CALVERT COUNTY
PLANNING COMMISSION
150 Main Street
Prince Frederick, MD 20678
Phone: 410-535-2348 — 301-855-1243
Fax: 410-414-3092
Maurice Lusby
Chairman
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
Action Minutes — January 21, 2015
(SD Card to Disk 1/Trak 1)
1.
Call to Order. Mr. Lusby called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and explained Roberts Rules.
2.
Recognition of Planning Commission Members, Legal Counsel and Staff
Members: Chairman Maurice Lusby, Vice Chairman Mike Phipps, Bill Glascock, Roxanne Cumberland,
Carolyn McHugh, Rob Reed, and Malcolm Funn.
Legal Counsel: John Yacovelle; CP&B Staff Tom Barnett, Yolanda Hipski, Jenny Plummer-Welker,
Pat Haddon, Will Selman, and Becky Parkinson; Julie Paluda, Capital Projects Analyst, Finance & Budget; and
Walter McKain, Park Supervisor with the Department of Parks & Recreation
3.
Action on Proposed Agenda. Ms. Hipski added one item for discussion: 9e(*), Draft Proposal for a Sliding
Scale for Use of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) in Town Centers
Motion by Mr. Phipps, seconded by Ms. Cumberland, to approve the agenda as amended.
Motion passed 6-0.
4.
Approval of Minutes: December 10, 2014. No changes were made to the Minutes.
Motion by Mr. Phipps, seconded by Ms. Cumberland, to approve the December 10, 2014 Regular Meeting
Minutes as presented. Motion passed 6-0.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Town Center Architectural Approvals: None
Major Subdivisions for Final Approval: None
Applications for Site Plan Review: None
Major Subdivision Applications for Preliminary Approval: None
((13:23)
9.
(04:21)
Items for Discussion/Action:
a) SPR 14-427711, Ward Farm Recreation and Nature Park Master Plan
Mr. McKain, summarized the staff report previously submitted to the Planning Commission noting that the
presentation copy previously submitted to them was the same version as what the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC) received and, since that time, the formal name was adopted.
The BOCC purchased the 209 acres in the fall of 2013 from the Ward Family for the price of $2.75M.
The funds-to-purchase came from the Calvert County Youth Recreational Opportunities Act passed by
legislature and proceeds from gambling in North and Chesapeake Beaches.
Approximately this time last year, the County contracted with Mahan Rykiel Associates, Inc. (Consultant)
to assist with the process of this Master Plan. The purpose of tonight's presentation is to obtain approval of
the Master Plan in order to proceed to the next step of development of individual site plans. This project
will be long term as funds become available.
(05:40)
Mr. McKain said part of the parcel's zoning was Farm & Forest District (FFD) so Parks & Recreation Staff
took this matter to the Board of Appeals (BOA) on August 7, 2014 (Land Bay Plan) and received approval
with the caveat that the BOCC and Planning Commission approve the Plan as well.
Maryland Relay for Impaired Hearing or Speech 1-800-735-2258
The Technical Advisory Group's comments will be approached in site plan development as the Plan moves
forward. If any major changes occur, those changes will be brought back to the Planning Commission for
review. This project is presently eleven phases mainly for budget purposes, but Mr. McKain believes there
will be more phases and site plans than anticipated based upon his experience in developing the three
existing district parks. He explained the basic design and timeframes of Dunkirk District Park. (08:40
Mr. McKain began the presentation of Slide 3.
( 12:25)Mr.
McKain emphasized the number one purpose for buying this property was the County's need for
athletic fields in the third district. He said the Dunkirk District Park and this facility will be complimentary
of one another, not duplicates. The first public meeting was hosted by Parks & Recreation and Natural
Resources at Northeast Community Center.06:13fPrimitive camping" was defined as "scout with
backpack". (i9:40) Mr. McKain continued the presentation with Slide 12 noting two roundabouts being
proposed. 03:38) The multi-purpose field would be lost if the building were to be constructed.625:40 He
explained the parking rationale for different size athletic fields. (30:38) He explained that if there are any
minor relocations, how they will not be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval. However if
a playground and a ball field location exchange is made, that is considered a major plan change and would
be brought back for approval. (34:05) Mr. McKain said he didn't know whether the ponds were going to be
stocked with fish and would have to defer that question to Natural Resources.05.-27)He said a second public
meeting was held and specified citizen concerns were mainly about access. (36:30) There was discussion
about fencing, steep slopes, signs, adjoining farmer neighbors, and Hall Creek.
(40:45)Mr.
McKain noted that the figure of $2.8M does not include any improvements to Ward Road. The Ward
Road Improvements are strictly the circle and entrance work planned. There are no funds in the budget for
the next step of planning. It has not been decided when the next step or what portion will be done. Funding
will have to be placed into the County's Capital budget process which is positioned five years out. Staff is
reviewing dollars for minor issues and where to go next, working with the Consultant to do the Forest
Retention Plan and Easement, reviewing existing perc tests, and looking at doing a complete traffic study
on Ward Road. (42:33) Mr. McKain noted that the start date would be in a few years, again noting that minor
things have been done in order for children to at least "kick around a ball" and "nature interpretation
programs" have been planned, but no disturbance to this point. He said the Aquatic Center costs $1 5M.
(44.00)
There was discussion about it taking four years to get the funds from the gambling proceeds (not all
gambling proceed funds have been received so the purchase funds were "fund forwarded" by the BOCC).
(45 :25) There was discussion about alternative sources of income for this project. (46.26) Mr. McKain said a
critical issue on this process is that 209 acres has been preserved forever no matter how long it takes to
develop the Park. The long-term Comprehensive Plan includes six district parks and presently there are
three. Mr. McKain noted that there is no infrastructure yet on this parcel whereas there was for the other
three existing parks. (49:04) Ms. Paluda said all sources of revenue for this type of build-out are presently
constrained, and she explained other possible sources for funds.
(51:40)There
was discussion about pervious and impervious parking, noise, and traffic. The BOCC approved the
Park's Master Plan as Owners. There was discussion about the location of ball fields, high use areas,
lighting, and buffers regarding possible interference with neighboring properties.
(58:45)There
was a discussion about "a flexible approval approach over time" rather than "one approval".
Mr. McKain noted that any note(s) can be placed on the plat. Mr. Phipps commented.
(71:58)
Motion by Mr. Phipps, seconded by Mr. Glascock, to approve the Master Plan for Ward Farm Recreation
and Park with the understanding that if CP&B Staff sees a major modification(s) or issue(s) regarding
sound that would conflict with neighbors, and such, that they would advise Staff with the Department of
Parks & Recreation that the Plan be returned to the Planning Commission for further review on those
sections that are developed as such. Motion passed 5-I (Mr. Reed opposed.)
January 21, 2015 Planning Commission Regular Meeting - Action Minutes
2
(Disk 2/Track 1)
b) FY16-FY21 Budget Presentation - Preliminary Review of FY 2016 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
consistent with the 2010 Calvert County Comprehensive Plan
Ms. Plummer-Welker summarized the staff report previously distributed to the Planning Commission
noting a new Page 10 for replacement. The yellow highlighted material within the Chart represents new
projects for this review. Projects seen before by the Planning Commission, but not on the list last year and
have come back this year, were not highlighted and the individual topics are grouped by types.
(02:59)
She noted that only the proposed projects in the 2016 CIP are projects that the Commissioners actually vote
on to fund. All the other projects are "penciled in" and are on the horizon to be approved during the next
review. She pointed out that this was a public process and other meetings have been scheduled and listed in
the staff report.
(03:40)
There was discussion about the possibility of Cove Point Park being relocated (in whole or part).
Ms. Paluda noted that there were projects slated for 2016, but staff was directed to put them on hold until it
was determined if the current park will remain in its existing location. Staff does not have a horizon when
that determination will be. After being asked by the Planning Commission, Ms. Paluda said this topic is
related to Dominion. She said the preferred method to plan a project, through the CIP, is to put it in the "out
years" and move that project up for proper concept planning, feasibility studies, and public input; then the
current year is adopted by the BOCC.
(06:08)
The item entitled "Calvert County Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Ordinance" was discussed.
Ms. Plummer-Welker stated that this subject is a new item and should have been highlighted in yellow.
She said the funds are to hire a consultant to work with the County to undertake review of both the County
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinances. (06:48) There was discussion about the Bayfront Park.
(07'27)
There was discussion about Skipjack Road and MD/RT 231 Intersection Improvements. Ms. Paluda
explained what the State and County is responsible for paying for, respectively. (09:18). There was
discussion about the Dowell Road Widening. Ms. Paluda said this was not put on hold, and explained
Phase I of Dowell Road (from Route 4 to Annmarie Gardens) and preparation of Phase II.
(10:34)
Ms. Plummer-Welker noted that Page 10 of the Chart is being replaced to correct the second to the last
column, Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Marley Run Arsenic Treatment Plant, Project #4821.
(11:06)
Motion by Mr. Phipps, seconded by Ms. Cumberland, to recommend to the Board of County
Commissioners that the Fiscal Year 2016 to 2021 Capital Improvement Plan as presented is consistent
with the County Comprehensive Plan. Motion passed 6-0.
Ms. Paluda noted that she would present a work session for the six year plan to the BOCC next month and
then there will be two public hearings held between now and June. During that timeframe, projects listed
within the Capital Plan could change or be deferred, and ones that are in the "out" years, could be moved
up depending on prioritization. If there is a significant change that affects fiscal year 2016, which is what
the Commissioners will adopt in June 2015, she will bring them to the Planning Commission in March
2015. She said, at this point, she would expect it to go down not up. Ms. Plummer-Welker commented.
(13:40) There was a discussion about timeframes of deferred projects. Ms. Paluda explained that there is a
deferral page which consists of projects that are beyond Year 2021 which staff continues to look at for
potential funding.
(Disk 2/Track 2)
c)
Architectural Requirements for Roof Pitches and Building Materials
Mr. Selman summarized the staff report previously submitted to the Planning Commission noting that the
language in red is the most recent edition of what is being proposed. (06:20) There was discussion about
modular siding and the language, "quality design and craftsmanship" phrase. Mr. Selman described a false
mansard roof.
January 21, 2015 Planning Commission Regular Meeting — Action Minutes
3
(10:19)
Mr. Selman said the proposed language from the Zoning Ordinance regarding non-residential buildings was
presented to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) and they thought it would be a fine alternative to
consider. (12:45) There was discussion about what is being recommended by the ARC. Mr. Selman
confirmed that the language in red and the language on page 3, Option 2 for Roof Pitch, is new and the
latest version (as being recommended and written on Page 1 of the staff report). Mr. Selman said the Prince
Frederick ARC is very comfortable with this language.
(16:36)
There was concern and discussion about the language "quality design and craftsmanship". Ms. Hipski
commented about alternative designs. Ms. Plummer-Welker suggested removing the language, "but of
quality design and craftsmanship". There was discussion about building material varieties.
(26:23)
Motion by Ms. Cumberland, seconded by Ms. McHugh, to approve the proposed text under Item B,
excluding the material in red; and approve the proposed text for Item J, including the language in red;
with the understanding that this will be forwarded to the process for a text amendment change.
Motion passed 6-0.
(Disk 2/Track 3)
d) Road Name Change — Purple Martin Lane to Ray Trott Lane
Motion by Mr. Glascock, seconded by Ms. Cumberland, to approve the road name change from
Purple Martin Lane to Ray Trott Lane. Motion passed 6-0.
(Disk 2/Track 4)
e)* Draft Proposal for a Sliding Scale for Use of Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) in Town Centers
Ms. Plummer-Welker said CP&B Staff has spoken with representatives from the Agricultural and
Development Communities. She said about 20 TDR's have been used in ten years. The idea to
reinvigorate the TDR program (to change the formula) was recommended by the Consultants during the
Prince Frederick Charrette. She said this is an initial idea and not a text amendment, and further explained
the sliding scale concept. Mr. Phipps said he wasn't totally opposed of the idea of changing the formula
explaining rationale nexus. Ms. Hipski noted that the County Attorney's Office will be reviewing this
matter. Mr. Glascock suggested caution be taken regarding changes to the formula. (07:55) Mr. Barnett
commented about density, and said the current BOCC has directed staff to review the TDR situation. The
current Board has seen this idea and has given staff the "go ahead" to begin the public comment process.
(11:43) There was discussion about developers who bought TDRs in recent years (at a much higher rate)
relating to the existing economy. (14:25) There was discussion about this matter being countywide.
Ms. Plummer-Welker said the rate of TDR use would change, but the zoning would not change and would
still apply to whatever the town center district is. Mr. Barnett commented about present TDR pricing.
Ms. Hipski noted comments are being submitted by Friday, February 13, 2015. Ms. Plummer-Welker
noted that this is a bit different from the normal text amendment process. Staff is sending out this draft
proposal (not text amendments) to get agency comments. Once the initial comments are back from the
agencies, staff will go to the Board with the comments for direction on how to proceed. If the Board says
"yes", staff will bring text amendments to the Planning Commission then the normal work session process
(via text amendment) would occur.
(24:48)
Mr. Phipps asked the Planning Commission to keep in mind the primary purpose of TDR's is to preserve
land. Mr. Barnett noted that staff has floated previous versions by the Agricultural Preservation Group and
even though they haven't responded formally, said they were willing to entertain something like this. There
was a brief discussion about other items needing review and would require zoning ordinance text
amendments and changes to the Agricultural Preservation rules and regulations. (26:15) There was discussion
about the recent change in State administration.
Motion by Mr. Phipps, seconded by Ms. Cumberland, to adjourn the January 21, 2015 Planning
Commission Regular Meeting. Motion passed -0.
11.
Me ting
owned .t 9:35 p.m.
a Hipski, Planning Commission Administrator Maurice T. Lusby, Chairma, a
January 1, 2015 Planning Commission Regular Meeting - Action Minutes
4