PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA May 8, 2017

Transcription

1 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA May 8, :00 P.M CITY HALL I. ANNOUNCEMENTS: II. MINUTES: Approval of the April 10, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Approval of the April 17, 2017 Planning Commission Workshop Minutes Approval of the May 5, 2017 Pre-Planning Commission Minutes III. PUBLIC HEARING-SWEARING IN: Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the responses given and statements made in this hearing before the Planning Commission will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth. If so, answer, I do. IV. PUBLIC HEARING-CONSENT ITEMS: (All matters included under the Consent Agenda are considered routine by the Planning Commission. They will be enacted by one motion in the form listed below, without separate discussion of each item, unless any person present Planning Commissioner, Planning Staff or citizen -- requests an item or items to be removed from the Consent Agenda. Any item removed from the Consent Agenda will be considered separately at the end of the Consent Agenda. If you would like any of the items below considered separately, please say so when the Planning Commission Chairman announces the Consent Agenda) V. CONTINUANCES A. PC17-128ANX, Annexation, Renn Properties, Gas House Pike The Applicant is requesting a 30 day continuance to the June 12, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting. (NAC 12)(Collard) 1

2 PC Agenda VI. MISCELLANEOUS B. PC17-12PCM, Planning Commission Modification, 462 W. South Street KAI Properties The Applicant is requesting a modification to Section 821 of the Land Management Code (LMC), entitled Fences, Walls, and Hedges to allow a fence along the front property line in the absence of a principal structure at 462 W. South Street. (NAC 10)(Butler) VII. NEW BUSINESS: C. PC17-231PSU, Preliminary Subdivision Plat, 126 S. Carroll Street The Applicant is requesting preliminary subdivision plat approval for the resubdivision of the existing multifamily lot at the corner of S. Carroll Street and E. South Street to create four new townhouse lots. (NAC 12)(Butler) D. PC16-962FSI, Final Site Plan, 126 S. Carroll Street The Applicant is requesting final site plan approval for four new townhouse lots fronting along E. South Street The Applicant is also requesting a modification to Section 606 of the Land Management Code (LMC) entitled, Lots and Blocks. (NAC12)(Butler) A complete and final agenda will be available for review prior to the meeting at the Planning Department located at 140 West Patrick Street and on the Internet at The meeting will be broadcast live on City Government Cable Channel 99 as well as streamed and archived on the City s website at For information regarding the agenda, minutes, or public meetings of the Planning Commission please contact Jessica Murphy at (301) Individuals requiring special accommodations are requested to call 5 days prior to the meeting to make arrangements. The City of Frederick Government does not discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, marital status, veteran status, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, genetic information, or any other legally protected group in employment or in the provision of services

3 PROJECT INFORMATION CITY OF FREDERICK PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT STAFF REPORT May 8, 2017 AGENDA ITEM: B. NAME OF PROJECT: 462 W. South Street, KAI Properties TYPE OF PROJECT: Fence Modification CASE NUMBER: PC17-12PMC APPLICANT/OWNER: ADDRESS: Steve Shapiro 2 Stationhouse Ct Gaithersburg, MD PROPERTY LOCATION: 462 W. South Street REVIEWED BY: Tierre Butler DATE: May 1, 2017 EXHIBITS: Application Packet PROJECT PROPOSAL The Applicant is requesting approval of a modification to Section 821 of the Land Management Code (LMC) entitled Fences, Walls, and Hedges, in order to allow a fence along the front of the property line in absence of the principal structure. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Applicant received a permit to demolish the principal structure on the Property and recently received Planning Commission approval to subdivide the Property into two residential lots intended for single family or two-family dwelling units. As a result of the demolition, the Property currently does not contain a principal structure at this time. A solid wooden fence was constructed to secure the site and the Applicant was cited for construction without approval of a building permit. Section 803(a)(1) states that accessory uses and structures shall be located on the same parcel as the permitted use or structure and Section 821(b)(2) further indicates that fences/walls/hedges are prohibited beyond the front façade of a principal structure. In order to remedy the code violation, the Applicant must receive approval for a fence permit. Although the DR zoning district does not specify a mandatory minimum front yard setback, in absence of a principal structure a modification is necessary to allow the Planning Department 140 W. Patrick St. Frederick, MD Fax

4 fence to remain. The Applicant is requesting a modification to allow the fencing until the other applications associated with the Property have time to complete the construction process. DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS Total Lot Area Property Zoning Number & Type of Units Roadway Dedication Open Space (HOA) Park Land Dedication Area Acres Downtown Residential (DR) NAC NAC# 10 Meeting Date Number of Attendees Comments None STAFF COMMENTS & ANALYSIS REVIEWING AUTHORITY Per Section 821(d)(1), the Planning Commission may approve modifications to the height and location of fences, walls, or hedges. The Commission must consider the criteria of Section 309(j) and 821(d)(3) when reviewing an application for a fence modification. The criteria are listed below with a summary of the Applicant s response and staff s analysis: Section 309(j): A. the modification will not be contrary to the purpose and intent of the code: Applicant s Response: This is a temporary fence to protect the lot and adjoining property until new construction begins. Staff s Analysis: While the Applicant may intend for the fencing to be temporary, the LMC does not contain provisions for temporary structures of this nature unless building permits for construction have been issued and the structures are solely for construction purposes. As such, the assumption must be made that the fence will remain on the Property indefinitely. 2

5 Staff finds that the modification will not be contrary to the purpose and the intent of the Code. In addition to the justification by the Applicant, one of the primary objectives of prohibiting fences beyond the front façade was to prevent obstructions beyond the front façade of adjoining structures, which could block light, air, and access to those properties. The concern that fencing beyond the front façade of a home could impede the open nature of an adjoining neighbor s front yard led to regulations that are very prescriptive. In light of those prescriptive standards, it was acknowledged that certain scenarios may not present concerns and therefore, the flexibility of a modification provision was adopted. In this scenario, the fence was constructed to protect the adjoining properties until the new constructions begins. As such, the location of the fence does not conflict with the purpose and intent that the regulation was designed to achieve. B. the modification is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan: Applicant s Response: The fence is just temporary Staff s Analysis: The modification is consistent with the following policies or objectives of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. 1. Land Use Policy 1- Encourage development to be compatible with the character of the existing or planned development in the vicinity. 2. Land Use Policy 10- Use the Comprehensive Plan text and maps to guide development decisions, assess land use development proposals, and to promote public health, safety and welfare. The principal structure has been demolished by permit and the fence is intended to secure the site until another structure is constructed while ensuring public safety and preventing intrusion on to the site or neighboring properties. C. the application includes compensating design or architectural features so as to meet overall objectives of the particular requirement: Applicant s Response: The fence is a wood fence. See Photos Staff s Analysis: The fence is constructed out of solid wood with the finished side facing the street. Section 821(d)(3): A. The proposed fence, wall, or hedge complies with the sight triangle Applicant s Response: The fence is not on any corner and it does not impact sight line. 3

6 Staff s Analysis: Section 611(t) is not applicable to the subject lot since it is not a corner lot and the sight triangle does not encroach onto the Property. B. The proposed fence, wall or hedge is consistent with the scale and design of the surrounding community: Applicant s Response: Yes, it is a common wood fence. See Photos Staff s Analysis: The fence is consistent with the scale and design of the surrounding community. The design and scale is similar to existing fences located on W. South Street. C. The proposed fence, wall, or hedge does not adversely impact the use and enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity: Applicant s Response: No it does not, in fact it does just the opposite by protecting the neighbors since the existing structure was demolished by permit. Staff s Analysis: This fence does not adversely impact the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. Section 821(b) states that in residential districts above ground electrical fences, barbed wire fences, and chain link fences with vinyl or wooden slats are prohibited. The subject fence is constructed in solid wooden and was erected to secure the site and protect the neighbors from intrusions. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of modification PC17-12PCM to allow a 6 tall wood, board on board fence along the front property line in absence of the principal structure, based on compliance with the modification criteria established under Section 309(j) and Section 821(d) of the LMC. 4

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 PROJECT INFORMATION CITY OF FREDERICK PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT STAFF REPORT May 8, 2017 AGENDA ITEM: C. NAME OF PROJECT: 126 S. Carroll Street TYPE OF PROJECT: Preliminary Subdivision Plat CASE NUMBERS: PC17-231PSU AGENDA ITEM: D. NAME OF PROJECT: 126 S. Carroll Street TYPE OF PROJECT: Final Site Plan CASE NUMBERS: PC16-962FSI PROPERTY OWNER: Housing Authority for City of Frederick ADDRESS: 209 Madison Street, Frederick, MD APPLICANT: Chris Smariga, Harris Smariga & Associates ADDRESS: 125 South Carroll Street, Suite 100, Frederick, PHONE NUMBER: (301) PROPERTY LOCATION: 126 S. Carroll Street REVIEWED BY: Tierre Butler DATE: May 1, 2017 EXHIBITS: Modification Letter PROJECT PROPOSAL The Applicant is requesting approval of a preliminary subdivision plat and final site plan (PC17-213PSU and PC16-962FSI, respectively) for the subdivision and construction of four townhouse units fronting along E. South Street. The Applicant is also requesting a modification to Section 606(a) of the Land Management Code (LMC), entitled Lots and Blocks. Planning Department 140 W. Patrick St. Frederick, MD Fax

21 BACKGROUND INFORMATION The site was originally developed under final site plan PC07-586FSI that was approved by the Planning Commission in May of That site plan proposed 36 dwelling units to be allocated into 32 multifamily units and four duplex dwelling units. The 32 multifamily apartments have been constructed according to the previously referenced final site plan. Four townhouse units are now proposed in the location previously depicted for the duplex units. PRIOR CASES Annexation Zoning Map Amendment Sketch Plan Master Plan Preliminary Subdivision Plan Final Subdivision Plan Final Site Plan Forest Stand Delineation Preliminary Forest Conservation Plan Zoning Board of Appeals Cases Archeological Assessment Case Number & Date of Approval STF15-721SP PC07-586FSI PC07-450PFC 08-96ARCH DEVELOPMENT CHARACTERISTICS Total Lot Area Property Zoning Number & Type of Units Roadway Dedication Open Space (HOA) Park Land Dedication Area 0.63 Acres Downtown Commercial/Residential (DB) Historic Preservation Overlay (HPO) Carroll Creek Overlay (CCO) 4 Townhouse units NAC NAC# 12 Meeting Date Number of Attendees 5 Comments None FACILITIES AND SERVICE Road Name Comprehensive ROW Access Provision 2

22 Plan Classification South Carroll Street Local 50 Full Movement Residential East South Street Minor Arterial 50 Full Movement Residential APFO TYPE APPLICABILITY ISSUED (Y/N) CAPF-WL CAPF-SL CAPF-R CAPF-SCH STAFF COMMENTS & ANALYSIS REVIEWING AUTHORITY The preliminary subdivision plat and final site plan are separate items on the Planning Commission agenda and the Planning Commission will be required to make separate motions based on different standards of review, recommendations, and findings, however, the plan itself and the staff report has been combined to decrease redundancy and allow a more cohesive analysis of both applications. Staff has provided the standards that apply to each application below for the Planning Commission s review. In reviewing the preliminary subdivision plat, the Commission must evaluate the plan for compliance with those regulations governing the subdivision process as outlined in Article 5 of the LMC. Per Section 507, a preliminary or final subdivision plat shall not be approved unless the plat conforms to the Comprehensive Plan and all of the applicable zoning regulations of Articles 4, the design and development standards of Articles 6 and 7, and any applicable sections of Article 8, the supplemental use regulations. Further, in considering a preliminary subdivision plat, the Commission shall consider the requirements of the community and the best use of land being subdivided, the public facilities that will support and service the area under the plan, and the completion and continuation of any roads shown on the Comprehensive Plan. In reviewing a final site plan, the Commission must consider the criteria outlined in Section 309(e) of the LMC which includes compliance with all of the applicable criteria of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 12 of the LMC, conformance with any area or master plan approved for the subject property, the 2010 Comprehensive Plan, the adequacy of facilities and services to accommodate the impacts of the development, and lastly, where applicable, the provision of Moderately Priced Dwelling Units (MPDU). 3

23 During the initial approval, the requirements of Section 721 of the LMC for forest conservation, Section 603 for archeological assessment, and Section 608 for parkland dedication were satisfied based on the same number of units as proposed today and the same disturbed area. The site was also evaluated for compliance with Chapter 4 of the City Code, the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO). Certificates of adequacy were issued, however; only remain valid for a period of three years and therefore, have expired, subjecting the new units to review. The proposed development of only four units is exempt from the APFO under Section 4-5(a)(3) for developments of less than five units. Lastly, the 2007 site plan was approved prior to the adoption of Chapter 19 of the City Code regarding moderately priced dwelling units (MPDUs) and therefore, was not subject to review. Once again, considering just the new development of only four lots, the project is exempt under Section It is important to note that the overall development is part of the Hope VI initiative and therefore, provided affordable housing stock in the City. LAND USE The townhouse units will be located on individual lots that are now part of the larger parcel that contains 32 multifamily units owned by the Housing Authority of the City of Frederick. This application is subject to Section 606(a) for general lot requirements. Subsection (a)(2) states that no part of a yard that is required for any building, structure or use may be included as part of a required yard or off-street parking or loading space required for another building, structure or use. Per Section 510, this requirement is subject to modification by the Planning Commission as part of the subdivision process. Townhouse units in the DB zoning district require a 20 rear yard. Lots 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D will meet the required yard depth; however, the entire required rear yards on Lots 2B and 2C will be the drive aisle that serves the rest of this development. This is necessary to meet the minimum lot size required. A portion of the required rear yard for 2A and 2D will be the drive aisle and the remaining area of the yard will be parking for the respective lots. A cross access easement will be established to allow for continued use by all units. Per Section 510, the Applicant must demonstrate that: 1. The property is subject to unusual conditions that make it impractical or undesirable to insist upon strict adherence. 2. The modification does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the regulation subject to the modification. 3. The modification does not conflict with any provision of the Comprehensive Plan or with the general purpose and intent of these regulations. 4

24 The Applicant s request is attached. Staff concurs that the existing built environment presents unusual conditions that make compliance at this time impractical. As indicated above, two sets of duplexes were originally proposed where these four units are located. The duplexes were to be located all on the same lot as the multifamily units. With the build-out of the project, there are few alternatives, especially if the developer would like to establish fee-simple lots. With regards to the purpose and intent of the regulation that the Applicant is seeking to modify, minimum yard standards are established to ensure a minimum amount of light, air, and access to structures. Traditionally, yards are reserved for green space on residential lots. The use of this area for the drive aisle does not limit light, air, or access to the lots like a structure would, however, it does prevent the homeowners from having a usable rear yard. The Properties are zoned DB which does not have a maximum impervious surface ratio (ISR) standard, so there is no minimum amount of green space required on residential lots downtown. Lastly, the Commission should consider the relationship of the request to the policies of the Comprehensive Plan. With the constraint of the built environment, the creation of fee simple lots is a challenge. However, both the Land Use Element and the Community Character and Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan advocate for prioritizing Tier 1, or infill, development. In addition, Housing Element (HE), Policy 1, which is to facility the development of an adequate housing supply for current and future residents, supports the production of a range of housing types in all parts of the City. Integrating fee-simple townhomes with multifamily dwelling units contributes to this diversity. Lastly, the project provides off-street parking which is consistent with the Transportation Element. As indicated above, the Property is located within the Carroll Creek Overlay (CCO) and the Historic Preservation Overlay (HPO). Where there is a conflict between the CCO provisions and those of the HPO, the HPO guidelines prevail. The development obtained approval from the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) in 2007, which has now expired. This application requires both Level I and II approval with the first level to be obtained prior to preliminary subdivision/final site plan approval. This application satisfied that requirement and received HPC approval at the March 23 rd public hearing. Level II approval must be obtained prior to building permit application. PARKING AND ACCESS MANAGEMENT The four lots will have access through the existing entrance on E. South Street. This access point is designed to be the entrance to a future parking deck on Lot 4 of the subdivision plat entitled The Bean Factory (PB84, Pg 128). The land is owned by the City but contains an access easement for the use by this Property. Per Section 607, the original site plan was parked at a rate of 1.5 spaces per unit which then was reduced by 50% based on the downtown zoning. The minimum requirement was 27 spaces. The Applicant proposed 30 spaces. The City has since amended its 5

25 parking standards so as to eliminate the minimum parking requirement for developments zoned DB which are less than 40,000 square feet. As such, if the development as a whole were to move forward at this time, no parking would be required. The Applicant is proposing two allocate eight of the 30 parking spaces for the townhouse units allowing two spaces to serve each townhouse unit. There will be 23 spaces remaining for the existing 32 multifamily units, which exceeds the current standards. At the April workshop the necessity of the ADA accessible parking space on Lot 2A was questioned. After confirming that the space is not needed to maintain compliance with the applicable regulations, Staff is recommending as a condition of approval that the space no longer be designated as accessible. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a modification to Section 606(a) to allow the required yards of the proposed lots to be occupied by the drive aisles to serve the remaining units of the 126 S. Carroll Street development finding that: 1. The previous construction on the Property results in unusual conditions that makes it impractical or undesirable to insist upon strict adherence; and 2. The modification does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the regulation subject to the modification as the surface parking does not impede the provision of light, air, or access to the subject lots or adjoining properties and that the proposal does not otherwise conflict with any other applicable regulations that require open/green space; and 3. The modification does not conflict with any provision of the Comprehensive Plan or with the general purpose and intent of these regulations as the modification facilitates the creation of fee-simple lots, which supports policy goals of the Land Use Element, the Community Character and Design Element, and the Housing Element. Staff recommends approval of the Preliminary Subdivision Plat, PC PSU for the creation of four new townhouse lots based on compliance with all of the applicable criteria of Article 5, the zoning regulations of Articles 4, the design and the development standards of Articles 6 and 7 as well as the finding that the proposal is adequately served by public facilities with the following conditions: 1. Add the Preliminary Subdivision case number in the title block. 2. Add the case number for the HPC Level I approval to Note Revise Note 28 to read Exempt per Section 4-5(a)(3). 4. Revise all references for proposed easement to eliminate the space required for the recording reference (L. F.). All easements will be recorded prior to final subdivision plat recordation. 5. Revise the Planning Commission modification note to indicate the date of approval for the modification to Section 606(a) pending its approval. 6

26 Staff recommends approval of the Final Site Plan PC16-962FSI to construct four townhouse units based on compliance with all of the applicable criteria of Articles 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 12 of the LMC and consistency with the 2010 Comprehensive Plan with the following condition: 1. Revise Note 21 to indicate the recording reference for the previously executed site plan enforcement agreement. 2. Revise the Lot2A parking space so that it is no longer designed as accessible. 7

27

28