[RP TownTalk] Possible MUTC solution to height concern

[Rebecca Feldberg]

Ken,
I believe those two houses are not in the mutc zone.
Rebecca


On 5/15/06, Laureys, Ken R. <KRLaureys at co.pg.md.us> wrote:
>
>  **
>
> Alice  – Thanks for the incisive minutes.  It led me to an idea that might
> help resolve the economic vs. aesthetic concerns about the height problem(which you might share with the developer):
> Perhaps the 'Building A' footprint could be extended to include one or
> both of the adjacent homes on Riverdale Rd.  Pete and Sons already own the
> immediately adjacent home, and John Fischer (next door) has been open to
> selling his home.
>
> This enlarged footprint would allow reduction in height to 4 stories for
> each building, or even 3.5 stories (including stepping-back the top floor)for one or the other buildings,
> WITHOUT reducing the unit count, and with a likely increase in the number of
> units.
>
>
>
> As a preservationist, I would insist on re-locating (vs. demolishing) the
> house(s) to an empty lot in town, perhaps with the town buying the lots,
> re-locating the house(s) and then selling on the open market, with any
> profits going to the public treasury.  Alternatively, the developer could
> take on this responsibility, and use profits to offset the increased cost of
> the larger footprint.
>
>
>
> This enlargement would also allow for more parking spaces in the
> underground garage, easing resident's concerns about sufficiency of
> residential and commercial parking spaces.
>
>
>
> It would also allow for another 60 to 120 feet of street front commercial
> space on the ground-floor, further enhancing the appeal of this development
> to customers desiring to shop several stores to obtain their needs (a la
> 1-Stop Shopping).
>
>
>
> This is just an idea I think is worth considering to resolve the most
> troublesome contention about the building's 5 story height.  It does have
> drawbacks involving the historic home(s), but re-location should be an
> acceptable compromise.  Any other thoughts about this approach?  What
> would the developer's view about this re-design?
>
>
>
> Ken Laureys
>
> 4718 Riverdale Rd.
>
> 301-779-1034
>
> K.Laureys at comcast.net
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* TownTalk-bounces at riverdale-park.org [mailto:
> TownTalk-bounces at riverdale-park.org]*On Behalf Of *Alice Ewen Walker
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 11, 2006 9:40 AM
> *To:* TownTalk
> *Subject:* [RP TownTalk] Fwd: Minutes of May 3, M-U-TC meeting
>
> Town Talk:
>
> Attached are minutes from the May 3, 2006 M-UTC Meeting. The next meeting
> of M-UTC is planned for June 7 at 7:30 pm at Town Hall.
>
> You may view the current version of the plans at Town Hall during office
> hours or during evenings when the building is open for other events (such as
> the legislative session, work session, committee meetings etc.)
>
> - Alice Ewen Walker
> M-UTC Chair
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TownTalk mailing list
> To post to the list, send mail to TownTalk at riverdale-park.org
> TownTalk-request at riverdale-park.org is for automated subscription
> processing only
> http://riverdale-park.org/mailman/listinfo/towntalk_riverdale-park.org
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20060523/43cb651e/attachment-0002.html>