[RP TownTalk] MUTC update from Jan 25

[Alice Ewen Walker]

Thanks Andy,

I should have noted that item as an error - evidently the planning office
misinterpreted something in reading the first plans.  At the first meeting,
it was clarified that Beale circle would not be closed off.

The development would reconfigure the street line some but the street will
remain open.  If and when the 'phase 2' part of this project happens, there
may be some additional changes, as what is now individual lots get combined
into shared parking, but there would still be traffic flow from EW Hwy to
Queensbury.

- Alice

On 1/27/06, Andrew Farrington <somefool at dvnt.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks so much, Alice, for the report!  Thanks to you, I see there are a
> number of issues to be addressed and will be watching with interest.
>
> I have a concern.  Quite early in the document there is discussion of the
> closure of "Beale Circle."  Does this mean both West and East Beale
> Circle?  While I personally have no preference as to the status of West
> Beale Circle, I use East Beale Circle every single weekday morning, and in
> fact more than 95% of the time I ever leave my house in a car, whether
> headed to work or not.  From my part of Ward 1, it is by far and away the
> single best way to get to any useful highway.  Its closure would be
> something I would strongly oppose; in fact the the resistance of this
> would likely be something I'd be very, very active in persuing.
>
> Thanks,
> Andrew Farrington
> 4605 Queensbury Road
>
> On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Alice Ewen Walker wrote:
>
> > 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/20060127/41c7fed6/attachment-0003.html>