City Council

From Alderman Arnett

Tonight a new approach to reviewing development projects will commence. The principles of the Eastport Shopping Center redevelopment will be meeting with representatives of the so called “Concerned Citizens” and City officials to review and discuss a potential change in the development plan and application to B2 Commercial Shopping Center rules rather than Special Mixed Plan Development rules. The part I like about this new approach in that it emulates the Code changes made last term to hold a concept meeting with the community before an application for development is made. The negotiation is nonbinding and may not yield any consensus, but I find it to be a step in the right direction as developers and residents try to find accommodations.

In other news, the Board of Appeals has agreed to reopen its hearing on the shared parking plan for Adam’s Ribs that was denied by the Planning Director. Planning denied on the basis that the parking management plan proposed was unworkable and that Fourth Street was already at parking saturation without the addition of a new restaurant. The outcome of this hearing will likely have ramifications on the proposed Brew Pub next door to the Adam’s Rib project, also on Fourth Street.

Both of these projects raise larger issues about Fourth Street and all of the new development we are seeing in Ward 8 and across the City – how do we manage parking and traffic in a City that is becoming more and more attractive for both visitors and businesses. The Fourth Street area and Eastport are already rich with dining and other business offerings, and it is nice to be able to walk from our homes to these places. The problem is that we often don’t walk and certainly visitors come by car. How do we enjoy the benefits of urban living and, at the same time, share our streets with others? Small scale and mostly quite Eastport is changing before our eyes. It certainly looks different even just from when I moved here 16 years ago. Is this progress or a problem?

On still other fronts, the controversy about Turner Park and dogs continues on. First there were complaints from nearby residents about unleashed dogs in the Park, Then an all-out ban on dogs in City Parks, and now push back from dog owners, that in my assessment has merit. I recognize that part of the City responsibility is to provide accommodation for all residents with as little impingement on others as possible.

I have been looking for suitable dog park locations elsewhere in Ward 8 – a site or more that would satisfy the needs of the dogs and their owners, but not impose on neighbors. A potential site is on the grounds of the Eastport Fire Station and discussions of that feasibility are ongoing. I have another, much bigger site in mind, but need to make more explorations to see if that will work. Meanwhile the status of Turner Park is still under consideration – stay tuned.

Finally, I am working on the results of your votes on my four year “To Do” list from the last Town Hall Meeting. The results are interesting and even a little bit surprising. I am crossing the vote on the “List” with the Quality of Life exercise we did a year ago. Those intersections are also revealing. I’ll get this out to you soon. 

 Ross

Traffic Impact Analysis: the Community Takes a Stand – 1

ANNAPOLIS NECK PENINSULA FEDERATION
EASTPORT CIVIC ASSOCIATION
February 20, 2018

Pete Gutwald
Director
Planning and Zoning Dept.
City of Annapolis
pgutwald@annapolis.gov

Sally Nash
Chief of Comprehensive Planning
Planning and Zoning Dept.
City of Annapolis
snash@annapolis.gov
(via email)
re: Traffic Impact Studies – Chesapeake Grove and Other Studies

Dear Pete and Sally,

We are leaders of local civic organizations whose members, reflecting the general public, express considerable concern over current traffic congestion and proposals for future development As you know, the public’s concerns about traffic congestion were clearly expressed in the first community survey conducted for the Forest Drive/Eastport Sector Study. Traffic was cited as the “most important area to focus on” and what respondents “most dislike about the study area”. The assumptions and methods used in preparing planning documents, including the Sector Study and guidelines for traffic impact studies, are critical to Annapolis’ continued attractiveness as a place to live or visit.

Although this letter is focused on our immediate concerns with the Revised Traffic Impact Study completed in October 2017 (“TIS”) for the Chesapeake Grove (a/k/a the Rodgers Property), some of the issues identified are also germane to the work being done currently on the Sector Study. These TIS’ issues point to the guidelines and standards of analysis we respectfully ask the City to consider including in current and  future traffic analyses.

Our concerns arise because the Chesapeake Grove TIS, as have earlier TISes, reveals numerous movements with failing levels of service (E or F) at many key intersections in the existing, background, and future condition results. Considering that this TIS does not include in its analysis any future developments other than those already ANPF, ECA to Annapolis P&Z
finally approved, it seems to us that future conditions could be very much of an issue if only a portion of the developments being discussed move to development. This is true even if some of the larger developments are scaled back from initial proposals.

To assist us, your responses to the following questions would be greatly appreciated.

1) Annapolis’ Policies and Guidelines For Traffic Impact Analysis for Proposed
Development in the City of Annapolis (“the Guidelines”) form the basis of how
developers must complete traffic impact assessments. As you know, these Guidelines are expressly incorporated into the adequate public facility ordinance at 22.21.010. Is it the City’s position that all traffic impact studies, when required, must adhere to these Guidelines? If not, under what circumstances and through what procedures is the City allowing a revised approach to conduct a traffic impact study?

2) The TIS on page 1 refers to the contractor being provided the “methods of analysis, study time periods, etc.” Can we be provided with a copy of these methods of analysis provided to Traffic Concepts and the developer when conducting the TIS?

3) Page 8 of the Guidelines provides the methodology for conducting traffic volume counts. This requires “average three to seven day machine counts to determine daily and peak volumes” among other requirements. The TIS includes the traffic counts in Appendix II (starting on page 60 of the PDF file).
The first two pages in Appendix II show counts for the Forest/Spa intersection. These appear to be manual counts and done only on two separate days. Is this correct? If so, why weren’t average three to seven day machine counts required at each intersection? Also, can we get actual physical copies of any traffic counts and associated reports completed for this TIS or the Forest Drive/Eastport Sector Study?

4) Page 3 of the TIS notes that “basic traffic signal and intersection design parameters were supplied by Anne Arundel County or gathered during our field investigation.” Later in the TIS, on pages 5 and 22, it appears that 120 second traffic signal cycle times may have been used to run the modeling. Can we get copies of the “basic traffic signal and intersection design parameters” that were supplied by Anne Arundel County? Also, can you confirm if 120 second cycle times were used to run the models in this TIS? If so, why was 120 seconds used when the Traffic Concepts Forest Drive ANPF, ECA to Annapolis P&Z corridor model analysis completed in September 2015 notes it was using the 140 second cycle time at peak times as requested by Anne Arundel County along the corridor? We ask this also because Anne Arundel County Traffic Engineering staff confirmed in December 2017 that the following cycle times are actually in use on Forest Drive:

Forest Drive Signal Cycle Times
06:15-09:00 140 sec
09:00-15:00 120 sec
15:00-19:30 140 sec
19:30-21:00 120 sec
21:00-06:50 120 sec (running free)

With this backdrop, we respectfully request that the TIS modeling be rerun using a 140 second cycle times. This may cause material differences in outcomes.

5) On page 5 of the TIS, Traffic Concepts notes that “The City of Annapolis traffic impact study guidelines require that the overall intersection operate at an acceptable “D” or better level of service to determine adequacy.”
Is this the City’s position such that failing individual movements at an intersection can be ignored and no improvements or mitigation will be required? We ask this because the Guidelines on page 4 require that existing conditions be assessed “for each movement.” Moreover, on page 14 of the Guidelines assessing mandatory intersection mitigation or improvements it is stated that “Improvements are required if the roadway, the
intersection, and/or a particular movement will operate below [level of service] D or worse with the proposed development.”
6) It appears in the TIS that the City is merely requiring that new background
developments be built in to the TIS only if they are already approved by the City or County. For example, no traffic from potential growth from an Eastport Shopping Center development or expansion at the Watergate apartments is assumed. A list of projects “in the pipeline” is attached including background developments only already approved projects concerns us ANPF, ECA to Annapolis P&Z because the Future Condition as shown on page 21, even without including any proposed but not yet approved development, shows many individual movements failing. Indeed, the overall Forest Drive intersection is already failing in the PM rush hour under this TIS, with no “pipeline” development built in.

Is it possible to have Traffic Concepts run this TIS and build in varying amounts of development from the “pipeline” list? What would be the costs of this effort? It seems such a cost can be shared by the City, County and the State as all have roadways affected along this corridor. Spa Road is a State highway at the Forest Drive intersection. Obviously, this effort should be a City project and/or part of the Forest  Drive sector study effort and not a cost of just the Chesapeake Grove developer.

We understand the Forest Drive sector study traffic study is looking more at various land use options as opposed to assessing levels of service. However, the entire Annapolis framework under the Guidelines for assessing traffic impacts is based on changes in the level of service. As such, it seems prudent for adequate planning to understand the traffic impacts of various levels of development being approved from the “pipeline” list as part of the sector study effort or otherwise.

7) On page 22, the TIS concludes that “side road approaches will not double-cycle and will experience acceptable delays.” We suggest that staff visit the Spa Road/Forest Drive intersection during the morning rush and do some measuring. Drivers heading north on Spa are already experiencing double-cycles with the current conditions. It would seem to be the logic of this TIS, therefore, that the current delays at Spa Road/Forest Drive intersection are unacceptable.

8) In the conclusion section on page 27 there is an analysis of how changing green time at the various movements on Spa Road can help to eliminate the overall failure of the Spa Road/Forest Drive intersection. Have the suggestions for changing how this intersection operates been reviewed with the County and the State? If so, is the County or State amenable and can documents related to that discussion be made available for review?
We note, again, that the intersection’s predicted failure occurs without considering any “pipeline” development, including the large development proposed at the Masque Farm (Crystal Spring) site.

We look forward to your response and thank you, in advance, for your efforts to ANPF, ECA to Annapolis P&Z respond to our concerns.

Sincerely,

s/Anastasia Hopkinson
Vice-President
Annapolis Neck Peninsula Federation
ahopkinson@comcast.net
s/Victor Pascoe
President, Eastport Civic Association
ecapresident@eastportcivic.org
cc: Mayor Gavin Buckley
Alderman Ross Arnett, Ward 8
Alderman Rob Savidge, Ward 7
Alderwoman Shaneka Henson, Ward 6
Alderman Marc Rodriquez, Ward 5
Alderwoman Sheila Finlayson, Ward 4
Alderwoman Rhonda Pindell Charles, Ward 3
Alderman Fred Paone, Ward 2
Alderwoman Elly Tierney, Ward 1
Planning Commission via boards@annapolis.gov
Robert Waldman, Chair, Planning Commission
David DiQuinzio, Member, Planning Commission
Dr. Eleanor Harris, Member, Planning Commission
Wm. Hearld, Member, Planning Commission
David Iams, Member, Planning Commission
Attachments:
22.21.010_Traffic_impact_analysis
City Guidelines for Traffic Impact Analysis 2015
2017-10 Chesapeake Grove Rodgers Property TIS
Cycle Times – Forest Drive AA County
List of Annapolis Developments

Worse than Refrigerator on the Lawn

 

AYC-Good Neighbor-Good Steward of the Environment ?

The pictures speak for themselves:

 

Town Hall

Alderman Arnett’s Town Hall meeting is tonight, Thursday 8 February at 7 PM at the Eastport Fire Station.

One of several topics will be a detailed update on Eastport Shopping Center redevelopment .

Back Yards – Next Steps

I am requesting that Annapolis Planning and Zoning Department provide us with a portfolio of maps that will give us all a context through which to view project proposals, a consistent framework to make our individual assessments and a common platform to communicate our findings.

This is the text of the e-mail I sent to P&Z for my mapping data request

Please send me the requested ArcGIS or similar geomapping product information. I will share this information with our community to more fully understand the implications of proposed projects and to better anticipate and plan for the future of our community.

1. A Map of zip-code 21403 and/or the Greater Eastport market area as defined by the Eastport Civic Association with the road system, flood plains, critical area designations and areas determined to have fragile or endangered environments
2.  Map 1 with the location and size of the sites for the on-going and proposed projects listed at the end of this letter. If the specific site is still not define use a notional estimate and provide the appropriate legend
3. Map 1 with zoning designations
4. Map 1 with committed areas where no building can occur, such as schools, parks, Government Buildings and etc.
5. Map 1 with designations of non-government ownership sites that are tax-exempt. With owners designated
6. Please add any other mapping materials that you deem important for the community to have

• Annapolis Yacht Club Eastport Annex
• South Annapolis Yacht Center
• Eastport Shopping Center
• Primrose Hill
• Central Park
• Griscom Square
• Adam’s Rib Restaurant
• Proposed Brew Club – 4th Street
• Chesapeake Grove
• House/Eastport Terrace
• Watergate Pointe

 

Thank you for your assistance in providing the requested materials in a timely manner.

Harold Sherman

In All of Our Back Yards

We can see  the future of our community through the lens of the individual projects being proposed or as an interconnected integrated marketplace.  Unfortunately, current planning and zoning policy procedures force us into a project by project reactive mode.

Based on the turnout at ward and city-wide project review meetings, there is a significant level of interest and concern about the impact projects will have.  We recently applauded the news that a community group and the Eastport Shopping Center project proponents were going to sit down and try to negotiate the site density of the proposed out-of-scale project.

This is too little too late.

When projects get to this state we, the community are essentially powerless or at least limited in our ability to impact this or any proposed project.  Project proponents appear to have unlimited time, money and technical resources to beat down P&Z and  the community.  Surely there must be better ways to protect the interests of the community.

At a recent community meeting, a list of current and potential projects was circulated:

1. Annapolis Yacht Club Eastport Annex – Sixth Street, Burnside Street & Severn Avenue
2. South Annapolis Yacht Center – Boucher Avenue, Washington Street & State Street
3. Eastport Shopping Center – Chesapeake Avenue and Bay Ridge Avenue
4. Primrose Hill – Milkshake Lane & Hilltop Lane
5. Central Park – Elliot Road & Hilltop Lane
6. Griscom Square – Bay Ridge Avenue & Tyler Avenue
7. Adam’s Rib Restaurant – 424 Fourth Street
8. Proposed Brew Pub – 418 Fourth Street
9. Chesapeake Grove – Bembe Beach Drive
10. Harbor House/Eastport Terrace – Madison Street & President Street
11. Watergate Pointe – Americana Drive, Norman Drive & Monroe Street

As is being discussed, area-wide comprehensive plans need to be updated with the associated changes in P&Z policies, codes and procedures.

We must take a market-wide impact analysis of multiple projects, not just a reaction to individual projects.  The 2^nd and 3^rd order community or market-wide effects may outweigh any individual project outcomes.

Unless we deal with this now, we will have lost any ability to establish control of overwhelming unlimited construction and quality of life dysfunction. We cannot  wait for P&Z modifications to take place.  It is necessary that we deploy the tools and techniques ot computer modeling and simulation to assess future pressures, options and impacts.  These tools, while state-of-the-art, are available and should be used now.  We have to be in a position to plan first, not react first.

Sure, what’s the big deal?  One project, two projects.  But ten and how many more are waiting in the wings?  We need to have ways of seeing the big picture.  Of understanding the interconnected impacts on our infrastructure and our environment.