[RP TownTalk] 5731 Baltimore Avenue

[Jonathan W. Ebbeler]

Friends and Neighbors -

 

To address a couple of comments on this property:

 

The CSX crossing negotiations are continuing and the bridge will happen or
the Cafritz project does not move forward.  One of the primary reasons the
developer of Cafritz withdrew and is resubmitting is that they ran out of
time to satisfy mandatory conditions (of which the bridge is a key element).
The traffic and transportation studies indicate increases due to the Cafritz
build-out are primarily at points on E-W Highway and North (Route 1 and
Kenilworth).  This proposed ordinance has been discussed over the last two
years and three resolutions were passed to this end: 2011-R-24, 2011-R-27,
and 2012-R-17.   I am completely unclear as to why this is now being linked
with traffic/transportation issues - especially as they pertain to other
projects a mile up the road.  

 

Audrey, however, brings up a valid discussion point that requires some
additional background information.  According to DER records there were
three permits filed on this property over the last 6 months:

.         27427-2012-0 (Addition, Interior Alterations to Existing Building)
on 9/4/2012

.         27427-2012-1 (Revise Mechanical, Electrical, and Fire Permit) on
11/13/2012

.         37675-2012-0 (Site Concept) on 12/4/2012

 

The Site Concept plan that was filed for on 12/4/2012 was for a convenience
store not a Donut Store or other Quick Service Restaurant (i.e. Dunkin
Donuts).  The presentation made to DER at the time preliminary permits were
applied for did not contemplate a coffee shop or donut store; all
evaluations were done on a convenience store alone.  It is unclear what the
applicant's true intent is at this point.

 

A presentation was made to the RPBA on 1/9/2013 at which time it was
communicated that the permits were mostly signed off.  PG County DER cannot
sign off on any permits without M-U-TC review which has not happened.  The
applicant presented their thoughts to the M-U-TC committee and a liaison
from Park and Planning on 2/6/2013.  At that time it was disclosed by the
applicant that they intended on a Dunkin Donuts at that site.  Park and
Planning at that time indicated that this was the first official notice that
they had received that the applicant's intent for the property was not for
the use applied for in fall/winter 2012.  They also informed the applicant
that under Section 27-547 a Dunkin Donuts is not a permitted use and only
allowable with an approval of a Special Exception in accordance with Part 4
of that Subtitle.  

 

The applicant also was also informed that even for permitted uses there was
a series of required documents that they had not produced including all
relevant building and site plan information necessary to show compliance.
These include:

Applicant Provided

.         A Site Plan including property lines and bearings and building
location 

Applicant did not provide

.         Plan showing parking and loading, landscaping, vehicular and
pedestrian access

.         Plan showing all planned improvements clearly marked with details
provided

.         Elevation drawings showing all facades including all relevant
information such as building height, architectural features and detailing,
openings (including windows and doors), materials, and color

.         Sign details including dimensions, color, materials, and lighting

.         Parking plan and supporting documentation, particularly for shared
parking or alternative transportation reductions

.         Additional details for lighting, screening, and other amenities

 

 

Best,

Jonathan

 

Jonathan W. Ebbeler | Councilmember - Ward One

Chair, Economic Development Committee

Town of Riverdale Park
 <mailto:jebbeler at riverdaleparkmd.gov> jebbeler at riverdaleparkmd.gov

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://riverdale-park.org/pipermail/towntalk/attachments/20130303/ec7cf6d5/attachment.html>