Thursday, January 06, 2005
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
Comments:
<< Home
On the 5th, the committee did not make any decisions. We did use the time to hear updates from both the Eckerd Project and Jey's Auto.
It is likely that the developer for Eckerd (Potomac Development) will have to revise its parking entrance and exit plan to satisfy State Highway Administration. SHA reportedly asked for an exit only point at EW Highway and an entrance only point at Route 1. The developer is trying to work with them on an alternative: an entrance only point from EW Highway and an entrance/exit from Route 1. Until SHA makes a judgement, there is not a new development plan for MUTC to review.
Members did comment on some other elements, so that the developer can consider them in his next draft plan. This included asking about the materials and articulation of the wall that will face EW Highway. The wall would now wrap around to Beale circle, where it is needed for structural purposes as a retaining wall. Members asked about the width of driveway entrance and exit on Route 1 and emphasized the pedestrian goals of the MUTC. Members asked about landscape plans for the pocket park, which the developer indicated are totally open to comment as the park has not been designed yet. One discussion point was "is the objective of the park to serve as a focal point for drivers on EW Highway or as a community park for residents?" -- short answer was 'it can do both, and we can discuss it more later'.
Phase I refers to the Eckerd building, parking lot, and pocket park. Phase II is the neighboring tenants' parking lot. Goal of Phase II is to develop a combined parking lot with the Eckerd lot. The developer has 2 years to work with the tenants to strike an agreement and make the lot happen. Right now, there is one person who is holding out. If the tenants can't come to a final decision to accept this FREE parking lot upgrade after this time, then the developer can walk away and leave them with the same parking lot they have now.
The developer also provided copies of the complete MOU between the town and the developer. Park and Planning was not fully informed about the MOU and will revise its comments after having time to read the MOU and consider how it impacts or restricts application of the MUTC on this project.
The MOU basically says that the town has approved the inital design of the development, pending the developer's fulfillment of concessions negotiated by the town, which include redesign and landscaping of the pocket park at Beale Circle, a combined parking lot upgrade for the entire block, and erection of a masonry Town identification sign, as well as conforming to the building design that the town negotiated. I have a copy at home if anyone wants to read it.
Park and Planning is going to re-review all this, now with a better understanding of the proposed changes, and with the MOU at hand. The developer will create a new plan, based on SHA's final say-so. Then MUTC will re-convene to consider the plan. That's where it stands.
Jey's Auto Repair has submitted a proposed variance that will be considered at the February meeting. They briefed the committee on their plans, but the committee provided no comment or guidance since Park and Planning had not yet reviewed the submission.
Jey's is currently a 3 bay repair garage with non-functioning gas pumps. The project would create a 3 bay repair garage in the same footprint with a small extension for a convenience store. In addition, it would install a 2 pump (4 car capacity) gas island and awning in front. A variance is required because the MUTC plan calls for a "gateway signature" design function, "destination grocery store or residential" use and "6 story" height at the SE corner of Madison and US 1.
If Riverdale Park citizens have comments on either of these projects, I'd invite you to share them both officially with Anne Marie Larson, chair of the MUTC committee, and here on Alan's blog.
The Mayor will also need to appoint someone to fill Christina Davis' position on the committee. I'm not sure what 'slot' she represented but would encourage any interested parties to contact the mayor.
Alice Ewen Walker
MUTC Committee Member (Citizen Representative)
It is likely that the developer for Eckerd (Potomac Development) will have to revise its parking entrance and exit plan to satisfy State Highway Administration. SHA reportedly asked for an exit only point at EW Highway and an entrance only point at Route 1. The developer is trying to work with them on an alternative: an entrance only point from EW Highway and an entrance/exit from Route 1. Until SHA makes a judgement, there is not a new development plan for MUTC to review.
Members did comment on some other elements, so that the developer can consider them in his next draft plan. This included asking about the materials and articulation of the wall that will face EW Highway. The wall would now wrap around to Beale circle, where it is needed for structural purposes as a retaining wall. Members asked about the width of driveway entrance and exit on Route 1 and emphasized the pedestrian goals of the MUTC. Members asked about landscape plans for the pocket park, which the developer indicated are totally open to comment as the park has not been designed yet. One discussion point was "is the objective of the park to serve as a focal point for drivers on EW Highway or as a community park for residents?" -- short answer was 'it can do both, and we can discuss it more later'.
Phase I refers to the Eckerd building, parking lot, and pocket park. Phase II is the neighboring tenants' parking lot. Goal of Phase II is to develop a combined parking lot with the Eckerd lot. The developer has 2 years to work with the tenants to strike an agreement and make the lot happen. Right now, there is one person who is holding out. If the tenants can't come to a final decision to accept this FREE parking lot upgrade after this time, then the developer can walk away and leave them with the same parking lot they have now.
The developer also provided copies of the complete MOU between the town and the developer. Park and Planning was not fully informed about the MOU and will revise its comments after having time to read the MOU and consider how it impacts or restricts application of the MUTC on this project.
The MOU basically says that the town has approved the inital design of the development, pending the developer's fulfillment of concessions negotiated by the town, which include redesign and landscaping of the pocket park at Beale Circle, a combined parking lot upgrade for the entire block, and erection of a masonry Town identification sign, as well as conforming to the building design that the town negotiated. I have a copy at home if anyone wants to read it.
Park and Planning is going to re-review all this, now with a better understanding of the proposed changes, and with the MOU at hand. The developer will create a new plan, based on SHA's final say-so. Then MUTC will re-convene to consider the plan. That's where it stands.
Jey's Auto Repair has submitted a proposed variance that will be considered at the February meeting. They briefed the committee on their plans, but the committee provided no comment or guidance since Park and Planning had not yet reviewed the submission.
Jey's is currently a 3 bay repair garage with non-functioning gas pumps. The project would create a 3 bay repair garage in the same footprint with a small extension for a convenience store. In addition, it would install a 2 pump (4 car capacity) gas island and awning in front. A variance is required because the MUTC plan calls for a "gateway signature" design function, "destination grocery store or residential" use and "6 story" height at the SE corner of Madison and US 1.
If Riverdale Park citizens have comments on either of these projects, I'd invite you to share them both officially with Anne Marie Larson, chair of the MUTC committee, and here on Alan's blog.
The Mayor will also need to appoint someone to fill Christina Davis' position on the committee. I'm not sure what 'slot' she represented but would encourage any interested parties to contact the mayor.
Alice Ewen Walker
MUTC Committee Member (Citizen Representative)
Thanks for your report, Alice!
From reading the minutes of the Town Council's meeting, Chris Davis fills a "municipal representative" slot on the M-U-TC committee.
I'm still a little confused about exactly what is in the current Eckerd plan, but it sounds like the review process is just getting started. I should be able to attend meetings of the M-U-TC committee for the next several months.
From reading the minutes of the Town Council's meeting, Chris Davis fills a "municipal representative" slot on the M-U-TC committee.
I'm still a little confused about exactly what is in the current Eckerd plan, but it sounds like the review process is just getting started. I should be able to attend meetings of the M-U-TC committee for the next several months.
PS. I had heard about the Jey's Auto project a few months back and was told that it would be “the most beautiful gas station I’ve ever seen”.
Actually, the most beautiful gas station I’ve seen is a surprisingly charming Mobil service/gas station in Virginia near the Braddock Metro. It’s brick, with polished copper awnings, and a discrete sort of retro-looking Mobil circular sign attached to the building (not looming in the sky). The owner even puts out artfully arranged seasonal displays on his antique car that he (she?) displays in the front. It’s like Martha Stewart owns it. I’ll have to take a picture of it some time...
PPS. Driving home on Rhode Island from the district, we noticed that 7-Eleven used an extremely “non-7-eleven” looking sign on its new store in the Logan circle area. It’s attached to the building and is monochrome brushed metal in a copper/bronze tone, in the same font-outline as the familiar logo. No gaudy orange and green plastic for Logan Circle residents!!
Post a Comment
Actually, the most beautiful gas station I’ve seen is a surprisingly charming Mobil service/gas station in Virginia near the Braddock Metro. It’s brick, with polished copper awnings, and a discrete sort of retro-looking Mobil circular sign attached to the building (not looming in the sky). The owner even puts out artfully arranged seasonal displays on his antique car that he (she?) displays in the front. It’s like Martha Stewart owns it. I’ll have to take a picture of it some time...
PPS. Driving home on Rhode Island from the district, we noticed that 7-Eleven used an extremely “non-7-eleven” looking sign on its new store in the Logan circle area. It’s attached to the building and is monochrome brushed metal in a copper/bronze tone, in the same font-outline as the familiar logo. No gaudy orange and green plastic for Logan Circle residents!!
<< Home
