[RP TownTalk] mutc minutes from feb 21

[Alice Ewen Walker]

Town Talk / Town Announce Folks,

Here are minutes from the Feb 21st M-UTC Meeting.  The next meeting is
scheduled for April 5 at 7:30 pm at Town Hall.  Both Patriot Group (Mixed
Use propposed for Dumm's Corner properties) and Potomoc Development
(Wachovia proposed for Route 1/EW Hwy) are aiming to have thier full
applications filed in time for this date.

The town office has preliminary drawings for the projects available for
viewing.  The M-UTC Zoning book is available online at:
http://www.mncppc.org/cpd/riverdalepark.htm

Please join me and other committee members in thanking Anne Marie Larson for
her service as Chair on the M-UTC Committee.  She is rotating off the
committee as her schedule has become more demanding.  Anne Marie did a great
job and we truly appreciate her service, dedication and leadership.
Hope to see interested residents at the April 5 meeting.

- Alice Ewen Walker
M-UTC Committee

-----------------------------------------
Minutes of Riverdale Park
Town Center Design Review Committee
February 21, 2006
Committee members present:
Anne Marie Larson, chair
Pat Prangley, member
Orazio Puglisi, member
Vernon Archer, member
Alice Walker, member
J.D. Williams, member
Rebecca Feldberg, 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 new 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.
Other Mandatory Standards that appear to have been met are:
•    Building Placement and Streetscape standards 6, page 34
•    Fencing, Screening and Buffering standard 8, page 36
•    Parking and Loading Design Standards #1, 2, 5, and 6, page 40 of Plan).
•    Parking and Loading Design Standards #1, 2, 5, and 6, page 40 of Plan).
•    Signage standards 1 and 2, page 42)
Mandatory standards that do not appear to have been met, and will
necessitate departures from the standards through the Special Permit process
are:
    1)  Building Placement
•    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 100 percent of the frontage width of
the lot, unless the lot contains one of the two allowed mid-block alley or a
walk-through connection. (Building Placement, Standard 2, page 34).
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.
•    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.)
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."
•    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)    Building Height
•    Building Height Standard 3, page 46, - "The height of buildings should
be a minimum of one-third the width of the street and streetscape to create
a ratio of 1:3 between the width of the street and the height of the
building."
6)    Architecture
•    Architecture, standard 1, page 47 –
There is not enough information to determine if the standard 5 for
Architecture, page 47 is met.
7)    Building Openings
•    Building Openings – standards 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 13, pages 54 and 55 have
not been met.
•
8)    Signage
•    Signage – standards 4, 6, and 8, page 56 have not been met.
9)    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.
The conceptual plans provided to M-U-TC committee members and presented at
the meeting could not be reviewed for compliance to the development
standards prior to the meeting.  It appears that some mandatory standards
are being met.  However, mandatory standards that are not met are subject to
the departures through the Special Permit process.  Those standards are
referred to above.  While the conceptual plans did not provide enough
information to determine if some of the mandatory standards are being met,
it may be that some are, indeed being met, however, a number of mandatory
standards are not being met and will necessitate the Special Permit process
to obtain the necessary departure status from those standards.
The applicant will provide Dineene O'Connor site plan drawings by whereby an
analysis of which standards are being met and which are not that will
necessitate the departure process.  This analysis will be prepared and
distributed to Committee members and the applicant to be put on the April
agenda.
Key discussion items pertinent to refining the proposal emphasized the
design of the entry and the lack of an entry and a pedestrian orientation on
US 1 including:
•    Consider making the facade facing US 1 look more like a front of the
building. (Supports the intent statement and standard 1, page 54)
•    Consider changing the entry configuration so that you still have a
single opening to the building, but two doors leading into the entryway –
one from US 1 and one form the parking lot.  (supports standard 6 page 55)
•    Consider having the entry articulate the corner of East-West Highway
and US 1 as demonstrated in the new Wachovia prototype.  (see attached).
(supports standard 9, page 55)
•    Consider adding windows and other features to the façade and roofline
facing US 1.  (Supports standard 1, page 54)
A motion was made by JD Williams to approve in concept Wachovia's latest
proposal with the understanding that upon a complete review of the site plan
drawings, they will return to the Committee at its April meeting.
The motion was seconded by Rebecca Feldberg and passed unanimously.
Agenda Item 2– 2006-002 - 4503 Queensbury Road – Gepetto's Catering
•    The applicant proposes to install a security fence between the
buildings known as 4505 and 4503 Queensbury Road.  The purpose of the fence
is to provide security for the catering trucks.
•    The application states the intent to increase the existing 4-foot high
fence to a 7-foot high security sliding gate between buildings 4503 and 4505
Queensbury Road.  The fence will be made of the same materials as the
existing fence, i.e. chain link with green vinyl slats. bordering the
property.  A portion of the property at the rear of 4503 Queensbury Road
contains a 4-foot high fence, which will be increased to 7 feet.
•    The application contains a crude hand drawn schematic indicating large
planters with evergreens to screen the gate fronting Queensbury Road,
however, the drawing lacks specificity indicating accordance with the
development standards.

•    It is difficult to determine the applicant's conformance with the
design guidelines without a more professional rendering of the proposal.
•    The applicant is invited to the February 21, 2006 M-U-TC meeting to
discuss the proposal and the ways that the proposal could better conform to
the development standards and design guidelines. In particular the following
guidelines and standards are of particular interest to this site:
o    Fencing, Screening and Buffering - Page 35 –standards 2 and 3.
•    Standard 2 – Appropriate screening materials shall be wood, brick,
stone, masonry stucco, or any combination there of that complements the main
structure.
•    Standard 3 – Chain-link fence, razor wire, and barbed wire are
inappropriate in a town center and shall not be used for fencing, screening
or security, except where chain link is used to surround athletic courts.
o    Parking and Loading Design – Page 40 – guidelines 1, 5, and 6.
•    Standard 1 – Lots with more than two rows of parking spaces shall
include curbed islands for trees.  Parking shall be provided behind, beside,
or under the building or in a nearby common lot.
•    Standard 5 - The tree–to-parking-space ratio shall be one shade tree
per ten spaces.  The trees shall be a minimum of 2- to 21/2-inch caliper.
•    Standard 6 - Tree boxes shall be located in the corners of and/or along
the edge of the lot, and if needed, in islands and have dimensions similar
to streetscape tree boxes.
JD Williams made a motion to approve the proposed chain link security fence
with vinyl slats as presented to the M-U-TC Committee.  The motion was
second by Anne Marie Larson, and the motion passed unanimously.
Although the M-U-TC Committee has approved this proposal, since it is not in
conformance with mandatory development standards it will, nevertheless,
require a departure from the mandatory standards. Thus, it will require a
Special Permit.
Next Meeting
    The next regularly scheduled committee meeting will be held Wednesday,
March 8, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the Riverdale Park Town Hall if applications
are received in a timely way (i.e. by February 24, 2006) that allows them to
be put on the agenda.
Meeting Adjourned
    The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20060310/9c333ea0/attachment-0003.html>