• 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

September 1, 2015

Planning & Zoning Commission

Minutes

September 1, 2015

The Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Cambridge met on Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 6:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 305 Gay Street, Cambridge, Maryland.

Commissioners in Attendance: William Craig (Chairman), Marshall Rickert (Vice-Chair), Chantay Nelson, Hubert Trego, Mary Losty

 

Others in attendance included: Frank Cooke, City Council Liason; Rob Collison, City Attorney; Pat Escher, City Planner; LaSara Kinser, Planning and Zoning Assistant

 

Mr. Craig started the meeting with greetings and a moment of silence.

 

Minutes

Minutes from the P&Z meeting of August 4, 2015.  Motion to approve minutes by Mr. Rickert, second by Ms. Losty. All approved and carried.

 

P&Z# 2015-003, Heron Point Architectural review

Ms. Escher presented a staff report. Mr. Bill West, head of construction for N.S. Stavrou represented the application. There were differences between the originally submitted renderings of the cottages and the final renderings submitted for this meeting. Mr. West addressed these differences including the removal of the fireplaces from the front of the buildings, the removal of stone or brick as a standard feature. Mr. West also presented samples of the materials and discussed improvements to the road, and the overall project schedule. Mr. Rickert asked for clarification regarding the location of the cottages vs. the single family houses. Mr. West responded that every house plan could be accommodated on both sides of the development. Mr. Rickert asked about any changes to the previously approved site plan. Mr. West responded that there were none. Mr. Collison clarified that the single family houses would need to come back for architectural review. Several concerns were raised namely that all of the houses could potentially feature straight siding (because the stone and brick that were previously represented as standard features are now optional), the location of properties in relation to the bypass, the removal of the chimneys, and the price points for houses without brick or stone compared to the original price points where stone was standard. Mr. Collison suggested a percentage of the houses have stone or brick as a standard feature. Mr. West responded that the model houses will have brick or stone. Mr. Craig pointed out that the rear elevations are adjoining another property and that the rear elevations should be screened from the adjacent property; he suggested planting trees to screen the rear of the buildings from the adjacent property. Ms. Losty agreed. Mr. West explained that trees would need to be planted on the personal property because the lots and buildings are so close to the limit of disturbance. Ms. Escher suggested that the Commission make a condition of approval that as part of the building permit application process, Planning staff review landscaping and ensure that the maximum amount of trees are planted to screen the rear yards from the adjacent property. Ms. Escher pointed out concerns about the side wall fenestration. Ms. Nelson asked about sprinklers in the houses—they will be installed regardless of requirements by the City. There was further discussion regarding the change in the design of the exterior of the cottages. Mr. Rickert suggested that some percentage of the houses should have the upgraded features that were previously standard, and to add the stipulation that the rear yards are heavily landscaped. Mr. Rickert made a motion to approve the submission with the stipulation that a minimum of 15% of the single family and cottage buildings feature either the brick or stone on the exterior, that the recommendations of the Planning Director for additional windows be included and that at the building permit stage that landscaping plans be developed for the rear elevations of the buildings. Ms. Losty seconded the motion. Mr. West reiterated his objection to including the mandatory percentage in the motion.

 

P&Z #2015-009, 406 Boundary Ave. Day Care, Home

 

Ms. Escher gave a brief presentation on the current, licensed, home day-cares in the City. Ms. Kinser presented an update on the case, namely that Ms. Quails has established a fencing plan and gathered several letters of support from her neighbors. The case could not be heard given that the decision regarding the text amendment to Section 4.2.3 (A) 5 of the UDC has been remanded to the Planning Commission by City Council. Ms. Quails briefly explained the updates to her application. Mr. Rickert pointed out that he appreciated the modifications to the application and explained that the Commission cannot act on the case yet. Mr. Collison asked Ms. Quails about the anticipated hours of operation for her daycare. Mr. Regan of 404 Boundary Ave. spoke briefly and requested that the property be posted prior to the public hearing.

 

UDC – Revision to Section 4.2.3 (A) 5. Day Care Home

 

Ms. Escher presented previous revisions to the section of the UDC governing daycares, Section 4.2.3 (A) 5 and an update on the status of the text amendment—which is that has been remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission by the City Council, for more revisions. Staff proposed further conditions on daycares which would include:

· Limiting hours of operation from 6am to 8pm

· Instituting a limit of one daycare per block surrounded by City streets (not including alleys) in the NC districts

· Daycare applications will require a public meeting under the purview of the Planning and Zoning Commission and governed by the special exception criteria already in place.

 

Public comment was made by Commissioner Frank Cooke, Mr. Tim Crosby, Ms. Ann Talmadge of 404 Boundary Ave., Mr. Mike Regan of 404 Boundary Ave., and Ms. Kia Quails of 406 Boundary Ave. Mr. Rickert made a motion to recommend the text amendment to the City Council, with the changes suggested by Staff, which was seconded by Ms. Losty.

 

 

P&Z #2016-001, 110 Maces Lane, Maces Lane Community Center, Final Site Plan review

 

The case was presented by Mr. Tom Davis of DMF and Associates who stated that the intent of the project was to revitalize the old building and turn it into a community center, which will be ADA compliant and include space for Chesapeake College. Mr. Tim Crosby explained that the Board of Education fully supports the project, however they do not grant blanket approval of the use of the parking lot and that use of the Maces Lane Middle School parking lot would need to be applied for on an as-needed basis in response to the Staff recommendation that a formal agreement be developed regarding the shared use of the parking lot. Mr. Davis and Mr. Crosby continued by explaining the necessary alterations to the building, the level of community support present, and the next steps in the project and answered questions by the Commission. Ms. Losty made a motion to recommend final approval for the site plan as submitted, which was seconded by Mr. Rickert.

 

Discussion Items:

 

Ms. Escher briefly presented the City’s interactive maps to the Commission, explained their various applications and how to use them.

 

Ms. Escher briefly presented information for a potential Medical Marijuana Ordinance including the number of state licensed growing, distribution and manufacturing sites; the zoning classification of Medical Marijuana by other local districts including Wicomico County, Queen Anne’s County and Baltimore County; the state fee schedule for medical marijuana facilities; the current data from the state of Colorado and  necessary steps to prohibit the use. Mr. Collison added that a definition of the facilities and each stage of the process are needed as well. Mr. Rickert suggested getting feedback from the Maryland Municipal League and the Maryland Association of Counties. Further discussion took place regarding security, state and federal laws, state guidance, the state application process. There was public comment from Mr. Jim Chaney and Mr. Stephen Meehan of Chestertown, MD who is an attorney and explained several aspects of the State law and the application process as well as the perspective of the Chestertown zoning department. The Commission concluded that they would require more information from the State before being able to make a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Cooke addressed the recommendation to the City Council.

 

Currently the UDC does not allow for parking lots of more than 10 spaces in the Downtown Zoning District and that minimum on street parking will be restricted to 10 spaces as well. Ms. Escher and Mr. Collison explained this to the Commission and notified the Commission of Ms. Escher’s intention to bring recommended text amendment language to Section 6.3.3(a) at the October meeting.

 

 

Mr. Craig asked for a motion to close the meeting.  A motion to close was made by Mr. Trego and seconded by Ms. Nelson.  All approved and carried.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

LaSara Kinser, Planning and Zoning Assistant