City of Frederick Water & Sewer Service Committee MINUTES

Transcription

1 City of Frederick Water & Sewer Service Committee MINUTES January 20, 2010 /10:00 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joe Adkins, Director of Planning Gene Walzl, Utilities Engineer Todd Himes, Sr. Building Inspector/Acting Division Chief STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Wright, Utilities Engineering Associate, Engineering Department Rachel Depo, Asst. City Attorney Sarah Stamper, Engineering Administrative Assistant GUESTS PRESENT: Mr. Chris Smariga, Harris Smariga Associates Meeting Called to Order: Mr. Walzl called the meeting to order. Announcements by Mr. Wright: 1. He noted that the information for Steiner Terrace had been revised, and that the application was split into two separate requests for water and sewer allocation. He also noted that a water conservation plan for the nonresidential component was included in the agenda packet. Mr. Himes asked where the property was located. Mr.Wright responded that the property is located between Patrick and South Streets. 1. Any allocations made today would be subject to revocation July 20, The balance of the nonresidential category is 1,233 gallons. The infill balance is 61,891 gallons.

2 Allocations: New allocation of 4,724 GPD to Steiner Terrace from the Discretionary Category Infill Development sub-category pursuant to Section of the Frederick City Code. Mr. Walzl asked Mr. Smariga to make his presentation. Mr. Chris Smariga, Harris Smariga Associates, was present for the applicant of this case. He stated that his client was out of the country at this time. He stated that the current owner had purchased the property within the last one or one and a half years. The previous owners had acquired several properties in the neighborhood with the intent of having frontage on Patrick Street, but the major part of the development would be in the rear portion of the property. The proposed development will be mixed use office, residential condominiums which look like townhouses in appearance, and two, single family rehabilitated units. The project has received site plan approval, and is currently going through the improvement plan review process. The request is for allocation from the infill category. Mr. Walzl asked if a new lot line was created. Mr. Smariga responded that the lot line was existing, but had been shifted. Mr. Adkins asked who the owner of the property in question was. Mr. Smariga responded that the owner is Neil Sinclair. Mr. Smariga stated that he has provided a water conservation plan of actions within control of the property owner that could be implemented such as installing low flow fixtures, minimizing water use for landscaping on the property, and monitoring water bills. He was unsure if there would be one or two condominium associations serving the residents of the developed property. There will be separate water bills (private?) from throughout the project which will encourage the tenants to monitor water use as well. Mr. Walzl stated that according to the application, the box is checked that the project is an existing lot of record. Is that actually applicable since the lots are consolidated and the lot lines were shifted? Mr. Smariga stated that the lot was not subdivided, but that the backs of some of the properties were consolidated. Mr. Walzl asked for the definition of existing lot of record. Mr. Smariga stated that the lots were there, but they have taken different shapes.

3 Ms. Depo stated that the section merely says lot of record, NOT existing lot of record. Mr. Smariga stated that the plan was dated February Mr. Adkins noted that the LMC was adopted July Mr. Adkins stated that the zoning lines matched the existing property lines, but that the zoning line was adjusted. He noted the particulars of this project were similar to the Maxwell Square project. Mr. Walzl stated that he probably has a more liberal view of what infill/redevelopment means being able to take property and renew the use so he feels this project fits the definition of infill/redevelopment. He does not think infill means the lot has to be a vacant, never developed lot. Mr. Wright noted that the request is for two allocations one for the commercial portion for 2,624 gallons based on the 26,243 sq. ft. of commercial space, and the other allocation for 12 residential condominiums for a total of 2,100 gpd. Mr. Walzl asked if two separate motions should be made. Mr. Wright replied yes. Ms. Depo stated that there should be two motions and two contracts. Motion: Mr. Adkins moved to allocate 2,624 gpd from the nonresidential infill category for the commercial units for Steiner Terrace pursuant to Section of the Frederick City Code, subject to revocation July 20, Mr. Himes seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Mr. Walzl asked if the two single family rehabilitated units were being served. Mr. Smariga responded that there will be one meter for Lot 2R, so the two units will be fed off the new water allocation. Mr. Wright stated that the new units would be less than 2,500 sq. ft. and would not change the allocation amount. Mr. Walzl asked if it would affect how it was shown. Mr. Wright stated that it would only change the exhibit for the contract as far as increasing the max potential for the project by 500 gallons, but it would not affect today s allocation amount. Motion: Mr. Adkins moved to allocate 2,100 gpd for the residential units for Steiner Terrace from the Discretionary Infill category per Section of the Frederick City Code, subject to revocation July 20, Mr. Himes seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. New allocation of 152 GPD to Fisher Building from the Non-Residential Tier 1 category pursuant to Section of the Frederick City Code. Mr. Wright stated that the City owns the property currently, but that there is a pending sale and transfer of ownership. He stated that the request is for 152 gpd based on the square footage.

4 Mr. Adkins asked if the allocation should come from the infill category instead of the nonresidential category. Mr. Wright stated that there is an existing building on the site, and so he thought it would be under the infill category. He also stated that the property was subdivided in order to create the current lot. Mr. Adkins stated that there is sufficient water/sewer to allocate from either category. Mr. Walzl noted that there is a larger amount of water/sewer available in the infill category, than in the nonresidential category. He stated that the property could be subdivided and eligible for infill water/sewer if it was zoned DB. Mr. Adkins stated that the property had two zonings, DB and DR, and the subdivision had taken place when the property was zoned DB. However, he stated that he tends to think of vacant lots when he thinks of infill. Mr. Walzl stated that he felt that if the property is being reutilized, then it is an infill use. Ms. Depo stated that she did not see a reason why the water/sewer couldn t be allocated from either category. Mr. Wright stated that the property was a lot of record, but was subdivided off. He suggested the infill category, since it had the larger amount of available water/sewer for allocations. Motion: Mr. Adkins moved to allocate 152 gpd for the Fisher Building from the infill category pursuant to Section of the Frederick City Code subject to revocation July 20, Mr. Himes seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Mr. Wright asked if the City should create a contract now, or wait until the parcel is sold and then do a contract with the new owner? Ms. Depo suggested doing the contract now as the contract is supposed to be made within 60 days of the water and sewer allocation, and she is uncertain how quickly the sale will be completed. In addition, it creates a paper trail. She added that although it is odd to have the City sign the contract as both parties, it has been done before and there is nothing wrong with it. Unscheduled Discussion Items: Lot of Record Ms. Depo suggested fixing the lot of record issue. Incorrect References to LMC in Administrative Regulations

5 Ms. Depo noted that now that the water and sewer allocation is not contained within the Land Management Code (LMC), the template has been changed, but the administrative regulations still contain references to the LMC. She asked if the administrative regulations should be revised to remove the incorrect references now, or if the committee wants to wait until the major changes are made to the ordinance itself? It is unclear when the major revisions will be made to the ordinance. Mr. Wright noted that the new changes are posted on the City s website. Mr. Wright suggested making the revisions to the administrative regulations to remove the incorrect references to the LMC at this time, instead of waiting for the other changes to the ordinance. Mr. Himes stated that he was in favor of making the changes now to make the documents match regarding cross references. Ms. Depo stated that she planned to have a draft of the proposed revisions to the administrative regulations ready for the committee by the next meeting. Major Revisions to Water Allocation Ordinance Mr. Walzl suggested that everyone be thinking about the major changes to the ordinance, so that they can proceed with the revisions in early spring. Mr. Wright indicated that he would like to have more discussions about what direction the committee would like to take prior to undertaking major revisions to the ordinance. Ms. Depo agreed, stating that she is unsure where to start with the changes. Mr. Himes questioned how the revisions would tie in to the water and sewer impact fees. Mr. Walzl asked everyone to be thinking of items that need to be revisited, defined, fixed, etc., and to give them to Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright is to keep a running log/list of suggestions. Then, Mr. Walzl would like to meet back within the next few months, while the agenda is light, to begin reviewing proposed changes. He suggested meeting next month to begin discussing proposed changes. Minutes: September 9, 2009 Motion: Mr. Himes moved to approve the minutes of the September 9, 2009 Water and Sewer Service Committee meeting minutes as drafted. Mr. Adkins seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Adjournment:

6 Motion: Mr. Adkins moved to adjourn the meeting at 10:40 a.m. Mr. Himes seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.