Opinions/Writings

 

Main Menu

On this page:

OPINIONS

03-0026

Opinion/Commentary:

The Onslaught of Development on St. Paul Street in Charles Village

My overriding concern is that a very small number of residents, along with a few people on the North Charles Village PUD Design Review Committee, in the City Planning Department, in the Charles Village Community Benefits District, in Greater Homewood Community Corporation, and at Johns Hopkins University may be railroading through development decisions that will permanently have an adverse affect on the many who live in Charles Village.

Based on what I have heard from many of my neighbors and what I have read on the Charles Village E-mail Discussion List, I know that a lot of people in this "Greater Charles Village" community are interested in, and very concerned about, the major development that is being planned for the 3200 and 3300 blocks of St. Paul Street, and the irreversible impact it will have on the surrounding neighborhoods.

I know equally well that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to get a good grasp of what has happened in the past that led to this planning, which seems to go far beyond what was initially intended, and what is yet required to be done in order for this planning to become a reality. Therefore, I will share what little information I know, but will not try to explain things that I don't fully understand myself. However, I will raise a number of questions.

The thing that specifically prompted me to write this piece is an agenda for a July 21, 2003 meeting of the "North Charles Village PUD Design Review Committee" that came to my attention. I'll say more on the content of the agenda later, but first, while all of this may be "old hat" to some, I would venture to say that others may not even know what a "PUD" is, much less what this Design Review Committee is and what it is supposed to be doing. Considering that the North Charles Village PUD has been in existence since 1996, its plans and activities certainly were not well publicized in this community during the intervening years-at least, not until the current development bomb was dropped some months back.

"PUD" is an acronym for "Planned Unit Development". The creation of PUDs in Baltimore is authorized by the Zoning Code of Baltimore City, Title 9, which can be easily accessed by going to the following website: www.ci.baltimore.md.us/government/legislative/  (When you reach that site, follow the links to Baltimore City Code, then Zoning, then click on Title 9.) Title 9 probably contains more details than you care to know, but basically it explains (from the City's perspective) what a PUD is, why it is considered desirable to create a PUD, the types of PUDs (ours is "residential"), the process for submitting a PUD development plan in coordination and consultation with the City Planning Department, and getting the plan approved through the City Council and the Mayor of Baltimore as a part of a City Ordinance. I urge all interested parties to peruse Title 9, either on the website or in printed form, and glean from it what you can. I perceive that the bottom line is this: a PUD makes it easier and quicker for developers and the City of Baltimore to pursue projects such as that planned for St. Paul Street, quite possibly to the detriment of individual property owners and without due regard to the wishes of the community at large. Read and judge for yourselves.

The North Charles Village Planned Unit Development was introduced as Council Bill 93 and signed into law by Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke as Ordinance 35 on June 14, 1996. Ordinance 35 is too lengthy to incorporate into this writing in its entirety, but it is a public document and should be available from the City Legislative services. Some interesting aspects of Ordinance 35:

  • It states that the Development Plan was submitted by the Greater Homewood Community Corporation, Inc., and that "&ldots;representatives of [that corporation] met with duly designated officers of the Planning Commission to hold a pre-petition conference to explain the scope and nature of existing and proposed development&ldots;."

  • It states that the PUD is "located generally within the area bounded by 33rd Street on the north, Hargrove Alley on the east, 30th Street on the south, and Charles Street on the west".

  • It states that it "is the intention of the owners of the properties and the community to continue the predominantly residential use of the properties, while encouraging university-oriented retail uses in certain areas&ldots;."

  • It states that the Development Plan, consisting of an "Existing Conditions Plan" and "Proposed Site Development Plan and Design Standards" "&ldots;as attached to and made a part of this ordinance, is hereby approved".

    It states that "the North Charles Village PUD Design Review Committee shall be a standing committee of the Charles Village Civic Association, and the following representatives shall comprise this committee:

     

      1. Charles Village Civic Association (CVCA) President or an alternate designated as Chair.
      2. Volunteer advisor, architect (non-voting)
      3. Baltimore City Planning Department, planner (non-voting)
      4. Charles Village Civic Association, nearby neighbor of the North Charles Village PUD
      5. Charles Village Community Benefits District, resident
      6. Greater Homewood Community Corporation, resident or business
      7. North Charles Village PUD, business owner or managing agent
      8. North Charles Village PUD, property owner
      9. Johns Hopkins University"

I do not have a copy of the Development Plan, but do have a copy of a 1996 document titled, "Overview", in which readers are asked to call Sandy Sparks of Greater Homewood Community Corp. "for more information about the community-based process that led to the establishment of the North Charles Village PUD", and another 1996 document titled "North Charles Village PUD Design Guidelines & Standards". This latter document states with regard to new construction, "New construction shall be compatible with existing architecture in scale, mass, materials and setbacks." With regard to adjoining properties, it states, "Adjoining properties used by the same occupant shall be rehabilitated in a unified and harmonious manner. Each building shall be rehabilitated and repaired with materials and in a manner consistent with the original construction techniques, where feasible." The document otherwise discusses various elements of design guidelines and standards, such as those involving security grills, signs, awnings, landscaping, parking lots, etc., and prescribes the design review process. Readers of this document are asked to call the Charles Village Community Benefits District for "assistance with redeveloping a property in the North Charles Village PUD".

This takes me (finally) back to the agenda for the July 21st meeting of the North Charles Village PUD Design Review Committee. The agenda was sent out by Sandy Sparks, Chair, to the following individuals: Joe Rexing, Beth Bullamore, Dave Holmes, John L. Davis, John S. McDaniel, Kristin Smith [Planning Department], Matthew Mosca, Salem Reiner [Johns Hopkins University], William P. Miller [Greater Homewood Community Corporation], Pauline Davis [Charles Village Community Benefits District], Chad Foice. [Are these the current Committee members? If so, I can't readily identify which seats they occupy.] The agenda topics are:

    1. Introductions. Welcome new representatives.

    2. Minutes from June 16 Meeting. Joe Rexing, Secretary

    3. Discussion on planning for NCV PUD Expansion. Sandy Sparks

    • Review additional uses proposed by Hopkins. Stanley Fine

    • Including Charles Street Apartment Buildings. Dave Holmes

    • Revising the Design Guidelines in the NCV PUD Ordinance. Joe Rexing

    4. Other

    5. Next Meeting, August 18.

As I see it, the items listed under Topic No. 3 are extremely significant in that they go beyond the scope of what Ordinance 35, currently authorizes. In my view, the Ordinance itself would have to be amended in order to provide additional uses, include additional buildings, or revise the design guidelines. At the very least basic, fundamental policies would have to be changed, and that should involve wide community input. Following are a few of my questions:

  • Why is the Design Review Committee taking up these issues that seem to go far beyond the scope of its authority?

  • Why were these important issues not presented to the community at large for discussion and meaningful input before the planning and development decisions reached the advanced stage where they now stand?

  • Who are all of these people on the Design Review Committee? And which seat does each one occupy?

  • Who selects the members of this Committee and who actually controls membership? The Committee Chair?

  • Do these people presume to make decisions for the entire community?

  • Why doesn't/why hasn't the President of the CVCA assumed the position of Chair of this Committee? [To my knowledge, the same person has been Chair for most of the years that the Committee has existed.]

  • If Beth Bullamore, as President of the CVCA, does not serve as Chair of the Committee, in what capacity does she serve on the Committee? (Or is she merely a special guest?)

  • Stanley Fine is an attorney well known in City Government circles. Who is he representing in this matter of  "additional uses proposed by Hopkins"? Johns Hopkins University?

  • Who is David Holmes, whose subject is "including Charles Street Apartment Buildings", and on whose behalf is he speaking?

I know there are many other unanswered questions. My hope is that this writing will raise the awareness level of individuals who may be adversely affected by decisions that seem beyond their control, that it may cause them to become better informed, and that they may start to demand answers.

I will repeat my opening statement: My overriding concern is that a very small number of residents, along with a few people on the North Charles Village PUD Design Review Committee, in the City Planning Department, in the Charles Village Community Benefits District, in Greater Homewood Community Corporation, and at Johns Hopkins University may be railroading through development decisions that will permanently have an adverse affect on the many who live in Charles Village.

[Prepared by Charles D. Rollins; July 24, 2003]

Return to top of page