The February 17, 2010 Centreville Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Christopher Frank, Chair, in the first floor meeting room of the Goodwill Fire Company. The following members and staff were present: Christopher Frank, Chair; Elizabeth Brice, Vice Chair; Penny Lins, Secretary; Norma Coursey, Bob Elliott, Kara Snyder and Carol Hellmann, Members; Tim McCluskey, Council Member; Chris Rogers, URS/Town Planner; Steve Kehoe, Town Attorney; Eva Kerchner, Zoning Administrator/Watershed Manager; and Jane Saulsbury, Administrative Aide.
Review of Minutes from Previous Meetings
Ms. Brice made a motion to approve the January 13, 2010 work session minutes as submitted. Mr. Elliott seconded the motion and it passed with a vote of 6-0 with one abstention (Ms. Lins).
Mr. Elliott made a motion to accept the January 20, 2010 regular meeting minutes as corrected. Ms. Snyder seconded the motion. The motion passed with a vote of 5-0 with two abstentions (Ms. Brice and Ms. Lins).
Citizen Comment – None
Appearances
a. Michael Schaefer, Proposed Home Occupation, Off-Site Sale of Pre-Owned Vehicles, 541 Brookfield Drive
• Mr. Schaefer, 541 Brookfield Drive, came before the Planning Commission to request approval of a home occupation consisting of sales of pre-owned vehicles. He has been in the automobile business for thirty years and proposes to buy and sell vehicles wholesale to his customers. Vehicles will be photographed and if there is no customer for a particular vehicle, it will be sold at auction. Customers will not come to him,
therefore no parking is needed. He said he has talked with his neighbors and they are okay with his proposed business.
• Mr. Elliott asked if there would be any equipment stored onsite. Mr. Schaefer said no.
• Ms. Coursey asked if there will be other employees and Mr. Schaefer said he is the only employee unless the business should grow.
• Ms. Lins asked where the cars to be auctioned would be stored. Mr. Schaefer advised they would go directly to auction.
• Mr. Elliott made a motion to approve Mr. Schaeffer’s request for a home occupation as submitted, with the contingency that there be no onsite storage of vehicles or equipment and if other employees are anticipated, Mr. Schaefer would return to the Planning Centreville Planning Commission Commission for approval. Ms. Hellmann seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
b. Brodie Holdings Site Plan – Board of Appeals Application for Parking Variance
• Mr. Harry Smith, surveyor; Mr. Pat Thompson, attorney; and Mr. Zebulon Brodie, owner/developer, came before the Planning Commission to request a favorable recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals that the proposed office/retail complex at the intersection of Little Hut Drive and Railroad Avenue is in conformance with the Community Plan. They are requesting a variance to allow parking in the front of the proposed project. The parcel of land is zoned C-3 and is designated in the Centreville Community Plan with a land use of “road side commercial.” Mr. Smith said they are open to creating a visual separation for the parked cars, perhaps a berm or decorative fencing. He described how Walgreens in Chestertown handled a similar situation. He said it is not economically possible to put parking in the rear of the complex and, in addition, noted that it is undesirable as the property backs up to an apartment complex.
• Mr. Frank said that a corner lot like the one at Little Hut and Railroad Avenue presents problems and that buffering is recommended where possible. He noted that the Centreville zoning code is explicit about parking requirements. Mr. Smith noted that Centreville’s parking requirements are double that of other jurisdictions and adds to the dilemma.
• Mr. Frank acknowledged that Centreville’s parking requirements are stringent, but that he is not in favor of granting a variance simply because the developer doesn’t want to conform. He feels differently about situations in which the property cannot be developed without a variance. Mr. Frank asked to see the applicant’s illustration of the elevations of the building.
• Mr. Thompson said that to have the building set back with parking in the front will provide visual continuity with the car wash and self storage facility. He noted that even if Brodie Holdings, LLC gets the variance, they will still have to come back to the Planning Commission for site plan review and approval.
• Mr. Elliott stated he is a little uncomfortable with the regulations that restrict parking in the front of the building. He thinks it restricts the viability of the operation and stated he is comfortable with the design as presented. Mr. Frank emphasized that the purpose of the applicant’s attendance tonight is to receive a statement from the Planning Commission as to the project’s compliance or non-compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
• Mr. Rogers noted that Page 4-10 of the Community Plan does not intend to describe the intent of future land use for roadside commercial development, but describes the current condition of those properties located in Roadside Commercial areas.
• Ms. Snyder said she thought it would not necessarily be a negative to have parking located behind the building. She noted that there could be outdoor seating if the building is closer to the curb, thereby attracting pedestrian traffic. The elevation submitted to the Planning Commission is similar to the building constructed in Ridgely by Mr. Brodie. She is not in favor of the “strip mall” appearance of Mr. Brodie’s Ridgely building. Ms. Snyder said she feels she is at an impasse with this project as currently designed.
• Ms. Brice agreed with Ms. Snyder and said the Planning Commission’s goal is to make the town more user-friendly and noted that an expanse of parking in front of the proposed building is in direct conflict with the zoning ordinance. It is her opinion that the project needs further study and that the Town should follow the letter of the law.
• Ms. Hellmann said she also agrees with Ms. Snyder. She said she has read previous discussions about the proposed complex and stated it should be the best it can be and not be a “cookie-cutter” design. She suggested that the applicant look for an imaginative design and that the Planning Commission not “settle.” She advised the applicant to reconsider the plan and illustrate how it could look with parking in the rear.
• Ms. Lins made a motion to forward a recommendation to the Board of Zoning Appeals that the Planning Commission finds the application for a variance for this property is not in compliance with the Town of Centreville Community Plan. Ms. Brice seconded the motion.
• In discussion, Mr. Harry Smith said they would have greater flexibility of design if the required number of parking spaces was less. Mr. Smith stated that the project is not economically feasible if they must meet the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Frank suggested that the building be oriented differently to come up with a better design and said that there are good arguments for reducing the number of parking spaces required. Mr. Smith said that Mr. Brodie does not want parking in the rear as that is a service area.
• Mr. McCluskey reported that the Town is considering a major restoration and modification of Railroad Avenue, including a walking path to make the area more oriented to pedestrian traffic.
• Mr. Rogers suggested adding language stating that the Planning Commission finds that a reasonable variance request for a reduction in parking with the building oriented to the street would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
• Mr. Kehoe suggested that if applicant wants to apply for a variance to reduce the number of parking spaces, he needs to reach the point of submitting a site plan. This suggestion could be made to Brodie Holdings, LLC.
• Upon call for the vote, that the Planning Commission finds the proposed application for a variance is not in conformance with the Town of Centreville Comprehensive Plan, the motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0.
Old Business
a. 2009 Annual Report
• Review of the most recent 2009 Annual Report will be postponed until all members have a final copy of the changes prepared by Mr. Rogers of URS.
b. Design Standards Update
• Mr. Kehoe and Ms. Kerchner met with Ms. Debbie Pfeil of URS this afternoon to review all the changes incorporated into the Design Standards document to date. A bullet list of the dozen changes will be prepared and sent to the Planning Commission members for their review on or before March 3, 2010. It was suggested to hold a work session on March 10, 2010, if needed, after which the document will be forwarded to the Town Council for its review. Mr. Kehoe advised that the Town Council’s second meeting in April is a reorganizational meeting during which Council does very little other business. The Council is likely to conduct the first reading of the ordinance pertaining to Design Standards at the first meeting in May, May 6, 2010, with the second reading on May 20, 2010. Mr. Kehoe said that most of the changes are
technical and procedural.
c. MGE/WRE Status Update
• Mr. Frank said that he and Ms. Kerchner have talked about the possibility of scheduling a hearing with the County Planning Commission on the Municipal Growth Element. Mr. Frank advised that there may not be sufficient time in April for the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing as they are also working on Design Standards. Ms. Spinelli has recommended that work be completed on the Municipal Growth Element and get it into compliance even though information has not been received concerning the Water Resources Element. Mr. Frank suggested requesting possible dates that the County Planning Commission is available to meet with Centreville’s Planning Commission.
• Ms. Kerchner said that she has recommended an evening meeting to accommodate the Town’s Planning Commission’s members.
• Mr. Rogers said that there is not sufficient time to proceed with a hearing on the MGE, finalize and recommend it to the Town Council, and have it approved by the April 1, 2010 deadline.
New Business
a. HB1141 – Extension Request
• Mr. Rogers said that the Centreville Planning Commission will need an extension of time for completion of the MGE along with the WRE. A six months extension will be requested. Mr. Frank said he would like the letter requesting the extension drafted as soon as possible and will make it available for review by the members before signing.
Zoning Issues – Discussion – None
Miscellaneous Business / Correspondence
• Mr. Frank reported that he wishes to attend the ESLC conference next week.
• Mr. Frank reported that a complaint was lodged with the State of Maryland Open Meetings Compliance Board against the Planning Commission for not approving the minutes of the September 9, 2009 public hearing and that the minutes were not available for meetings held on August 19 and September 16, 2009, until November 5, 2009. There was discussion about the allegations of delayed adoption of sets of Planning Commission minutes. Mr. Kehoe noted that some of the delay occurred when there was a transition in staffing.
• Ms. Brice made a motion to approve the Designs Standards matrix compiled following the Public Hearing held on September 9, 2009 regarding the proposed design standards as the official record of the meeting. Mr. Elliott seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 6-0 with one abstention (Ms. Hellmann).
Citizen Comment
Mary Margaret Goodwin, 221 North Commerce Street, offered comments regarding the availability of the matrix created from the September 9, 2009 public meeting.
Council Member Report – Nothing to report.
Adjournment
There being no further no business, the February 17, 2010 meeting of the Planning Commission adjourned by unanimous consent at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Saulsbury, Administrative Aide