[RP TownTalk] Riverdale Corner

[James Coleman]

Sorry, I missed sending this to the list.

jc

Begin forwarded message:

> From: James Coleman <jcolema3 at aol.com>
> Date: February 11, 2007 2:40:57 PM EST
> To: Alan Thompson and Sarah Wayland <twacks at his.com>
> Subject: Re: [RP TownTalk] Riverdale Corner Height
>
> I am more than satisfied with most of the efforts that the Spiropoulos 
> family has made in compliance with our MUTC guidelines. Whether this 
> is a done deal or not, I believe that this project is the seed for 
> growth and positive movement in our town center and I will be speaking 
> about it to any officials who need to hear this. Anyone who has a 
> better idea or something positive contribute to the conversation I am 
> very open to listening to but I am very opposed to views that reject 
> this proposal without coming up with an economically viable 
> alternative for our town.  If town center has been close to empty for 
> thirty years (as I have heard), it is important to come up with 
> positive solutions.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim Coleman
> 4911 Somerset Road
>
>
> On Feb 11, 2007, at 9:44 AM, Alan Thompson and Sarah Wayland wrote:
>
>> There has been a lot of discussion on the list lately about the
>> Riverdale Corner development, stories, appearance, etc.  I'm working 
>> on
>> a long note about it, but that will have to wait until after my son's
>> birthday party this afternoon.  I'll make a few quick points here and
>> try to post that later.
>>
>> The first point is that this is the second proposal for the site, and
>> both developers have said they need five stories to make it work.  The
>> Patriot group claimed to have investigated *many* different plans, 
>> from
>> two to five stories, and that it took five to make it work.  They did
>> not get approval from the council, and abandoned the project after
>> spending, I would guess, about $100,000 on design.  Pete and Sons say
>> they tried to limit the building to four stories, and were told by the
>> banks that it would not work financially.  While I would prefer a
>> shorter building (that's why, after all, I agreed to the height limit
>> when I was helping write the MUTC guidelines years ago), I have to
>> believe that the developers have tried to meet the requirement, and
>> simply cannot.
>>
>> My second point is that Pete and Sons did something that only one 
>> other
>> developer has done in the MUTC process so far, which is to show the
>> utmost respect for the town and the MUTC guidelines by bringing in a
>> proposal in which they have met nearly every requirement of the MUTC.
>> The proposal meets (or promises to meet), at significant expense, ALL
>> of the MUTC requirements except for the very few for which they
>> requested a variance (setback from the railroad and building height).
>> We could have been involved in negotiations about building materials,
>> sidewalk designs, lighting, awnings, hose bibs, HVAC placement,
>> parking, landscaping, lot coverage..... but Pete & Sons met all of
>> those without any reminders from the committee.  Pete & Sons aren't
>> "nickle and diming" us; we should return that favor.
>>
>>     Alan
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> For more information about Riverdale Park, visit 
>> http://www.ci.riverdale-park.md.us
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 3631 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20070211/941c61c7/attachment-0003.bin>