 |
|||||||||
| FOR THE RECORD | |
Statement on Proposed Revision of MX District Ordinance By Richard Israel Before Planning Commission May 5th, 2005 My name is Richard Israel. I live at 61 Shaw Street. I am testifying in favor of the revised version of the proposed ordinance (O-11-05) which would amend the Mixed Use (MX) District Ordinance 1 , for the Inner West Street corridor. My testimony is focused on a narrow but vital issue: the continued application of the special exception process to that part of the District where buildings could rise to sixty-five feet in height. For the last twenty-nine years I have lived within two blocks of Inner West Street. Being very much aware of the blight and economic stagnation on West Street, I welcomed the opportunity in 1983 to serve on an advisory committee which proposed a single MX zone. The purpose was to provide incentives to private parties to revitalize the economy of West St. while preventing any encroachment on the residential district. The proposed ordinance was approved by the Council. The concern now is overdevelopment. The revision of the proposed ordinance would address the overdevelopment issue by dividing the MX zone outside the Historic District into three sub-zones with height limits of 65 feet, 46 feet and 36 feet, respectively2. As the height limit in the MX District in existing law is 65 feet3, the creation of three subdistricts with lower height limits in two of the three is welcome. However, in the subdistrict in which the height limit would still be 65 feet, it is imperative that the special exception process which applies to buildings exceeding 55 feet continue to apply. As the Commission well knows, the special exception process requires this commission to make written findings about the impact of a proposed structure. These findings relate to such matters as the effect on nearby property, adequacy of roads and traffic congestion. The Commission’s findings and recommendation are then considered by the Board of Appeal which is required to conduct a public hearing after due notice at which “interested parties” may speak.4 The process has the advantage of being focused on specific property; requiring written determinations about the impact of development of the property; and providing a public forum in which the determinations can be contested. The Mixed Use District Ordinance is codified in the Code as Ch. 21.94. In Sec. 21.94.040H provides that “Buildings in excess of forty-six feet, but less than sixty-five feet in height “ are subject to the provisions of Ch. 21.72 which provides for the special exception process. However, Sec. 21.94.040H refers to an exception in Sec. 21.94.030G for buildings between forty-six feet and fifty-five feet in height which meet certain standards. These provisions of the existing law are not amended by the ordinance as introduced or revised. As the law does not favor repeal by implication, the special exception process would apply to buildings between fifty-five and sixty-five feet in the subzone which still has a height limit of sixty-five feet. The special exception process strikes the right balance between development interests and those effected by development. Indeed, the process should have a lower threshold. However, if there is any Finally, banning two AM alcoholic beverage licenses in two of the three subzones is also a welcome development. An outright ban on all such licenses would be even more welcome. However, the one year term and the right to protest a renewal give residents the opportunity to hold licensees accountable. 1 Annapolis Code, Ch. 21.94 ::TOP:: |
 |