Memo1108

43 Old Solomons Island Rd., Suite 201, Annapolis, MD 21401

Tel. (410) 266-5599

Fax (410) 266-3871

Memorandum

Adjacent Property Owner

Vernon Hustead and Dimitri Sfakiyanudis

Chris Soldano; Josh Cohen; Gail Smith; Alan Hyatt

November 11, 2008

635 N. Bestgate Road

Pre-Submission Community Meeting Minutes

Sigma Job# 93-20

A community meeting was held on November 10, 2008 at the offices of Sigma

Engineering. The meeting was held to inform the adjacent property owners of the

proposed development for this site and to address any questions or concerns. Members

of several adjacent community organizations were also in attendance. An earlier

meeting in April was held with the local neighbors and community associations and this

was an opportunity to inform them of any recent development since that meeting.

Vernon Hustead from Sigma Engineering and the developer Dimitri Sfakiyanudis

presented the proposed project.

We are moving forward with a grading permit and site development plan submittal for

this project. We are here to get your input on the layout of the building and parking as

well as input on what the architecture that you think is appropriate. The project

proposed a 2 story building that is 40’ x 50’ in size (4,000 sq ft total). The use will be

strictly office, and will not propose any retail use. The parking was reoriented to run

perpendicular to North Bestgate Road and proposes 15 parking spaces. The site will be

served by a private septic system (a septic drywell has already been installed) and

public water will be extended to the site from its location in North Bestgate Road. No

public sewer is proposed for this site. A bio-retention area, similar to a rain garden, is

proposed at the low end of the site to address stormwater and drainage for the new

impervious areas. This will be planted and will fit in with the additional landscaping

proposed around the site. There is no outfall problems or erosion at this location.

Landscaping is proposed around the perimeter of the site, within the parking areas and

adjacent to the building to screen the site from adjacent properties and to compliment

the proposed building. We are proposing low growing plants near the intersection so

that there is no impact to sight distance. We are exploring the possibility of not requiring

a variance to the setbacks. However, if a variance is required, we will prepare the

necessary plans and documents and submit this to the hearing officer. We reviewed a

conceptual elevation of the building as well as images of the architecture of the adjacent

building. Vernon and Dimitri requested input on what the group felt the architecture

should include or exclude. A traffic study is being done and we expect that to be

available in a few weeks.

The following questions were addressed from the audience:

The setback variance is 60’ from a right of way (ROW) line. Most ROW lines are parallel to a road

way and a specific setback off the road. The ROW line in our situation is expanded and

triangular shaped and it is possible that the 60’ setback may be located from a standard offset

from the road (not our expanded ROW line). The other variance request was for lot size- the

minimum lot size in a C2 zone is 20,000 square feet and our site is 18,847 square feet.

Unfortunately, they have not been finalized yet. Our attorney will have something ready for us

in the next 2 weeks and we will forward them to you for your review.

We would consider reducing the building to a 3,000 square foot size if the financial viability of

the project allows it. If we receive opposition during the variance hearings, we will have to hire

an attorney and prepare additional plans which will increase the cost of the project. In that event,

the building would have to get larger to offset these costs. The building size architecture and

complexity of the improvements also play a role and further design of the development and

architecture are necessary in order to determine if it is financially viable. The attendees agreed

that the catwalk will not be counted as part of the 3,000 square foot building.

The covenants will be sent to you within 2 weeks and we will follow up with you and your

organizations to make sure we reach agreement with these details. If your groups will support

the project, we are willing to make this commitment and take the risk of addressing other

individuals who may oppose the project.

We recognize the history of this issue but since the zoning is a C-2 property, we hope that you

will work with us to move forward from this point.

We recognize this and your agreement with the details of these covenants once accepted by all

parties will be sufficient. The covenants will be recorded with the property deed and will be

binding. They will be required despite who ever owns the property.

2

To our knowledge, the State Highway has no plans to realign this intersection. In

addition, North Bestgate Road needs to line up with Tidewater Colony Road and any

change in this intersection would make this worse. We are proposing low plantings

(perennials and smaller shrubs) near the intersection so that this will not interfere with

sight distance.

No, the device is made to drain within approximately 24 hours. Mosquitoes need

ponding water of 7 -1 0 days. In addition, the plants in the bio retention area will help

transpire and take up the water in this area.

These are goods suggestions and we will try to incorporate theses into the design.

There is one stairway in the rear of the building and another stairwell in the column on

the front of the building.

We met with him a few weeks ago and his two concerns were whether there would be

standing water in the pond and will this new parking lot drain across his lot. We

discussed that the water in the pond will dipissate quickly and the site has been graded

so that the parking lot drains down the middle of the drive aisle and directly into the

bio retention area.

Lighting is an issue that we deal with through the county’s review process. There are

lots of ways to limit the glare from lights, including using a smaller pole height, adding

deflectors that will restrict light spillage (such as towards Mr. Williams property),

adding landscaping to help screen the lights, or adding it to the building at a height

that will be unobtrusive.

We will include this in our development.

This concluded the discussion and our meeting. Vernon had everyone sign the list of

attended and indicated that everyone on the list as well as adjacent property owners

within 175 would receive a copy of these meeting minutes.

3

If you have any concerns or issues with these meeting minutes, please forward those

comments to this office within ten working days so that these meeting minutes may be

modified otherwise they will become the minutes of record. This memorandum will be

submitted to each of the adjacent property owners within 175 feet, and to those

individuals who attended the meeting and the County’s Office of Planning and Zoning.

4