[RP TownTalk] MUTC April minutes

[Alice Ewen Walker]

Town Talk list,

Earlier this month, I provided a brief overview of what happened at the
April M-UTC Meeting.  Appended below are the minutes from the meeting, for
those interested.  The minutes include citations to points of
non-conformance with the zoning.

Best Regards,
Alice Ewen Walker
M-UTC Committee Chair

-------------------------------------
Minutes of Riverdale Park
Town Center Design Review Committee
April 5, 2006


Committee members present:

Alice Walker, chair
Rebecca Feldberg, member
Gerard Kiernan, member
Pat Prangley, member
Alan Thompson, member
J.D. Williams, member

Also present in an official capacity:
Dineene O=Connor, M-NCPPC staff liaison to committee

The meeting convened at 7:30 p.m.


Agenda Item 1– 2006-001, 6241 Baltimore Avenue – Wachovia Bank

A refined proposal for the Wachovia finance center was presented indicating
several significant changes with respect to meeting the development
standards as follows:

•    The bank building was moved to meet the "build-to line requirement per
standard 1, pages 32 and 33 of the Plan.
•    Access and Circulation Standard 6, page 37 – Drive-through windows are
inconsistent with the pedestrian orientation of the town center and are
strongly discouraged.  Drive through windows may only be considered if
accessed by alleys and located on the rear of the property.  (The applicant
has reoriented the drive through lanes to the rear of the property, which is
a partial conformance to the standard; however, an alley does not access
them.)
•    Building Height, standard 1, page 45 – The building height was
increased from one story to the minimum two-story height for buildings
located south of East-West Highway on US 1.
•    Planting strips along Baltimore Avenue, have been added between the
sidewalk and the building façade for approximately two thirds of the façade
length.  The sidewalk now directly abuts the building wall only at the
center bay which projects from the main wall of the buildings.
•    Wall mounted light fixtures have been added to along Baltimore Avenue
and the plaza to create additional detail.
•    The bank will use signage with individual letters, instead of their
standard "box sign".  The letters are internally lit but approximate in
appearance pin letters stipulated in the M-U-TC signage  standards.
•    Two additional windows will be added to the Baltimore Avenue side of
the bank building.

Although the proposal has been refined in an attempt to meet the M-U-TC
mandatory standards, a number of mandatory standards are not met, which will
necessitate departures from the standards through the Special Permit process
are:

1)    Building Placement
•    Standard 1, page 33 provides that all new buildings shall be built
within a specified distance of the face-of-curb per Table 4.   The proposal
meets the requirement along Baltimore Avenue, but substitutes a fence and
landscaping along the East-West Highway.

•    Buildings shall occupy a minimum of 50 percent of the net lot area.
(Building Placement, Standard 1, page 34)
o    The building façade shall occupy 66 percent of the build-to line except
in the historic core. (Building Placement, Standard 2, page 34).
o    A building to meet the size requirements is not feasible for Wachovia.
•    Standard 3, page 33 provides that all new building sidewalls shall abut
the sidewalls of adjacent buildings except for the provision of passages in
enclosed blocks.  The applicant is not able to place the building flush with
the adjacent buildings due to the requirement of the State Highway
Administration for vehicular access to the site.
2)  Access and Circulation
•    Access and Circulation Standard 8, page 37 – ATMs may be located on the
front or side of the building, but may not have vehicular access.  The
applicant finds that the drive-through window configuration as shown is the
minimum functional arrangement for Wachovia.
•    Access and Circulation Standard 6, page 37 – Drive-through windows are
inconsistent with the pedestrian orientation of the town center and are
strongly discouraged.  Drive through windows may only be considered if
accessed by alleys and located on the rear of the property.  (The applicant
has reoriented the drive through lanes to the rear of the property, which is
a partial conformance to the standard; however, an alley does not access
them.)  Wachovia requires ATM vehicular access for this site.  The bank is
willing to make provisions for a walk-up ATM at the building entry plaza
depending on transaction volume at the drive-up ATM.
3) Services, Utilities, Storm Water Management
•    There is not enough information to determine if the standards for
Services, Utilities and Stormwater Management are met. (See page 38 of the
Plan).
4) Parking and Loading Provisions
•    Parking and Loading Provisions, standard 1, page 39 – "The maximum
number of off-street surface parking spaces permitted for each land use type
shall be equal to 80% of the minimum number of required off-street parking
spaces in accordance with Section 27-568(a) of the Zoning Ordinance.  If
structured parking is provided, this maximum number may be increased."  The
applicant finds that the 42 parking spaces is the minimum required by
Wachovia.
•    There is not enough information to determine if the standards 15 and 16
for Parking and Loading Provisions, page 41 are met – (15) "Loading areas
shall be attractive and well maintained; (16) New development shall provide
adequate loading spaces to the rear of the building with access from alleys,
side streets or shared curb cuts.
•    There is not enough information to determine if the standards 1, 2, 3,
and 4 for Lighting, page 43 are met.
•    There is not enough information to determine if standards 1, 3, and 4
for Landscaping, page 44 are met.
5)    Architecture
•    Architecture, standard 1, page 47 – Buildings shall have a tripartite
composition.  The applicant has requested support for the proposed building
via the SP process.
6)    Building Openings
•    Building Openings – standards 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 13, pages 54 and 55 have
not been met.  The applicant finds that it is not possible for the bank to
meet the requirement for 60% of the façade to be constructed of glass due to
the internal functional elements, such as the bank vault.  Similarly the
bank building does not provide windows upper story windows due to the tall
one-story design, which has been modified to meet the height requirement but
remains a tall one-story building.  Also the entry does not address the
intersection of Baltimore Avenue and East-West Highway but is located on an
internal plaza.  Two building entries are not compatible with bank security
issues.
7)    Signage
•    Signage – standards 4, 6, and 8, page 56 have not been met.  The bank
will use signage with individual letters, instead of their standard "box
sign".  The letters are internally lit but approximate in appearance pin
letters stipulated in the M-U-TC signage standards.
8)    Streetscape
•    There is not enough information to determine if Streetscape standards
1and 2, page 58 are met.
•    There is not enough information to determine if the standards 1, 2, and
3, for Sidewalks, page 59 are met.
10)  Landscaping and Pedestrian Amenity
•    There is not enough information to determine if the standards 1, 3, 5,
6, 7, 8, 12 for Landscaping and Pedestrian Amenity Zone, page 59-61 are met.


After considerable comment by committee members and the audience, a motion
was made by Gerard Kiernan and second by Alan Thompson to deny the proposal.
Additional discussion ensued and JD Williams thought a motion with
conditions would better serve the community, however, a new motion with
conditions was not put forward.   Committee members voting to deny the
proposal per the motion before the committee were: G. Kiernan, R Feldberg,
P. Prangley, and A. Thompson; JD Williams opposed the motion; A. Walker
abstained.  (The chair votes if and when there is a tie vote.)

The M-UTC Committee encourages both the applicant and the Riverdale Town
Council to consider the
M-UTC guidelines in future discussions of the project as part of the special
permit process. The committee and Park and Planning technical staff are
available to assist the council in its review of special permit
applications.


Agenda Item 2– 2005-006/1 – Patriot Group redevelopment of Dumm's Corner

    The proposal before the committee constitutes the first application
although the committee has met with Patriot Group to discuss the concept and
offer input to them as regards meeting the M-U-TC standards.  Although the
application does not meet a number of mandatory standards that would require
departure through the SP process and were presented in the staff report,
several stood out and were the subject of most of the comments:

1)Build-to lines are inconsistent – i.e. too great on Queensbury Road and
too little on Riverdale Rd.  The build-to line on Riverdale Road is 10 feet
and in the places where the street tree boxes are indicated, the side walk
shrinks to five feet, which does not meet the intent of the build-to line
and streetscape standards to create a comfortable pedestrian environment and
an attractive streetscape.
The standards for sidewalks and landscaping found on page 59 of the plan and
item 11) below define more specifically standards pertinent to sidewalk and
landscape strip dimensions, and reinforce the relationship between the
build-to line requirements and the streetscape requirements.  For example,
sidewalks shall begin 3 feet from the face of a building, and on streets
other than US 1, shall have a minimum 6-foot landscape strip installed
between the sidewalk edge and the street curb.  Landscaping tree boxes are
to be offset from the curb a minimum of 1.5 feet to avoid car door
obstruction.  Removable grates are discouraged except in the historic core

2) Building height – The Riverdale Park M-U-TC Plan building height
standards provide that building height shall conform to Table 5 (page 45) of
the Plan.  Table five establishes that the minimum height of buildings in
the historic core shall be two stories and the maximum height shall be three
stories.  No attempt has been made to mitigate the height by stepping back
the highest floors (e.g. to create a terrace for a loft type unit or the use
of dormers) to prevent the building/s from visually overwhelming the
adjacent residential neighborhood.

3) Architecture including massing, articulation, and lack of quality
materials – The proposal does not meet standards 4, 5, 7, and 9c all of
which are mandatory standards.  The photograph on page 46 of the plan shows
the intent of standards 1,2,4,5,6 and 7.  The photo shows how a 4-story
building could meet standards 5, 6 and 7 when the building reads as
individual buildings and utilizes dormers, setbacks or other architectural
features.

While the proposal incorporates some material changes and vocabulary
changes, the buildings read as single monolithic structures, with individual
character.  The resulting affect overwhelms the area while simultaneously
diminishing the historic character of the area.  The building might appear
less monolithic if the roofline were staggered in terms of height as well as
in terms of building materials.

Since the building exceeds 60 feet of frontage, material changes and
vocabulary changes are not sufficient enough to meet the intent of the
standards.  The first floor façade suggests split block; brick is a better
choice.  Overall, the lack of quality materials and architecture that
demonstrates individual character does not meet the intent of the design
standards to promote new facades that complement adjacent and nearby
historic buildings while incorporating interesting and unique detailing and
design.  Both buildings will be easily viewed from all sides. Therefore
building articulation and materials, should be addressed on all sides, not
just the portions facing the street. Currently the Patriot group plan shows
just siding and absolutely zero additional features on the backs of the
buildings, which will be viewed by the 8,000 cars traveling west down
Riverdale daily.

4) Parking – Although the applicant is meeting the requirements of the
M-U-TC standards, parking and traffic circulation continued to be brought up
for discussion.  Dineene O'Connor noted that issues with parking regulations
should be addressed by amending the plan standards as opposed to requiring
the applicant to meet standards different from those stated in the M-U-TC
Plan.

Since this is the first complete application presented to the M-U-TC
Committee, the committee deferred action on the application to give the
applicant an opportunity to revise the development proposal to address
issues raised.  The applicant will inform the committee via contact with
Dineene O'Connor whether they will be on the May agenda or a later agenda.


Next Meeting

    The next regularly scheduled committee meeting will be held Wednesday,
May 3, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the Riverdale Park Town Hall if applications are
received in a timely way (i.e. by April 17, 2006) that allows them to be put
on the agenda.

Meeting Adjourned

    The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.

I:\DINEENE\Riverdale Park M-U-TC\2006 minutes and agendas\April 5, 2006
minutes.doc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20060425/6e11ccb6/attachment-0003.html>