MINUTES OF THE

December 20, 2001

Planning & Zoning Commission

Members present: John Atwood, Chairman, and members John White, Charles Goebel, Chris Brownawell, and Dan Swann.

Members Absent: None

Staff Present: Tom Hamilton, Town Planner, Lynn Thomas, Assistant Town Planner.

Mr. Atwood called the meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission to order at 1:00 p.m. The first item was the approval of the November 15^th minutes. Upon motion of Mr. Brownawell, seconded by Mr. Swann the Commission voted 4-0 to approve the November minutes.

The first item on the agenda was Moonyene Jackson-Amis, Council Member Ward 4 requesting discussion of Graham's Park PRD approval and the West End. Mrs. Jackson-Amis discussed issues she would like considered in the Comprehensive Plan relative to the west end. Some issues that she brought forward were affordable housing, community center/recreational needs, annexation of Glenwood extended. Also, discussed was Kelly Gibson Street. Mrs. Jackson-Amis described the history of the Graham's Park project. She would like to see Kelly Gibson Street remain open for traffic flow and safety reasons. Mr. White discussed the process and suggested she initiate a formal PR amendment.

Mr. Goebel joined the meeting at 1:56 p.m.

The next item on the agenda was the Hoffman Annexation. This property is located east of U.S. Route 50, adjacent to the southern boundary of the Town. The area has been subject to two recent annexation reviews. In 1999 both petitions were filed. The Commission supported both and the Town Council denied both. In February 1999 the Commission supported a petition to annex the 52-acre Hoffman farm as it was found consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. On December 16, 1999 the Commission again reviewed a petition to annex a 32-acre portion of the same tract. The Commission again supported the petition. Talbot County classifies this property as (TR) Town Residential, which permits one dwelling unit per acre without sewer or four units per acre with sewer. The proposed annexation requests R-10A, which is supported by the Comprehensive Plan but the Commission, felt that the R-10A residential density should not be granted until a development scheme is actually proposed for the property. Upon motion of Mr. White, seconded by Mr. Brownawell the Commission voted 5-0 to recommend annexation subject to the application being amended to reflect zoning of A-1.

Planning & Zoning Meeting

Page 2

December 20, 2001

The next item on the agenda was Easton Club East. This property is located in the Easton Club East Subdivision. They are requesting an amendment to the Easton Club East sketch subdivision (14 lots). The Commission recently approved an amendment to the Easton Club east subdivision relocating the community common area/community center from the center of the subdivision to a site adjacent to the entrance. That area was previously shown on the sketch plat as 14 additional residential lots. This subdivision is relocating 6 of those lots to the area previously shown as community common area/community center and creating 7 residential lots as previously shown. This represents a net loss of 1 lot. Upon motion of Mr. Swann, seconded by Mr. Atwood, the Commission voted 3-2 (Mr. Goebel and Mr. White opposed) to approve the amended sketch plan.

The next item discussed was Easton Village on the Tred Avon River. The applicant presented a list of 11 proposed conditions on the PUD. The commission discussed the best way to proceed with this application. After much discussion the Commission decided to schedule a special meeting for January 3, 2002 at 5:00 p.m. to discuss the Easton Village PUD. Mr. White supplied the applicant with a list of his comments.

Mr. Brownawell excused himself from the meeting at 3:30 p.m.

The next item on the agenda was 522 Idlewild Avenue Lot F-2-C. The applicant is requesting sketch site plan review for a 10,679 square foot medical office building. This property is zoned CM (Commercial Medical) The project proposes to clear an area previously protected under forest conservation plan. A note on the site plan indicates that applicant proposes to mitigate with plantings elsewhere, however no area for mitigation has been presented. Upon motion of Mr. White, seconded by Mr. Swann the Commission voted 4-0 to approve the sketch site plan.

The next item on the agenda was Gannon Family Limited Partnership. This property is located on U.S. Route 50, N/S of Mulberry Drive. The applicant is requesting sketch subdivision review of a 4 lot commercial subdivision which is zoned CL (Limited Commercial). All lots proposed include areas of farmed wetlands, which require MDE approval prior to final plat approval. The plat includes a 50' wide environmental area easement. This area should be included within the adjacent street right-of-way with an overlaying easement creating the environmental protection required by MDE. Upon motion of Mr. White, seconded by Mr. Swann the Commission voted 4-0 to approve the sketch subdivision with the understanding that the environmental area easement is to be reviewed by, and in a form acceptable to, the Town Staff.

Planning & Zoning Meeting

Page 3

December 20, 2001

The next item on the agenda was Two Oaks @ Matthewstown Run. This property is located directly east of Matthewstown Run subdivision. The applicant is requesting a mixed use PUD (Planned Unit Development) sketch subdivision of 480 residential units, a small commercial area, a church site and a proposed community center. A portion of the area included in this PUD was recently annexed and it was agreed that a neotraditional mixed use subdivision would be constructed on the site. The site plan submitted is the same plan, which was shown to the Town Council at the annexation hearing. At a recent Council meeting Councilman Ford commented that it was not necessary to submit the same site plan, however the concept of a neotraditional development is expected. The staff has reviewed the plans and has determined that major alterations to the site are necessary. The staff feels that residential housing types should be mixed throughout the project not in segregated clusters, and that storm water management ponds should be included as a site feature, not remnant parcels. The Commission would like to see a better mix of units, more detail and better layout/street section/architecture. After much discussion the Commission decided to have the applicant resubmit addressing the Commissions comments and concerns.

There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m. by motion of Mr. Goebel, seconded by Mr. Swann.

Respectfully submitted,

Stacie M. Sauca

Planning Secretary