Town Talk / Town Announce Folks,<br><br>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.
<br><br>The town office has preliminary drawings for the projects available for viewing. The M-UTC Zoning book is available online at: <a href="http://www.mncppc.org/cpd/riverdalepark.htm">http://www.mncppc.org/cpd/riverdalepark.htm
</a> <br><br>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.
<br>Hope to see interested residents at the April 5 meeting.<br><br>- Alice Ewen Walker<br>M-UTC Committee<br><br>-----------------------------------------<br>Minutes of Riverdale Park<br>Town Center Design Review Committee
<br>February 21, 2006<br>Committee members present: <br>Anne Marie Larson, chair<br>Pat Prangley, member<br>Orazio Puglisi, member<br>Vernon Archer, member<br>Alice Walker, member<br>J.D. Williams, member<br>Rebecca Feldberg, member
<br>Also present in an official capacity:<br>Dineene O=Connor, M-NCPPC staff liaison to committee<br>The meeting convened at 7:30 p.m.<br> <br>Agenda Item 1 2006-001, 6241 Baltimore Avenue Wachovia Bank<br>A new proposal for the Wachovia finance center was presented indicating several significant changes with respect to meeting the development standards as follows:
<br> The bank building was moved to meet the "build-to line requirement per standard 1, pages 32 and 33 of the Plan.<br> 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.)
<br> 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.<br>Other Mandatory Standards that appear to have been met are:
<br> Building Placement and Streetscape standards 6, page 34<br> Fencing, Screening and Buffering standard 8, page 36<br> Parking and Loading Design Standards #1, 2, 5, and 6, page 40 of Plan).<br> Parking and Loading Design Standards #1, 2, 5, and 6, page 40 of Plan).
<br> Signage standards 1 and 2, page 42)<br>Mandatory standards that do not appear to have been met, and will necessitate departures from the standards through the Special Permit process are:<br> 1) Building Placement
<br> Buildings shall occupy a minimum of 50 percent of the net lot area. (Building Placement, Standard 1, page 34)<br>o The building faηade 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).
<br>2) Access and Circulation<br> 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.<br> 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.)
<br>3) Services, Utilities, Storm Water Management<br> There is not enough information to determine if the standards for Services, Utilities and Stormwater Management are met. (See page 38 of the Plan).<br>4) Parking and Loading Provisions
<br> 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."
<br> 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.
<br> There is not enough information to determine if the standards 1, 2, 3, and 4 for Lighting, page 43 are met.<br> There is not enough information to determine if standards 1, 3, and 4 for Landscaping, page 44 are met.
<br>5) Building Height<br> 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."
<br>6) Architecture<br> Architecture, standard 1, page 47 <br>There is not enough information to determine if the standard 5 for Architecture, page 47 is met.<br>7) Building Openings<br> Building Openings standards 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 13, pages 54 and 55 have not been met.
<br> <br>8) Signage<br> Signage standards 4, 6, and 8, page 56 have not been met.<br>9) Streetscape<br> There is not enough information to determine if Streetscape standards 1and 2, page 58 are met.<br>
There is not enough information to determine if the standards 1, 2, and 3, for Sidewalks, page 59 are met.<br>10) Landscaping and Pedestrian Amenity<br> 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.
<br>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.
<br>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.
<br>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:<br> Consider making the facade facing US 1 look more like a front of the building. (Supports the intent statement and standard 1, page 54)
<br> 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)
<br> 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)<br> Consider adding windows and other features to the faηade and roofline facing US 1. (Supports standard 1, page 54)
<br>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.<br>
The motion was seconded by Rebecca Feldberg and passed unanimously.<br>Agenda Item 2 2006-002 - 4503 Queensbury Road Gepetto's Catering<br> 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.
<br> 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. <br> 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.
<br> <br> It is difficult to determine the applicant's conformance with the design guidelines without a more professional rendering of the proposal.<br> 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:
<br>o Fencing, Screening and Buffering - Page 35 standards 2 and 3.<br> Standard 2 Appropriate screening materials shall be wood, brick, stone, masonry stucco, or any combination there of that complements the main structure.
<br> 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.
<br>o Parking and Loading Design Page 40 guidelines 1, 5, and 6.<br> 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.
<br> Standard 5 - The treeto-parking-space ratio shall be one shade tree per ten spaces. The trees shall be a minimum of 2- to 21/2-inch caliper.<br> 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.
<br>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.<br>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.
<br>Next Meeting<br> 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.
<br>Meeting Adjourned<br> The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m.<br><br>