• 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 3-1-2016

March 1, 2016
Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes
March 1, 2016


The Planning and Zoning Commission for the City of Cambridge met on Tuesday,
March 1, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. at the City Council Chambers, 305 Gay Street, Cambridge,
Maryland.
Commissioners in Attendance: William Craig (Chairman), Chantay Nelson, Hubert Trego,
Eugene Lauer
Others in attendance included: Rob Collison, City Attorney; Pat Escher, City Planner; LaSara
Kinser, Planning and Zoning Assistant; Frank Cooke, Council liaison
Mr. Craig announced amendments to the agenda.
Minutes
February 2, 2016
Mr. Trego made a motion to accept the minutes as revised, Ms. Nelson seconded the motion and
it passed unanimously.
Discussion Items:
Proposed Text Amendments:
Section 4.4.5 Development Standards does not have a section for Form Based Code
Standards for the Civic sub district. Potentially change the Downtown General Standards
to include the Civic sub district.
Ms. Escher explained that there are no design standards for the Civic Subdistrict of the form
based code and proposed using the standards presently in use for the General Subdistrict. After
some discussion about which properties could be affected by the change, Ms. Escher agreed to
investigate whether or not the County building is in the waterfront, and to include current
government buildings, such as Council Chambers on the map, and to amend the ordinance as
necessary. Mr. Cooke asked questions regarding the Subdistrict and form based code, which
were answered by Ms. Escher.

Add new land use to the UDC to accommodate the new internet cottage industry of Air
B&8.
Ms. Escher proposed standards for short-term rentals including that short-term rentals should be
a permitted use with administrative review, that the Commission set a maximum of time that a
short-term rental could be rented, guidance on whether or not there should be some sort of
permitting process, that would allow (but not require) the City to conduct safety inspections, a
complaint process, that the rentals must be on a site with a registered safety protocol. Mr.
Collison suggested amending the definition of a BnB to exclude short term rentals and to define
short term rentals, with a disclaimer absolving the City from regulating the properties. There was
further discussion regarding the handling of potential complaints, whether or not there should be
a permit for short-term rentals, and what if any inspections should be undertaken from the City.
The Commission directed staff to bring forward text amendment language at the next meeting.
Modifications to the minimum standards of the UDC with respect to minimum frontage,
yard, open and usable space, zone transition setback or other minimum requirements
imposed by this ordinance for the zone or zones applicable to the land. The relaxing of
these minimum standards would not include the maximum density or maximum height.
Ms. Escher suggested that the proposed amendment would allow for good infill development and
provide a public process that would not require applying for a variance, particularly in situations
where a variance would not be applicable. Me. Trego asked for the language to be further refined
to define "good" development. Mr. Cooke suggested including examples in the language. The
Commission directed staff to bring forward a text amendment at the next meeting with the
proposed examples and refined language.
Currently the UDC language regarding fences applies only to residential zone districts.
Ms. Escher explained that there is currently no criterion for commercial or industrial fencing in
the UDC. Using the zoning map she discussed what parts of the City would primarily be affected
by this language. Mr. Craig pointed out that this language would have applied to the case of the
YMCA, who had to get a variance for an appropriate fence. Ms. Escher pointed out that the
language would give staff guidance. not necessarily prohibit fencing. Mr. Lauer pointed out that
it would be beneficial for many commercial and industrial properties to put up larger fences than
would be currently allowed under residential standards from a safety standpoint. The
Commission directed staff to bring forward a text amendment at the next meeting.
Providing clarification between free stand ng signs and multi-tenant signs, reorganizing
language and removing repetitive review criteria.
After a presentation by staff, there was a discussion regarding sign sizes. free standing signs,
setbacks, electric signs, non-conforming signs, HPC guidelines, and directed staff to bring
forward a text amendment.

Regular Business Text Amendments:
PZ TA #25 To allow a Studio for Art, Music, Dance and Similar within the Ne-I, NC-2, NC3,
and NC-4 Zone Districts as a Special Exception with Conditions within the text portion of
the UDe Section 4.2.3 as indicated in the Permitted Land Use Table #1. Refine the use
intensity limitations.
After some discussion regarding the existing language, Mr. Trego reiterated his opposition to the
language. Ms. Escher explained that the permitted uses table allows the use, but it has been
omitted from the text and asked for guidance on which is correct. She also pointed out that the
use is a special exception. The Commission deferred the conversation to a future meeting when
the rest of the Commission members will be present.
PZ TA #26 Firstly, to retain no on-site parking requirements within the Core sub district of
DowntownlWaterfront Development District. Secondly, allow for no on-site parking
requirements within the other subdistricts provided the applicant can demonstrate that
there will be no negative impacts to the neighborhood and on street parking is permitted.
Ms. Escher explained the language as presented. Mr. Cook asked for clarification on the
language. Ms. Escher explained the materials that she would require, and how she would
consider applications under the new language. The Commission acted to recommend the
language to City Council.
Further Discussion
There was further discussion regarding medical marijuana and a construction project on Poplar
Street.
Adjourn
Mr. Craig asked for a motion to close the meeting. Mr. Lauer made a motion to adjourn, which
was seconded by Ms. Nelson, and passed unanimously. The meeting ended at 7:30 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
LaSara Kinser, Planning and Zoning Assistant