[RP TownTalk] MUTC Meeting Outcomes

[Dwight Holmes]

Thank you, Alice.

I, for one, would greatly appreciate advance notice on when the
proposal will be heard by the council.

On 12/17/06, Alice Ewen Walker <alice.ewen.walker at gmail.com> wrote:
> In answer to Dwight's question, the plans available at Town Hall include the
> landscape plan, unit layout w/dimensions of the units, a 13 page checklist
> of how the plans either conform or deviate from the mandatory pieces of the
> MUTC guidelines, and the parking/garage layout. As far as the general look
> and materials, what's online is probably sufficient for most people to get a
> sense of what's been proposed.
>
> - Alice
>
>
> On 12/11/06, Dwight Holmes <dwightrholmes at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I see that some of the drawings have been posted to the website.  This is
> great.
> >
> > Can someone tell us how much more is available at Town Hall than what we
> have here?  Thanks.
> >
> >
> >
> > Available plans include the layout at the ground floor (retail) level from
> above, a view from the other side of the railroad tracks at the crossing, a
> view from the other side of the railroad tracks a little bit north of
> Riverdale Road, a view from the other side of the railroad tracks a little
> bit south of Riverdale Road, and a set of numerical tables about the
> development's square footage.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 12/7/06, Alice Ewen Walker <alice.ewen.walker at gmail.com > wrote:
> > > Town Talkers,
> > >
> > > Last night the M-UTC committee met with Pete and Sons (owners of
> > > Dumms) to review their new application for redevelopment of properties
> > > at Queensbury / Lafayette / Riverdale Rd. (the properties where the
> > > boarding house, convenience store/sub shop, and credit union building
> > > are now located.)
> > >
> > > As with the previous development proposed by Patriot Group, the
> > > redevelopment does not meet the M-UTC guidelines on a few very major
> > > points: building height, setback, and parking.  Those are standards
> > > that are mandatory, which the zoning committee has no legal ability to
> > > waive. The county, in consulatation with town council, does have that
> > > authority through the 'special exception' process.
> > >
> > > The M-UTC voted to approve the project subject to it securing permits
> > > from the county through the special exception process. In essence,
> > > this means the zoning committee approved everything that we have the
> > > authority to approve and now the proposal passes to the county to
> > > secure those big exceptions. The county will consult w/ the town in
> > > this review.
> > >
> > > It is really up to the town's elected body, reportable to voters, to
> > > determine major variations from the zoning -- such as building height.
> > >
> > > (In my view, building height is the only big issue on the table.  The
> > > variance needed for setbacks is reasonable - it allows them to build
> > > closer to the train tracks than current county codes now allow, but is
> > > consistent with our historic build to lines. The parking variance is
> > > minor.)
> > >
> > > About the project -
> > >
> > > The proposal we saw reflected effort by the applicant to incorporate
> > > many of the comments the committee and public provided during the
> > > Patriot Group's earlier application process. Several of the
> > > concessions/improvements that were made in this application are:
> > > - 4 stories rather than 5 on the building on the south side of Riverdale
> Rd.
> > > - use of quality materials and articulation on all faces of the
> > > building, including the courtyard/back sides
> > > - more surface level parking to serve retail businesses
> > > - no net loss of retail space. this version of the project provides
> > > about twice the retail area as what the Patriot Group had proposed.
> > > - effort made to minimize the roof profile
> > > - a two phase building process that will allow the owners to continue
> > > to operate their businesses with no shut down and no loss of these
> > > valued businesses to the town.
> > > - larger unit sizes to the residential units than what was previously
> proposed
> > >
> > > While there are some details that are still pending regarding interior
> > > amenities, landscaping and other features, these are things that the
> > > applicant has stated will be in compliance with the M-UTC guidelines.
> > >
> > > At this point, the applicant is going to move with all haste to submit
> > > for the special permit and get a decision about whether the project
> > > will be granted an exception or not.
> > >
> > > If you have opinions about the project (in favor or not), the most
> > > appropriate thing to do is to review the plans at town hall and get in
> > > touch with your council person. You may also want to talk to the folks
> > > at Dumm's Corner, who would like to keep the lines of communication
> > > open and would rather have a chance to answer/address concerns now
> > > than later.
> > >
> > > Many thanks to the Spiropoulos family and their architecture team for
> > > a thorough and straight forward presentation of the project last
> > > night.
> > >
> > > Alice Ewen Walker
> > > M-UTC Committee Chair