Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ13-14100001 7 CODE AMENDMENT #13-14100001 To consider mending Article Section 110-2 , Definition of Building Height v I AUGUST 22,2013 Goa Lk v° - 'J r, s Code Section 110-932(b)(22) Shopping centers,shopping plazas, retail stores, personal,service estab- lishments and convenience food stores greater than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area: a) One space per PLANNING AND ZONING 225 square feet gross floor area, ex- COMMISSION cept for movie theaters, which shall comply with the parking require- NOTICE ments as set.forth in subsection(24), OF PUBLIC HEARING hereof. b)When restaurants,fast food Pursuant to the provisions of establishments,cocktail lounges,tav- PLANNING AND ZONING Chapter 110, Zoning, of the Code of erns, nightclubs,or other establish- COMMISSION the Town of Ocean City,Maryland,no- ments fdr the consumption.of food or NOTICE tice is hereby given that a public beverage on or off the premises are lo- OF PUBLIC jiFARTNG hearing will be conducted by the cated in a shopping center:i)If these Planning and Zoning Commission in establishments, individually or in Pursuant to the provisions of the Council Chambers of City Hall lo- total,comprise�25 percent or Chapter Pursuant Zoning, of the Code of cated at 301 Baltimore Avenue in the less of the gross floor area of the shop- he Town of Ocean City,Maryland,no- Town of Ocean City,Maryland on: ping center,the parking requirements the is hereby given that a public TUESDAY,SEPTEMBER 4,2013 shall be that for shopping centers;ii) At 7:00 pm If these eating and drinking estab- hearing wilt :,e conducted by the To consider amending Article I, lishments, individually or in total, Planning and Zoning Commission in Code Section 110-2.Definitions: comprise;more than 25 percent of the the Council Chambers of City Hall lo- Building, height of The vertical gross floor area of the.shopping cen- cated at 301 Baltimore Avenue in the distance from base flood elevation ter,parking shall be provided for the Town of Oceann City,Maryland on: gfa&to the highest point where the gross Boar area ofthose uses in excess TUESDAY,OCTOBER 15,2013 exterior walls meet the roof. The area of the 25 percent in,accordance with A- 7:00 pm above the maximum building height their separate requirements., The (attic)shall not be used for living pur- parking calculations shall be com- To consider amending Article I,Code poses;which includes working,sleep- puted for the retail and eating and Section 110-2.-Definitions: ing,eating,cooking or recreation,or a drinking establishments separately - combination thereof unless specified and then combined. otherwise within regulations. APPLICANT' & APPLICANT: PLANNING& ZONING COMMISSION— �ONING COMMISSION— FILE#13-14100002 ILE#19-14100001 No oral or written testimony will To consider amending Article V, be accepted after the close of the pub- SEPTEHEER 26,2013 lic hearing. Public hearings that are not com- pleted at one meeting may be contin- ued without additional advertised - notice provided the Commission BuLd,-'ng.height of The vertical Chairman announces.that the hear- distance from base flood elevation or ing will be,continued and gives per- two feat above grade, whichever is V sons in attendance an opportunity to greater, gFeAe to the highest point yr11 sign up for written notice of the addi- where the exterior walls meet the ( tional hearing dates. roof. The area above the maximum, �.J� h �� For further information concerning building height (attic) shall not be �� this public hearing,please contact the used for living purposes, which in- Department of Planning and Commu- cludes working,sleeping,eating,cook- nity Development, Room 242, City ing or recreation, or a combination Hall, 301 Baltimore Avenue, Ocean thereof unless otherwise specified. City,MD 21842. Phone 410-289-8855_ APPLICANT: PLANNING& PLANNING AND ZONING ZONING COMMISSION- COMMISSION FILE#13-14100001 PAM GREER BUCKLEY, No oral or written testimony will CHAIRPERSON be accepted after the close of the pub-, WILLIAM E.ESHAM,III, lic hearing. ATTORNEY Pub.aic hearings that are not 'com- OCD-8/15/2t' pleted at one meeting may be contin- ued without additional advertised notice provided the Commission Chairman announces that the hear- ing will ae continued and gives per- sons in attendance an opportunity to sign up for written notice of the addi- tional hearing dates. H For zrrther information concerning this public hearing,please contact the o ­1 ; Department of Planning and Commu- 'o u nity Development, Room 242, City C W 4 Hall, 301 Baltimore Avenue, Ocean -I ; City,MD 21842. Phone 410-289-8855. T ?LANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION 41``"''^"��,'��� PAM GREER BUCKLEY, CHAIRPERSON Z WILLIAM E.ESHAM,III, e ATTORNEY a _ _ OCD-9/26/2t o °0 v A u u I - — O FF cn P Pq 1, TOWN OF 0-) C EA�N� CITY J The White Marlin Capital of the World MAYOR RICHARD W. MEEHAN CITY COUNCIL LLOYD MARTIN TO: Matt Margotta, Planning and Community velopment President Director MARY P. KNIGHT FROM: David L. Recor, FCMA-CM, City Mana Secretary RE: Parking Space Requirements & Height Definition BRENT ASHLEY DATE: November 5, 2013 DOUGLAS S.CYMEK DENNIS W.DARE JOSEPH M. MITRECIC At the November 4, 2013 Regular Session, the Mayor and Council voted MARGARET PILLAS to ratify (1) Ordinance 2013-14 to amend Chapter 110 regarding CITY14ANAGER parking requirements; and (2) Ordinance 2013-15 to change the DAVID L. RECOR,ICMA-CM definintion of building height. CITY CLERK KELLY L.ALLMOND,CMC cc: The Honorable Mayor, Council President and Members of Council /kla www.oceancio,md.gov P.O.BOX 158.OCEAN CITY,MARYLAND.21843-0158 1 I 111.A i City Hal/-(410)289-8221 .FAX-(410)289-8703 2001 TOP PLATE Ceiling 0 w c� z 0 J_ D m BASE FLOOD ELEVATION Street Grade DIAGRAM 1 OF 1 TOWN OF � CAN� C I T Y ` The White Marlin Capital of the World Agenda Item # 9B Council Meeting November 4, 2013 TO: The Honorable Mayor, Council President and Members of Council THRU: David L. Recor, ICMA-CM, City Manager FROM: Kay Stroud, Zoning Analyst RE: First Reading - Code Amendment to Article I, Section 110-2. Definitions DATE: October 22, 2013 ISSUE(S): Consideration of ordinance to amend Article I, Code Section 110- 2 Definitions - Building, height of. SUMMARY: The current definition of building height reads - The vertical distance from grade to the highest point where the exterior walls meet the roof at the top plate. The area above the maximum building height (attic) shall not be used for living purposes, which includes working, sleeping, eating, cooking or recreation, or a combination thereof unless otherwise permitted within district regulations. The new definition recommended creates a specific benchmark for measurement. "The vertical distance from base flood elevation or two feet above grade, whichever is greater, to the highest point where the exterior wal s meet the roof." Also, the end of the last sentence is recommended to be amended as "unless otherwise specified." The Planning & Zoning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 15, 2013 to consicer staff recommendations and favorably presents this code amendment as an emergency ordinance due to the change of market conditions. FISCAL IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATION: Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval of amendment as an emergency ordinance. ALTERNATIVES: Further amendments, denial of request or pass for second reading. RESPONSIBLE STAFF: R. Blaine Smith, Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning Kay Stroud, Zoning Analyst COORDINATED WITH: Matthew G. Margotta, AICP, Director, Planning & Community Development ATTACHMENTS: 1) Transcript with cover 2) Recommendation 3) Draft Ordinance I First Reading Second Readirg ORDINANCE 2013- AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND E D CHAPTER 110, ENTITLED ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF OCEAN CITY, MARYLAND NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED AND ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF OCEAN CITY THAT CHAPTER 110, ENTITLED ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF OCEAN CITY, MARYLAND BE, AND IT IS HEREBY, AMENDED BY REPEALING AND REENACTING WITH AMENDMENT SUBSECTION 110-2 DEFINITIONS AS FOLLOWS: For the purpose of this chapter, the following definit ons shall apply: Building, height of. The vertical distance from base flood elevation or two feet above grade, whichever is greater, to the highest point where the exterior walls meet the roof. The area above the maximum building height (attic) shall not be used for living purposes, which include working, sleeping, eating, cooking or recreation, or a combination thereof unless otherwise specified. INTRODUCED at a meeting of the City Council of Olean City, Maryland held on November 4, 2013. ADOPTED AND PASSED by the required vote of the elected membership of the City Council and approved by the Mayor at its meeting held :)n 2013. ATTEST: KELLY L. ALLMOND, Clerk RICHARD W. MEEHAN, Mayor Approved as to Form: LLOYD MARTIN, President GUY R. AYRES, lll, Solicitor MARY P. KNIGHT, Secretary RECOMMENDATION TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND ARTICLE I CODE SECTION 110-2 DEFINITION OF BUILDING HEIGHT File PZ#13-14100001 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * On Tuesday, October 15, 2013, the Planning Commission continued a public hearing to consider amending Code Section 110-2, Definitions: Building, height of. The vertical distance from base flood elevation or two feet above grade, whichever is greater, @f-a4e to the highest point where the exterior walls meet the roof. The area above the maximum building height (attic) shall not be used for living purposes, which includes working, sleeping, eating, cooking or recreation, or a combination thereof unless otherwise specified. The Planning Commission initiated this amendment. There were no comments from the public concerning the proposal. The Planning Commission reviewed the current ordinance and listened to testimony from Zoning Administrator Blaine Smith as to how building height is currently calculated by grade which is measured by the crown of the road, and how this clarification would create a specific benchmark for calculation of building height. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commission voted unanimously (6-0) to forward the recommendation as an emergency ordinance. For your information, the transcript of the public hearing is also included. /ks i i To consider amending Article I, Code Section 110-2. Definitions: Building, height of. The vertical distance from base flood elevation or two feet above grade, whichever is greater, grade to the highest point where the exterior walls meet the roof. The area above t-ie maximum building height (attic) shall not be used for living purposes, which includes working, sleeping, eating, cooking or recreation, or a combination thereof unless otherwise specified. APPLICANT: PLANNING &ZONING COMMISSION — FILE #13-14100001 RECOMMENDATION TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND ARTICLE I CODE SECTION 110-2 DEFINITION OF BUILDING HEIGHT File PZ #13-14100001 On Tuesday, October 15, 2013, the Planning Commission continued a public hearing to consider amending Code Section 110-2, Definitions: Building, height of The vertical distance from base flood elevation or two feet I above grade, whichever is greater, grade to the highest point where the exterior walls meet the roof. The area above the maximum building height (attic) shall not be used for I living purposes, which includes working, sleeping, eating, cocking or recreation, or a combination thereof unless otherwise specified. The Planning Commission initiated this amendment. There were no comments from the public concerning the proposal. The Planning Commission reviewed the current ordinance and listened to testimony from Zoning Administrator Blaine Smith as to how building height is currently calculated by grade which is measured by the crown of the -oad, and how this clarification would create a specific benchmark for calculation of building height. At the conclusion of tre meeting, the Commission voted unanimously (6-0) to forward the recommendation as an emergency ordinance. =or your information, the transcript of the public hearing is also included. /ks i First Reading Second Reading ORDINANCE 2013- AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 110, ENTITLED ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF OCEAN CITY, MARYLAND NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED AND ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF OCEAN CITY THAT CHAPTER 110, ENTITLED ZONING, OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF OCEAN CITY, MARYLAND BE, .AND IT IS HEREBY, AMENDED BY REPEALING AND REENACTING WITH AMENDMENT SUBSECTION 110-2 DEFINITIONS AS FOLLOWS: For the purpose of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: Building, height of The vertical distance from base fl•Dod elevation or two feet above grade, whichever is greater, to the highest point where the exterior walls meet the roof. The area above the maximum building height (attic) shall not be used for living purposes, which include working, sleeping, eating, cooking o- recreation, or a combination thereof unless otherwise specified. INTRODUCED at a meeting of the City Council of Ocean City, Maryland held on November 4, 2013. ADOPTED AND PASSED by the required vote of the elected membership of the City Council and approved by the Mayor at its meeting held on 2013. ATTEST: KELLY L. ALLMOND, Clerk RICHARD W. MEEHAN, Mayor Approved as to Form: LLOYD MARTIN, President GUY R. AYRES, III, Solicitor MARY P. KNIGHT, Secretary -926402 TOWN OF r X59264025165926402516592 9264 'IV" E&Y," �`` �\ l , � � I , �f AN� CITY The White Marlin Capital of the World ATTACHMENT(S): 1) Transcript with cover 2) Recommendation 3) Draft Ordinance I P.O. BOX 158•OCEAN CITY, MARYLAND• 21843-0158 City Hall- (410)289-8221 • FAX-(410) 289-8703 336C TOWN OF O rr ER'A NJI rr 11 Y The White Marlin Capital of the World Agenda Item # Council Meeting Nov. 4, 2013 TO: The Honorable Mayor, Council President and Members of Council THRU: David L. Recor, ICMA-CM, City Manager FROM: Kay Stroud, Zoning Analyst RE: Code Amendment to Article I, Section 110-2. Definitions DATE: October 22, 2013 ISSUE(S): To consider amending by emergency ordinance Article I, Code Section 110-2 Definitions — Building, height of. SUMMARY: Currently the definition of building height reads — The vertical distance from grade to the highest point where the exterior walls meet the roof at the top plate. The area above the maximum building height (attic) shall not be used for living purposes, which includes working, sleeping, eating, cooking or recreation, or a combination thereof unless otherwise permitted within district regulations. The new definition recommended creates a specific benchmark for measurement. "The vertical distance from base flood elevation or two feet above grade, whichever is greater, to the highest point where the exterior walls meet the roof." Also, the end of the last sentence is recommended to be amended as "unless otherwise specified." The Planning & Zoning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, October 15, 2013 to consider staff recommendations and favorably presents this code amendment due to the change of market conditions as an emergency ordinance to the Mayor and City Council. FISCAL IMPACT: None RECOMMENDATION: To approve and amend Article I, Code Section 110-2 Definition of building height, as an emergency ordinance. ALTERNATIVES: Further amendments or denial of request. RESPONSIBLE STAFF: R. Blaine Smith, Assistant Director, Planning & Zoning Kay Stroud, Zoning Analyst COORDINATED WITH: Matthew G. Margotta, AICP, Director, Planning & Community Development TOP PLATE Ceiling c� w c� z 0 J_ m BASE FLOOD ELEVATION Street Grade DIAGRAM 1 OF 1 i ti d MAC alM s�ENfaRIF DIAGRAM ] OF 1 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION September 4, 2013 PRESENT IN ATTENDANCE Parr Buckley Blaine Smith Join Staley Kay Stroud Peck Miller Matt Margotta Lauren Taylor Terry McGean Joel Brous Kevin Gregory Chris Shanahan This meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Wednesday, September 4, 2013, in the City Hall Council Chambers located on Baltimore Avenue and 3rd Street, Ocean City, Maryland. Pam Buckley, Commission Chairperson, called the public hearing to order. BUCKLEY: It's the start of our first public hearing, and the first one is to amend, consider amending Article I, Code Section 110-2 Definitions, building, height of. The vertical distance from base flood elevation to the highest point where the exterior walls meet the roof. The base area above the maximum building height (attic) shall not be used for living purposes, which includes working, sleeping, eating, cooking or recreation, or a combination thereof, unless specified otherwise within regulations. The applicants Plan-iing and Zoning Commission File #13-14100001. Prior to any public hearing, the Commissioner needs to ask if there's anyone in attendance who has an objection to the, aryone on the Commission sitting and taking part in this public hearing. Let the record show there is no objection to us taking part. We will have the introduction of the case Icy M-. Smith, and you will be sworn in. GREGORY: Do you swear and affirm under the penalties of perjury that you shall give will :-e the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? SMITH: I do. It was back in January of this year that we brought the matter to the Planning Commission on whether or not we consider how we measure building height and whether or not we would consider base flood elevation as the measuring point versus grade, and grade in current zoning code is from the crown of the street mid-way of the property; and if you're between two street, you would take the average grade of those two street at mid-way of the property so there would be an average measuring point as a benchmark to establish building height. Otherwise, the requirements are pretty much the same —we would measure from a benchmark, but it would not be grade, it would be from base flood elevation. And I believe you all were receptive and you made a motion and second to move it forward to public hearing. Sometimes haste makes waste, in this case I think it might be an advantage that we've waited this long to get it back to you all. Some things are evolving, and there's probably other reconsiderations, and whether or not you want to continue the public hearing or not is something, and Terry's still here as well, because when you deal with the term base flood elevation, there are some variables going about right now that may not make it a simple matter that one size fits all. We've found it's going to become complex under new flood maps and we did not know that back in January; nor did we know it really when we made the advertisement, and it was Terry's aide that brought it up a few days ago that these maps have areas that have no base flood elevation, which I found surprising, but, Terry can explain more about that, and what some of the remedy might be, because we still believe it's a valid consideration that street grade is not necessarily the hest measuring point. Historically, and I'm going to go back to 1970, through the 1980s. In 1970's grade was exactly what it was, it was finished grade of the property, and even in the days of the high-rises being built, there were a certain number of properties that piled the dirt up on the property to get more building height because they were measuring from finished grade. I don't know all the examples, but I know a few examples where that was done, and as you might recall, there were a lot of issues witr basement situations, because a basement by zoning code definition and by many building code definition is one that when has one-half of its height below grade, it doesn't constitute a story. So, there were other issues that were happening, and the FEMA regulations was trying to prohibit basement because of flood-proofing of buildings and things of that nature, so we almost outlawed basements. Now we are getting basement and we are getting different types of flood-proofing these days that FEMA will acknowledge, so some of those issues have been overcome to make the buildings meet the flood-proofing of buildings, you know, more appropriate these days, and one of thcse is even the term "human intervention" which is another terminology. But there are things tha. could be done and can be done that FEMA endorses, but our point is when we establish building height, and when you look at base flood elevation, which we believe is adequate to get the buildings up above base flood elevation, that's why I think we were corsiderate in saying let's use base flood elevation, because that was to everybody's advantage, to make these buildings more flood-proof by having them at higher levels. Hypothetically you could even look way ahead of that and say if in fact, sea level rise is a reality, yes, it's better to have them up again. Because if you get them up above base flood elevation and sea level rise and things of that nature, you won't end up like Venice. You know, in time. But I don't think we're faced with that really, but I do think we have found that there were issues on how we were measuring building height, and to accomplish building and all the amenity of buildings and its infrastructure. Between 1970 and the 1980's, we then went to grade elevation of the street. Initially, and I would say it was probably mid-60's, up until the mid-60's, we had changed building height to Ire 2' above grade, to establish building height, so we actually had what we now refer to some days as freeboard and it did start off, it was 2' above grade, and grade was de-fined as the street grade. And there were a few case, and the one that I can think of off-hand was called Contemporary I, about 140-some street, and they got a 6 story bu Iding and called it a 5 story building because of how the code said that if you parked under a building and its height was not more than 7' above grade, you weren't co-istituting an additional story. So Mr. Goldstein built Contemporary I, Harry Kenny kept the ceiling of that no more than 7' above grade, which was 2' above the street, which gave him 9' to work with in effect, and still not be constituted a story. So we said, well that's another potential abuse, if you will, so we took, went back and revised the code to say that grade was in fact crown of the road. center-way of the property, so it was a fixed point, and you didn't have this margin to play around with, and that's how we've been since probably the mid to 19803s, late 1980's. And so how it has worked fairly well, and I think what we discussed at the prior meeting in January was in some instance to meet base flood elevation, meet your stormwater management with grade, grade of run-off, maintain a minimum height for parking under buildings be it for ADA and regular parking, and then not being able to take the top plate more than 50' above grade, it was crunching everything, so to meet the, the drainage and everything because it -Nas being brought up and you're fixed up here and you wanted floor to ceiling heig-its and things of that nature, that there probably is some desire to give more design leeway so you could accommodate the proper heights under buildings for parking, and we see that many times, you know, to build on sites, and still give them floor to ceiling height that's adequate. The other thing I would say from a departmental, the fire code looks at, when you're talking about 5 story, 50' height, any time you get higher than 50' above and I'm going to go back to finished grade, the highest finished grade, or it might even be the lowest finished grade, because if you have to get down from the upper floor to the lowest finished grade that cannot exceed 50' otherwise you become mid-rise and you have to put more bells and whistles and fire-proofing of the stair towers, smoke evacuation and all tl`at. So they measure off the floor of the upper level versus us measuring to the ceiling, which is where the top plate would normally meet the ceiling. So the Fire Marshal's has got a little more leeway because they're concerned where those people actually stand and when they exit. In some case, and I'll use Jettybreak as an example, they did recreation on the roof. Well now they have people higher than that fifth floor, so they constitute, they look at 50' as well. And Jettybreak, designed within one-half inch of 50' to the top of the roof, so when people are on that roof, they were less than 50' to that lowest grade. What they did, they almost dug a sump hole under the building to keep everything down, because they didn't have this design leeway, but again, that was for life safety purposes. This would not assist them in what they did because they're going to measure from that physical upper level where people are to that lowest grade and that's no more than a 50' travel distance. So their term grade, finished grade, versus ours, has had a little bit of difference. Not necessarily conflict, but there is a difference for their purpose, and that's life safety. Where in our case, we're looking at the profile of the building... BUCKLEY: Exactly. SMITH: ...and the control points, the benchmark, and it still seems advisable that street grade is not necessarily the best way of doing it either. BUCKLEY: Okay, well let me ask you this, and I'll ask the attorney. If we don't have all the information at this point, can't we just table the public hearing, and get everybody's name and that... MARGOTTA: We'll readvertise. BUCKLEY: Yeah, I mean, if you don't... MARGOTTA: It'll have to be readvertised. MILLER: Could I ask a question? BUCKLEY: Uh huh. MILLER: You're saying that FEMA's changing the flood maps, can we do something? And tell me if it's higher or lower but,go by the FEMA maps unless we go, or go by the grade of the road. TAYLOR: Well, and you said... SMITH: The first thought was use this, base flood elevation, or grade, whichever is greater... MILLER: Right. SrAITH: But there's some other issues... BUCKLEY & MILLER: Okay. M.ARGOTTA This one's on the (unclear) SWATH: Yeah. MARGOTTA: Terry, you can pipe in if you feel the need. The preliminary maps that we're looking at, the FIRM maps are preliminary. They haven't even gone through their first step towards being adopted other than we've received some advanced copies prior to a coordination meeting that happens later this month. That starts the 90-day, the mandatory 90-day appeal process. Talking with our co-workers over there in FEMA and wna:ever that are looking at these issues, they think it's going to be 18 to 24 months before the map actually gets adopted. What will be brought up in staff, once we come to rEa ize this, is that we didn't want to write an ordinance and then try to remember that maintenance-wise later on down the road, let's go ahead and write the ordinance to cover the fact that we've got some map changes coming. For god's sakes don't go into some conversation speculating what the maps going to be, but because I don't even knc\v. And yes, they look a lot better, to me, than where trey are currently Basically a Ict of the town upgrades or downgrades, depending on how you want to look at that, as far as its flood zone, what was in a V-zone now goes in an A-zone, a lot less requirements for flood risk manage-maintenance and mitigation, so the, and that's the expectation that it will continue through, but I don't think it's got really any bearing on your decision tonight other than we didn't really catch it and we want to put some extra wording in there, it might be as much as a clause. We need some time to kind of do that and get our heads together, and that's what the staff's kinda telling you right now, but if you have some initial thoughts on, you know, either continuing with this idea of base flood, which we do like, or some other method of measurement, I think that would be helpful for us, we're here, we can discuss that, but we do need some time to restaff this issue. MILLER: Yeah, one of the reasons we moved forward with this, and I think Lauren's pretty much pointed all the time, but we want better buildings, and right now we're at a time where there are going to be some buildings built, we're seeing like one here in front cf us... MARGOTTA: Right. MI-LER: ...and if this affects the, if we can build a better building, by changing something, I think it behooves us as a town to look at it now with the reality that there:s something else coming at us. MARGOTTA: Um hm. MILLER: ...and that's, I guess that's my thought instead of tabling the whole thing, I would rather see better buildings, safer buildings, I mean we've talked about it all the way through. BUCKLEY: Um hm, right. MILLER: ...if it's possible, and the sooner the better, to be quite honest, because we are gonna, you know, period right now where's going to be a lo: of construction popping ou the next three to five years. I mean, not tonight necessarily, but I'm saying I think way sooner than... BUCKLEY: I don't think I want to wait 18 months. MARGOTTA: No, no, it's within a couple meetings, we... BUCKLEY: Yeah. MARGOTTA: ...we got, we've already advertised for this, so we had to come here today, rather than pull it from the agenda, we thought it might be helpful to have some dis--ussion... BUCKLEY: Right. MARGOTTA: ...and at least bring you up to date on where we are, but quite honestly, what's before, I'd rather give you something to make a decision on than speculate and you all try to figure it out yourselves... it's just simply technical stuff, and it's probably co ng to be a clause that's added here, not too many words or anything. BU—.KLEY: Alright, so I just say we table this for further information. —AYLOR: Untill the staff provides, yeah, further information. I`AARGOTTA: Do you want to be date certain? GREGORY: We would have to readvertise... MARGOTTA: Yeah, I would want to readvertise anyway, just for public notice. BUCKLEY: So it, yeah, just, I just have to have a vote 0REGORY: See that puts us out, to get out the public nctice that's required by the ordinance, that puts us out, you know, another, well out a-iead of a couple meetings -or you all, right? MARGOTTA: Um hm. SMITH: That would be two meetings from now to give us enough time to readvertise. MILLER: A month from now we could... S—ROUD: It actually may be, I'd have to look at the cale-idar, I don't think it could probably the 17th and the 1St, I think it might be like the 16th. That would be the third. SMITH: The first scheduled, that will make it work. BUCKLEY: Okay, alright. So I can entertain a vote for that? TAYLOR: So moved. BUCKLEY: And a second by Peck. All in favor of tabling the public hearing? BOARD IN UNISON: Aye. BUCKLEY: (Gavel) So moved. MILLER: With bringing it back relatively quickly. TAYLOR: Blaine, a point of information for me, "unless specified otherwise within regulations," what would that be? SMITH: Okay, if you remember, between 3rd Street and 15th Street, we created the R-3A bji ding height to be no more than 3 story, and in doing that we created an incentive program that if you used a pitched roof not to exceed 9/12 pitch... i TAYLOR: Okay. SMITH: ...you could have living space in that attic. TAYLOR: Okay. SMITH: And there are a few other cases where, and you can do also in Montego Bay when we changed their criteria. There are times when attic space can be habitable, if you want to call it that, so those are the other specified times. BUCKLEY: Right, gotcha. —AYLOR: And didn't you have a problem with the Belmont roof because of the highest point where the exterior wall meets? MILLER: It was the shadow issue I think, was what we had, right? BUCKLEY: Right. SMITH: Yeah. And he had what we calla fabricated roof with our 12/12 pitch —had a 50 ridgepole height. He made the, because the building was 100' broad, and it went L on a 12/12 pitch and made the ridgepole 50, and that was a deceptive shadow control, and so that this building will not cast a shadow greater than that building that was the model, because we changed that after that... BJCKLEY: Right, right. SMITH: ...so that model, but then we, the first year it was built, and after it was built and I think it was the June, the June shadow, we went out and measured it, and it was d fferent than what was shown on the drawings. But it wasn't to the detriment of the p-oject, but we couldn't figure, how did they even shorten it? And what we found it, it took about a month to come to the conclusion, why it was so different. The design shadow had not taken into consideration Daylight Savings Time, the one hour difference, and when they went back and reapplied the Daylight Savings Time, it fell right in place, so it was, the product that's up there was correct, but it's just that, because that Daylight Sav ngs Time, when we went and physically measured it, there was a difference, and vie couldn't figure out well how did that happen, especially to crake it shorter, as it turned out, and then it was, the conclusion was it was because of that Daylight Savings Time, in their analogies. BUCKLEY: Okay. TAY-OR: Okay, moving right along. SMI—H: But other than that, they did have the incentive and used that upper level and that s what you're speaking of. BUCKLEY: Okay, everybody understand? We're going to move on to... STA-EY: Item #2. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 15, 2013 PRESENT IN ATTENDANCE Pam Buckley Blaine Smith Join Staley Kay Stroud Peck Miller Will Esham Lauren Taylor Crris Shanahan Palmer Gillis This meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission was held on Tuesday, October 15. 2013, in the City Hall Council Chambers located on Baltimore Avenue and 3rd Street, Ocean City, Maryland. Pam Buckley, Comm ssion Chairperson, called the public hearing to order. BUCKLEY: It's 7 o'clock. We're going to open up the public hearing. To consider amending Article I, Code Section 110-2, Definitions — Building, height of. The vertical distance between base flood elevation or two feet above gre.de, whichever i_s greater, to the highest point where the exterior walls meet the roof. The area above the maximum building height (attic) shall not be used for living purposes which includes working, sleeoing, eating, cooking or recreation, or a combination thereof, unless otherwise specified. The applicant is the Planning and Zoning Commission, File #13 4100001. Pr or to any public hearing, the chairman shall ask if anyone in attendance 1-as or knows of any reason why a commissioner should not sit for this public hearing. Is there any objection to the six of us participating in this public hearing? STALEY- We hear a roar from the crowds. BUCKLEY: From the crowds, let the record show that there is no objection to the sitting commissioners. Okay, we will have the opening of the case by Mr. Smith. ESI-AM: Under the penalties of perjury do you hereby swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth? SMITH: I do. The Planning Commission had a previous puolic hearing and at the conclusion of that hearing, Matt Margotta, Planning Director, and myself explained that when the proposal was made that we were not familiar with proposed new FEMA maps, and we had gotten a glance of those maps just prior to that oublic hearing. And if they change as shown, there are going to be a number of places in Ocean City t-lat may not have a base flood elevation. If they're adopted by the Fede-al Government and the local states and so, with that awareness, you all tabled the decision and said go back and draw up new language that would be long-term, you might say, irregardless of what happened with the FEMA maps. BUCKLEY: Right. SIVIITH: Initially, the notion of following the base flood elevation was so that the building height would not be penalized because if you, if you have a raised a building with parking under it, and you go from floor to ceiling, our current building height benchmark is the crown of the road adjacent to the property. And that goes to the top plate of the upper floor, and typically, in some zones, and I'll use Montego Bay as an example, it's a 15 foot height limit; and in other zones, in the R-3A District, it's a 35 height limit, in the downtown R-3A District. In the Downtown DMX District, it's a 40 foot height limit, and some 50 foot height limits — Bayside's 50 feet, interior is 40 feet, Boardwalk is 50 feet, and we would have to measure from the crown of the adjacent roads, or the average of the adjacent roads that are in that area, and to hold you 50 foot height from the crown o' the road, you've got that point and the crown of the road, everything has to be sandwiched in. And when you have the first floor elevation has to meet the base flood elevation and 2 foot freeboard, which we're not asking that we forgive them on the freeboard, we're only asking that we would measure off the base flood elevation as published on the maps, so they're not penalized, so if you start measuring 50 feet from the base flood elevation, you get the full benefit of your 50 foot height. BUCKLEY: Okay. SMITH: We're not trying to rev it up to what we call the freeboard, because that was with the insurance program to get the 15% discount, so that's not the issue, that's not the penalty, if you will. But if we measure off base flood elevation, the other thing is tha- your streets vary from place to place, not that there's inequity or inconsistency, but it does vary more so than the base flood elevation as we've known it up til now. Water seeks its own level, if you will; so everybody is kinda coming off the same benchmark, where the streets might vary even from one blocks to two blocks up. So, I think for consistency, it makes it, we'll call it, more fair. More enforceable, more practical to work with, and there's no abuse factor potentially. I can't see where there'd be any negative, and even if the building in fact goes up two feet, the plate height, because we're now measuring off the base flood, we're not going to turn the whole town into high-rise because that extra two feet doesn't become consequential. The Fire Marshal also measures to 50 feet from base, I'm sorry, not from base, he measures from the lowest grade level adjacent to the building, whatever that might be, to the upper floor of the living space, he don't go to the plate height like I do. I've got the whole 8 foot or 9 foot of wall height, if you will. He measures off the floor because the people that exit that building will exit from that level down to the grade, and that's where he has his 50 feet maximum above for ingress and egress purposes, should you go over that 50 feet from lowest grade elevation to that upper floor height, then you go into mid-rise high-rise and then you've got bells and whistles, smoke evacuation and all those kinds of things kick in. To give you an example where that did happen, in recent years, not too recent but, Jetty Break at 92nd Street, there about? BUCKLEY: Um hm, exactly 92nd Street. SMITH: Condominium...the interior of that condominium is below 50 feet to grade, lowest grade, but they decided to put people on the roof for recreational purposes. Anc because that's a type of occupancy, they had to stay no more than 50 feet above the lowest grade to the top of that roof. By design, they had one-half inch to spare, literally. So they designed it that way from lowest grade. For building height, they came off the street grade, so you had street grade, and ceiling grade, unfortunately because of that 12 inch or more, they almost had to create a sump underneath the building to cut the parking lot down, which was below street grade, to keep enough headroom height. It haunted them. It gets worse. So they did that, well now you can't do positive I storrnwater management because you've made a hole with the sump, in the property. So, they did the best they could do. So to the east of them was an adjacent property, and so they cut the ground down about 18 inches is how they took it down those 18 inches, they cut it that far. Now they've got a grade differential between their property and tneir neighbor, which means you have to build a retainer wall, down the lot line... BUCKLEY: Um hm. SMITH: ...to retain those people. Well, when they had done their parking, we allow you to pa,k right up to the lot line, well now they've got this 18 inch, now they can't park at the I--,t line, so they've lost 8 or 10 inches of their parking depth. One thing just got worse and worser. Now all that was to be able to put people on the roof, which is the Fire Marshal, and that's his baileywick and his enforcement, and that's what that was all about, it really wasn't about what we're talking about right now. If they had not put people on the roof, it would've never been an issue. Now by us saying we're going to raise the roof two more feet, he's going to come off the interior living space, and whether, that's under present day requirements, so, once you put people above 50 feet whether we change this or not, the Fire Marshal is going to employ what the Life Code Safety Codes with NFPA standards, so we're not in conflict with that, one is just more strin.zient than the other if it's not properly applied, and in that case, under current regulation it's showing that it can already happen and did happen. MILLER: So this discuss, so now, if we don't have the right flood elevation, we work oft of the two feet. SMITH: Two feet above the adjacent street. MILLER: And that's the way this code's going to read now. SMITH: Yep. MILLER: So we have a fall-back if we don't have the flood elevation... SMITH: And there should be similarity, there's a lot of, we've had meetings with some FEMA reps, insurance companies, to understand why are they doing this. Well, what's happening is, I don't want to say something out of turn, but they're dissolving a lot of the V-Zone, on the oceanfront. BUC:KLEY: Right. SMITH: Some of that has come about as a result of the new dune and beach replenishment. GILLIS: Say that again, the first part of that, they're dissolving what? SMITH- The V-zone and what's unique about it from what we're being told and what we're seen is not necessarily in all case but in most case there's no V-Zone, but they're not going to make it an A-Zone, which is even worse. A-Zone would probably be the richt thing to do, but what we're being told, all the scientific information that they have done with these flights of topos and everything... BUCKLEY: Right. SMITH: ...if it's not, if it don't need to be a V-Zone, if it don't meet the criteria for an A- Zone, they don't make it an A-Zone. It's a No-Zone. BUCKLEY: It means they're not gonna... SMITH: They don't have to get flood insurance! BUCKLEY: Exactly, oh really??? SMITH: Uh huh! Meaning that this town is going to be... BUCKLEY: Or it means that they won't, they won't be able to get flood insurance. SMITH: No, they can get it, but they won't be mandated to get it. MILLER: Like Fannie and Freddie, they mandated it. SMITH: You can still get it, but you're not going to be mandated to get it. MILLER: Um hm, V-Zone you don't have to, it'll be No-Zone. SMITH: Yeah, No-Zone. GILLIS: Mandated by whom, the mortgagor or what? SMITH: Well, the mortgagor might require things like that, that's who's going to maybe brine it about. GILLIS: Who's the mandate? SMI—H: The mandate for the A-Zone, V-Zone and all that is through FEMA. If there is that but the fact there's going to be some No-Zones is what made this prompt. GILLIS: Wow. SMI—H: And we still want to get our buildings built to base-flood elevations and get then- flooc proofed and all that... BUCKLEY: I hadn't heard the V-Zone... SMITH: ...so we can still, we can still get our requirements for stability of these buildings, but the insurance program is going to be looking at it differently. GILLIS: Well, if it's not a lender, who's going to require flood insurance? SM TH: That's, we've met just within a week or so ago, and that's the big question and it's -iaking it real complex, because the human nature is if I don't have to have it, I'm not going to spend it. GILLIS: So... BUCKLEY: They'll be without a house or property... SMITH: And some properties on the oceanfront right now, literally, are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to maintain their insurance programs. Unless it's taken out completely, they may, they may not. BUCKLEY: Interesting. GILLIS: Wow. So, the taxpayers pay for the dune replenishment, make the dune, make it a No-Zone for a flood zone, as a result of that, the property owner's not going to be required to have a flood, but in the event of a catastrophe, the taxpayers will have to pay for that again. SMITH: Well, New Jersey and New York might be an example. But that's all the V-, all that I don't know the essence of all that... BUCKLEY, MILLER: Right, let's just cover... SrAI—H: But... M LLER: The House Representatives and Senators figure... SMITH: ...but when we vote the new definition... BUCKLEY: About what? M LLER: Let our House and Senate figure that out. SMITH: ...when we vote the new definition referring to the flood elevation, that's good where it exists, but if it, but for some reason it don't exist, it's going to become a new ballgame, and the two feet above street grade still gives us that same margin we started with BUCKLEY: Okay, okay. MILLER: I like that, I think that's what we're going to, that's what we tried to get, have something to work off of if we don't have something to work off of. BJCKLEY: Yeah, right. GILLIS: And that's established by a flood certificate, not an elevation certificate. SMITH: Yes, it would be by survey. GILLIS: It's not discretionary. BUCKLEY: Right. Okay we'll go back to the point where, now the bank's aren't even asking for surveys any longer, that's craziness, in single-family stuff, anyway. They dcn't ask for an as-built survey now before they go to settlement. Ummm.... I I SMITH: And how we establish building height, this would function, and I be ieve that it would not, it would not create adverse condition that I'm aware of. BUCKLEY: Okay. SMITH: Because we're measuring off street grade right now and the whole notion was to be able to give them some margin for design freedom. MILER: Which one is going to take precedent? SMI—H: Whichever is the highest, it says whichever is the highest. GILLIS: Are we talking about life safety and built? MILLER: No, between flood, base flood or two feet... BUCKLEY: Feet. MILLER: ...so it's whatever is the highest. GILLIS: Okay. BUCKLEY: Whichever is the greater. MILLER: ...is that clear? GILLIS: Yeah, okay. BUCKLEY: You want, instead of greater, yeah, you don't want highest there. SMITH: Did I say which is, what did I say? BUCKLEY: You said whichever is greater. SMITH: Greater, yeah. Whichever is the greater of the two, we would measure off of that elevation. BUCKLEY: Okay. SMITH: To your advantage. IVILLER: Greater, to the advantage of the, developer? SMITH: Um hm. MILLER: Okay, I mean, I just wanted just to make sure that that... SMITH: Yeah. BUCKLEY: Right now it states that the vertical distance between, the vertical distance frcm base flood elevation or two feet above grade, whichever is greater, to the highest pcint, where the exterior walls meet the roof. SMITH: Right. TAYLOR: Right. BUCKLEY: Is that understood by everyone? SrAITH: And. and where the exterior walls meet the roof has been in the Code for a lot of years... BUCKLEY: Right. SrAI—H: ...the other language that I put in there about the attic... BUCKLEY: Um hm. SMFH: ...unless otherwise provided, there's two things that have happened in recent yea-3 that modified building height. Normally it says attic ald nothing could go up there except for like mechanical systems and all that, no habitation... BUCKLEY: Um hm. SMITH: ...but when we did the new height requirements in the R-3A from 3rd Street to 15th Street, we declared that the 50% of the attic space could be habitation, which is... BUCKLEY: Yes we did. SMITH: ...which is in that above height requirement, and then we did Montego Bay with their 15 foot height. We allowed habitation in their attic space, so those are examples of otherwise, that's why we put that otherwise in there because it picks up the catch-all provision. BJCKLEY: Okay. SMITH: There are some areas that permit it where some con't. BJCKLEY: Alright, do the, does anyone in the audience have any questions for Mr. S-nith? Is there anyone that would like to speak in favor or against? Let the record show that there's no one in the audience, other than our lovely newspeople, which they are ovely. Any other questions by the Commissioners? Mr. Smith has another comment. SMITH: Comment—and I almost dread to bring this one up. BUCKLEY: Then don't. SMITH: Because well, I'll give it a shot. BUCKLEY: Okay, go for it. SMITH: Recently I went in front of the Mayor and Council with your proposal to change park ng in shopping centers for restaurants? BUCKLEY: Uh huh. SMITH: And I thought it was cut and dried, but it didn't end up that... BUCKLEY: No? Ut oh. SMITH: This could be cut and dry, but it might not end up that way. I would ask, in your recommendation, that you would ask in your recommendation that they would do it as an emergency ordinance. There are projects right now that cculd, not just take advantage of it, but they could benefit by it, because they're coming out of the ground and they've not yet established their column heights and their foundation heights. BUCKLEY: Okay. SMITH: And if they had this advantage, it would help them with current projects. They have not asked for that, but I, 1 know they've got a tight floor to ceiling criteria and the exact reason why we did this, I think there's a number of projects that could, we've got the new hotel at 33rd Street, we've got a new project at 57th Street, there's Mr. Fager's here, the restaurant down there just came in, all these projects could have proper base floor levels at advantage if this were done as an interim measure and whether the Council will consider it emergency or not, but I think because of some of those project: out there this could be beneficial if they're willing to do that, otherwise... MILLER: We're not gonna, we're not gonna have to shrink the building to fit inside the envelope is what you're saying, yeah, I think it's a great idea. SM TH: No, no. TA"LOR: I do too. MILLER: Yeah, let's... BUCKLEY: Makes a lot more sense to me. SMITH: If we could implement I think there'd be an advantage. GILLIS: Blaine, do you ever the opportunity for a designer; a creative designer to manipulate the highest point where the exterior walls meet the roof to make the roof go down farther to make the exterior wall lower to accommodate this design? Do you ever see that? SMITH: I've got a, I went to school for architec-ure, and that's why we used the top plate as a control point, because whether you've got a flat roof or a sloped roof, that top plate cortrols you, regardless of how steep or how flat or whatever, that top plate is going tc hold you where you need to be. The only that that we see, in Montego Bay, for example, is they do allow dormers, like Cape Cod design, so we're still talking about the height being at the top plate and you've got, they're allowed to go to a 7/12 roof pitch, and the; can have dormers provided the height of the dormer doesn't exceed the ridge line of the main house. So you can keep that down to a certain scale. Because they can occupy the attic space, but they can't increase the building height, and whether the roof comes down to a lower point, actually it's going to penalize them. Because it's the plate height that`s going to control them. They can let that roof go down as far as they want, but they're going to be at the plate height. They can't get the plate height up to get the roo- up, because then they've gone past their, whatever their, in that case 15 feet in Montego Bay or any other district. I don't see how they can manipulate it and get away with it. They would be called on it. BUCKLEY: Okay. MILLER: I've got something... SMITH: But they will try. (Laughs) COMMISSIONERS IN UNISON LAUGH, COMMENT SHA14AHAN: How do you convince the Council that this recommendation isn't a backroom conspiracy that they thought the parking regulation was? TAYLOR: What? I didn't hear that story, what was that S7A.LEY: Yep. BUCKLEY: Let's wait, let's get, okay. SHANAHAN: When the last thin came u . I guess Margaret and Brent had said... 9 p. g 9 STALEY: Yep, the... SHANAHAN- ...they kinda bulls-eyed Peck, saying well, he's on the Planning Commission, obviously this will... BUCKLEY: (gasps) SHANAHAN: ...something about his project at 67t1' Street, I mean it's kind of a slap in the -ace to all of us I think, we're just trying to improve... STA.LEY: Yep. SMI—H: I, 1 tried to explain it. I think why I may have failed. We did the change for parking and restaurants in shopping centers around 2007. It dated that far back, I don't think Peck envisioned this on that property at that time. t was after we wrestled with the outside dining and all this other stuff that we kept modifying it, and you know, and yet I don 1 think anything I said would've made any difference. Because it's to benefit all the existing commercial properties and shopping centers that we've had to take to the Boa-d of Zoning Appeals because they increased the amount of restaurant inside of shopping center. It's been an issue way before his project. BUCKLEY: Right. SMITH: And it's going to continue if we didn't clarify it. BUCKLEY: So what happened? SMITH: Well... SHANAHAN: I just I just read it in the paper. BUCKLEY: It was tabled? STALEY: Yeah. SHANAHAN: I didn't think it was tabled, didn't they approve it? BUCKLEY: Oh they did? SMI—H: They're going to have first reading on the 21St BUCKLEY: Okay, alright, well then, let's move back to the subject of our public hearing. SMI—H: Yeah. TAYLOR: I move we close the hearing. BUCKLEY: Alright, I have a motion to close the hearing. MILER: Second. BUCKLEY: Second by Peck. All in favor? COMMISSIONERS IN UNISON: Aye. BUCKLEY: (gavel). Okay. Um... SMI—H: Do you want to suggest the emergency ordinance or... BUCKLEY: Well, we're going to be discussirg that just now. SMITH: Oh I'm sorry. BUCKLEY: That's okay. SMITH: I'm sorry, you just closed it. BUCKLEY: That's okay. I think that we could probably discuss the, being an emergency just because we're starting to see a change in the market. TAYLOR: Right. BUCKLEY: That we want, that this is something we've been looking at for a while, and it would be... TAYLOR: I mean, the whole point of this is for better projects, and better buildings, ard... BUCKLEY: Correct. TAYLOR: ...better use in those buildings, so the sooner it can be implemented, the better. I recommend we forward a positive recommendation for the code definition change and request that it be made an emergency ordinance, passed as ar emergency. BUCKLEY: Alright; do I have a second? SHANAHAN: Second. BUCKLEY: Second by uh, second by Chris. Alright, we have before us a motion to move forward with positive recommendation to the Mayor and Council for the definition of building height and request that it be an emergency, be emergent due to the current market conditions. All in favor? COMMISSIONERS IN UNISON: Aye. BUCKLEY: (gavel) So moved. Respectfully submitted Karen G. (Kay) Stroud Zoning Analyst October 22, 2013