• City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
  • City of Cambridge Maryland
Print this page

P&Z Minutes

February 3, 2015

The Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Cambridge met on Tuesday, February 3, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 305 Gay Street, Cambridge, Maryland.

Commissioners in Attendance: Jerry Burroughs, Chairman; Hubert Trego, Chan'Tay Nelson, Gene Lauer, William Craig, Vice-Chair: Mary Losty and Marshall Rickert

Others in attendance included: Anne Roane, City Planner; Robert S. Collison, City Attorney; Sean Callahan, Clendaniels and Grande

Mr. Burroughs started the meeting with greetings.

Tape did not start at beginning of the meeting.
Developmental review Tax Map 6 parcel 58-13, Delmarva Community Center.

Ms. Roane spoke to this Commission that this is a project that has reviewed, several times and had been given sketch plan comments and recently given the Development Plan approval, back in November 2014. They are here tonight for their Preliminary Plan approval for the Intergenerational Facility (Center Building). This project started under the old Zoning Ordinance, so it will continue under that process.

Please look at the page with some comments on it to be stated for the record. Also attached are comments from the City Engineer, George Hyde.
1. Proposed sidewalk along Chesapeake Street needs to be extended south to Route #16. The City Staff will coordinated with MD State Highways Admin to supply a crosswalk through the existing sidewalk and along Route #16. The proposed sidewalk shall be installed with the construction of Phase 1 of this project.

Mr. Sean Callahan from Lane Engineering, Katie Clendaniel, Santo Grande and Jim Michael are here from Delmarva Community Services and shall answer all the Commissions questions.

The architectural of this project have not changed from what was present to us in November 2014.

Questions from this Commission where directed at Mr. Callahan for some answers as follows:

• A Forest Conservation Plan as part of this project.
That was submitted about three or four years ago. There was a draining permit and sediment control approved with a large fill pond some years ago. That plan is on the drawings as the Forest Easement.

• Looks like there are two storm water facilities all for this whole complex?
That was correct, if you look at Mr. Hyde's comments. Current Maryland regulations call for Environmental Sensitive Design and what that is the intent to have more green space, infiltration, less detention, and ponding. This site with the heavy clay soil does not lend itself do the infiltration. The amount of storage and detention that we have in the pond and the areas are the best we can do given the heavy soils. Mr. Hyde did approve this design.

• At the last submission for the last hearing, the first three Phases and the fourth will be in the future.
The Phase One is the Intergenerational Center, Phase Two is one of the apartment buildings and assisted living facilities, Phase Three is another assisted living facility and apartment building and Phase Four will be the last apartment building.

• At the last meeting, the General Development Plan was for three Phases and to make sure that the last Phase was evaluated under the same rules as the old Zoning Ordinance and not the new UDC. That was correct.

• If you divide the Phases and put them into pieces, he thought that at the last meeting you were dancing three of the four phases for our approval. Now you are bring one to the next level. His concern is are Phase Two or Three going to be change.
The plans have not change and if they do we will have to come back to this Commission on them. We still have to come back on Phases Two, Three and Four for the Preliminary Plans.

• The nature of this project has changed over the years. Wwe have evaluated it and have always been very interested in the housing aspect, assisted living aspect and what not. Mr. Rickert felt that at least through the first step, that the advanced three out of the four phases and he is concern that all of a sudden, we are looking at Phase One. This happens to be effect our consideration of the other phases.

Ms. Clendaniel stated that it does come down to funding. She explained that this project for Phases One had a Funder focusing on a certain area of the first Phase and not the whole plan. We are working on the other portions of the site. We are moving forward for the infrastructure for this spring of 2015. Mr. Rickert understands that, we are very supportive and he is looking for context. The project has changed as it has evolved and the assessments have evolved, the availability of funding has evolved and what not and he thought we have moved a big chunk of this down to the goal line at our last meeting. He expected to come in at some point and look at Phases One, Two and Three. It is continually moving that down and now we are only at Phase One. He wants to see the way that it was presented and not want to see Phase Two to come in. That is something completely different because of funding availability and that was his concern, the context.

Mr. Grande spoke that the context of this project is what you are seeing and we are coming to you with the final concept of this project and have no intent to change anything of it. The corrections from this Commission were change by Mr. Callahan to make everything fit a little better and increased the parking around the assisted living unit that was mentioned at the last meeting. The proposal at this point in time for us is that this is the final project with the major activity building, which will be intergenerational and will have two additional 30 unit complexes to the left and be market driven. That will require private funding for that. The two assisted living units will be in front of those and be again either commercial funded and there is not a lot of grant funding for assisted living units. That full Phase will be market driven and we are working on that now. The final Phase will be the third 30 unit building, which will be affordable housing. We are not trying to change anything on this plan. He feels that we are concentrating on the intergenerational center and that is the anchor of this project. That will make it much more affordable and presentable to people who want to live in that development. We feel that a 29 unit market driven apartment complex, one of the assisted living units and that is what we are working on simultaneously to secure the funding and hope to be bidding those by the end of this year. We are on some time constraints with some of the funding with the intergenerational center. Some of the infrastructure, because of the CUBG funds has to be finalized. We still feel like the major parts will be have to been done separately but closely aligned and want to get done in the next two to three years.

Mr. Rickert commented that he is not against this, but five years ago this was substantially different than it is today. The intergenerational center was there, but there were independent living dwelling units as he recalls. The funding formulas, the changes most recently, which we want to see and at the last meeting he thought that most of this was going to move forward, and we voted for it at the last meeting. This meeting and only a piece of that is moving forward. He wants to state on record that he expects the rest of it to come forward, the way that it has been presented last time and this time at whatever rate the funding and everything falls into play. He does not want to see another change because of the grant program.

Mr. Collison spoke to Mr. Rickert that it sounds like the question is why you haven't come forward for the Preliminary Plan approval for Phases One, Two and Three. You are saying that nothing is going to change. We can give the approval as you presented them, so we know that nothing will change. If it does change then it needs to be a major revamping. Mr. Rickert commented that was correct.

Mr. Callahan replied that a Preliminary on some of the Phase of One, Two and Three. From an operation stand point, all the infrastructure designs and the entire job had been submitted to the City. Mr. Rickert agrees with that comment, but he was hoping to see the next step to what we approved of last time and he does not see that.

Mr. Craig commented that he is also feeling the same about this issue and to add to that, he is concerned that we are evaluating this and presumably approving this under the old Zoning Ordinance (2003). If you come back for a major change, then it would go through into the new UDC. Ms. Roane commented that it would be under the new UDC it there were new changes. Mr. Craig continued that we are trying to help this project go forward.

Ms. Roane commented that she did not think that this project could ask for Preliminary approval for Phases Two and Three, because of missing information, such as the landscape plan.

Mr. Rickert asked why not all three Phases have on the table now. Mr. Collison commented that the advertising of this meeting would not comply with putting everything in at one time.

Mr. Callahan wanted to let the Commission know that there was a lot going on behind the scenes with funding to make this go forward. What was presented to this group is what we want to build, the architectural theme of the designs, which will continue through Phase One, Two, Three and Four. We are not expecting any changes and we are hoping to start building in July.

Mr. Burroughs asked Mr. Collison, how much notice we need to give to have Mr. Grande come back with a final. Mr. Collison stated that the question would be how much time they would need to prepare their submittal for Phases Two and Three. We could approve Phase One, contingent upon them making their submittals within the next few weeks. They could schedule for the next meeting which is March for Phases Two and Three.

Mr. Craig asked if they were willing to do that. Mr. Callahan did not see any problem doing that we are ready for the final for Phases One, Two and Three. We do not have any changes. Mr. Craig stated that if you are willing to do that, let's get it done.

Mr. Lauer stated that he was fine with it.
Mr. Craig fine

Ms. Losty was fine, to give the approval on Phases One today and with the condition that some period of time of month, they would be prepared to show Phases Two and Three.

Mr. Collison commented that it would be Phases One, Two and Three collective.

Mr. Trego commented about the landscaping and is that going to be with the Phases Two and Three for the Preliminary Plan submittal. Ms. Roane stated yes that is a requirement and so is the Fire Department and the main being six or eight inches and that will be decided.

Mr. Burroughs comments it would all be done at the final.

Mr. Callahan spoke that most of this is not a public infrastructure, it will be private and so we hope to not have to have many bonds.

Mr. Craig suggested that he would like to see an index sheet for the final set of plans, where the open space, forest conservation and outlines of the development areas, for the entire parcel, not on the individual areas. Mr. Callahan comments that was a great idea.

Mr. Burroughs asked for a motion. A motion from Mr. Rickert to give the approval on the Preliminary Plan of Phase One with the condition upon the submittal and the necessary information for the Preliminary Plan of Phases Two and Three within 30 days. To also include index sheet for the final set of plans and the final will be Phases One, Two and Three. Mr. Lauer seconded the motion. Motion approved unanimously.

Mr. Collison reminded the Commission that the items in the Staff's report still need to be addressed.

Ms. Roane spoke about some items from the UDC, like B&B's and Solar Panels. She also spoke about recharging stations that the County is having issues with.

Mr. Burroughs commented to this Commission that on the County level, for some reason, we have several projects for the solar panels. Some people have gone to the County Council about these projects and selling their electric to public places, which he feels is their right. The County Council has sent a message to look at the regulations for the County on incentives, scales and they are now trying to decide to whether approve the use of solar panels on industrial and commercial properties. Large scale projects they want to limit farm lands becoming of full solar fields in agricultural areas.

It should be done by Special Exception if it comes up.

Mr. Rickert has read about putting panels on roofs of like car parking garages and complexes.

Mr. Hubert questioned what do they charge for the use of the election charging? Mr. Collison spoke that it would probably be like a gas station with prices.

 

Mr. Burroughs questioned Ms. Roane about summer rentals? Ms. Roane comment that we will speak of that at the April meeting. Ironman event, residents were renting rooms and they did not have a Special Exception to allow this. It is an issue with how to regulate vacation rentals by owners.

Mr. Collison spoke of what was the frequency of your rentals that take you from a residential context to a commercial. The people renting vacation rentals and they pay a lot of money to spend this time in a great place.

Ms. Losty asked if this is a County law yet. Mr. Collison stated that it is being discussed now.
Mr. Rickert questioned if anyone is approaching this like saying you have X number of weeks.
Mr. Roane has no answer at this time and is still researching this issue. This is a new issue for the UDC and how to enforce this.

Mr. Craig spoke that the special event housing compared to the commercial or B&B for like the Eagleman or Ironman events.


Mr. Burroughs asked about Chairmanship. Ms. Roane spoke that the UDC states that we are supposed to address the nomination of new Chair and Co-Chair on an annual basis. For the last six years we have chosen to keep everyone as they are, because of the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC. The Co-Chair is Ms. Craig now and Mr. Trego has been Chairperson before.

Ms. Losty asked what the procedure on nominating a Chair is. It is in the UDC.

Mr. Burroughs asked for a motion to close the meeting. A motion to close by Mr. Trego and seconded by Mr. Craig. All Approved.

Respectfully submitted,
Ms. Michal Dixon DPW Secretary 1



________________________________ _______________________
Jerry Burroughs, Chairman Date Approved