Town Talk list, <br><br>Earlier this month, I provided a brief overview of what happened at the April M-UTC Meeting. Appended below are the minutes from the meeting, for those interested. The minutes include citations to points of non-conformance with the zoning.
<br><br>Best Regards,<br>Alice Ewen Walker<br>M-UTC Committee Chair<br><br>-------------------------------------<br>Minutes of Riverdale Park<br>Town Center Design Review Committee<br>April 5, 2006<br><br><br>Committee members present:
<br><br>Alice Walker, chair<br>Rebecca Feldberg, member<br>Gerard Kiernan, member<br>Pat Prangley, member<br>Alan Thompson, member<br>J.D. Williams, member<br><br>Also present in an official capacity:<br>Dineene O=Connor, M-NCPPC staff liaison to committee
<br><br>The meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. <br> <br><br style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Agenda Item 1 2006-001, 6241 Baltimore Avenue Wachovia Bank</span><br><br>A refined proposal for the Wachovia finance center was presented indicating several significant changes with respect to meeting the development standards as follows:
<br><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> Planting strips along Baltimore Avenue, have been added between the sidewalk and the building faηade for approximately two thirds of the faηade length. The sidewalk now directly abuts the building wall only at the center bay which projects from the main wall of the buildings.
<br> Wall mounted light fixtures have been added to along Baltimore Avenue and the plaza to create additional detail.<br> The bank will use signage with individual letters, instead of their standard "box sign". The letters are internally lit but approximate in appearance pin letters stipulated in the M-U-TC signage standards.
<br> Two additional windows will be added to the Baltimore Avenue side of the bank building. <br><br>Although the proposal has been refined in an attempt to meet the M-U-TC mandatory standards, a number of mandatory standards are not met, which will necessitate departures from the standards through the Special Permit process are:
<br><br>1) Building Placement<br> Standard 1, page 33 provides that all new buildings shall be built within a specified distance of the face-of-curb per Table 4. The proposal meets the requirement along Baltimore Avenue, but substitutes a fence and landscaping along the East-West Highway.
<br><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 66 percent of the build-to line except in the historic core. (Building Placement, Standard 2, page 34).
<br>o A building to meet the size requirements is not feasible for Wachovia.<br> Standard 3, page 33 provides that all new building sidewalls shall abut the sidewalls of adjacent buildings except for the provision of passages in enclosed blocks. The applicant is not able to place the building flush with the adjacent buildings due to the requirement of the State Highway Administration for vehicular access to the site.
<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. The applicant finds that the drive-through window configuration as shown is the minimum functional arrangement for Wachovia.
<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.) Wachovia requires ATM vehicular access for this site. The bank is willing to make provisions for a walk-up ATM at the building entry plaza depending on transaction volume at the drive-up ATM.
<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." The applicant finds that the 42 parking spaces is the minimum required by Wachovia.
<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) Architecture<br> Architecture, standard 1, page 47 Buildings shall have a tripartite composition. The applicant has requested support for the proposed building via the SP process.<br>6) Building Openings
<br> Building Openings standards 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 13, pages 54 and 55 have not been met. The applicant finds that it is not possible for the bank to meet the requirement for 60% of the faηade to be constructed of glass due to the internal functional elements, such as the bank vault. Similarly the bank building does not provide windows upper story windows due to the tall one-story design, which has been modified to meet the height requirement but remains a tall one-story building. Also the entry does not address the intersection of Baltimore Avenue and East-West Highway but is located on an internal plaza. Two building entries are not compatible with bank security issues.
<br>7) Signage<br> Signage standards 4, 6, and 8, page 56 have not been met. The bank will use signage with individual letters, instead of their standard "box sign". The letters are internally lit but approximate in appearance pin letters stipulated in the M-U-TC signage standards.
<br>8) 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><br><br>After considerable comment by committee members and the audience, a motion was made by Gerard Kiernan and second by Alan Thompson to deny the proposal. Additional discussion ensued and JD Williams thought a motion with conditions would better serve the community, however, a new motion with conditions was not put forward. Committee members voting to deny the proposal per the motion before the committee were: G. Kiernan, R Feldberg, P. Prangley, and A. Thompson; JD Williams opposed the motion; A. Walker abstained. (The chair votes if and when there is a tie vote.)
<br> <br>The M-UTC Committee encourages both the applicant and the Riverdale Town Council to consider the <br>M-UTC guidelines in future discussions of the project as part of the special permit process. The committee and Park and Planning technical staff are available to assist the council in its review of special permit applications.
<br><br><br style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Agenda Item 2 2005-006/1 Patriot Group redevelopment of Dumm's Corner </span><br><br> The proposal before the committee constitutes the first application although the committee has met with Patriot Group to discuss the concept and offer input to them as regards meeting the M-U-TC standards. Although the application does not meet a number of mandatory standards that would require departure through the SP process and were presented in the staff report, several stood out and were the subject of most of the comments:
<br> <br>1)Build-to lines are inconsistent i.e. too great on Queensbury Road and too little on Riverdale Rd. The build-to line on Riverdale Road is 10 feet and in the places where the street tree boxes are indicated, the side walk shrinks to five feet, which does not meet the intent of the build-to line and streetscape standards to create a comfortable pedestrian environment and an attractive streetscape.
<br>The standards for sidewalks and landscaping found on page 59 of the plan and item 11) below define more specifically standards pertinent to sidewalk and landscape strip dimensions, and reinforce the relationship between the build-to line requirements and the streetscape requirements. For example, sidewalks shall begin 3 feet from the face of a building, and on streets other than US 1, shall have a minimum 6-foot landscape strip installed between the sidewalk edge and the street curb. Landscaping tree boxes are to be offset from the curb a minimum of
1.5 feet to avoid car door obstruction. Removable grates are discouraged except in the historic core<br><br>2) Building height The Riverdale Park M-U-TC Plan building height standards provide that building height shall conform to Table 5 (page 45) of the Plan. Table five establishes that the minimum height of buildings in the historic core shall be two stories and the maximum height shall be three stories. No attempt has been made to mitigate the height by stepping back the highest floors (
e.g. to create a terrace for a loft type unit or the use of dormers) to prevent the building/s from visually overwhelming the adjacent residential neighborhood.<br><br>3) Architecture including massing, articulation, and lack of quality materials The proposal does not meet standards 4, 5, 7, and 9c all of which are mandatory standards. The photograph on page 46 of the plan shows the intent of standards 1,2,4,5,6 and 7. The photo shows how a 4-story building could meet standards 5, 6 and 7 when the building reads as individual buildings and utilizes dormers, setbacks or other architectural features.
<br><br>While the proposal incorporates some material changes and vocabulary changes, the buildings read as single monolithic structures, with individual character. The resulting affect overwhelms the area while simultaneously diminishing the historic character of the area. The building might appear less monolithic if the roofline were staggered in terms of height as well as in terms of building materials.
<br><br>Since the building exceeds 60 feet of frontage, material changes and vocabulary changes are not sufficient enough to meet the intent of the standards. The first floor faηade suggests split block; brick is a better choice. Overall, the lack of quality materials and architecture that demonstrates individual character does not meet the intent of the design standards to promote new facades that complement adjacent and nearby historic buildings while incorporating interesting and unique detailing and design. Both buildings will be easily viewed from all sides. Therefore building articulation and materials, should be addressed on all sides, not just the portions facing the street. Currently the Patriot group plan shows just siding and absolutely zero additional features on the backs of the buildings, which will be viewed by the 8,000 cars traveling west down Riverdale daily.
<br><br>4) Parking Although the applicant is meeting the requirements of the M-U-TC standards, parking and traffic circulation continued to be brought up for discussion. Dineene O'Connor noted that issues with parking regulations should be addressed by amending the plan standards as opposed to requiring the applicant to meet standards different from those stated in the M-U-TC Plan.
<br><br>Since this is the first complete application presented to the M-U-TC Committee, the committee deferred action on the application to give the applicant an opportunity to revise the development proposal to address issues raised. The applicant will inform the committee via contact with Dineene O'Connor whether they will be on the May agenda or a later agenda.
<br><br><br>Next Meeting<br><br> The next regularly scheduled committee meeting will be held Wednesday, May 3, 2006 at 7:30 p.m. in the Riverdale Park Town Hall if applications are received in a timely way (i.e. by April 17, 2006) that allows them to be put on the agenda.
<br><br>Meeting Adjourned <br><br> The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m.<br><br>I:\DINEENE\Riverdale Park M-U-TC\2006 minutes and agendas\April 5, 2006 minutes.doc<br><br>