MINUTES OF THE
July 18, 2002
Planning & Zoning Commission
Members Present: John Atwood, Chairman, and members John White, Chris Brownawell, and Linda Cheezum.
Members Absent: Dan Swann.
Staff Present: Tom Hamilton, Town Planner, Mike Kenney, Current Planner and Stacie Sauca, Planning Secretary.
Mr. Atwood called the meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission to order at 1:00 p.m. The first item on the agenda was the approval of the June 13th minutes. Upon motion of Mr. Brownawell seconded by Mrs. Cheezum the Commission voted 4-0 to approve the June minutes.
The first item on the agenda was from staff concerning amendments to the Zoning Ordinance relating to signage and parking. Upon motion of Mr. Brownawell, seconded by Mrs. Cheezum, the commission voted 3-1 (Mr. White) opposed to support the change of eliminating the parking tax , however the Commission feels as though a parking study is necessary for downtown Easton.
The next item on the agenda was Lots 13 & 14 Glebe Business Park requesting sketch site plan review for an office complex. At the Commissions May 16th meeting the Commission reviewed the site plan and generally accepted the layout as proposed. However, the Commission did not approve the site plan and requested that additional information be submitted. At that time the Commission wanted to see more architectural renderings, which show color schemes and siding types. The Commission also wanted to see some type of signage proposed for the site. Present at the meeting was Warren Clem, owner Perry Otwell, agent, and Christine Dayton, Architect. Mr. Otwell explained that they are proposing cement fiber siding which would be gray in color, black shingled roof and a brick foundation. Upon motion of Mr. Brownawell, seconded by Mrs. Cheezum the Commission voted 3-1 (Mr. White opposed) to approve the sketch site plan.
The next item on the agenda was Lot 21 Brooks Drive requesting sketch site plan review of 2 self storage buildings. The Commission in January of 2002 approved a site plan on this site. That project consisted of 2 buildings. The smaller of the 2 building s (3,600 sq.ft.) was to be entirely storage where as the larger building included (3,675 sq.ft.) of climate controlled storage as well as (3,200 sq.ft.) of office space. Subsequent to the zoning approval the smaller of the buildings located on the rear of the site has been constructed. The site plan currently before the Commission is a request for an amendment to replace the 6875 square foot building with 2 mini storage buildings. Mr. Robert Higgins, owner and Perry Otwell, agent were present at the meeting.
P&Z Meeting
Page 2
July 18, 2002
Mr. Otwell explained that the storm water management had been previously approved. The buildings are designed with flat metal roofs and metal siding. The site plan indicates 7 parking spaces 4 of which are located along the rear of the lot and 3 spaces along the front. At one space per 2,000 sq.ft. gross floor area this site plan requires a total of 7 spaces for the 13,200 sq. ft. mini storage facilities. The only landscaping proposed is around the front of the site and it consists of red maple, white pine and European cranberry bushes. The Commission wanted a fence constructed around the boundary of the parcel to screen the buildings. After much discussion the Commission decided to have the applicant place a 4’ fence along the front and a 6’ fence along the sides and rear with more mature landscaping along the fence. The Commission recommended 8’ trees to be planted. The buildings will be of neutral colors with barn red trim. Upon motion of Mr. White, seconded by Mr. Brownawell, the Commission voted 4-0 to approve the site plan and to make a favorable recommendation to the board of appeals with the following conditions
The next item discussed was the Easton Club Conference Center. This item was not on the agenda but it was decided that the Commission would discuss a the matter as old business. The discussion involved the requested PUD amendment to allow the addition of a convention center. At a previous meeting Commission had determined that it could not support the amendment due to language in the zoning ordinance which required that commercial uses within a PUD located within a residential base zone had to be "primarily oriented to serving the residents of the development". The discussion at the current meeting was in response to a letter from the applicants attorney, John Murray, in which he argued that the definition of the word "oriented" dealt with the location of the facility. The Commission disagreed. The applicant then made the argument that the economic survival of the golf course was dependent upon the addition of the convention center and that without the amendment there would be a burden on the HOA; therefore, the convention center was oriented to the residential community. The Commission did not agree; however, they did state that if the language of the zoning ordinance were changed to modify the "primarily oriented" requirement then the Commission would probably give a favorable recommendation for the addition of the conference center. The staff was instructed to draft new language for review by the Town Council.
The next item on the agenda was the Dudrow Farm PUD. The property is located on the NW corner of St. Michaels Road and Easton Parkway. The property is owned by Remco Properties. Michael Clemmer, speaking for the applicant explained that the property
Planning & Zoning Meeting
Page 3
July 18, 2002
was annexed into the Town of Easton in 1988/1989 and is available immediately for water & sewer. The property is zoned I1 & CL. Mr. Clemmer explained that they are requesting review of 173 acre mixed use PUD, including a shopping center, office complex, hotel, restaurants, movie theater and a bank. The largest use is a shopping center which makes up 45% of the first phase. Mr. Clemmer stated that this is a 4 to 8 year project which will be phased. Mr. Atwood is concerned with the traffic impacts which will arise from this project. The applicants stated that a traffic study is to be completed and that they will be better prepared to discuss that traffic issues at the next meeting. They are not proposing a "round about" at the intersection of St. Michaels Road and the parkway. SHA has apparently granted approval of an entrance for St. Michaels Road. Mr. White was concerned with the residential aspects of the project. He stated that he did not want to see "cookie cutter" architecture, but would rather see no repeat design styles. He would also like to see less parking which is visible from the public roads. Mr. Brownawell was concerned with established businesses leaving their current locations to move into this new commercial project which will create many vacancies in other buildings in Easton. Mr. Brownawell was also wanted to see the restudying of the phasing plan. Mrs. Cheezum felt that this project was a great asset for the Town, but wanted to see a traffic impact study completed.
Mr. Chuck Martin, architect explained to the Commission how they came up with the architectural design for the project. The buildings proposed for this project will imitate older brick structures located in downtown Easton. Mr. Martin also discussed with the Commission the layout of the plan. He stated that there will be pedestrian walk ways throughout the project. The Commission was pleased with the architecture proposed for the buildings. No action was taken on the request. The applicant is to return with additional information.
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 p.m.. by motion of Mr. Brownawell, seconded by Mr. White.
Respectfully submitted,
Stacie M. Sauca
Planning Secretary