TOWN OF EASTON, MARYLAND
Draft Zoning Ordinance Workshop
July 11, 2005
Councilmember Maureen Scott-Taylor
Councilmember Scott R. Jensen
Councilmember Leonard E. Wendowski
Mr. Robert Karge, Town Clerk; Mr. Lynn Thomas, Long Range Planner and Mr. Zach Smith, Current Planner.
CONVENING
At 6:36 p.m., the President of the Council called the meeting to order. He stated that the Council is still accepting written comments.
WORKSHOP
Mr. Ford stated that there is one significant change in the Zoning Ordinance that is not listed on the agenda which is the change in the format of the document. He stated that the intention from the Planning Commission is to make it a more user friendly document.
Mr. Wendowski stated that he agrees with the change in format.
CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY NOTIFICATION
Mr. Ford stated that in the Draft document, it uses that language and the Council wanted a broader notification period associated with anything the Planning Commission is to review. Mr. Ford recalled hearing 200’ radiating from the site or parcel.
Mr. Jensen stated that there are a couple a projects with concerns such as traffic that affects neighborhoods more than 200’ away. He stated that he doesn’t like 200’ but he doesn’t have any other ideas.
Mr. Wendowski stated that you could say 500’ which is approximately a block radius.
Mr. Thomas stated that this would apply to any Planning Commission review. He stated that there are currently no notification requirements other than those projects that state law require notification which is in those cases simply a public notice in the newspaper and posting of the property. Mr. Thomas discussed the proposed language and stated that the onerous is on the applicant. He stated that it has been mentioned to notify neighborhood associations of pending projects.
Mr. Smith stated that one block would work well downtown but not in every instance throughout town. He personally feels like a set distance would be valid.
Mr. Kehoe stated that he thinks that these types of systems work best when handled by the Planning Department or the Town. He stated that the Council needs to think about how the notice is mailed. He suggested First Class. Mr. Kehoe stated that you should also think about is the consequences of a failure of the notice to be mailed out or if residents come and say they never received the notice which may trigger the meeting to be re-scheduled.
Mayor Willey suggested guidelines for notifying residents.
Ms. Scott-Taylor agreed that the Town needs to perform the function of notifying residents.
Mr. Smith suggested addressing the mailings to Residents at the address.
Mr. Ford stated that it is the Council consensus for the Planning Department to do mailings in a 500’ radius to Residents of proposed projects with the costs to be bourn by the applicant.
Mr. Smith will do examples of mailings for the Artery Project and the Hampton Inn.
CHANGES TO THE PUD
Mr. Ford stated that the first is nothing but a name change; PMRs become PUDs. He stated that the process is identical.
Mr. Thomas stated that since they are basically duplicated, it is just proposing to get rid of that process and subsume it into the PUD process.
Mr. Ford stated that the other change is there are minor changes mainly having to do with format but the other substantive change is the open space requirement. He stated that currently it is 30% and in the Draft Zoning Ordinance it becomes discretionary.
Mr. Jensen asked what benefits the discretionary open space requirement has.
Mr. Kehoe stated that it gives more flexibility to redevelopment of existing commercial properties. He stated by giving some discretion to the Planning Commission, you build in desired flexibility. He discussed the hospital’s recent planned major medical application before the Council. Mr. Kehoe stated that it encourages the PUD process for redevelopment and the more you can use this process, the better the Town will be.
Mr. Jensen asked if something could be in the PUD process to make something discretionary for commercial development and not discretionary for residential.
Mr. Thomas stated that this could be clarified.
The Town Attorney stated that you have to trust the members of the Planning Commission to discharge their duties.
Mr. Ford stated that he has no objection with leaving the language for the PUD as it is written.
CR RESIDENTIAL DENSITY
Mr. Ford stated that most of the written comments received were regarding the 30 units per acre.
The Town Attorney stated that this includes most downtown and most of South Street extending in an easterly direction from Harrison and Washington Street, easterly most blocks of August Street.
Mr. Smith displayed a map with the existing CR Residential district.
Mr. Jensen stated that he did not want to see high rise buildings in downtown Easton but he would like to see redevelopment of buildings into projects such as the Shireton. He stated that areas in the Historic District will be very limited.
Mr. Kehoe stated that this recommendation is also based upon a meeting held with himself, Mr. Bond, Mr. Karge and the city/town manager of Falls Church, Virginia who was confronted with a situation where their commercial district was moribund and had been for ten to fifteen years where they had issued one permit for commercial development in the community for a fast food establishment. He stated that the developer had been required to provide parking and it had been successful.
Ms. Scott-Taylor stated that her concern is that we are heading out into residential neighborhoods that have primarily single family homes and are opening up the opportunity for someone to come in and build a couple of Shiretons. She stated that she does not want to see the CR residential going to August Street.
Mr. Ford discussed the current PUD ordinance versus the proposed.
Mr. Kehoe suggested mapping in the Zoning Ordinance and designating certain areas for proposed commercial residential redevelopment. He stated that the PRD is a simplified version of the PUD process and has been designed to be a little less burdensome for developers. He stated that it may be appropriate to have a greater degree of scrutiny of things affecting the core of downtown Easton.
Mr. Smith stated that if you want to limit it strictly to commercial buildings which may be a good suggestion, since in the table of uses there is residential use in a commercial building, you could just add it as a supplemental standard as it is in the CG with parameters limiting it to the second floor to no more than 50% of the total building.
The Town Attorney discussed limitations.
Mr. Jensen stated that the downtown revitalization opportunities interest him.
Mr. Thomas asked if it would work to go into the PUD standards under the permitted density and had a split standard where you could have a higher density if established within the CR District as redevelopment of existing shopping centers.
Mr. Kehoe stated that we can see how it looks on paper and if we think it works or if we think it won’t work.
REZONING REQUESTS
Mr. Ford stated that these have been recommended to be changed in the Draft Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Kehoe stated that there are two ways to accomplish this. The first is to make the definition of the CR zone much narrower; the second is to make the 30 unit per acre part of some sort of PUD floating zone type of redevelopment project; the third is to combine the two and indicate where you would like to see this type of redevelopment process which may include some areas which are not zoned CR such as Super Fresh as a possibility. Mr. Kehoe stated that if you are going to allow that type of PUD, then you would have to go through the various steps of the PUD.
Mr. Ford stated that in responding to the Grayblock regarding the two smaller parcels. He stated that in order for them to be commercial developed, they should be incorporated into the now PMR District adjacent to that so they can address the ingress and egress issues.
Mr. Smith stated that they have an approved project for an office complex. He stated that the applicant requested the change due to the fact that they would like some commercial retail mix in their office.
Mr. Wendowski clarified that this project is for a four-story office building.
Mr. Jensen stated that has concerns due to the traffic.
Mr. Ford stated that he has not heard major objections for this change.
MEETING DATE FOR ADDITIONAL WORKSHOP
Mr. Ford set Wednesday, July 27 at 6:30 p.m. for an additional workshop for the Draft Zoning Ordinance.
PUBLIC CONCERNS
The President of the Council, Mr. Ford stated that due to the zoning line as it currently exists, Wawa can utilize all five of those parcels for General Commercial use.
Mr. Ford stated that they are not here tonight to talk about the Wawa site plan.
Ms. Joyce DeLaurentis, 220 South Street, President of the East End Association stated that she would like the Council to consider Board of Appeals Hearings in the notification process and would appreciate a Neighborhood Association contact. She stated that their community is mostly rental with 50% Spanish. She stated that she cannot imagine a post card going to the address will be sent to the landlord. She asked that the postcard be sent to the landlord and having another notification for the neighborhood.
Ms. Bonnie Cowdreyton, Harrison Street, asked if the Planning Board has the power to approve things without council approval.
The President of the Council explained the zoning classifications throughout the town and allowable uses.
Ms. Cowdreyton discussed the Academy Art Museum recently buying two vacant houses in the vicinity. She was advised that the Historic District Commission has the ability to approve or disapprove renovations to properties in the Historic District.
Ms. Polly Shannahan, 117 E. Dover Street, addressed the Council regarding what the Council is planning for 30 units. She stated that her concern is regarding the parking and she feels that the parking issue should be very firm that there is at least one parking area for each condo or apartment and that it be underground or on the surface but nothing should be approved without the parking. Ms. Shannahan stated that she was horrified with the development that was allowed east of Brookletts Avenue without the open space requirements.
Ms. Hillary Holzer, 627 South Street and Ms. Allysa Spielman, 608 South Street (and neighbors), stated that they are upset with the effect of rezoning at the end of South Street on the new Wawa site. They understand that the site plan is already approved but are here to address the proposed zoning change. She discussed the high speed of traffic at Tred Avon and South Street. She discussed the site plan that will channel traffic into their neighborhood. Ms. Holzer discussed the possibility of the decrease in property value due to Wawa. She asked that Wawa Corporation be asked to fund traffic calming infrastructure that will be needed on Choptank, South High and Tred Avon.
Mr. Smith stated that the majority of the lots are already CG and Wawa did not change anything. He stated that they have demolition permits for the houses.
Ms. Spielman discussed the traffic from Wawa going through their neighborhood to get to Route 50 avoiding the congestion on Dover Road.
Mr. Wendowski discussed notification to neighbors for proposed projects.
Mr. Kehoe stated that there may be a good case to make Choptank Avenue a one-way street.
Ms. Elizabeth Lee, 612 South Street, rebuilt after a fire stated that there must be a way to fix this traffic going through their neighborhood and would be happy to work with officials.
Mr. David Stephens, 609 South Street, asked what the benefits of having Wawa have traffic come through their neighborhood. He questioned why the plan can’t be changed.
Mr. Ford asked if there is an approved existing site plan. Mr. Smith stated that there is.
Ms. Virginia Callaway, 15 Tred Avon Avenue, moved from Chestertown likes the quite neighborhood and spent $30,000 on landscaping. She questioned why no one was notified.
The Town Attorney discussed the Wawa proposal that has been pending before the Planning Commission for at least 18 months. He stated that the agendas for the Planning Commission are published in the newspaper and put on the town’s website. Mr. Kehoe stated that there has been no lack of public notice and no lack of articles in the newspaper.
Mr. Gene Mechling, 222 S. Washington Street, stated that this whole issue goes back to the Bowie stakeholder process. He stated that the importance is to get the notice out to people that have a stake in whatever the new project is. Mr. Mechling stated that what these people are saying is a prime example of the problem. He stated that the current notification process is not sufficient.
Mr. Tom Alspach on behalf of Talbot Preservation Alliance, stated that instead of re-zoning the lots to commercial, why don’t you re-zone them all residential and impose on the applicant for a piece meal re-zoning.
Mr. Alspach stated that he agrees with the notification process that Mr. Mechling spoke about and also for notification for Board of Appeals hearings. On the PUD amendments, he stated that he thinks the Open Space requirements should be kept as is for 30% requirement with the waiver built into it. Mr. Alspach stated that on the 30 units per acre, design standards should be in place due to the possibility of an imposing structure. He likes the idea of a floating zone. Mr. Alspach stated that TPA does not oppose high density in town as it prevents sprawl in the countryside. On the request for re-zoning the Grayblock parcel, he shares the ingress and egress concerns.
Notifications of neighbors for proposed projects were discussed.
Mr. Jeff Eddleman stated that the Town could consider a demand e-mail notification service where you go to the Town’s website and sign up for notifications for Planning and Zoning issues which would be cost-effective for the Town. Mr. Eddleman strongly urged the Council to revise the traffic study requirements so the developer provides funds for the Town to hire an independent consultant for traffic analysis.
Mr. Kehoe stated that the independent traffic study requirement is already in the PUDs and PMRs.
Mr. Wendowski suggested a computer simulation for traffic as a requirement for a major development.
Mr. Joe Minarick, 128 South Harrison Street discussed his proposed changes to the draft zoning ordinance. He stated that his comments were from a group of homeowners living in residential neighborhoods bordering the downtown.
To further reduce uncertainty associated with currently unoccupied residences, he requested:
Mr. Minarick stated that they are concerned that retail is bleeding from downtown. He suggested cleaning up erroneous CR zoning and returning it to R7A as outlined in his distributed map.
Mr. Scott Saunders, 610 South Street, asked who requested the zoning change for the commercial lots near Wawa.
The President of the Council stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and approved the Wawa site plan and does not include any kind of zoning change. Mr. Ford encouraged a neighborhood meeting to go over where the project is.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mr. Ford adjourned the workshop.
_______________________
Town Clerk