Sandy Spring-Ashton Rural Preservation Consortium

The SSARPC (PreserveAshton.net) supports development in Ashton that

conforms to the Master Plan.  We are pro-Master Plan, not anti-development.

Ashton Meeting Place Update

Sandy Spring-Ashton Rural Preservation Consortium (SSARPC)

June 18, 2007

Question:  What is the purpose of the meeting?

Answer:  The AMP developers have recently submitted a new plan for the Planning Board to consider.  SSARPC believes that the Ashton community needs to be briefed on the implications of the new design.  The next public hearing on AMP is scheduled for June 28, 2007, time to be announced.

Question:  What is SSARPC’s opinion of AMP’s plan?

Answer:  SSARPC is opposed to the new plan for a variety of reasons, including failure to adhere to the Sandy Spring-Ashton Master Plan, failure to adhere to the parking zoning requirements, and failure to address some of the concerns raised at the April 12th hearing. 

Question: What are the recommendations in the Master Plan with which the plan must be consistent, and how is the Ashton Meeting Place proposal inconsistent?

Answer:  There are several recommendations that the proposal is not following, including:

1. Master Plan on  Density

The 1998 Master Plan states, subject to minor changes of no relevance here, that the “1980 plan recommendations for limited commercial use and moderate to low-density residential use are confirmed.”   The recommendations from the 1980 Master Plan include limiting the commercial development in the village center, and characterize possible 60,000 square feet of development on 6 acres at the NW corner of New Hampshire and MD Route 108 (7-Eleven shopping center) as “appropriate in more urbanized areas but …inconsistent with the scale of uses envisioned for a village center.” Ashton Meeting Place as currently proposed (97,000 square feet on 7.4 acres on another corner of the same intersection) is considerably higher in density than what the 1980 Plan stated was inconsistent with the village center concept.

2. Master Plan on Scale 

The 1998 Master Plan seeks to “encourage development and revitalization of the village centers,” but it cautions that any increases in density “need to be balanced with the Plan intent to maintain the small scale of the existing centers.”

The 1998 Master Plan defines the objective for the Ashton Village Center:  “Maintain the existing scale of Ashton Village Center and encourage improvements to its character.”  It goes on to say that “this Plan confirms the 1980 Plan land use recommendations and the existing zoning pattern in the Ashton Village Center.” Those recommendations (p.37 and p.38 of the 1980 Plan) say:

“Commercial development is channeled along New Hampshire Avenue south of Maryland Route 108 where stores and offices are interspersed with small residential lots.  A small amount of commercial expansion should occur in these areas in accord with the present development pattern:  small stores fronting New Hampshire Avenue.  Parking for these uses should be coordinated and placed in the rear of these structures, if this is feasible.”

The Ashton Meeting Place as currently proposed does not consist of small street-facing stores.  There are some proposed stores facing New Hampshire Avenue, behind a slope and a parking lot, but they would be higher and far more massive than any of the stores in the northwest shopping area across the intersection.

3. Master Plan Development Guidelines

The 1998 Master Plan recommends a number of specific development guidelines that the Plan drafters believed, with design review, would “help ensure that new development maintain the small scale envisioned for the village centers.”  As relevant here, these recommendations are as follows:

·        Encourage use of traditional village design such as height limits compatible with the Sandy Spring Historic District and buildings facing the main road.

·        Encourage “active fronts” on buildings such as porches and street entrances.

·        Encourage a land-use mix of stores and homes by maintaining the existing mix of commercial and residential zoning within the village centers.

·        Create pedestrian “traffic” with uses and designs that invite frequent visits by all members of the community.

·        Encourage stores and other uses that provide services to local residents and are at a compatible scale.

·        Create small parking areas that are well-landscaped, preserve trees and are compatible with nearby uses, both day and night.

·        Place most off-street parking out of view of common space and active fronts rather than between buildings and the street.

Ashton Meeting Place as currently proposed has a large rear wall with only two commercial establishments, one at either end of the building facing the main road along MD Route 108.  The proposed treatment of the rear façade of a grocery store with false doors and windows does not create active store fronts.

The Ashton Meeting Place structures and layout as currently proposed are not at a compatible scale with existing development.   The term “compatible,” when referring to scale,  means “in character with” existing development  in size, mass,  and the pattern of buildings and open space. The Ashton Meeting Place as currently proposed has buildings that are many times the size and mass of existing neighboring buildings.  The pattern of buildings to open space is not at all in character with existing patterns of development in Sandy Spring and Ashton.

Question: Can the development be built to the maximum density of .75 FAR (floor area ratio) per the standards of the zone?

Answer:  Not according to the zoning ordinance.  Whatever FAR is proposed, the Planning Board must make a finding that the site plan meets the purpose and standards of the zone.

Question: The Planning Staff recommends denial of the plan because it proposes parking on the R60 portion of the site.  Are the drive aisles and parking shown on the R60 land legal?

Answer:  According to the Planning Staff and SSARPC’s attorney, no.  The project improperly relies on use of R-60 zoned property within the Overlay Zone to meet commercial parking requirements. 

Question: Why did SSARPC’s “Compromise” plan allow parking and drive aisles on the R60 zoned land?

Answer:  We felt that an appropriately designed center with a rural village scale could be achieved using the entire site, even though our attorney had found that parking on the R-60 portion of the site was illegal.  SSARPC proceeded to collaborate in good faith with the developer.  The resulting plan came a long way toward producing a more compatibly scaled center, and included a village green and active store fronts. Unfortunately, it was too big for the site, included parking on the R-60 zone, and encroached on the wetlands and the wetlands buffer.

The current plan asks for a waiver of 26 parking spaces (equivalent to approximately 10,000 square feet).  It has lost many aspects that SSARPC believed were consistent with the Master Plan, such as active fronts on the village green and along MD Route 108.  Our group was not involved in this design.

SSARPC has developed alternative plans that are more consistent with the Master Plan.  Our plans that do not have parking on R60 are a much smaller scale.

Question: I have heard the Ashton Meeting Place developers say that the Master Plan only a guideline. Is this true?

Answer:  In this case, no.  The language in the Sandy Spring/Ashton Rural Village Overlay Zone effectively turns the Master Plan and its recommendations into something equivalent to statutory requirements.  In this zone the Planning Board must make an additional finding that:  “The Site Plan is consistent with the recommendations in the approved and adopted Sandy Spring/Ashton Master Plan.”  (Section 59-C-18.186(a))

If there is anything about the site plan at odds with recommendations in the Master Plan applicable to the site, approval is not merely at odds with the Master Plan; it is a Zoning Ordinance violation.  The Board does not have the authority to weigh compliance against non-compliance when the yardstick is the Zoning Ordinance, and conclude that complying elements can excuse features that do not comply.

Question:  What is the purpose of the Sandy Spring/Ashton Rural Overlay Zone, and does the Ashton Meeting Place comply with it?

Answer:  The purpose of the zone is set forth in the Zoning Ordinance:

(a)    [to] preserve and enhance the rural village character of the Sandy Spring and Ashton Village Centers by ensuring an attractive and traditional pattern of houses, commercial establishments, open spaces and their relationship to roadways, and

(b)   [to]encourage a compatible relationship between new or expanded houses or businesses and traditional neighboring structures that reflect the best of local village character particularly in terms of scale, siting, design features, and orientation on the site.

The Planning Staff report discusses compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.

Question: AMP is asking for a waiver of 26 of the required 335 parking spaces? Is this allowed?

Answer:  order to approve the waiver, the Planning Board must make a finding that such a reduction in parking spaces achieves optimum safe circulation of traffic and the prevention of congestion. As far as we know, the developer has not demonstrated that these objectives would be better met by reducing the number of parking spaces required for the plan’s proposed uses. 

Question: Are the on-street parking spaces allowed to be counted as part of the required 335 parking spaces?

Answer:  Yes. The Sandy Spring-Ashton Rural Village Overlay Zone allows the Planning Board to approve some of the parking on-street as follows:

Parking must be provided in accordance with the provisions of Division 59-E with the following exception:

(a) In the course of site plan review, the Planning Board may allow some on-street parking to fulfill the requirement for off-street parking to enhance compatibility, provide additional green space and reduce impervious coverage. (Section 59-C-18.185)

Question: What regulations must the Planning Board abide by when they are deciding whether or not to approve the AMP plan?

Answer:  The Planning Board must approve or deny a plan based on its conformance with applicable regulations as detailed in the Planning Staff report, as well as the following additional findings:

“59-C-18.186.     Planning Board approval.

The procedures for Planning Board approval under Section 59-D-3.4 are modified for this overlay zone to require the following additional findings:

(a)    The site plan is consistent with the recommendations in the approved and adopted Sandy Spring/Ashton Master Plan;

(b)   The site plan meets all of the requirements of this overlay zone as well as the applicable requirements of the underlying zone; and

(c)    Each structure and use is compatible with other uses and other site plans and with existing and proposed adjacent development.”