come for uh different programming so what what it operates today so Shepherd staff is operating at this property today it's an old single family house and they can't expand it doesn't function well so this takes down that build and replaces it same functions and not anything new hours of operation of Monday through Friday and the church operates typically Saturday Sunday they might have some meeting meetings at night but at night time they're not operating so it's a great location for shared parking concept when this use is operating the church isn't and vice versa so so the only question I have about that in the long run is that um I get you that right now that's the case but whatever agreement is made that will run with the shepher staff property um there we need to make sure that has a enough parking that in theory if if the use you know what I mean like if Chang it changes or something like that that this property doesn't end up because it's a pretty big building you know what I mean for the blot that it's on that doesn't lose parking down the road I'm just kind of thinking way down the road because it might not always be that way so we just want to make sure that that parking agreement or whatever it is

easement is well thought out um and is that generally um I guess it all depends on how the easement is done but like is it specific spots or is it generally um do we do people generally do that that it's like whatever spots on the parking lot the plan is showing specific spots that are going to be allocated to that I don't know if they're going to manage that in any way with signs that's up to them but the plan showing which spots demonstrating which spots are for them and that would be part of that easement so yeah that easement agreement need to be either specific or general but I'm just I think we as for an easement area specifically defining those spaces that are intended for the use and then if there is a change of use we do one of the first things we look at two of them landscaping and parking are always the primary and if the more parkings needed then may be back Planning and Zoning commission so um or if the use changes Shepherd staff says you know we want to do Saturday nights and and expand their operations which could affect that shared packing concept there's a good chance we we're back in front of the Planning Commission or as Andrea mentioned there's always administrative adjustment option that they can come and work with us and we can work out that tying situation in a different way as well I mean as long as it's the same Property Owners it's not really that big of a deal you have the ability to change it I'm just saying that when you guys really get into the meat of that matter just just hoping everybody kind of really thinks have to kind of protect it because you know 50 75 years from now who knows and then you know on something that's nonfunctional and there'll be notes on the plan that's somewhat how we going to demonstrate that's one of the conditions of approval demonstrate compliance we would ask that not are specific so if any if does sub does change 50 years from now somebody picking up the plan it's clear path as to what was approved and it was approved okay and then I have a question thank

you um do you record the uh parking agreement in land records we would ask that be recorded in land records yes it should be recorded in land records because otherwise future owners of these properties will probably not know what the agreement actually is who reviews the agreement um once it's you know in the proposed final form we would send that to the City attorney yeah okay I think it's a good idea it's a private agreement Mike Richie here in town is preparing the crossover easement agreement call Ser use and common maintenance agreement it's a private agreement between great Luth church and sheer staff I believe it's has nothing to do with what we're talking about this place has operated for 30 years and I understand Dan 50 years from now we might pick it up something different but I don't believe it's I don't believe the city needs to review it more it's it's not to review for uh legal sufficiency it's to state that it is addressing the sure that all of the city's concerns are addressed you have that opportunity okay I don't understand Mr back I don't understand why you're getting upset I I think we're just trying to make sure that things are properly documented and you are building a new structure okay which is different than the existing structure which does trigger the fact that we need to make sure things are properly documented so I don't understand why you're coming across the way you're coming across right now okay if I may say so this is a private agreement that's correct between private parties but the agreement uh is has to be designed to meet the requirements of of the city code correct and so so therefore the agreement has to be submitted to the city and the City attorney will review it make sure that it's you know that it meets the parking requirements of the code that's the way it really should be and that's all they're looking at look at the language

of individual in partners and how they yeah it's really just make sure it's in compliance yeah but I think more importantly that it gets recorded it will be on the record that way anybody that deals with his property in the future they're going to know yeah right now say I didn't know right now there's a denim to the lease with Shephard staff from Grace Lutheran Church authorizing their parking parking spaces that are there and and I that and step and that's why we're here step's not concerned with plenty of parking we talk so there not a consern parking it's just demonstrated compliance so we can move forward sign the site plan and they can move forward with development I think they're just trying to make sure to protect shepher staff that they always have parking in the future right understand I mean you know I've been driving by that site for years and years and years with the exception of Sunday that lot's almost always open it's not like a they have an event at night they people park on the other side and go in but that lot doesn't get used much outside regular Sun okay the the only other piece of the puzzle that needs to be uh revised on the site plan that's considered outstanding just because we need updating is the water information all of that is in the staff report it's not it's not an issue to hold up you know the site plan it's ready to move forward we would just need that the up the information be updated on the site plan for the amount of water that's needed for the use you the staff report demonstrates that we've calculated out how much is necessary the notion of site plan just need to be updated to reflect what the we have water it's available again it's just an outstanding issue the site plan just needs to be updated to demonstrate here again we talked about this about like two weeks ago so we had not received an email we would have made the revisions to the plan yeah regarding the parking and the water so I think all

this will be when you resubmit for Signature set all I need the information from you folks two or three weeks ago we responded through email with Andrea I've heard nothing back until tonight it's in this it's in the staff report I don't have the staff report it staff report was for the Planning Commission it was online I understand that but it just came out I would have made revisions to the plan could be done now the time of sign set save save a step it'll be done so staff recommends the commission consider the conditional approval based on the following conditions just to address all any out outstanding City comment uh City comments prior to submission of City sign set include you know the dental molding as we've discussed that they are um then just do the revisions to the parking standards and the revision to all water information Dean when we were here you weren't here last time so can you just explain um you did provide you know more details on elevation appreciate it um so the it's like a brick veneer to grade is that what you're doing it's not brick itself it's like a your product and there you see a picture of it right there um actually I I pulled that off of the Lowe's website so that's where it's available it's a it's a a polyurethane panel it looks like brick 38 of an inch it's there to protect the rigid insulation were requir to put on the outside of the foundation to meet the energy code so so is it like a p concrete U Foundation yes concrete block the the um the substrate the wall is 12 in poured

concrete and we have 2 Ines of rigid insulation on the outside of that and we've got to protect it where it's exposed you know above grade and that's the panel that we're using so those panels just kind of like fit together as they interlock they they adhere to the insulation and they interlog so it looks like brick yeah it's fake but from a distance it it gives you the the look of that and were you all satisfied with that as far as a i it beats the previous thinking it just going to be a gray brick or gray concrete I think it's still it's your comfortable yeah previously I just it was just a plane panel it was still a protection panel but it didn't have that that appearance to it okay so my question so has the HDC seen this plan they didn't see they saw the same plan you saw um Dean went over the architectural elevations with the HTC they had no concerns with the plan if you look at what's existing there today the front bad matches what essentially is there today so they had no concerns with the architecture new development the materials being used mimic exactly today but their main concern was this type of molding well yeah well they their concern was the building itself and dean explained exactly that the metal roof is the same metal type that's there today the siding is the same type the windows same type of Windows just a little bit larger because they so they went the only issue outstanding was that Dental M and then Dean did they want I noticed like the windows they want the window go in the exact same Lo because it looks like you mimic or that just what you chose to do just from a stadistic

standpoint yeah it it's you know because the the layout of the building isn't quite the same as the existing building and of course what's behind that facade is much larger you know extends way back into the uh into the site but um the the front of the building looks very similar to what the existing building does as soon as you walk around the side uh you know all all pre pretense is gone okay any any further questions of Staff or anybody here from the is area in the back is that sort of your access yes there's a loading you see that that uh garage door there that's a loading area from the alley that's in the back and that accesses the the the whole basement level will be used for storage and processing of of um uh donations and and that's sort of put the Christmas trees y Christmas trees our fesal trees event yes what I think you might think you all might have addressed this last time what is your timeline as far as you know starting and completion the the uh projects out for bid right now actually we're receiving the bids from five biders I hope up tomorrow oh tomorrow afternoon and um the the building permits been applied and we've received

comments uh that we're addressing right now um I would expect a springtime construction start and we're probably looking at at least nine months that's what I was going to say it's more than like a six month because of how big it is yeah yeah yeah okay what the well I go I will uh make a motion that um the commission conditionally approves the proposed site development plan s233 36 uh the Shephard staff with the follow with the following conditions outlined in the staff's report which are four conditions in total I w't bother to read them all through since there our staff report that's my motion any motion's been made is there a second to that motion second any questions or concerns from the commission all in favor say I no and site approved based on that motion we have counton report but we don't have counton I have their report they're not sending people anymore H the person is I don't know if they are or not but I back um the only thing that I think that's really relevant to us is um next

month actually be seeing annual report for the city for 2024 um it's something that we're going to I'm I'm working on it now so we will have it for you at the February meeting we'll need you to look at it prior to the meeting because at the meeting we're going to need your certification it's a letter so they put it together for all the municipalities and kind of package it together and it goes to um I believe to the Planning Commission as well as to the board of County protector and then by July 1st to go to Department planning so it's just something that we do every year that said um I was also looking through our February stuff from last year and that was also a time in which um we did elections just let you know that we may have to do elections next month as well but that wasn't a county report that's a me report um and that is I think all I know okay so any questions of the commission members next is commission plan commission comments with you Mr H anything so um hearing none uh I'll entertain a motion to adjourn moved motion been made second second to adjourn all in favor say I I no motion car