[RP TownTalk] MUTC update from Jan 25

[Alice Ewen Walker]

To Town Readers:

I serve as a citizen representative on the M-UTC Committee - here's an
update on tonight's meeting regarding the proposed Wachovia Bank development
at the corner of E-W Highway and Route 1.

Representatives from Potomac Development, Wachovia Bank, HBA Architects, and
Bay Engineering met with the committee tonight.  The committee had requested
in particular the opportunity to address Wachovia directly regarding their
proposal.

There were no major redesigns proposed tonight, but it was a useful
discussion. The committee re-emphasized concerns about the proposed
building's lack of conformance with the zoning guidelines.  Wachovia
expressed willingness to go back and see if they could do more to address
town concerns. So, we will wait to see what they come up with in that
regard.

For those who are not familiar, the zoning guidelines offer a great deal of
flexibility but are also fairly specific about things like building set
back, building heights, and so on.
I am appending a copy of the plan review comments prepared by Park and
Planning, who provides professional plan review as part of this process
(below).

Thanks,
Alice Ewen Walker
MUTC Committee Member


Riverdale Park M-U-TC Application – 2006-001

Subject:       Proposed Wachovia

Location:      6241 Baltimore Avenue

Size:          approximately 1.75 acres.

Existing Uses:    vacant

Proposal:      4,500sf.bank building with 4 drive thru lanes.

GENERAL PLAN, MASTER PLAN AND SMA

2002 General Plan:    Developed Tier

Master Plan:    Planning Area 68 Master Plan/Riverdale Park Mixed-Use-Town
Center Plan

•    Planning Area/
          Community:    PA 68/Riverdale Park.

•    Land Use:    Retail commercial.

•    Environmental:    No environmental issues.

•    Historic Resources:    No historic issues.

•    Transportation:    The property is located in the southeast quadrant of
the intersection of Baltimore Avenue and East-West Highway.  The State
Highway Administration (SHA) needs to approve the changes to the ingress and
egress to the site.  The applicant is working with SHA to obtain approval
for the ingress and egress as shown on the plans.

•    Public Facilities:      No public facilities issues.

•    Parks & Trails:      No parks and trails issues.

SMA/Zoning:     Riverdale Park M-U-TC

PLANNING ISSUES

•    The Riverdale Park M-U-TC Committee will be premature in reviewing the
Eckerd Pharmacy Site Plan until the site plan is reviewed by SHA. Phase one
of the site plan shows Beale Circle closed to the existing users whose
circulation was based on the circulation afforded by Beale Circle between
East-West Highway and Queensbury Road.

•    Use of the municipal street parking is in effect a closure of the road
and will necessitate several processes to legitimize the closure:

o    Road Closure process– The Town holds a public hearing to determine the
appropriateness of closing Beale Circle.  (The Town would provide M-NCPPC a
document declaring the road closed.

o    Street vacation process – The municipality and the applicant file a
Vacation Petition to vacate street.  The town must provide exhibits (Plat of
Computation) showing how parts of  Beale Circle are to be reverted to each
party.  These exhibits (maps) show the Tax and Assessments office how the
property is to be reverted.

o    Subdivision process – A condition of the vacation is likely to be a
Section 24-108 minor plat of subdivision incorporating all the vacated area
reverting to the applicant's proposed development of the Eckerd Pharmacy
Store.

Riverdale Park M-U-TC Plan Land Use Policies and Development Standards

•    The Riverdale Park M-U-TC Plan does not make a specific recommendation
for the subject property.  However, Table 1 on page 23 of the plan makes
recommendations for the development of parcel 1a and 1c, which are directly
across the street from the subject property.  The Plan's recommendation is
for a signature building for parcel 1a.   The recommendation for parcel 1c
is for infill development.   Additionally, parcel 1a has been improved with
a brick one-story bank building.

•    Per page 31 of the Plan, "A signature building is one that is located
on a site that has a very public face such as a street corner or view
terminus and is located where the building may create a first impression of
the community making design considerations more important; infill buildings
are built between other buildings and may be less noticeable to the general
public.  Here, quality design is important but the building does not need to
distinguish itself from its neighbors.  Compatibility requires that the
buildings should incorporate positive elements of nearby buildings to avoid
a jarring contrast in the streetscape.  The subject property is a signature
development site and will leave a lasting impression of the community.
Consideration needs to be given to the following to reflect the M-U-TC
standards:

1)     Build-to line – (Page 40) East side of US 1 north of Queensbury shall
be 15 feet with a 7-foot wide sidewalk or 20 feet for a 12-foot sidewalk
plus or minus 4 feet from the face of curb.  The building is set back 49
feet from the face of curb, which is twice as much as required per the
standard.

2)     The M-U-TC Committee would like to have SHA comments on the access
and circulation to the site.

3)     An earlier proposal for an Eckerd Drug store provided a continuous
7-foot sidewalk and wall along East-West Highway and along Baltimore
Avenue.  The subject plans do not contain enough information to determine if
the wall and sidewalks are proposed.

a.    All wall details need to be provided on the plans and should be
compatible with materials used in the building.

4)     Landscaping - A landscape plan needs to be provided that implements
the development standards # 1, 3, and 4, per page 44 of the plan.  Deviation
from these standards may require a special permit review. (Note: The earlier
proposed Eckerd plan for this site proposed shrub plantings in front of the
wall along East-West Highway, however, it is recommended that the shrubs be
eliminated and replaced with ground cover material such as Liriope.)

5)    Streetscape  - Standard 6 (page 60, Riverdale Park M-U-TC Plan)
requires one street tree (2 ½ to 3 inch caliper) be planted in the landscape
strip every 30 to 40 feet (relative to full growth size).  The frontage on
East-West Highway is 180 feet, which necessitates 4-5 shade trees.  The
frontage on US 1 is approximately 160 feet, which necessitates 4 to 5 shade
trees.  Deviation from this standard may require a special permit review.


6)    Building Height - (page 45, Riverdale Park M-U-TC Plan) – Standard one
provides that building height shall conform to Table 5, which requires a
minimum building height of 2-stories in this location south of East-West
Highway.  Deviation from this standard may require a special permit review.

7)    Architecture -  (page 47, Riverdale Park M-U-TC Plan) – The proposal
does not meet standard 1 for a three-part composition where the base, middle
and top are distinct parts of the whole building on all public faces.
Deviation from this standard may require a special permit review.

8)    Parking – The proposal requires 28 parking spaces per part 11 of the
Zoning Ordinance. (i.e. for a 4,500 sf. Bank building that generates normal
parking demand, 1 space per every 150 sf. Of gross floor area up to 3000
gfa. And 1 space per every 200 sf. Of floor area above 3,000 sf., which in
this case is 1500 sf.  Thus, the parking required per part 11 of the Zoning
Ordinance is 28 parking spaces.  However, the Riverdale Park M-U-TC Plan
provides in standard 1, page 39 requires a maximum parking range of 80% of
that required in part 11 of the Z.O.  The result is that parking shall not
exceed 23 parking spaces.  The proposal provides 45 parking spaces or 22
more parking spaces than are allowed.  Deviation from this standard may
require a special permit review.  On the other hand, elimination of the
excess parking spaces could result in a building orientation that better
meets the building placement standards found on pages 34 and 35 of the
Riverdale Park M-U-TC Plan.

9)    Fencing, screening and buffering - Dumpsters, HVAC units, and utility
mechanical equipment shall be completely screened so as not to be visible
from sidewalks. (Page 35, #4).

10)    Lighting – A detailed site plan will need to provide lighting details
in accordance with the standards on page 43 of the plan.

11)    Landscaping - A detailed site plan will need to provide a landscape
plan in accordance with the standards on page 44 of the plan.

12)    Streetscape - A detailed site plan will need to provide streetscape
improvements in accordance with the standards on pages 58 - 61of the plan.

13)    Services, Utilities, and Stormwater Management – A detailed site plan
will need to place utilities and HVAC units where they are not visible from
the streets in accordance with the standards described on page 38 of the
Plan.  Variances from standards 1, 2, 3 and 4, may require a special permit
review.

14)    Noise Mitigation - A detailed site plan will need to meet the design
standards in accordance with the standards described on page 53 of the
Plan.  Variances from standards 1, and 2, may require a special permit
review.








I:\DINEENE\Riverdale Park M-U-TC\2006 applications\2006-001 Wachovia.doc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20060125/c684384a/attachment-0003.html>