M-U-TC meeting on January 5, 2005
There was a meeting of the Mixed Use Town Center committee last night. Eckerd Drugs was scheduled to present something, and Jake's Auto (?) had supposedly submitted an application the day before the meeting. I could not attend, and sent the letter at the end of this post to committee chair Anne Marie Larson, with cc's to some other members of the committee.

She and Alice Ewen Walker replied with very nice notes that they did not think any major decisions were going to happen, and they would relay my comments to the rest of the committee; this made me feel much better about the upcoming meeting. I still haven't heard what happened, but hope to continue with this process next month.

Dear Anne Marie,

I will unfortunately not be able to attend the M-U-TC committee meeting on January 5. I hope that I can provide you with my questions and concerns in this letter and the committee can discuss them during the meeting if appropriate. I have listed them in rough order of importance, with most important first.

The overarching concern I have is that Pat Prangley will not be able to attend this meeting because of his mother's death; I think that the committee will miss his wisdom and knowledge during the discussion with Eckerd (and Jake's Auto?). I understand that the committee does not want to delay the Eckerd project, but I think that having Mr. Prangley's perspective on the development would be invaluable.

I am concerned by the comment on the second page of the MNCPPC review of the plan that says "...the developer has a different configuration known as a phase 2 plan...". If this "phase 2" plan does, in fact, exist, I think it should be thoroughly reviewed by MNCPPC staff *before* the M-U-TC committee reviews it. If the purpose of this meeting is for Eckerd to present the phase 2 plan to the committee and MNCPPC staff, that is fine, but plans for any development, especially one of this magnitude, should be reviewed carefully and deliberately. The few hours of the meeting are not enough.

The review seems to indicate that there is a parking lot on the north side of the building. Map 6 (page 31) indicates a 15 foot "build-to" line for at least the front half of the lot. With a 7' sidewalk there is not enough room for a parking lot here!

Since I have not seen any plans for the site since the presentation by Potomac Development to the Town Council during the sale of the "pocket park", I cannot comment on specific elements of the current (phase 1/phase 2) design. There were issues I had with the previous design (which I will call "phase 0"), however, that I hope the committee will review.

First of these is the north face of the building. The M-U-TC guidelines state (Architecture Section, page 47 of my copy of the standards, standard 4) that any building that exceeds 60 feet of street frontage and is primarily horizontal in composition shall be articulated so as to read as multiple buildings. The northern wall of the phase 0 design did not conform with this. The developer may think that the parking lot between E-W highway and the wall mean that the building is not "fronting" the street; I think that the overall spirit of the M-U-TC (i.e. providing an aesthetically pleasing and pedestrian friendly streetscape) negates such an argument. It will not take an immense design change to satisfy me -- dividing the wall into two or three sections with even minor variations in massing, materials, or vocabulary would make me much happier.

Next is the width of the facade on US 1. Building Placement and Streetscape (p 34, standard 2) requires the facade to occupy at least 66 percent of the frontage (in this case, approximately 107 feet if the 160 foot frontage estimate in the MNCPPC review is correct). Please make sure that the current design satisfies this.

I am also concerned about the coverage -- page 34 standard 1 requires at least 50 percent coverage, but 12251 sq. ft is less than 30 percent of the 1.75 acre (76230 sq ft) lot. I assume the shared parking is deducted from the lot size for this calculation; please make sure that the lot coverage requirement is also met.

My next issue is conformance with "Building Openings" (p 54), standard 1, which requires 60 percent of the front facade to be glass that allows pedestrians on the sidewalk to see in, and customers inside the building to see out. Please verify that the design meets this requirement. Standards 10 and 11 of the same section imply that at least 25 percent and perhaps 40 percent of the north face of the building be windows. These windows, not present (at least as real windows) in the phase 0 design, may calm my concern about the enormous completely flat northern wall.

Last is the sign. Signage (page 56, Standard #2) says that internally lit signs may only be approved for creative value that enhances the town center. The phase 0 design had either a "pill box" or "separate letters" Eckerd logo; neither of these seems to provide any "creative value".

Finally, page one of the MNCPPC review mentions a "proposed garage" and "residential use". Neither of these was a feature of the phase 0 plan (in fact making the building mixed-use was explicitly rejected). If you could let me know about these aspects of the design I would be most appreciative.

Thank you for your attention to these questions and concerns, and for all of the hard work you do for the town. Please convey my appreciation to the other members of the committee as well.

Regards,

Alan

- posted by Alan K. Thompson @ 8:00 PM