Draft Secondary Amendment to the City of Mount Rainier Mixed-Use Town Center Zone Development Plan

Draft Secondary Amendment to the City of Mount Rainier

Mixed-Use Town Center Zone Development PlanJuly 2010

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commissionwww.mncppc.org

Title: Draft Secondary Amendment to the City of Mount Rainier Mixed-Use Town Center Zone Development Plan

Author: The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) Subject: Mount Rainier Town Center Development Plan

Date: July 2010

Source of Copies: The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive Upper Marlboro, MD 20772

Series Number: 2112102306

Number of Pages: 224

Abstract: The May 1994 Approved Master Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for Planning Area 68 contained a town center development plan that was refined and modified to serve as the July 1994 Mount Rainier Town Center Development Plan. This amendment to the 1994 plan was initiated through the Prince George’s County Council Resolution CR- 38-2009. It was developed by M-NCPPC with community input, primarily through community workshops held in September 2009 through March 2010. This revised mixed-use town center (M-U-TC) plan updates and supersedes the 1994 development plan by incorporating current economic and market conditions, new development policies, and revised design standards that will help guide future development and redevelopment and ensure a pedestrian friendly and vibrant mixed-use town center. The plan consists of five sections: the Introduction, which defines the project area and outlines the public participation process; the Existing Conditions Analysis, which includes a historical overview and current economic and marketing considerations; the Plan Vision, which describes the envisioned future for the M-U-TC area; the Design Standards and Guidelines, which promote high-quality urban and architectural design; and the Implementation, which provides information on funding resources to encourage, promote, and facilitate near, medium, and long-term project goals.

Abstract

Draft Secondary Amendment to the City of Mount Rainier

Mixed-Use Town Center Zone Development Plan

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commissionwww.mncppc.org

Prince George’s County Planning Department14741 Governor Oden Bowie Drive

Upper Marlboro, MD 20772

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 1

A. Introduction .......................................................................................... A.11. Plan Purpose ........................................................................... A.22. Study Area Description ......................................................... A.23. Public Outreach Process ....................................................... A.3

B. Existing Conditions Analysis............................................................... B.11. Context .................................................................................... B.22. Historical Analysis .................................................................. B.43. Transportation Analysis ......................................................... B.74. Market Analysis ....................................................................... B.9

C. Plan Vision ............................................................................................. C.11. Plan Principles ......................................................................... C.22. Urban Design Plan/Illustrative Plan...................................... C.43. Plan Recommendations ......................................................... C.64. Land Use/Transportation/Historic Preservation/ Environmental Recommendations ....................................... C.265. Arts and Arts Community Recommendations ..................... C.38

D. Design Standards and Guidelines ....................................................... D.11. Introduction/Goals .............................................................. D.52. Design Review Process ........................................................... D.63. Historic District/District Overviews ................................. D.114. Public Space Standards and Guidelines ............................... D.185. Site Design Standards and Guidelines .................................. D.296. Architectural Elements ........................................................... D.387. Other Guidelines ...................................................................... D.55

E. Implementation ..................................................................................... E.11. Implementation Philosophy and Priorities ........................ E.22. Implementation Precedents .................................................. E.43. Implementation Area Recommendations and Charts ...... E.54. Implementation Tools and Programs .................................. E.29

Appendices ............................................................................................................ App-11. The Secretary of Interior's Standards for Preservation, Restoration and Rehabilitation ...................... App-22. M-U-TCHistoricPreservationDefinitions.........................App-53. Complete M-U-TC Building Inventory ............................... App-9

ii

Contents

1

Draft Secondary Amendment to the City of Mount Rainier Mixed-Use Town Center Zone Development Plan

Executive SummaryA. Introduction

The City of Mount Rainer Mixed-Use Town Center (M-U-TC) Zone Development Plan updates the previously approved 1994 Mount Rainier Town Center Development Plan. The new plan takes into account current economic/market conditions. Its revised development policies and design standards will guide future development within the plan area and ensure a pedestrian-friendly, vibrant mixed-use town center.

The project area encompasses the buildings along the Rhode Island Avenue corridor east of the District of Columbia line at Eastern Avenue to just beyond the traffic circle at 34th Street. It also extends from the building frontages along 34th Street just north of Bunker Hill Road to about an eighth of a block south of Rhode Island Avenue.

Several hundred residents and stakeholders within a half-mile radius of the study area participated in the development plan update through more than 12 public meetings, hands-on work sessions, and stakeholder group meetings held between September 2009 and March 2010.

B. Existing Conditions Analysis

As a part of the development plan update, a detailed analysis was made of existing conditions in Mount Rainer. This analysis included research and documentation of the following:• A physical/geographic description• Historic background and development patterns• Transportation systems• Market analysis• Demographics ° Existing land uses ° Market demands and development ° Opportunities

C. Plan Vision

The plan vision incorporates regulating and illustrative plans—providing a framework and visualization of the planned town center—as well as recommendations for the three sub-plan areas:

• Upper 34th Street• Rhode Island Avenue• Civic Core/City Center

An illustrative showing the sub-plan areas.

Civic Core/City Center

Upper 34th Street

Rhode Island Avenue

2

Executive Summary

D. Design Standards and Guidelines

The purpose of the design standards and guidelines is to promote high-quality urban and architectural design within the context of the M-U-TC Zone development plan area and to encourage a cohesive and attractive environment consistent with the plan vision and economic revitalization.

The design standards and guidelines define a design review process that ensures predictability for development or redevelopment from concept, through review, to approval and implementation.

First, the design standards and guidelines are based on an understanding of the Mount Rainier Historic District and an overview of its defining characteristics.

The plan area’s three districts are described in detail:• Upper 34th Street: "Main street" pedestrian scaled

one- to three-story retail.• Rhode Island Avenue: "Boulevard" three- to

five-story larger scale, retail/residential mix.• Civic core/city center: "Civic center" three- to

four-story larger scale, civic/residential mix.

Next, the design standards and guidelines provide graphics and details for public realm, site design, and architectural elements. Examples of these include street sections at 34th Street and Rhode Island Avenue, pedestrian crosswalks, sidewalks, street lighting, building height, setbacks, massing, walls, fences and screening, façades and fenestration, storefronts, material, color, porches and front yards, additions, subtractions, and signage.

Specific recommendations are provided for key buildings within the plan area.

Finally, the design standards and guidelines also address public art, sustainability, parking, and the treatment of historic buildings within the Mount Rainier M-U-TC Zone development plan area.

Plan vision: 34th Street, looking south.

Plan vision: Rhode Island Avenue, looking west.

Plan vision: civic core/city center, looking east.

3


E. Implementation

For the effective implementation of the plan vision, it is suggested that a number of key stakeholders form new working relationships and coordinate initiatives. The M-U-TC Zone development plan provides a framework for implementation, paying special attention to priorities, timing, and possible funding strategies.

The key elements to the implementation philosophy are:• A comprehensive framework• Building on existing resources• Priority and focus• Quality over quantity• Incremental change

The key implementation priorities are:• To reinforce the role of the M-U-TC Zone

development plan as the critical planning tool.• Creation of a "downtown" action plan to

concentrate public investment and energy on key plan areas: Upper 34th Street, Rhode Island Avenue, and the civic core/city center.

• Creation of a "main-street" program.

The M-U-TC Zone development plan provides implementation charts and action timelines for each of the key plan areas.

Implementation precedents such as Barracks Row in Washington, D.C., and Takoma Park Main Street in Maryland provide specific examples of how the recommended strategies worked in other communities.

The section on implementation tools and programs itemizes current successful economic development programs and transportation implementation tools. Economic revitalization programs are outlined at the Prince George’s County, State of Maryland, and federal levels.

Profiles of property/building clusters provide details on existing conditions and development potential for major development or redevelopment opportunity sites highlighted in the plan vision. Information is included on lot area, land use, building details, historic integrity, and ownership. Details are also provided on implementation factors such as costs, benefits, and phasing.

Implementation Map: Civic CoreT - Transportation RecommendationsL - Land Use RecommendationsB - Building Recommendations

Rhode Island Avenue

34th

Stre

et

35th

Stre

et

T5

T8

T7

T4

T6

T3

T1

T2

L1

L2

L3

L4

L5

B1B4

B2 B5

B6

B3

B7

Perry Street

Introduction A

A.2

Introduction

On June 4, 2009, the Prince George’s County District Council initiated the process to update the existing 1994 Mount Rainier Town Center Development Plan. The Mixed-Use Town Center (M-U-TC) Zone was created in 1994 to promote reinvestment and redevelopment in the older, more established mixed-use areas in Prince George’s County. Mount Rainier was the first jurisdiction in the county to use the M-U-TC Zone.

The City of Mount Rainer Mixed-Use Town Center (M-U-TC) Zone Development Plan updates the previously approved 1994 development plan. The plan takes into account current economic/market conditions. Its revised development policies and design standards will guide future development within the plan area and ensure a pedestrian-friendly, vibrant mixed-use town center.

Plan Purpose

The project area encompasses all sites along the Rhode Island Avenue corridor east of the District of Columbia line at Eastern Avenue to just beyond the traffic circle at 34th Street. It includes the building frontages along 34th Street just north of Bunker Hill Road to about an eighth of a block south of Rhode Island Avenue. (See the aerial photograph and outline below.)

Study Area Description

An aerial photograph of the Mount Rainier M-U-TC Zone.

Rhode Island Avenue

34th

Stre

et

33rd

Stre

et

32nd

Stre

et

Bunker Hill Road

Perry Street

A.3


Public Outreach Process

A critical component of a successful and sustainable development plan is open and inclusive public participation. Broad and active community engagement involves the public in plan making from the early stages of determining issues and assets, through visioning, to final plan formulation. By making a conscious effort to involve community residents, business owners, and government officials in this planning process, the ideas and aspirations of all segments of the community are incorporateed into a shared vision for the future.

In September 2009, several hundred residents and business owners within a half-mile radius of the Mount Rainier M-U-TC were notified by mail of the public planning process and community meeting schedule. Flyers were hand delivered to all operating businesses within the M-U-TC approximately one week prior to the project kickoff meeting on October 7, 2009. The meeting schedule was also posted on the project web site at www.pgplanning.org/Mount-Rainier.htm, published in the monthly Mount Rainier newsletter and announced on public access television prior to each meeting date.

Community members present ideas at the October 31, 2009, hands-on community design session.

A.4

Introduction

Community Workshops

Eight community meetings were held at the Bunker Hill Fire Station between October 2009 and March 2010. They were well attended by the general public. At the meetings community members made their input towards an updated vision for Mount Rainier. During the hands-on community design session on October 31, 2009, participants were divided into three groups to discuss transportation, land use, streetscape and the pedestrian realm, development infill opportunities, vacant buildings, potential additions and subtractions to existing buildings, and historic preservation. Each group produced and presented drawings to illustrate their findings on the M-U-TC. This workshop helped create the vision for Mount Rainier.

Community Workshop outreaCh sChedule

Community Kick-off MeetingOctober 7, 2009

Community Workshop 1October 19, 2009

Hands-on Community Design Session Workshop 2October 31, 2009

Work in Progress Open House Workshop 3November 10, 2009

Artists Stakeholder Feedback SessionDecember 15, 2009

Vision Plan—Feedback Session Workshop 4January 12, 2010

Community Workshop—Presentation of Implementation/Development PlanFebruary 23, 2010

Community Workshop—Presentation of Design Guidelines and StandardsMarch 23, 2010

October 31, 2009, hands-on community design session.

Sample table drawing from a hands-on community design session.

A.5


Stakeholder Dialogues

On a parallel track, between September and December 2009 the project team also conducted a number of meetings with individual stakeholder groups in order to solicit their opinions regarding the future vision for the Mount Rainier M-U-TC area. These groups included the following:• District of Columbia government officials

representing the Great Streets Initiative (Rhode Island Avenue).

• The M-U-TC Review Committee.• Mount Rainier Mayor and City Council. • Property and local business owners within the

M-U-TC.• Local arts-related non-profits and property

management companies.• Local Artists.

The presentations, meeting minutes, and meeting summary handouts from each of the eight community meetings were posted on the M-NCPPC project web site at the conclusion of the meeting. Summaries of each stakeholder meeting were also posted on the same web site in the Existing Conditions Report dated December 2009.

Open house and displays at the community meeting on November 10, 2009.

December 15, 2009, artists stakeholder feedback session.

September 21, 2009, meeting with the City of Mount Rainier Mayor and Council.

Meeting summary example.

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENTTHE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION

Rainier

Mount •

A City on the Move

The City of Mount RainierMixed-Use Town Center (M-U-TC) Zone Development Plan

Summary of the November 10th Community Meeting

After the Open House Session, Cunningham Quill Architects (CQ), gave a brief presentation discussing their thoughts concerning these questions. One idea presented was that the M-U-TC area could be subdivided into smaller Districts. Additionally, CQ presented images of public art and facade color of similar scaled projects that may be applicable to the M-U-TC area.

The last portion of the meeting was an open dialogue with the community. The notes from the community dialogue can be found at www.pgplanning.org/Mount-Rainier.htm.

For more information contact:

Dr. Robert MetzgerProject ManagerM-NCPPC301-952-4535 TTY 301-952-4366

www.pgplanning.org/Mount-Rainier.htm

Top: The streetscapes of the Mount Rainier M-U-TC area are composed of a muted color palate.

Bottom: The streetscape of Barracks Row, located along Eighth Street, S.E. in Washington, D.C., is composed of a more vibrant, larger color palate than Mount Rainier.

Upcoming Community MeetingsFeedback Session 7pm Tuesday 1/12/2010Bunker Hill Fire Station

Draft Development Plan Presentation 7:00 p.m. Tuesday 2/23/2010Bunker Hill Fire Station

Design Standards & Guidelines Presentation7:00 p.m. Tuesday 3/23/2010Bunker Hill Fire Station

Mount Rainier Streetscapes

Barracks Row Streetscapes

Existing Conditions Analysis B

Existing Conditions Analysis

B.2

Context

Regional

The City of Mount Rainier is a historic residential community situated in Prince George’s County, Maryland, inside the Capital Beltway along the northeast boundary of Washington, D.C. The historic city center is located at the intersection of Rhode Island Avenue and 34th Street between the District of Columbia and Hyattsville, Maryland. Mount Rainier is influenced by several immediately adjacent residential neighborhoods including Woodridge, Langdon, and Michigan Park in the District of Columbia, and Brentwood, Cottage City, and Hyattsville in Prince George’s County.

Rhode Island Avenue is an important regional north/south thoroughfare, connecting Washington D.C. to College Park and Laurel, Maryland. Bladensburg Road runs parallel to Rhode Island Avenue, providing an alternate, and sometimes competing, retail corridor for the area. Driving northward on US Route 1, Brentwood, Hyattsville, and College Park are important nodes of activity and serve as downtown centers for their adjacent neighborhoods.

Site

The Mount Rainier M-U-TC area is situated on sloping terrain surrounded by tributaries flowing into the Anacostia River. The area is located on a hill that slopes gradually to the south. The topography gently slopes downhill from west to east along Rhode Island Avenue, and dramatically slopes downhill from north to south along 34th Street. Across the M-U-TC boundary area, there is a 30-foot grade change between the upper and lower portion of 34th Street.

Rhode Island Avenue serves as the regional “main street” of the M-U-TC area, but lacks a defined and unified boulevard character. On the other hand, 34th Street serves as the local “main street” for the area and the immediate surrounding residential neighborhoods.

Regional context map.

Looking north up 34th Street from the traffic circle.

B.3


The entire town center area is located within a five-minute walk of the intersection of Rhode Island Avenue and 34th Street, which is the “symbolic center” of the M-U-TC. The area is accessible via multiple major bus routes and a potential MARC station as referenced in the Port Towns Sector Plan. This potential station, which would be sited along the CSX railroad right-of-way, would be within walking distance of the M-U-TC and surrounding residential areas. The M-U-TC contains approximately 2,400 linear feet of frontage along both sides of Rhode Island Avenue—running from Eastern Avenue to the Mount Rainier Public Library—and approximately 2,000 linear feet of frontage along both sides of 34th Street.

Typical of many small town “main streets,” the M-U-TC originally contained a mixture of both mixed-use and solely residential buildings. The mixed-use buildings contained ground-floor retail with residential above. Over time, many of the existing single-family residential structures have been re-adapted for commercial uses, such as the buildings located on the east side of 34th Street. Additionally, many buildings have been torn down and replaced (and/or modified) with lower-scaled buildings and surface parking lots. The continuous street wall frontages once found along both commercial streets of the M-U-TC no longer exist.

The Mount Rainier M-U-TC study area is smaller in scale relative to other local redeveloping main streets, such as 8th Street SE, Washington, DC. The modest scale of downtown creates a unique character along Rhode Island Avenue.

M-U-TC development plan area.

Scale comparison: 8th Street SE, Washington, D.C.

Rhode Island Avenue

Bunker Hill Road

Perry Street

34th Street

Pennsylvania Avenue

7th S

treet

SE

8th S

treet

SE

G Street SE


B.4

Historical Analysis

Early History of the City: 1897 to 1945

The Maryland and Washington Railways started operations connecting what is now the area encompassing the City of Mount Rainer to Washington, D.C. in 1897, with a stop located at the intersection of Rhode Island Avenue and 34th Street called the District Station. In 1902, local developers purchased 1090 acres of the Clemson family farm, surveyed the land, and renamed it “Mount Rainier.” City residents petitioned and achieved incorporation of the City of Mount Rainier in 1910. At the time, the city contained approximately 1,242 residents and 163 buildings.

During the period between its incorporation and the end of 1945, the city experienced growth in population, land area, and development. In 1929, the city annexed areas that are now the Queenstown and Queens Manor Garden Apartments. An additional annexation occurred in 1943. In 1934, upper 34th Street was extended through to Chillum Road making it a connector street to downtown Mount Rainier. Detached, one story, wood frame vernacular “bungalow style” homes became the predominant single-family residential architectural style built throughout the city between the 1920s and 1940s. The development patterns of the areas north and outside of the Mount Rainier M-U-TC became more suburban in character with the completion of the Kaywood Gardens, Queenstown, and Queens Manor Garden apartment complexes and their nearby strip shopping centers in 1943. At that time, the population of Mount Rainer grew to approximately 4,830 residents.

Post-1945 History: A Time of Expansion and Change

In 1955, the City of Mount Rainer annexed its final parcels and reached its highest recorded population at approximately 11,000 residents. The streetcar line servicing Mount Rainier closed in 1958 and was replaced by various bus lines that are currently operational today. A period of gradual population decline followed, and in 1980, the population of Mount Rainier dipped to a post-1945 low of approximately 7,361 residents.

However since 1980, Mount Rainier has experienced a resurgence as the general public has become aware of the city’s charm, due in part to its large quantity of architecturally distinctive bungalow housing stock, its proximity to the District of Columbia, and a new burgeoning arts district.

In 1994, the Mount Rainier M-U-TC Development Zone was established to help revitalize the commercial areas with a distinctive character, and in 1998, the Gateway Community Development Corporation was founded to develop an arts district to support the artists living in municipalities of Mount Rainier, Brentwood, and Hyattsville. Today, Mount Rainier boasts one of the largest and most vibrant artist communities in the Washington metropolitan area. The works of prominent artists, based in Mount Rainier, are displayed both locally and nationally.

Rhode Island Avenue and 34th Street, circa 1910. The scene of a fire in 34th Street, circa 1955.

B.5


1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

194519291917 1965

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

50

1,242

2,462

(est.) 5,000

(est.) 11,000

(est.) 10,000

8,180

7,361

7,954

8,498

8,448

1850

1853 Clemson family purchases property

1860 Clemson family sells property

1891 Sawyer brothers purchase and subdivide

1897 Installation of the streetcar

1910 Mount Rainier becomes incorporated

1919 Completion of water and sewer construction

1929 First Annexation

1932 Completion of Rhode Island Avenue

1939 Completion of new streetcar terminal

1943 Second Annexation

1955 Third Annexation

1958 Buses replace streetcar

1990 Mount Rainer Historic District established

WW1Great

Depression WW2 Civil Rights

population unknown

Mount Rainier population over time (approximately 1850–2008).

B.6


Existing property map.

Existing Property Survey

There are approximately 90 properties, which contain a total of 86 buildings, within the boundary of the Mount Rainier M-U-TC. As of fall 2009, 70 buildings are occupied with various uses and the remaining 16 buildings are vacant. Additionally, there are a number of significant vacant parcels of land within the boundary. A total of approximately 350,000 square feet of residential, commercial, and institutional uses are contained within the existing occupied and vacant buildings. (For additional information regarding land uses within the M-U-TC, please refer to pages B.11 and B.12.)

Floor area ratio (FAR) is the calculation of the total building square footage, or building area, divided by the site size square footage. Rhode Island Avenue has an average density of 0.92 FAR, and 34th Street has an overall density of 0.49 FAR. It should be noted that the Artscape Lofts building, at 3311 Rhode Island Avenue, has a density of 1.71 FAR.

Building Heights

Building heights range from approximately 12–20 feet for one-story structures to approximately 40–50 feet for four-story structures.

Rhode Island Avenue

34th

Stre

et

Bunker Hill Road

Perry Street Residential Low

Residential Medium High

Mixed-Use Residential

Commercial

Institutional

Vacant Building

Vacant Property

Parking Lot

Open Space

Boundary

LEGEND

N


B.7

Transportation Analysis

Roadways

Rhode Island Avenue is classified as a collector road by Prince George’s County. Within the M-U-TC area, Rhode Island Avenue has two marked 11-foot wide travel lanes and one wide outside travel lane with marked on-street parking in each direction. A raised median strip/turn lane, which is approximately 13 feet wide, divides the eastbound and westbound travel lanes.

34th Street, which is classified as a local street by the county, is an important north-south street within the M-U-TC area. It connects Chillum Road (MD 501) to

Queens Chapel Road. The 34th Street roadway consists of a two-lane roadway with on-street parallel parking.

An oval-shaped traffic circle, measuring approximately 80 feet by 65 feet, marks the intersection of Rhode Island Avenue and 34th Street. Although two speed limit signs are posted for 25 miles per hour (MPH) and 35 MPH along Rhode Island Avenue, motorists typically exceed this limit, even through the circle.

Study area roadway network (AADT = annual average daily traffic).

N

B.8


Transit Connections

Downtown Mount Rainier still functions as a transit connection hub. Eight Metro stations and two MARC stations are located within five miles travel of the traffic circle at Rhode Island Avenue and 34th Street. Eight Metrobus lines and one county bus line connect the study area to the surrounding rail stations. The average weekday morning and evening peak period ridership in the Mount Rainier area is approximately 800 people.

Parking Downtown

On-street metered parking is provided along most of both Rhode Island Avenue and 34th Street. Various commercial uses and churches have off-street parking behind or adjacent to their buildings. Many of these off-street lots are unpaved and underutilized. Businesses

Bus lines serving the study area.

on upper 34th Street and along Rhode Island Avenue have expressed concern about a lack of adequate or easily accessible parking.

Pedestrian Conditions

A number of the intersections within the M-U-TC area are difficult for pedestrians to traverse. Cars entering the traffic circle tend to speed up rather than slow down and rarely yield to pedestrians. The intersection of Rhode Island Avenue and Eastern Avenue, NE, lacks a pedestrian crossing on the Prince George’s County side. Some of the sidewalks along 34th Street are extremely narrow and are not wheelchair accessible due to their narrow width and lack of handicap ramps. Additionally, some curbs within the M-U-TC area are in deteriorated condition. The entire area is dominated by vehicular traffic rather than pedestrians.

Mount Rainier Mixed-Use Town Center Development Plan

Bunker Hill Road

Perry Street

34th

Stre

et

Rhode Island Avenue THEBUS (Route 12)

New Carrollton Line (84)

Bladensburg-Anacostia Line (B2)

College Park Line (81, 82, 82 & 86)

Annapolis Road Line (T18)

Chillum Road Line (F1 & F2)

Sheltered Bus Stop

Unsheltered Bus Stop

Boundary

LEGEND

N


B.9

Market Analysis

Primary Trade Area

The greatest demand for commercial use can be found in the immediate areas surrounding the M-U-TC study area. This area, which is defined as the primary trade area (PTA), is a customized geographic area within a one-mile radius from the intersection of 34th Street and Rhode Island Avenue. It represents a 15- to 20-minute walk to downtown Mount Rainier. The specific boundary of the PTA is Michigan Avenue to Arundel Road in the north, open space and parks in the east, New York Avenue/US 50 in the south, and 13th Street, N.E., in Washington, D.C. in the west.

Current Demographic Profile of the PTA

There are approximately 25,700 residents and 10,400 households within the PTA boundary, which equates to 2.4 residents per household. The home ownership rate is approximately 60 percent. Approximately 45 percent of the population own one vehicle and 21 percent own two vehicles. 24 percent of the population do not own vehicles. Primary trade area.

Table 1: MounT RainieR M-u-TC STudy—2009 eSTiMaTed deMogRaphiC SuMMaRy

Additionally, an estimated 23 percent of working age residents use public transportation to get to work. Table 1 compares a number of local and regional demographic profiles with the demographic profiles of the PTA.

0.5 Mile

RadiuS

CiTy of MounT

RainieR

pRiMaRy

TRade aRea

pRinCe geoRge'SCounTy

diSTRiCT of ColuMbia

WaShingTon, d.C., MSa

Population 5,400 8,400 25,700 827,400 591,700 5,400,000 RaCe

Black or African-American 56.3% 53.9% 72.5% 53.9% 53.5% 25.8%White 17.9% 18.1% 12.7% 18.1% 35.9% 56.4%Other 1 25.8% 28.0% 14.8% 28.0% 10.6% 17.8%

Households 1,900 3,400 10,400 297,100 260,750 2,000,000 Average household size 2.8 2.4 2.4 2.7 2.1 2.6 Average age 38 35 41 35 38 37 Median household income $55,160 $40,680 $52,120 $69,280 $55,600 $84,500 Average household income $70,220 $49,070 $66,670 $81,690 $86,200 $106,500 Percentage homes owner occupied 64.7% 25.8% 60.1% 25.8% 40.3% 64.9%Median home value $256,700 $246,300 $289,000 $283,800 $358,300 $366,000 Percentage of family households 62.7% 52.8% 55.9% 69.1% 46.0% 62.5%Percentage with high school degree or higher 67.5% 72.8% 73.1% 85.2% 77.8% 87.2%Average number of vehicles per household 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.7 0.9 1.7

1 The majority of "other" are Hispanic and Latino.Source: US Census, Claritas, 10/09

B.10


Population and Household Growth Trends

Up until 2005 the overall population and household growth within the PTA was relatively static. Since that date, however, there has been an incremental population increase with aging households being replaced by younger families and new infill residential development and redevelopment. It is expected that in the long term there may be a 5–10 percent growth in population and number of households in the PTA (see Table 2).

The overall residential profile of the PTA is 72 percent African-American, 13 percent Caucasian, and 15 percent “other” predominately made up of Hispanic people. The average age of residents is 41, however, 20 percent of the population consists of children under the age of 18. Persons 65 years or older make up 17 percent of the population. An estimated 73 percent of the population over the age of 25 have attained at least a high school degree.

The average income is reported to be approximately $66,670 and the median household income is approximately $52,100. The estimated data for household income indicates that approximately 23 percent of the households within the PTA earn less than $50,000 per year, and approximately one fifth of the households earn between $50,000 and $75,000 per year. On a comparative basis, within a half-mile radius of the intersection of 34th Street and Rhode Island Avenue the population base is more diverse, with higher home-ownership rates and incomes than those found in the overall trade area.

Employment Characteristics

Table 3 summarizes employment within a half-mile radius of the intersection of 34th Street and Rhode Island Avenue. While there is a large employment base at the periphery of the PTA, this has a minor impact on the retail environment of downtown Mount Rainier.

Housing Stock Characteristics

Most of the residential units within the PTA are around 60 years old. Approximately 54 percent of these units are single-family homes. Small multifamily buildings (between 3 and 19 units) make up approximately 19 percent of the housing stock. Another 11 percent of the residential units fall within the large-scale multifamily building category. A majority of the homes closer in to downtown Mount Rainier are owner occupied single-family residences. The median home value within the PTA is estimated at $289,000 compared to $283,800 in greater Prince George’s County.

SOURCE: U.S. Census, Claritas, Bolan Smart 10/09

Table 2: populaTion and houSehold gRoWTh

TiMefRaMe populaTion houSeholdS

1990–2000 -5.4% -2.4%2000–2009 -1.4% 0.3%2009–2014 (projected) -0.0% 0.0%2014+ (potential long term) 5-10% 5-10%

Table 3: half-Mile RadiuS eMployMenT SeCToR (2009 eSTiMaTe)

SOURCE: U.S. Census, Claritas, Bolan Smart 10/09

buSineSS / laboR SeCToR nuMbeR of full-TiMe eMployeeS peRCenTage of ToTal

Retail 454 22.9Construction 241 12.1Finance 220 11.1Personal services 159 8.0Government and education 151 7.6Wholesale trade 139 7.0Manufacturing 138 7.0Social services 118 5.9Business services 93 4.7Transportation and utilities 93 4.7Other 181 9.0

ToTal 1,987 100.0


B.11

Market Analysis: Existing Land Uses

Overview

The buildings within the M-U-TC boundary total an estimated 350,000 square feet. An estimated 25 percent to 30 percent of these buildings are vacant or under-utilized. Additionally, vacant lots and/or surface parking lots account for approximately two acres within the M-U-TC study area.

Commercial Uses

Table 4 gives a breakdown of the commercial uses by category located within the M-U-TC. There is approximately 178,000 square feet of commercial space within the boundary of the M-U-TC, of which approximately 64,800 square feet—or 36 percent of the built commercial square footage—was vacant as of December 2009. Of the approximately 113,200 square feet of occupied commercial space within the

study area, consumer goods and personal care services comprise almost 57,000 square feet, or 50 percent of that occupied space. Another ±34,600 square feet of commercial within the M-U-TC consists primarily of small office spaces, and ±20,160 square feet of commercial consist of cultural/arts related uses. Most of the retail tenants are sole proprietors, and they are not representative of regional or national franchises/chains. By comparison, the commercial area surrounding the M-U-TC zone district contains 1.5 million square feet of retail space comprised of numerous franchises/chains.

Even with the numerous retail offerings outside of the PTA, the Mount Rainier M-U-TC area offers opportunities for new commercial uses, such as a sit down restaurant and/or bank. Table 5, which is a commercial market summary, provides the strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for future commercial within the M-U-TC study area.

Table 4: exiSTing CoMMeRCial land uSeS by CaTegoRy

SOURCE: Market Data, Mount Rainier Business Association and Bolan Smart, 10/09

CaTegoRy nuMbeR of buSineSSeS SquaRe feeT CoMMeRCial uSe peRCenTage

ReTail

Food & Drink 10 18,745 16.6

Beauty Salon 11 12,811 11.3

Grocery / Convenience / Variety 5 12,670 11.2

Flowers / Gifts / Boutiques / Thrift 6 9,670 8.5

Art / Galleries 1 1,700 1.5

Services / Laundry 1 1,220 1.1

SubToTal ReTail: 34 56,816 50.2

oTheR CoMMeRCial / offiCe 14 34,589 30.6

CulTuRal & aRTS 2 21,778 19.2

Totals: 50 113,183 100.0

B.12


Table 5: CoMMeRCial MaRkeT SuMMaRy)

Civic and Institutional Uses

Public related land uses comprise ±36,100 square feet, or approximately 10 percent of the existing total estimated 350,000 square feet in the M-U-TC.

Residential Uses

Residential land uses comprise ±135,600 square feet, or 39 percent of the total square footage within the M-U TC boundary. Approximately 75 percent of the residential square footage is distributed between the Mount Rainier Artist Lofts at 3311 Rhode Island Avenue, the Newton Square Apartment at 3201 Rhode Island Avenue, and HIPP Artist Housing at 3801 33rd Street. The remainder of the residential units within the M-U-TC are smaller one- to four-unit apartment buildings scattered throughout the study area.

The residential neighborhoods immediately surrounding the M-U-TC, within the PTA boundary, are predominately low density single-family bungalow style homes. Moving outside of the PTA, there are a number of rental apartment complexes, including Queenstown Apartments, Queens Manor Garden, and Kaywood Gardens Apartments.

New residential development and redevelopment within and just outside of the M-U-TC represents a key opportunity with many benefits. While financing isa challenge, efforts need to be directed towards capturing new market-rate ownership housing.

STRengThS WeakneSSeS oppoRTuniTieS

• Two distinct commercial streets.• Historic character.• Regional demand draw for patrons of Joe’s

Movement Emporium and Glut Food Co-op.• Pedestrian scale/neighborhood serving.• Arts/environment/health niche.• Parking generally available. • Relatively low rents.

• Building storefronts/appearances.• Perceived crime and safety issues.• Vacant buildings, some obsolete space, and

institutional street level uses.• Rhode Island Avenue pedestrian access

and safety. • No cohesive streetscape or signage.• Parking is not always available directly in

front of businesses.• Redundancy of uses.• Inconsistent hours of operation.• Proximate competitive retail.

• Diversification of retail offerings.• Household and income growth.• Improve visual appearances (i.e., signage,

streets, etc.).• More pedestrian friendly orientations.• Assistance/incentives for users.

Plan Vision C

C.2

Plan Vision

Plan Principles

Districts Pedestrian Precinct

There are three distinct districts within the M-U-TC Study Area:

34th StreetThis district is composed of parcels with primary frontage on 34th Street north of the Rhode Island Avenue/34th Street traffic circle. There are many opportunities here for small-scale refurbishment and for strengthening the local neighborhood center along the secondary north-south circulation corridor of 34th Street.

Rhode Island AvenueThis district consists of parcels with frontage on Rhode Island Avenue. It is the main transportation corridor through the study area from points east and west. The stretch of Rhode Island Avenue within the study area is envisioned as a vibrant boulevard corridor.

Civic Core–the City CenterThis district is composed of parcels with primary frontage on the Rhode Island Avenue/34th Street circle. The introduction of a new civic green space at the current bus turnaround location would create a community-oriented space in front of City Hall.

The pedestrian precinct is composed of the public space between the buildings, including paving materials, street trees, and pedestrian and bicycle rights-of-way.

34th Street—“Main Street"This narrow intimate pedestrian right-of-way includes special paving at the intersection of 34th Street and Bunker Hill Road and a medium-scale single row of street trees on each side of the street.

Rhode Island Avenue—“Boulevard”This corridor comprises wide rights-of-way for pedestrians. Outdoor café seating, double rows of large street trees, and special sidewalk paving materials extend along the full length of the avenue and around the new civic center green space. Rhode Island Avenue is also the preferred location for new bicycle lanes.

Bunker Hill Road

Perry Street

Rhode Island Avenue

34th

Stre

etBunker Hill Road

Perry Street

Rhode Island Avenue

34th

Stre

et

C.3


Street Character Character Areas

The new downtown is designed as a more pedestrian supportive district. Each of the three new districts has a central focal point and priority investment area.

34th Street—“Cultural/Neighborhood”Envisioned as a hub for local residents, the cultural/neighborhood center at 34th Street and Bunker Hill Road seeks to build upon existing activity at Glut Food Co-Op, Joe’s Movement Emporium, and other new businesses.

Rhode Island Avenue—“Gateway”A landmark building element at the northeast corner of Eastern and Rhode Island Avenues on the city-owned redevelopment parcel, coupled with the Funkhouser Building across Rhode Island Avenue, has the potential to create a formal gateway into Mount Rainier from points west.

Civic Core—the “City Center”Flanked by a refurbished Singer Building and a new civic green space on either side of the Rhode Island Avenue/34th Street traffic circle, the city center is envisioned as the new heart of downtown Mount Rainier. Additionally, the opportunity exists for a landmark sculpture/monument anchoring the center of the circle.

The street character is defined by the street wall, and includes building façades, building heights, and retail frontages.

34th Street—“Main Street”Primarily composed of one- to three-story buildings, this main street corridor is defined by buildings placed close to the street, thereby creating an intimate streetscape. 34th Street is the primary focus area for façade improvements and the preferred location for local neighborhood-serving retail tenants.

Rhode Island Avenue—“Boulevard”Lined primarily with four- to six-story buildings, this boulevard thoroughfare is characterized by a wide, grand public space. Rhode Island Avenue is the preferred location for new development and destination retail tenants (businesses with regional attraction) who prefer more exposure.

Bunker Hill Road

Perry Street

Rhode Island Avenue34

th St

reet

Bunker Hill Road

Perry Street

Rhode Island Avenue

34th

Stre

et

N

C.4

Plan Vision

Urban Design Plan

The urban design plan describes the framework for inter-related plan elements: three districts, potential land-use, retail focus, pedestrian improvements, transit positioning, significant civic buildings, and new infill opportunities. The urban design plan provides detailed boundaries for district areas, retail storefront focus zones, open space, major development opportunities, and infrastructure improvements within the M-U-TC study area.

Rhode Island Avenue

Bunker Hill Road

Perry Street

5 Minute Walk34

th St

reet

36th

Stre

et

35th Street33

rd St

reet

32nd

Stre

et

Eastern Avenue

LEGEND

District—Rhode Island Avenue

District—Upper 34th Street

District—Civic core/city center

Open space

Parcel

Civic buildings

New infill/major renovation opportunity sites

Retail storefront focus

Existing crosswalk

New crosswalk

Five-minute walk

Bus transit stop

Boundary

Commercial/office optional focus

C.5


Illustrative Plan

The illustrative plan for downtown Mount Rainier depicts key recommendations and design areas, such as the funeral home/Thrifty Car Rental/gas station site, Upper 34th Street, and the Singer Triangle. The plan represents future development patterns based on the plan vision framework described in this chapter. The illustrative plan is not an exact depiction of future development, rather, it is one representation of many possible future development scenarios.

The core components of this illustrative plan, in terms of new infill, minor renovations, and major renovations, reflect the recommended directions future development and redevelopment should take as the development plan is implemented.

Rhode Island Avenue

Eastern Avenue

Bunker Hill Road

Perry Street

34th

Stre

et

36th

Stre

et

35th Street

33rd

Stre

et

32nd

Stre

et

LEGEND

New infill buildings

Green space

Minor renovations/façade improvementsMajor renovations/façade improvements

N

N

C.6

Plan Vision

Plan Recommendations

Civic Core/ City Center

Upper 34th Street

Rhode Island Avenue

The following includes specific design details and plan recommendations for each of the three plan areas:

• Upper 34th Street• Rhode Island Avenue• Civic Core/City Center

C.7


Upper 34th Street Recommendations

General Recommendations

1. Add new pedestrian crosswalks with special paving at the intersection of 34th Street and Bunker Hill Road.

2. Add tree boxes in curb extensions within the parking lane from the traffic circle to Bunker Hill Road. North of Bunker Hill Road, place trees in tree boxes within the sidewalk.

3. Renovate existing parking lots to include landscaping, permeable paving, and low walls along the street frontage.

4. Create areas for a “low-impact development” stormwater drainage rain garden at the low end of 34th Street north of the Rhode Island Avenue traffic circle.

5. Renovate existing buildings.See Kline’s Bakery historic photos on page C.10.

6. Create areas for an active street frontage by using the existing building setbacks.

7. Create areas for historically-sensitive front-porch additions to existing buildings up to the building setback.

8. Build new mixed-use infill buildings with ground floor retail space.

9. Move overhead utility lines to an underground location.

1

5

5

8

8

2

3

3

4

6

6

6

8

8

7

7

7

9

Bunker Hill Road

Rhode Island Avenue

34th

Stre

et

N

C.8

Plan Vision

Existing conditions: 34th strEEt, looking south towards thE lightbown building (sE cornEr).

Main strEEt—outdoor sEating and colorful rEtail storEfronts.

a Main strEEt in thE dEl rEy coMMunity, alExandria, Va.

The plan vision imagines upper 34th Street as a revitalized, neighborhood-serving main street with the following elements:

• Neighborhood-serving retail: smaller-scale stores.

• Retail storefronts: new pedestrian-scaled signage, attractive and simple fenestration, use of color, awnings and porches, and outdoor seating.

• On-street parking: slows down traffic, protects pedestrians.

• Shared-use parking lots: easy-to-use shared parking for retail.

• Smaller-scaled buildings: two- and three-story buildings.

• Historic character: façade restoration of most buildings along 34th Street.

• Mix of retail types: full-service restaurants and other quality retail establishments in Mount Rainier.

• Mixed-use: retention of residential uses on second floors above retail.

• Bicycle route: shared-lane markings and bikeway signage will identify 34th Street as a bicycle route.

Upper 34th Street—“The Neighborhood-Serving Main Street”

C.9


Street Sections—Upper 34th Street

Existing conditions: 34th strEEt, looking south.

ProPosEd conditions: 34th strEEt south of bunkEr hill road, looking south.

In order to implement the design standards necessary to promote the pedestrian precincts along 34th Street and Rhode Island Avenue, changes to the current locations of curb lines on both sides of the street will be necessary. Along the proposed section of 34th Street between the circle and Bunker Hill Road, there is the opportunity to maintain the existing travel lanes and extend both curb

lines two feet into the parking lane in order to provide wider sidewalks. Additionally, street trees will be planted on islands between parking spaces to complement the existing streetscape. The existing travel lanes will remain ten feet wide in each direction. Shared lane markings and bikeway signage will designate the bicycle lanes.

C.10

Plan Vision

Proposed Vision: Upper 34th Street

New mixed-use infill building with ground-floor retail space.

Renovate Kline's Bakery Building to

original façade for new retail or restaurant.

Refurbish Glut Building storefront.

Set up vegetable/fruit display on sidewalk.

New street trees in grates and new bike racks.

klinE's bakEry, circa 1905.

C.11


New crosswalks, curb extensions, and special paving at the intersection of 34th Street and Bunker Hill Road.

Refurbished retail storefronts restore original storefront

character.

Refurbished façade, new ground-floor retail tenant/restaurant and café seating.

New expanded pedestrian sidewalks with street trees on both sides of the street.

New pay-on-foot parking meters.

New retail signage. Shared lane for bicycle traffic.

C.12

Plan Vision

(This page is left blank intentionally)

C.13


Rhode Island Avenue Recommendations


1. Include areas for café seating and bike lanes along the new Rhode Island Avenue streetscape.

2. Create a new mid-block pedestrian crossing.

3. Renovate existing buildings with the addition of rooftop floors.

4. Renovate existing buildings.

5. Construct a new small-scale cultural/performing arts facility.

6. Build new infill multifamily residential buildings at the gateway to the M-U-TC area.

7. Build new townhouses adjacent to existing single-family homes.

8. Move overhead utility lines to underground locations.

9. In the short term, restripe existing parking lanes to include bike lanes within the existing street section.

5

6

6

7

3

33

4 4

4 2

1

1

1

1

8

9

Rhode Island Avenue

Eastern Avenue

Perry Street

C.14

Plan Vision

Existing conditions: rhodE island aVEnuE, looking wEst towards thE singEr building.

boulEVard: MixEd-usE/Public sPacE condition.

The plan vision imagines Rhode Island Avenue as a vibrant, grand boulevard that identifies and reflects the community of Mount Rainier. Rhode Island Avenue borrows these elements from traditional boulevards:

• Wide, multilane arterial thoroughfare: designed as a pedestrian precinct, with slower auto speeds, but it also allows for adequate traffic flow.

• Landscaped median: provides a condition that is unique to that section of Rhode Island Avenue (US 1).

• Pedestrian sidewalks: wide sidewalks enable social interaction and outdoor retail seating. Special paving patterns reflect a sense of place.

• Larger, mixed-use buildings: renovate existing buildings and design new infill buildings to meet the street with proper orientation and land use. Enable retail/restaurants with outdoor seating.

• Urban furniture: use functional, durable street lamps, benches, bike racks, chairs, and tables that enhance and promote the pedestrian experience.

• Street trees: plant trees to provide a sense of enclosure, protect pedestrians and cyclists, and slow down traffic.

• Bicycle paths: add a cycle track for enthusiasts and commuters. Add wide sidewalks for casual cyclists.

Rhode Island Avenue—“The Tree-Lined Boulevard”

C.15


Street Sections—Rhode Island Avenue

Existing conditions: rhodE island aVEnuE, looking wEst.

ProPosEd conditions: rhodE island aVEnuE, looking wEst.

In order to implement the design standards necessary to promote the pedestrian precincts along Rhode Island Avenue and 34th Street, changes to the current locations of curb lines and sidewalk profiles on both streets will be necessary.

The proposed street section maintains the State Highway Administration (SHA) designed 11-foot travel lanes (two in each direction, four in total) and existing 13-foot median. It is proposed that on Rhode Island Avenue the north curb line be extended by six feet and the south

curb line by three feet to allow for two 11-foot travel lanes and one eight-foot parking lane in each direction. Extending the curbs will enable provision of a 6-foot cycle track that is an exclusive right-of-way for bicycles along the new curb lines.

Additionally, installation of new crosswalks is proposed at Eastern Avenue and 33rd Street on Rhode Island Avenue, with special textured features that include stamped concrete to emphasize the presence of pedestrian crossings.

C.16

Plan Vision

Proposed Vision: Rhode Island Avenue

Refurbished building façades.

New cycle track zone.

New tree and pedestrian seating streetscape zone.

The potential for a future street car may be

incorporated into the new boulevard

design.

C.17


Refurbished Singer Building with new ground-floor retail tenants.

New tree and café seating streetscape zone with special paving.

New primary sidewalk streetscape zone.

Double row of street trees.

Renovate gas station (circa 1934) and convert to retail use with outdoor seating.

New highly visible cultural arts building

and space, to be used for performing arts,

visual arts, and other community functions.

C.18

Plan Vision

Rhode Island Avenue North Infill Site

Funeral Home/Thrifty Car Rental/Gas Station Site

Residential Building

• A four- to five-story residential building fronts Rhode Island Avenue, with its highest point at the intersection of Rhode Island Avenue and Eastern Avenue.

• Large rowhouse units front Eastern Avenue, blending the scale between the larger residential building at the intersection and the adjacent single-family homes.

Former Gas Station

• Historic Sinclair Gas Station (1934) is refurbished and integrated into the cultural arts center as a small-scale café/retail space with a public plaza.

Cultural Arts Center

• The cultural arts center is a two- to three-story 75-foot by 40-foot multiuse performance/exhibition space with transparent glass frontage on Rhode Island Avenue. This building serves as a visual symbol of the arts in downtown Mount Rainier. Similar to the Atheneum in Alexandria, VA, the cultural arts center is a flexible and adaptable art space to be used for performances, lessons, dance, art exhibitions, lectures, workshops, and other such uses. Office and commercial space is located above the flexible arts space.

• The cultural center and the historic gas station building are connected and a hardscape plaza space is created at the corner of Rhode Island Avenue and 33rd Street.

schEMatic sitE Plan.

Eastern Avenue

Rhode Island Avenue

33rd

Stre

et

Perry Street

Garden

wall

C.19



schEMatic sitE Massing.

ProPosEd sitE Plan at thE rhodE island aVEnuE nEw infill rEsidEntial sitE.

rhodE island aVEnuE

33rd strEEt

PErry strEEt

C.20

Plan Vision

Sensitivity to Existing Residential Fabric

The tallest massing of the new infill building—which contains the gas station, cultural facility, and residential uses—is located near the intersection of Eastern and Rhode Island Avenues. The building steps down away from this intersection in order to acknowledge the scale of the adjacent single-family neighborhood context. This configuration reduces the impact of building shadows onto the adjacent residential neighborhood, as shown by the diagrams on the left.

building shadow lEngth: May 21.


ProPosEd strEEt sEction through rhodE island aVEnuE with nEw infill rEsidEntial building, looking wEst.

Four-story building

10:00 a.m.

12:00 noon

2:00 p.m.

4:00 p.m.

C.21


(This page is left blank intentionally)

C.22

Plan Vision

Civic Core/City Center Recommendations


1. Include areas for café seating and bike lanes along the new Rhode Island Avenue streetscape.

2. Create special paving and a new landmark monument at the Rhode Island Avenue circle.

3. Create a new civic green and plaza adjacent to the City Hall.

4. Renovate the municipal buildings.

5. Build new infill multifamily residential or commercial office buildings.

6. Build new mixed-use infill buildings.

7. Build new duplex/triplex infill residential.

8. Renovate major interior and exterior architectural elements.

5

8

8

6

6

44

32

1

1

1

7

35th

Stre

et

Perry Street

Rhode Island Avenue

34th

Stre

et

33rd

Stre

et

C.23


One of the very strong positives of downtown Mount Rainier is that it serves the community in multiple ways. The M-U-TC area includes the majority of Mount Rainier’s civic buildings and serves as a focal point. An essential part of the totality of any community, these institutions are vital anchors to downtown Mount Rainier. The Mount Rainier City Hall, Library, and Police Station are destination buildings for residents, reinforce downtown as being a special place, and provide management and financial resources.

The city’s recent purchase of the Eastern Star Building enables a series of unrelated buildings to become a grand municipal center with the following elements:

• City Hall: Construct a new community presentation platform and staircase.

• Civic green and plaza: Transform the bus turnaround into a green civic space.

• Eastern Star Building: Restore the historic exterior, renovate the interior with a grand hall, exploit the potential for a part-time gallery/arts space, create a new façade facing the green.

• Mount Rainier Library: Continue to develop designs for a new/renovated library.

• Transit Center: Create a modern transit structure with opportunity for collaboration with artists.

Existing conditions: rhodE island aVEnuE, looking East towards city hall.

traffic circlE, ciVic grEEn and MuniciPal cEntEr.

ProPosEd ciVic grEEn at bus turnaround.

C.24

Plan Vision

Proposed Vision: Civic Core/City Center

Renovate the historic Eastern Star Building with a modern addition facing the civic green.

Create a modern transit center.

Renovate Mount Rainier Library.

Construct an elevated landscape terrace/performance space.

Install special paving for pedestrian crosswalk.

C.25


Construct new infill development along Perry Street East (as a temporary use, add parking on open lots).

Restore landscaping and urban seating area.

Construct public gathering space in the new civic green.

Install special paving around traffic circle.

C.26

Plan Vision

Retail Uses

In many ways retail land uses represent the principal face for a downtown area. The interaction between retail space and consumers, passing traffic, and the surrounding community impacts the image of the M-U-TC location, and thus its prospects for future economic activity and development. The importance of retail and related commercial uses not only draws upon the visible presence of active retailers but is heavily influenced by the amount and character of vacant or under-used commercial properties.

Land Use Recommendations

The quantity of existing retail space (approximately 90,000 square feet) exceeds today’s market demand (approximately 60,000 square feet). However, long-term growth is anticipated.

In order to be a positive force, retail properties and operating businesses should be of a sufficient size and mix, and self-sustaining, even if surrounded by vacant store space.

PriMary and sEcondary rEtail focus arEas.

Bunker Hill Road

Rhode Island Avenue

Eastern Avenue

Perry Street

34th

Stre

et

36th

Stre

et

35th Street33

rd St

reet

32nd

Stre

et

Primary retail focus

Secondary retail focus

Boundary

LEGEND

N

C.27


Other Commercial Uses

Downtown Mount Rainier has a variety of retail and other existing commercial uses, most notably professional office and contractor services firms. Some of these uses fit naturally into retail oriented properties and others occupy second level space, former residential buildings and other variations. These alternative land uses perform a vital role in drawing customers and clients to downtown, and provide some amount of employee-related support of other downtown businesses during the day. While sustaining and growing these smaller-scale commercial land uses should occur in tandem with advancing the rest of the M-U-TC area, their expected impact is limited to incremental economic-development gains rather than major increases.

Residential Uses

Residential land uses are intermixed within the M-U-TC area and help to define the character of the greater Mount Rainier area. The plan vision foresees residential-related redevelopment and new infill development as representing the major market based development opportunity for the downtown area, with multiple benefits and characteristics:

• The existing Mount Rainier neighborhood surrounding the downtown area represents the foundation of demand for additional residential development in the M-U-TC area. Opportunities to provide alternative market-based ownership housing in downtown Mount Rainier, such as rowhouses, flats, and other forms of multifamily housing, can serve not only existing Mount Rainier residents wishing to transition into different types of housing, but can draw on the regional market for support.

• The addition of new housing and residents will provide a broad spectrum of benefits, including shoring up retail vitality, reconnecting the streetscape, helping to alleviate crime and safety concerns, and adding to the tax base.

Retail also plays a vital role in attracting investment in other land uses, such as residential. This is especially true of an older, walkable downtown like Mount Rainier, where the retail presence is critical to the sense of town and community.

Specific to the plan vision and its implementation, retail land uses should be understood and supported through the following guiding principles:

• Providing an attractive and contiguous retail street frontage at economically sustainable locations is fundamental to advancing the pedestrian precinct. Most importantly, Mount Rainier already has a large inventory of retail space that can easily accommodate storefronts.

• Retail business needs to be concentrated. Maintaining a critical mass of different types of retailers adjacent or proximate to each other promotes combined patronage, helps in re-tenanting vacated space, and encourages the ongoing investment of retailers in a given location. The plan vision sees the commitment to continuing to focus retail uses at the intersections of 34th Street and Bunker Hill Road and along Rhode Island Avenue, emanating outward from the traffic circle, as of critical importance.

• While attracting new retailers can help elevate the level of activity and image of the entire downtown area, the support and sustenance of existing retail users is of first-order importance. Businesses already in place have significant investments at stake and an established customer base. Adding too much additional retail space (especially if publicly subsidized in some manner) against a backdrop of relatively finite market demand can undermine the strength of both the existing businesses and limit the potential for a large number of new ones.

C.28

Plan Vision

Historic Preservation/Adaptive Reuse Recommendations

aboVE: protected and unprotected historic properties.

lEft: the larger area is the boundary for the city of Mount rainier. the M-u-tc boundary, in red, falls within the Mount rainier historic district, which is shaded in grey.

Eastern Avenue

35th

Stre

et

36th

Stre

et

Bunker Hill Road

Rhode Island Avenue

Perry Street34

th St

reet

35th Street

33rd

Stre

et

32nd

Stre

et

N

Very High: Designated Prince George’s County historic site.

Moderate: Listed in the Maryland Inventory of Historic Properties.

Low: Listed in the National Register of Historic Places as a “contributing structure.”

LEGEND

Prot

ecte

dUn

prot

ecte

d

High: Proposed Prince George’s County historic site.

Recommended for historic protection.

Not directly contributing to the historic character.

Boundary

C.29


General Historic Improvement Significance and Actions

The Mount Rainier Historic District is significant as an example of the type of community that changed the character of western Prince George’s County in the early twentieth century through the advent of the streetcar. The historic district is also important for its expansive and diverse collection of vernacular inspired buildings erected during the period between 1900 and 1940. The mixed-use town center falls within the boundaries of the historic district, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Identified as the community’s downtown from its early stages of development, the town center contains an eclectic collection of residential, commercial, and mixed-use buildings that maintains the character of a small town main street. In support of the plan vision, preserving and restoring the main street character will require the following actions:

• Restoration of historic properties through the removal of non-contributing additions.

• Maintenance and repair of historic materials and retention of the properties’ form, details and existing historic character.

• Alterations and additions to historic properties to meet continuing or changing uses while retaining the properties’ historic character.

• Building of new structures that are sympathetic in massing and quality to the area’s historic character.

General Improvement Areas

34th StreetThe intersection of Bunker Hill Road and 34th Street is an important focal point for restoring the main street feel. The buildings are typically well constructed and require basic maintenance and repair of existing windows, storefronts, and porches, as well as repairs to masonry and other minor façade improvements. A few buildings, including Kline’s Bakery (3849 34th Street) and the flat fronts (3807-3815 34th Street) will require

restoration of their façades, removal of non-contributing additions, and replacement of building materials not supportive of their history. Vacant lots receiving new construction should follow the scale, massing, and styles reflective of the area.

Civic Core/City CenterMost of the structures in the civic core have a historic character. Adaptive reuse will be more prevalent, especially for properties south and east of the traffic circle, including properties along east Perry Street and the Eastern Star Building (3405 Rhode Island Avenue). The Prince George’s Bank (3800 34th Street) is a designated Prince George’s County historic site, and the Sanitary Grocery Company Building (3401 Perry Street) is a proposed historic site. Both sites will require minor restoration and maintenance and repair because of their historic character. Other buildings, such as the Singer Building, its adjacent properties, and the group of transit-oriented retail (3410–3248 Rhode Island Avenue) will require similar restoration and repair.

Rhode Island AvenueBecause of the large portions of vacant and developable land and the lack of historic structures within the Rhode Island Avenue district of the M-U-TC, specific improvement actions will be oriented to adaptive reuse and new construction. New infill construction shall be compatible with the surrounding buildings in scale, massing, and quality. The character of existing buildings should be retained, even with the addition of floors or change of uses. An exception is the historic gas filling station (3220 Rhode Island Avenue), which is a proposed historic site. Because of its poor condition, restoration, maintenance, and repair of the gas filling station will be required in order to preserve an important landmark in the development of historic Mount Rainier.

C.30

Plan Vision

Environmental/Sustainability Recommendations

location of PErMEablE Parking arEas and rain gardEns in thE grEEn-strEEt PrototyPE.

Bunker Hill Road

Rhode Island Avenue

Eastern Avenue

Perry Street

34th

Stre

et

35th

Stre

et

35th Street

33rd

Stre

et

32nd

Stre

et

N

Permeable parking areas

Rain gardens

Boundary

LEGEND

C.31


Rain Gardens—Green Street Prototype

34th Street slopes downhill towards the traffic circle north of Rhode Island Avenue. Water runoff is currently channelled directly into culverts and relocated elsewhere. The plan vision proposes two rain gardens that use native plants to capture and clean runoff water from 34th Street. This prototype project also encourages natural infiltration of water and reduces the likelihood of flooding at the traffic circle.

Permeable Parking Surfaces

34th Street and Bunker Hill Road have a history of flooding and drainage problems. One strategy for improving water management in this area is to increase the area of permeable surfaces. This would allow water to seep directly into the underground water table, instead of being channelled elsewhere. The proposed shared parking lots on upper 34th Street should use surfaces of permeable pavers or a mix of permeable pavers and asphalt, instead of impermeable asphalt only.

location of thE grEEn strEEt PrototyPE ProjEct at thE intErsEction of 34th strEEt and rhodE island aVEnuE.

an ExaMPlE of a PErMEablE Parking surfacE.

C.32

Plan Vision

Transportation Recommendations

In support of the overall vision of the plan, the primary transportation objective is to develop a district that is more friendly for pedestrians along Rhode Island Avenue and 34th Street. This objective is demonstrated through several strategies, including the reinforcement of pedestrian crossings; provision of curb extensions and wider sidewalks; installation of pedestrian signals; and conversion of the existing bus turnaround depot into a public park.

Pedestrian Precinct

Rhode Island Avenue ElementsThe plan recommends installing a crosswalk on Rhode Island Avenue just east of its intersection with Eastern Avenue. Given this modification, additional pedestrian signals will be required, as well as adjustment of the existing traffic-signal timing.

A new pedestrian crosswalk is recommended across Rhode Island Avenue just east of its intersection with 33rd Street. An accompanying pedestrian-activated crosswalk signal is also recommended. Pedestrians will be able to activate this signal to stop vehicular traffic along Rhode Island Avenue, allowing them to cross. When the signal is not activated, traffic moves without having to stop.

It is recommended that a pedestrian-activated crosswalk signal be installed just west of the circle on Rhode Island Avenue. This signal will activate the traffic signal just east of the circle. The activation of this traffic signal will allow pedestrians to cross Rhode Island Avenue with greater ease.

Along the northern side of Rhode Island Avenue from Eastern Avenue to the circle, it is recommended that curb extensions be installed at the intersection corners of Rhode Island Avenue with Eastern Avenue and with 33rd Street. The introduction of curb extensions provides locations where the crossing distance for pedestrians is minimized while the existing width of the travel lanes along Rhode Island Avenue is retained. A raised off-street bicycle track on both sides of the existing Rhode Island Avenue curb is recommended between Eastern Avenue and the circle. This bicycle track is envisioned as an independent travel way—which is separated from the

proposed sidewalk with landscaping—along that same section of Rhode Island Avenue.

34th Street ElementsIt is recommended that sidewalks be widened on both sides of 34th Street so that they extend further into the roadway, while still retaining two ten-foot travel lanes on 34th Street from the circle to Bunker Hill Road. Widening the sidewalk to provide for improved pedestrian circulation on 34th Street is a key component of making this street a more attractive retail destination for prospective patrons. In addition to widening the sidewalk, it is recommended that curb extensions along both sides of 34th Street be installed to allow for the placement of trees along the street between the circle and Bunker Hill Road.

Curb extensions are recommended at the intersection of 34th Street and Bunker Hill Road for the southeast, southwest, and northeast corners of the intersection. This will facilitate pedestrian crossings at this all-way stop intersection. In addition, it is recommended that textured crosswalks be installed and that the interior of the intersection be patterned to reinforce it as the center of the retail activity on upper 34th Street.

Shared Parking

The need for additional parking to support existing and new retail uses and infill development can be accommodated through the use of shared parking strategies. The potential locations for shared parking include the following:

• Lot behind ZZ’s Pizza (potential to provide 24 spaces).

• Lot south of Kline’s Bakery (potential to provide 16 spaces).

• The lot south of the Metropolitan Church of God (the former Cameo Theater) during times when there are no church services.

• 3424 Rhode Island Avenue.

C.33


Civic Green and WMATA

In order to provide a strong civic core adjacent to Mount Rainier City Hall and the public library, it is recommended that the existing bus turnaround area located at the circle be reclaimed as a public park (civic green). This will promote pedestrian activity and provide a space for public gathering adjacent to the civic uses. In removing infrastructure related to the bus turnaround, it will be critical to retain and relocate bus activities and operations. A review of existing bus activity at the turnaround area identified three bus routes (Metrobuses 82 and B2 and TheBus 17) that would need to be modified. It is recommended that the 82 and B2 bus routes be redesigned to approach the circle from northbound 34th Street before traversing through the circle to head west on Rhode Island Avenue. TheBus 17, approaching westbound, would

traverse through the circle 180 degrees to head back in an eastbound direction.

The elimination of the bus turnaround area will require additional coordination with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) and Prince George’s County to determine the eventual route realignments and bus stops.

illustratiVE skEtch of thE ciVic grEEn.

C.34

Plan Vision

Existing and ProPosEd b2 routE.

Existing and ProPosEd 82 routE.

Proposed Metrobus 82 and B2 Bus Route ChangesIt is proposed that the 82 and B2 buses wait curbside on the north side of Rhode Island Avenue between the circle and 33rd Street. These buses have previously used the turnaround area to wait for passengers. The buses would not impede travel lanes on westbound Rhode Island Avenue while waiting for passengers.

Rhode Island Avenue

Rhode Island Avenue

Eastern Avenue

Eastern Avenue

Bunker Hill Road

Bunker Hill Road

Perry Street

Perry Street

34th

Stre

et34

th St

reet

Alighting bus stop

Boarding bus stop

Existing B2 Route

Proposed B2 Route

Boundary

LEGEND

Alighting bus stop

Boarding bus stop

Existing 82 Route

Proposed 82 Route

Boundary

LEGEND

C.35


Existing and ProPosEd thEbus routE 17.

Proposed TheBus Route 17 ChangesTheBus Route 17 currently heads west towards the circle, traverses three-quarters of the way through the circle to access the bus turnaround area, and then proceeds east on Rhode Island Avenue. The modified route for this bus is simple in that the bus would continue to head west to approach the circle, traverse through the circle 180 degrees, and then pull over to the southern side of Rhode Island Avenue.

Rhode Island Avenue

Eastern Avenue

Bunker Hill Road

Perry Street34

th St

reet

Alighting bus stop

Boarding bus stop

Existing TheBus Route 17

Proposed TheBus Route 17

Boundary

LEGEND

C.36

Plan Vision

Proposed MARC Station

In support of the M-NCPPC Port Towns Sector Plan, a strategy has been developed to address the potential for the designation of a new MARC station to be located in the vicinity of the artists’ studios on Wells Avenue and Otis Street south of the M-U-TC study area and adjacent to the existing rail tracks. In order for this potential MARC station to be compatible with the primarily residential nature of the adjacent neighborhood, we recommend that very limited parking be made available to support the station on the north side of the tracks. Any major parking facilities to support this station should be located on the Cottage City side (south side) of the train tracks given its proximate access to Bladensburg Road and the surrounding industrial land uses.

The potential MARC station is envisioned as a local transportation resource for nearby residents to either walk to, or get dropped off at, in order to be able to ultimately access Union Station to the south or points north such as Baltimore and BWI Airport (Baltimore Washington International Thurgood Marshall Airport). In supporting this strategy, the main route from the Mount Rainier civic core to the potential station has been identified as 34th Street, to Otis Street, to Oak Lane, to Wells Avenue adjacent to the train tracks. The implementation of a new MARC station would ultimately require coordination with the Maryland Transit Authority (MTA), the county and the city.

Rhode Island avenue

34th

stR

eet

otIs stReet

Wel

ls a

ven

ue

C.37


thErE is PotEntial for ExtEnsion of thE futurE dc strEEtcar systEM into PrincE gEorgE's county.

Extension of the DC Streetcar System

The future DC Streetcar will make travel to, from, and within the District of Columbia much easier for residents, workers, and visitors, and it will complement existing transit options. The proposed streetcar will connect Washington, D.C., and Prince George’s County neighborhoods and bring tremendous benefits to the communities it serves.

The District of Columbia Department of Transportation (DDOT) has started construction of a new streetcar line in Anacostia that is expected to start revenue service by the fall of 2012. Tracks are currently being laid on H Street and Benning Road for a second line, and planning is underway for additional segments across the city. The entire 37-mile proposed streetcar system will take at least 7-10 years to build (medium-term timeframe).

The ultimate plan for the DC Streetcar system includes a DC Streetcar line along Rhode Island Avenue that extends from Florida Avenue to the District Line at Eastern Avenue. The implementation of the first phase of the DC Streetcar system does not include the Rhode Island Avenue line, which is preliminarily programmed in Phases 2 and 3 of the DC Streetcar development, pending funding. Given that the Rhode Island Avenue line has not yet been designed, no cross-sections or alignments have been proposed. One idea is that the Rhode Island Avenue streetcar will extend into Prince George’s County through downtown Mount Rainier.

Typically, streetcars that have been programmed on streets similar to Rhode Island Avenue have operated in the curb travel lane with curb extensions that allow patrons to access the streetcars at the designated stops. The plan vision has incorporated this type of operation into its overall roadway geometric requirements.

C.38

Plan Vision

Arts and Arts Community Recommendations

Role of the Arts/Gateway Arts District The M-U-TC development plan envisions both the Mount Rainier artists and their art as key catalysts for the city’s revitalization of the plan area. The plan creates new opportunities for artists to engage and be engaged with the local community.

The City of Mount Rainier is an important component of the Gateway Arts District. The city’s arts identity is a very significant resource for marketing and promoting development in the downtown area. An existing arts community helps distinguish the downtown area from other locations, attracting outside interest in the community on multiple levels. Arts targeted projects can leverage external funding sources, and the artists themselves can help in many ways to expand the volume and visibility of the arts integral to the M-U-TC plan and its implementation. Because of its established arts community and previous efforts, Mount Rainier is well positioned to explore new opportunities to visibly exhibit its arts community in new development projects in this strategically located area of the Gateway Arts District.

The M-U-TC development plan promotes the arts by creating venues that promote higher visibility for and greater access to the strong and talented pool of local artists. The plan proposes selected local initiatives that must be closely coordinated with the current efforts of the Gateway Community Development Corporation (CDC) to promote and encourage artistic activity throughout the Gateway Arts District corridor. Through this plan, art in Mount Rainier has the opportunity to establish a more visible and active presence throughout the M-U-TC.

Pop-up Galleries

As an interim arts strategy for downtown, it is recommended that the city make available selected venues, called “pop-up” galleries, in city-owned, not-utilized or under-utilized storefront properties that (with minimal operational costs) could act as energizing and active art spaces along the M-U-TC commercial

corridors. Spaces could be used for visual and performing arts activities.

One implementation strategy involves city support for storefront selection, general maintenance, insurance, utilities, and up-keep for limited periods of time. For non-profit activities, a minimal or subsidized charge could be required; for paid events or for events where art is sold, a percentage of the sales could be used to defray some building upkeep costs. Artists could set up and prepare the spaces for exhibition or performances.

Public and Utilitarian Art Program Proposal

As part of promoting the arts in an increasingly visual way, the city should work to identify key open spaces, public parks, and/or publicly-visible privately owned sites to locate work by local artists. A city program should be created to feature art (graphics, signage, sculpture metalwork, fabric art, etc.) in public places. Artists would compete for city sponsored sites and opportunities to feature their art at city sponsored events or in city generated media, such as the graphic design of the city newsletter, website, and logo. Art locations would be “leased” for a designated period. At the end of the period new artists and art would be selected for the city art spaces. These could be small or large spaces; art could consist of permanent or temporary murals, insets and bas relief on walls, metal work, and performance art (dance or repertory theater) at city sponsored events.

A city appointed jury would select art from a variety of categories, including performance art. Art would be displayed at the local (Mount Rainier) pop-up gallery locations indicated above, at Gateway Arts events where regional participation is featured and at the selected outdoor city art spaces. The city should establish and fund a program that includes shared insurance, security, and general maintenance costs with the Gateway CDC, artists, and the city. Additionally, the city should work to identify funding for maintenance costs for one to three new sites per year.

C.39


Signage and Wayfinding Program Proposal

Combine the talents of local artists and historians to create a Mount Rainier heritage trail signage system. Use local artist-inspired and designed signage to create heritage trails that direct pedestrian traffic. Identify significant places and events that have occurred in Mount Rainier history. Theses can act as wayfinding devices to help visitors locate city services and merchants.

Signage, along with anticipated traffic modification devices, would act as clear edge delineation and image branding in the region for the Mount Rainier M-U-TC development areas and pedestrian zones.

Design Standards and Guidelines D

D.3


1. IntroductIon / Goals ........................................................................... d.5

2. desIGn revIew Process ............................................................................ d.6

3. HIstorIc dIstrIct .................................................................................... d.11

4. dIstrIct cHaracter overvIew .................................................................... d.14

5. urban desIGn Plan ................................................................................. d.17

6. PublIc realm ......................................................................................... d.18a. street sectIons—34tH street .................................................. d.19b. street sectIons—rHode Island avenue ....................................... d.21c. PedestrIan crosswalks and Zones ............................................... d.24d. surface ParkInG lots ............................................................... d.25e. bIke facIlItIes ......................................................................... d.26f. sIdewalks and street trees ........................................................ d.27G. lIGHtInG ................................................................................ d.28

6. sIte desIGn ........................................................................................... d.29a. HeIGHt .................................................................................. d.32b. setbacks and massInG .............................................................. d.33c. massInG—rHode Island avenue InfIll sIte .................................. d.34d. walls, fences and screenInG ..................................................... d.35e. outdoor seatInG ..................................................................... d.36f. lIGHtInG ............................ .................................................... d.37

7. arcHItectural elements ........................................................................... d.38a. façades and fenestratIon ......................................................... d.39b. storefronts ........................................................................... d.40c. utIlItIes and mecHanIcal equIPment ............................................ d.41d. securIty ................................................................................ d.42e. color, lIGHtInG, and materIal ................................................... d.43f. PorcHes and front yards .......................................................... d.44G. addItIons .............................................................................. d.45H. subtractIons ......................................................................... d.47I. former resIdentIal buIldInGs wItH non-resIdentIal use ................. d.48j. sIGnaGe ................................................................................. d.49

8. otHer GuIdelInes .................................................................................... d.55a. PublIc art ............................................................................. d.56b. sustaInabIlIty ......................................................................... d.58c. ParkInG strateGy .................................................................... d.59d. HIstorIc buIldInGs ................................................................... d.60

9. sPecIfIc buIldInG recommendatIons ............................................................ d.62

Design Standards and Guidelines|Table of Contents

D.4

Design Standards and Guidelines

m-u-tc study area.

NRhode Island Avenue

Eastern Avenue

Perry Street

Bunker Hill Road

34th

Stre

et

36th

Stre

et

37th

Stre

et

35th Street

33rd

Stre

et

32nd

Stre

et

Parcels

Boundary

LEGENDExisting buildings in M-U-TC study area

D.5


Introduction / Goals

Goals

The purpose of these design standards and guidelines is to promote high quality urban design and architectural design within the mixed-use town center (M-U-TC) area and to encourage a cohesive and attractive environment consistent with the development plan vision.

These standards and guidelines will help protect and reinforce the existing fabric of the historic district. They will retain the character and feel of the historic downtown while assisting the transition towards its revitalized form. These guidelines shall serve as tools to assist the M-U TC review committee, the city, the county, and the public in the design review process. They will also assist building owners, business owners, architects and other design professionals in guiding the design of new projects and property improvements.

These standards and guidelines shall be used alongside the other development plan components, thus providing a comprehensive illustration of the goals and objectives of the M-U-TC development plan.

When reviewing projects in Mount Rainier, users shall refer to the following three interrelated chapters:

• Plan Vision• Design Standards and Guidelines• Implementation

Applicability

The design standards and guidelines are applicable to all buildings and sites within the M-U-TC study area.

Applicability Language

This chapter uses two sets of prescriptions: standards and guidelines.

Standards are design requirements, indicated by the words “shall” and “must.” Guidelines are design recommendations, indicated by the words “should” and “may.”

Economic Revitalization

A critical element in advancing opportunities for economic development in downtown Mount Rainier is to have attractive and inviting streetscapes and building façades and treatments. A positive physical image impacts a broad customer base of visitors, business owners, property owners, and potential investors, including banks and other sources of financing. While there may be limited need for some individual property owners to use the design standards and guidelines, for such things as signage and fencing, the design standards and guidelines are essential to improving the overall marketability of the M-U-TC area and the broader historic district.

Well conceived and implemented design standards and guidelines and oversight that is respectful of the character and uniqueness of Mount Rainier will benefit all properties. The assurance that design standards and guidelines exist and will be applied in a consistent and comprehensive manner will attract the necessary investment and capital, both in the near term and over the long term. This assurance will result in the following:

• Enhancement of M-U-TC patronage.• Heightened business and property-owner

confidence.• Reassuring new investors regarding return on their

investment.• Advancement of economic sustainability.

D.6


Design Review Process

Use of the Design Standards and Guidelines by the M-U-TC Committee

The committee shall consult the design standards and guidelines when making decisions on applications submitted to the committee. Use of the guidelines will assist the committee in making consistent and fair decisions that are in compliance with the M-U-TC development plan and implementation strategies, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and sound urban design and preservation practices.

All new in-fill development projects, exterior renovations, signage, awnings, fencing, screening, exterior seating, exterior display, surface lot parking, site lighting, or other site improvements and/or changes within the M-U-TC development plan area shall be reviewed by the Mount Rainier M-U-TC Review Committee for compliance with the plan vision, design standards and guidelines, and implementation strategies.

Application Process

Prior to Submission• The applicant shall review the 2004 Approved Sector

Plan and Sectional Map Amendment for the Prince George’s County Gateway Arts District to determine if the proposed use is permitted within the town center character area.

• The applicant shall meet with the designated M-NCPPC staff member to review the proposal for compliance with the plan vision, design standards and guidelines, and implementation components of the development plan. Staff shall also review the application for completion in accordance with the submission requirements and offer guidance regarding the “simple permit” and “special permit” processes.

Submission• The applicant shall submit the application and 12

copies of the applicable submission documents, as listed on page D.8, to M-NCPPC for staff review and distribution to committee members and the City of Mount Rainier.

M-U-TC Review Committee Composition

The new development plan envisions transformation of downtown’s existing environment through revitalization of historic structures and proposed new infill. With this vision in mind, a small modification of the Mount Rainier M-U-TC Review Committee’s composition will assist the committee, the city and the county in their evaluation and review of future proposals and improvements in the town-center plan area.

The City of Mount Rainier will solicit and advertise for potential candidates to the M-U-TC review committee. The City Council will make its selection from this group of candidates and submit its recommendations to The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) for consideration and approval by the Prince George’s County Planning Board. The committee will consist of seven members. Their terms will be staggered. Each member will serve two years and may be reappointed to subsequent terms by the City Council. The composition of the M-U-TC review committee will be as follows:

• Two residents from the city.• Two business or property owners within the

M-U-TC study area.• Two municipal government representatives.• One architect with expertise in infill development

and historic preservation/adaptive reuse.

During the advertisement and selection process, efforts will be made to ensure that at least one of the residents, business or property owners, and government representatives on the committee is a practicing artist or design professional with experience in planning, architecture, landscape architecture, or historic preservation. Solicitation of the architect member will be done regionally and will not be limited to candidates from the city. Members will commit to attending at least 75 percent of the committee’s scheduled meetings each year.

A designated member of the M-NCPPC’s Prince George’s County Planning Department will serve as non-voting staff person on the M-U-TC committee and will attend all its meetings.

D.7


• The designated M-NCPPC staff member shall review the application and submission documents for compliance with the plan vision, design standards and guidelines, and implementation strategies components of the City of Mount Rainier Mixed-Use Town Center (M-U-TC) Zone Development Plan.

• The designated M-NCPPC staff member shall produce an official staff report documenting the facts of the application and submission. The staff member shall note any recommendations based upon his or her review.

• The staff report and recommendations, the application, and a copy of the applicant’s submission documents shall be transmitted to each member of the M-U-TC committee, the City of Mount Rainier (City Manager’s Office), and the applicant. These documents should be posted on the web for access by the community at least five days before the committee meeting date.

M-U-TC Review Committee Meeting• Committee meetings shall be held within thirty

days of M-NCPPC’s receipt of a complete official submission. The applicant shall be notified of the time, date, and location of the committee meeting. The applicant or applicant’s agent shall be required to attend the committee meeting to present the application.

• The committee shall review and make recommend-ations on all building permit applications or special permit (site plan) applications submitted to the county for work to be performed within the M-U-TC study area. All appointed members should be familiar with the City of Mount Rainier Historic District, and the plan vision, design standards and guidelines, and the implementation strategies.

• A committee quorum shall include at least one architect, one planner, or one historian knowledgeable of the regulations, historic character, and historic resources of the City of Mount Rainier and Prince George’s County.

• The applicant shall present the proposal to the committee. Failure to attend and present the application shall result in the automatic deferral of the project to a subsequent M-U-TC committee meeting.

• The designated M-NCPPC staff member shall verbally highlight key elements from the staff report and any recommendations. Staff shall also offer supporting comments and answer questions from the committee.

• The M-U-TC committee shall review the application and shall either recommend:• Approval as submitted.• Approval with conditions and/or

recommendations.• Denial with clarifications as to the

committee’s action.• Deferral for resubmission with explanation

and recommendations

After M-U-TC Review Committee Meeting• The designated M-NCPPC staff member shall write

a summary report documenting the discussions, recommendations, and actions taken by the committee on each application reviewed during the meeting. When applicable, this report shall be forwarded to the Planning Director as part of the special permit (site plan) process or to the Department of Environmental Resources as part of the building permit application process.

• Approved applications shall be stamped by the M-U-TC committee to signify that the plans are in compliance with the plan vision, design standards and guidelines, and implementation strategies.

• Applications approved with conditions or recommendations will need to be revised prior to being stamped by the M-U-TC committee to show that the proposal complies with the plan vision, design standards and guidelines, and implementation strategies.

• The applicant may appeal decisions made by the M-U-TC committee to the Prince George’s County Planning Board through the special permit process.

D.8


Application Submission Requirements

The applicant shall submit twelve copies of all relevant building, site plan and/or signage information required for the submission to show compliance with the plan vision, design standards and guidelines, and implementation strategies. The following information is recommended as possibly being necessary for the type of project work proposed:

PhotographsThe application shall include comprehensive exterior photographs of the building, structure, or site in question. Since the building, structure, or site is in a historic district, the application shall also include photographs of the adjacent buildings and immediate neighborhood. All photographs shall be of good quality, clearly showing the area to be affected by the proposed work.

Architectural Drawings• Existing Conditions Plans

Property lines, adjacent structures, and existing buildings shall be drawn to an architectural or engineering scale.

• Extent of Work The application shall clearly show the extent to which the existing building or structure is to be preserved, altered, or demolished. An application for demolition shall include architectural plans or diagrams clearly showing the extent of proposed demolition.

• Site Plan The site plan shall include the following: property lines dimensioned, building location, parking, vehicular and pedestrian access points, and all proposed improvements.

•• Architectural Plans

An application shall include architectural plans or model photographs sufficient to indicate the general massing, composition, or design of the proposed work within its surroundings. Plans shall be drawn to scale, fully dimensioned with important measurements, including overall width, length, and height.

• Elevation and Section Drawings Elevations and sections shall show all façades, including information such as building height,

floor-to-floor height, architectural features, detailing, openings (including windows and doors), façade materials, and color. Drawings shall clearly show the exterior design of the proposed new work within its surrounding and adjacent context. The application shall clearly show the proposed color and/or finish and texture of materials to be used for all new elements. Finish, color, and textures of adjacent existing materials must be provided (in photographs or drawings) for comparison to new work.

• Parking Plan and Layout Where applicable, a parking plan and layout shall be submitted, including documentation illustrating how proposed shared parking or proposed reductions in parking numbers may be implemented.

• Signage For any sign submission, details shall include dimensions, location plan (dimensioned), materials proposed, colors, and any proposed lighting.

• Other Components Additional components such as proposed site lighting, building lighting, fencing, screening, low screen walls, and other site or building components not noted above shall be submitted with the application so that a total understanding of the new development, addition, renovation, alteration, or signage may be apparent during the review process.

D.9


*TYPICAL COUNTY PERMIT REVIEW AGENCIES

HEALTH DEPARTMENT, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH (DEH)

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION (DPW&T)

PRINCE GEORGE’S SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT (SCD)

WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION (WSSC)

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, PERMITS AND REVIEW GROUP (PRG)

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS GROUP (LIG)

MOUNT RAINIER TOWN CENTER DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE

PERMIT PROCESS INITIATED FOR CITY OF MOUNT RAINIER

MIXED USE TOWN CENTER

PERMIT REVIEW AGENCIES* INCLUDING DER AND

M-NCPPC

BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS INITIATED FOR PRINCE

GEORGE’S COUNTY

REJE

CTIO

N/

REVI

SIO

N

INITIAL M-NCPPC STAFF PROJECT

REVIEW

PROJECT WITH USE/ZONING ISSUES

BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED

CITY OF MOUNT RAINIER PERMIT APPROVED

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY PERMIT APPROVED

Design Review Process|Non-Historic Properties

PROJECT WITH NO ISSUES

D.10


Design Review Process|Historic Properties

*TYPICAL COUNTY PERMIT REVIEW AGENCIES

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES (DER)



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION (DPW&T)

PRINCE GEORGE’S SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT (SCD)

WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION (WSSC)

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, PERMITS AND REVIEW GROUP (PRG)

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES, LICENSES AND INSPECTIONS GROUP (LIG)

BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED

MOUNT RAINIER TOWN CENTER DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE

PERMIT PROCESS INITIATED FOR CITY OF MOUNT RAINIER

MIXED USE TOWN CENTER

PERMIT REVIEW AGENCIES* INCLUDING DER AND

M-NCPPC

DEVELOPMENT REVIEW

BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS INITIATED FOR PRINCE

GEORGE’S COUNTY

REJE

CTIO

N/

REVI

SIO

N

INITIAL M-NCPPC STAFF PROJECT

REVIEW

PROJECT WITH USE/ZONING ISSUES

HISTORIC AREA WORK PERMIT PROCESS INITIATED

HISTORIC AREA WORK PERMIT FOR

PROJECTS W/MINOR ALTERATIONS

(STAFF APPROVED)

HISTORIC AREA WORK PERMIT FOR PROJECTS

W/MAJOR ALTERATIONS(HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION APPROVED)

HISTORIC AREA WORK PERMIT APPROVED

CITY OF MOUNT RAINIER PERMIT APPROVED

PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY PERMIT APPROVED

D.11


Historic District

The M-U-TC study area is entirely contained within the U.S. National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Mount Rainier Historic District, rendering the whole M-U-TC as a federally recognized historic site.

The M-U-TC area contains approximately ninety properties; forty-six are listed on the Maryland Historical Trust’s Inventory of Historic Properties and four of these are listed or proposed Prince George’s County protected historic properties. Sixteen additional properties are “contributing” historic properties to the National Register district.

A large number of “contributing” historic properties, which are properties built within the official period of significance (late 1890s to early 1940s for the Mount Rainier Historic District), still exist with varying degrees of historic integrity and significantly influence the design character of the M-U-TC. The low-scale, one- to three-story mixture of mixed-use residential and commercial structures is a defining characteristic of the Mount Rainier downtown area. Detached, closely sited, single-family homes make up the bulk of the structures bordering and surrounding the M-U-TC study area.

Most of the commercial buildings in the Mount Rainier Historic District are located in the city’s historic downtown area, which traditionally contained a mixture of solely residential and mixed-used commercial-residential buildings, just as it does today.

The downtown includes the frontages that run along Rhode Island Avenue starting at the District line east to the Brentwood boundary, including the block of Perry Street east of 34th Street. It also includes the two blocks of 34th Street north of Rhode Island Avenue. Today the commercial district also extends a half a block of 34th Street south of Rhode Island Avenue.

The low level of integrity in many of the smaller structures will allow for sensitive and carefully crafted development of selected sites. This development can include historically compatible additions and new replacement buildings. The guidance included herein is designed to assist the M-U-TC review committee with analysis and review of new work, repair, and maintenance activities throughout the M-U-TC area.

The guidance should also foster new development, while maintaining the charm and small town feel of the City of Mount Rainier.

The Mount Rainier Historic District is integral to the design character of three districts within the M-U-TC area:

• Upper 34th Street• Rhode Island Avenue• Civic core/city center

cIty of mount raInIer.

Rhode Island Avenue

34th Street

City of Mount Rainier

Mount RainierHistoric District

M-U-TCBoundary

D.12


Levels of Protection Designation—Rating Levels

level of ProtectIon to exIstInG buIldInGs wItHIn tHe m-u-tc boundary area.

37th

Stre

et

36th

Stre

et

Rhode Island Avenue

Eastern Avenue

Perry Street

Bunker Hill Road

34th

Stre

et

35th Street

33rd

Stre

et

32nd

Stre

et

NHigh rating

Moderate rating

Low rating

Boundary

LEGEND

D.13


Levels of Protection DesignationRating LevelsThese rating levels were created during an analysis of existing conditions in order to ensure that the unique character of the M-U-TC area is maintained and enhanced. There following factors were considered in determining the levels of protection:

• Is a building listed or in the process of being listed on a historic register?

• Does a building contribute to the history of the Mount Rainier area or relate to a significant period in the development of Prince George’s County?

• Has the architectural integrity of a building been maintained?

• What level of renovation is needed to restore a building to its original state?

HIGH RatingThe most significant properties are either identified as significant Prince George’s County historic resources or listed in the Maryland Historical Trust inventory, or both. These properties are considered to be outstanding, unique, or good examples of architecture, engineering, or design. Some are unique to the Mount Rainier area and are indicative of local vernacular forms and building techniques. Others are noteworthy examples of late 19th and early 20th century architectural types, styles, and forms, erected using local building materials and construction technologies. Properties designated with a high rating are to be the most protected from alteration and demolition and context-altering adjacent construction.

MODERATE RatingThese properties may or may not be identified as architecturally significant on an individual basis, but they are nonetheless valuable resources that add to the historic district’s overall character. The properties may be so ranked due to their proximity or contribution to the social, cultural, historic, architectural, or archeological character of the historic district or surrounding properties. These properties may have been moderately altered but generally retain their historic integrity to a good or moderate degree. Properties designated with a medium rating shall be protected from demolition and where possible, will be required or encouraged to maintain or improve existing architectural features.

LOW RatingThese are properties that minimally enhance the M-U-TC historic district’s ability to convey a sense of time and place. They may be typical examples of more recent, common local-building forms, architectural styles, or plan types. They may be examples of distinctive building forms, architectural styles, or plan types that have been significantly altered but which nevertheless may have relative value within the historic district, meriting preservation. Structures or other improvements with a low rating may be considered for relocation or demolition upon a determination by the M-U-TC review committee or the County Historic Preservation Commission—with little or no consequence to the historical, cultural, architectural, or archeological character of the district. These buildings may also be candidates for extensive renovation to bring back original character-defining elements.

D.14


District Character Overview

Upper 34th Street

The intersection of 34th Street and Bunker Hill Road functions as a focal point for a mixture of regional-destination and local neighborhood-serving commercial uses. It has a classic four corner center point, with access into the adjoining neighborhoods in all directions. An intimate pedestrian and vehicular feel is reinforced by the relatively narrow street section and a mostly contiguous street frontage of improved and occupied properties. The setting features supporting cultural and faith-based institutional uses in the immediate adjoining blocks. The street corners are anchored by low scale historic buildings that have retained much of their original character over time.

The distinct character of Upper 34th Street is the critical foundation for guiding future development directions. Providing subtle clues to what 34th Street was in the mid-twentieth century, the existing building fabric presents powerful images. With some noted exceptions, the existing buildings are appropriate for retail mixed use and deserve to be preserved to celebrate their original design.

Market support for the location does not call for substantially increased intensity of use. There is limited reason to contemplate replacing the existing structures with larger structures. While there are longer term opportunities for some infill on current vacant sites, the vision of the future for this area of downtown

should be mostly focused on improving the existing architectural fabric.Existing businesses, most notably Glut, cannot be taken for granted, and must be given special attention regarding ongoing viability. In the same way, new businesses—in particular a possible full service restaurant —will have specific needs that need to be addressed to help drive development-plan decision making.

Design Summary• Maintain a main street character for 34th Street.• Build new buildings on the property line facing

public streets, with no setbacks except for grandfathered conditions.

• Concentrate retail storefronts near the intersection of Bunker Hill Road and 34th Street; mixed-use retail, office, and residential should be placed elsewhere.

• Maintain buildings that are one to three stories in height.

• Convert some residential buildings into small-scale retail and office.

• Use natural materials for buildings.• Instal pedestrian-scaled signage.

D.15


Rhode Island Avenue

In contrast to the focused neighborhood feel of upper 34th Street, Rhode Island Avenue serves multiple and, at times, conflicting purposes. Its establishment as a critical transportation corridor underpins its role and market potential but can also negatively impact the adjacent neighborhood’s residential experience. With an ample right of way, this avenue tends to divide the respective sides of the street (north and south), relying more on parallel linear connections and proximity to provide the predominant retail cohesiveness. This characteristic is vividly illustrated in the profoundly different levels of economic activity that differentiate the north and south sides of Rhode Island Avenue.

As we look to implementing the plan vision in this area, this seemingly negative condition of a wide expanse of the avenue will provide opportunities to facilitate the construction of taller buildings to the property line, while still allowing for wide spaces to accommodate on-street parking, bike lanes, pedestrians, outdoor retail, and other open-space uses. Entering the city from Washington, D.C., Rhode Island Avenue projects a strong sense of arrival in Mount Rainier as well as one of substantial potential for growth. The Funkhouser Building sets the tone at the District line, and the traffic circle provides a constant visual and functional focal point for downtown. The mixture of older and newer buildings along Rhode Island Avenue represents diverse design possibilities for new development on infill sites. It also provides a template

for existing structures ready to be renovated as new infill takes hold.

With its historical elements and existing businesses, Rhode Island Avenue has the contributing factors of location, visibility and existing economic base to help propel needed new development. The scale and site orientation of the prospective redevelopment sites are particularly well suited to medium-sized residential uses.

Design Summary• Maintain a boulevard character for Rhode Island

Avenue.• Construct most new buildings on the property line

facing public streets; a setback is required along the north side of Rhode Island Avenue.

• Concentrate retail storefronts on or near Singer Triangle and south Rhode Island Avenue; new residential buildings are recommended elsewhere.

• Construct three- to five-story infill buildings.• Use modern materials for new civic buildings.• Introduce slightly larger signs along Rhode Island

Avenue to enhance their visibility.

D.16


The civic core/city center area of downtown Mount Rainier is multifunctional on a variety of levels. The intersection of 34th Street and Rhode Island Avenue is distinguished by prominent public spaces and a variety of buildings representative of Mount Rainier’s historic past. As a natural focal point for civic identity, this central area includes city hall, a library, an historic assembly building, faith-based institutions, a mix of commercial businesses, some residential presence, and an existing, though limited bus transportation hub. One cannot pass through Mount Rainier without noting these distinct and defining elements of downtown.

The central spine of public space elements of the civic core/city center extends from the existing library and Mount Rainier City Hall westward through the traffic circle to the Singer Building triangle, with its corner park space facing back towards city hall. This mostly-built environment of the civic core/city center begins to establish the public streetscape of the district with the notable exception of the bus waiting area. The high profile of the civic core with its visible location along Rhode Island Avenue demands that priority be given to its most critical components.

Design Summary• Maintain the civic center character that exists

around the city hall.• Construct new buildings on the property line

facing public streets; with no setbacks except for grandfathered conditions.

• Civic and residential uses are recommended.• Build three- to four-story infill buildings.• Use modern materials for unique additions and

transit buildings.• Use larger signs on Rhode Island Avenue to enhance

their visibility.


D.17


Urban Design Plan

The urban design plan describes the framework between inter-related plan elements: three districts, potential land-use, retail focus, pedestrian improvements, transit positioning, significant civic buildings and new infill opportunities. The following urban design plan provides detailed boundaries for district areas, retail storefront focus zones, open space, major development opportunities, and infrastructure improvements within the M-U-TC study area.

LEGEND

District–Rhode Island Avenue

District–Upper 34th Street

District–Civic core/city center

Open space

Parcel

Civic buildings

New infill/major renovation opportunity sites

Retail storefront focus

Existing crosswalk

New crosswalk

Five minute walk

Bus transit stop

Boundary

Commercial/office optional focus

Rhode Island Avenue

Bunker Hill Road

Perry Street

5 Minute Walk

34th

Stre

et

36th

Stre

et

35th Street

33rd

Stre

et

32nd

Stre

et

Eastern AvenueN

D.18


Public Space

Mount Rainier’s public space is defined by streets, sidewalks, street trees, lighting, furniture, pedestrian and bike amenities, and civic open areas.

This section describes design standards and guidelines that best reflect district characters defined in the plan vision.

The primary objective of the streetscape guidelines is to develop a plan that promotes an environment

supporting a multi-modal approach to mobility through the City of Mount Rainier.

The streetscape and public space standards for the M-U-TC Zone include guidelines related to the planned roadway cross-sections, pavement specifications for crosswalks and pedestrian zones, parking lot paving features, and updated parking meter equipment.

D.19


Along 34th Street between the Rhode Island Avenue circle and Bunker Hill Road, the sidewalks are extended two feet on both sides, reducing the parking lanes to a width of eight feet. On-street parking is also reconfigured to accommodate street trees within the parking lanes. Shared lane markings and bikeway signage will designate bicycle routes.

In order to provide for the installation of street trees along both sides of 34th Street, eight-foot curb extensions are introduced between groups of parallel parking spaces. Street tree grates are installed 52 feet on center, allowing for two parking spaces between each interval.

Public Space|Street Section—Upper 34th Street

ProPosed street sectIon: 34tH street, soutH of bunker HIll road, lookInG soutH.

ProPosed street Plan: 34tH street, soutH of bunker HIll road.

GuidelinesUpper 34th Street (South of Bunker Hill Road)

D.20


Guidelines Upper 34th Street (North of Bunker Hill Road)

The cross section of 34th Street north of Bunker Hill Road and south of the Rhode Island Avenue circle will be maintained as part of this plan. The existing curb-to-curb cross section of 34th Street north of Bunker Hill Road is 38 feet, and consists of an eight-foot southbound parking lane, a ten-foot southbound travel lane, a ten-foot northbound parking lane, and a ten-foot northbound travel lane. Shared lane markings and bikeway signage will designate the bicycle routes.

At all of the corners of the intersection of 34th Street and Bunker Hill Road, except the northwest corner, curb extensions are proposed to minimize the pedestrian crossing distances at this location.

Public Space|Street Section—Upper 34th Street

ProPosed street sectIon: 34tH street, nortH of bunker HIll road, lookInG soutH.

ProPosed vIsIon: uPPer 34tH street.

D.21


Public Space|Street Section—Rhode Island Avenue

GuidelinesRhode Island Avenue Along Rhode Island Avenue between Eastern Avenue and the Rhode Island Avenue circle, the planned curb-to-curb cross section is 75 feet, which includes one eight-foot eastbound parking lane, two 11-foot eastbound travel lanes, one 13-foot wide landscaped median, one eight-foot westbound parking lane, and two 11-foot westbound travel lanes. In the new Rhode Island Street section, the travel lane and median widths are not modified.

ProPosed street sectIon: rHode Island avenue, west of tHe traffIc cIrcle, lookInG west.

ProPosed vIsIon: rHode Island avenue.

D.22


ProPosed condItIons: nortH sIde of rHode Island avenue, lookInG west.

GuidelinesRhode Island Avenue (North)

The new street section modifies the parking lanes, public rights-of-way, sidewalks and setbacks on private property.

The effective result of implementing the plan vision is that the north sidewalk on Rhode Island Avenue is widened by six feet, and the parking lane is reduced to eight feet.

A six-foot wide cycle track shall be built adjacent to the parking lane, leaving space for a five-foot wide planting zone and a 14-foot sidewalk.

Street trees and street lamps are placed alternately at a spacing of 15 feet on center.

Rhode Island Avenue (South)

The parking lane width is reduced to a width of 10 feet, making room for a new six-foot wide cycle track and a four-foot wide planting zone.

At all of the corners of the intersection of 33rd Street and Rhode Island Avenue, curb extensions are proposed to minimize pedestrian crossing distances.

ProPosed condItIons: soutH sIde of rHode Island avenue, lookInG west.

Public Space|Street Section—Rhode Island Avenue

D.23


Public Space|Street Plan—Rhode Island Avenue

ProPosed street Plan: rHode Island avenue, nortH sIde.

D.24


GuidelinesPedestrian Crosswalks and Zones

The plan vision outlines a pedestrian precinct for the M-U-TC Zone that incorporates elements to facilitate pedestrian crossing. The plan identifies a new crosswalk on Rhode Island Avenue just east of Eastern Avenue, which would complete the network of crosswalks at this intersection. Additionally, the plan vision identifies a new crosswalk just east of 33rd Street on Rhode Island Avenue that is proposed in conjunction with a pedestrian-activated crosswalk signal. The installation of this crosswalk should incorporate stamped concrete features that provides texture and color to emphasize the new pedestrian crossing location.

Additionally, the reconfiguration of the intersection of Bunker Hill Road and 34th Street is recom-mended to emphasize the pedes-trian crossings and environment at this location. The reconfiguration of this intersection includes providing a series of stamped concrete cross-walks on all approaches as well as a colored interior of the intersection to identify this location as a place where pedestrians are welcome. An alternative reconfiguration consists of introducing a raised intersection where the crossw alks and the center of the intersection are located at a higher level than the streets approaching the intersection. This treatment causes the motorists to slow down through the intersec-tion due to the change in grade.

Public Space|Pedestrian Crosswalks and Zones

examPle of a PedestrIan Zone.

m-u-tc PedestrIan Zones and crosswalks.

examPle of a PedestrIan crosswalk.

Rhode Island Avenue

Bunker Hill Road

Perry Street

34th

Stre

et

35th Street

33rd

Stre

et

32nd

Stre

et

Eastern Avenue Pedestrian zone

Existing crosswalk

New crosswalk

Boundary

LEGEND

D.25


Public Space|Surface Parking Lots

Standards and Guidelines

1. Surface parking lots shall be screened with walls, fences or hedges. Walls and/or fences must be a minimum of three feet and maximum of four feet in height. Hedges must be a maximum of six feet in height.

2. Hedges over four feet in height must be trimmed to allow drivers to have clear visibility.

3. Loading and service areas shall not be visible from the street.

4. Parking surfaces shall be paved with high-quality, durable, and permeable pavers.

5. Drive aisles may be paved with asphalt (optional).

an examPle of a surface ParkInG lot wItH Permeable PavInG.

fence and landscaPe street screenInG for ParkInG areas.

Permeable Pavers.

D.26


GuidelinesBicycle Facilities

The plan vision incorporates bicycle circulation through the M-U-TC Zone with planned facilities on 34th Street north of the Rhode Island Avenue traffic circle and on Rhode Island Avenue between the traffic circle and Eastern Avenue. Given the right-of-way constraints on 34th Street, the bicycle route planned for 34th Street consists of a bicycle route shared with vehicles on 34th Street in both directions. This recommendation is implemented with the placement of appropriate pavement markings and associated signage. The graphics below show the appropriate pavement marking specification and sign specification in compliance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

On the north side of Rhode Island Avenue, the bicycle facility is incorporated into the sidewalk as a separate six-foot wide bicycle track adjacent to the curb and on-street parallel parking. This cycle track allows for an exclusive path for bicycles adjacent to the moving track, but separated from the moving vehicular traffic by parked vehicles on the north side of Rhode Island Avenue.

Public Space|Bike Facilities

examPle of a cycle track.

sHarrow markInG sPecIfIcatIons.

D.27


Public Space|Sidewalks and Street Trees

Standards and GuidelinesSidewalks

1. Sidewalks shall be made of durable, attractive materials that are pedestrian-scaled. Decorative paving materials, such as brick, precast, and granite pavers, are recommended.

2. Special art paving installations are recommended in areas with high visibility.

Standards and GuidelinesStreet Trees

1. Street trees are required along both 34th Street and Rhode Island Avenue. (Please refer to the street plans on pages D.18 and D.22 for appropriate spacing.)

2. Low maintenance tree species with large canopies shall be used. The following chart outlines recommended maple, ash, oak and linden trees. More trees can be found in the Prince George’s County Landscape Manual (2010).

sIdewalk and street tree IllustratIon.

Recommended Street Trees (Shade)

Species Type/Name Scientific Name

Maple Trees:• Red Maple • Acer rubrum cultivars

Ash Trees:• Autumn Purple White Ash• Blue Ash

• Fraxinus americana• Fraxinus excelsior

Oak Trees:• Scarlet Oak• Willow Oak• Red Oak• Black Oak

• Quercus coccinea• Quercus phellos• Quercus rubera• Quercus veluntina

Linden Trees:• American Linden• Greenspire Littleleaf• Crimean Linden• Silver Linden

• Tilia americana• Tilia cordata “Greenspire”• Tilia euchlora• Tilia tomentosa

D.28


Standards and GuidelinesLighting

1. New street lamps on 34th Street shall use the existing Mount Rainier lamp standard: Pole—Phillips HADCO P20 or P21 series, with fluted column (black). Lamp—Phillips HADCO Hagerstown or equivalent.

2. A double-headed lamp design, based on the existing lamp standard, shall be used along Rhode Island Avenue and around the civic core.

3. New lamps shall not exceed 15 feet in height and should provide appropriate levels of illumination (see street plans).

Public Space|Lighting

34tH street. rHode Island avenue. cIvIc core/cIty center.

4. Energy-efficient lights are recommended for all public lighting in order to conserve energy and reduce long-term costs.

D.29


Site Design

This section describes site design standards and guidelines that best reflect district characters defined in the plan vision.

D.30


Site Design|Uses and Retail Focus


Buildings in the M-U-TC area shall have appropriate uses, as listed under “uses permitted” in the 2004 Gateway Arts District Sector Plan (page 167). The M-U-TC study area is in the “town center” district character classification in that plan.

Properties with primary retail focus areas should have pedestrian-scale storefronts facing the public realm.

These properties are recommended locations for active retail uses, such as restaurants and stores.

Properties with secondary retail focus areas are recommended for small scale office and retail, and may not necessarily require active retail storefronts.

PrImary and secondary retaIl focus areas.

Bunker Hill Road

Rhode Island Avenue

Eastern Avenue

Perry Street

34th

Stre

et

36th

Stre

et

35th Street33

rd St

reet

32nd

Stre

et

NPrimary retail focus

Secondary retail focus

Boundary

LEGEND

D.31



1. New buildings shall have a primary façade oriented towards 34th Street, Perry Street, and Rhode Island Avenue. Buildings in downtown Mount Rainier shall create a consistent street wall that provides a sense of enclosure to the public space.

2. Buildings with façades on both 34th Street and Rhode Island Avenue must have two primary façades.

3. For new buildings without a required setback, the build-to lines are property lines directly abutting street rights-of-way.

Site Design|Orientation, Build-to Line and Frontage

4. All new buildings shall have a primary building façade on the build-to line. The building’s frontage will cover 80 percent minimum of the total build-to line.

5. Properties with no alley access may have a side setback to allow vehicle access.

6. Existing residential buildings should have fences lining the build-to line. Front building additions may extend to the build-to line, as long as they are sensitive to the existing structure and do not conceal the architectural integrity of the building.

D.32


Site Design|Height


1. First stories shall be 15'-0" maximum floor to floor (including properties with ground floor retail).

2. Additional stories shall be 10'-0"minimum to 12'-0" maximum floor to floor.

3. The building at the corner of Site A may have five stories as shown on the diagram above.

maxImum buIldInG HeIGHts wItHIn tHe m-u-tc boundary area.

AN

Bunker Hill Road

Rhode Island Avenue

Eastern Avenue

Perry Street

34th

Stre

et

36th

Stre

et

35th Street33

rd St

reet

32nd

Stre

et

One story

Two to three stories

Three to four stories

Boundary

LEGEND

D.33


Site Design|Setbacks and Massing

Standards

Setbacks from all streets shall maintain a continuous wall of buildings in the M-U-TC study area. This has the effect of defining the built environment, and also defines the public space of the street. Exceptions may be granted in cases where former residential units are not built to an existing building line, and where the existing front yard contributes to the quality of the street.

1. Infill buildings shall be built flush to adjacent buildings.

2. New building façades shall maintain the established setbacks of the area.

3. Exceptions may be granted if the setback is pedestrian oriented and contributes to the quality and character of the main street.

4. Main entrances shall be oriented towards the street.

5. Building alignment shall be maintained at the sidewalk edge.

ProPosed street sectIon at rHode Island avenue adjacent to new InfIll resIdentIal, lookInG west.

Three sTories (min.)Five sTories (max.)

D.34


Site Design|Massing—Rhode Island Avenue Infill Site

Standards

1. Buildings on properties on the north side of Rhode Island Avenue, between Eastern Avenue and 34th Street (funeral home, Bass, Thrifty’s, gas station properties, 3200–3220 Rhode Island Avenue, Single Triangle) shall maintain the existing setback.

2. New development at the Funeral Home-Bass-Thrifty’s site shall have a residential garden-type wall constructed at the property line along Rhode Island Avenue.

ProPosed sIte Plan at tHe rHode Island avenue new InfIll resIdentIal sIte.

3. New development at this site shall utilize fence and landscape buffers to the north side, along the rear lot line.

Garden wall

D.35


Standards

1. Walls and fences shall be a minimum of three feet high and not exceed four feet.

2. Walls and fences shall be made of durable and attractive natural materials, such as brick, wood and wrought iron. Walls and/or fences must be maintained by property owners, so that they do not fall into disrepair (i.e. chipped paint, crumbling walls, etc.).

3. Unclad cinder block, chain-link fencing, barbed wire, corrugated metal, fiberglass, sheet metal, and wire mesh are prohibited.

4. Dumpsters, HVAC units, and utility equipment shall be completely screened from public space with landscaping and/or screen walls.

Site Design|Walls, Fences, and Screening

5. Mechanical equipment located on rooftops must be screened from view from adjacent buildings and streets.

6. Satellite dishes or antennas shall be located on the least visible areas of buildings, and if located on roofs, the elements shall be moved back from the roof edges and out of view from the street.

7. Parking lots must be entirely screened from the public space with low walls, fences, and/or landscaping. If landscaping is used, shrubs must be at least two feet in height at the time of planting.

examPle of fencInG tHat delIneates tHe edGe of tHe PublIc realm.

dIaGram sHowInG fence HeIGHt.

D.36


Site Design | Outdoor Seating

Guidelines

1. Businesses, especially restaurants, are encouraged to provide outdoor seating.

2. Outdoor seating areas should be placed in informal open spaces in front of, beside, and between buildings. These areas may be enclosed by walls, fences, and/or plantings.

3. Outdoor furniture should be durable, high-quality, easy to maintain, and designed to withstand outdoor use. Furniture color and materials should be compatible with building color and materials.

ProPosed outdoor seatInG In front of buIldInGs wItH a setback.

examPle of an outdoor seatInG area on tHe sIde of a restaurant In tHe del ray neIGHborHood of alexandrIa, vIrGInIa.

D.37


Standards

Lighting can add special character to the nighttime appearance of the downtown. It can illuminate a building entrance, pedestrian walkway, or advertising. It can also highlight special landmark buildings.

1. A coordinated lighting plan shall be submitted for review with building plans. Lighting plans shall address security and safety issues.

2. Lighting fixture placement and type shall be integrated into the overall design of the project. Lighting elements should help unify the building composition at night.

3. High intensity security lighting fixtures shall be directed away from adjoining properties and public rights-of-way.

Site Design|Lighting

examPle of a lIGHt fIxture used In PublIc sPace at tHe reston town center. examPle of a lIGHt fIxture used alonG a streetscaPe In mInneaPolIs, mInnesota

4. Lighting fixtures shall be energy efficient and in scale with the height and use of the structures.

5. Colored lighting shall be used to complement and highlight buildings, signs or public space while achieving harmony with street lighting in the downtown area.

6. Lighting color, intensity, and fixture design shall be compatible with historic building features.

D.38


Architectural Elements

This section describes architectural standards and guidelines that best reflect district characters defined in the plan vision.

D.39



Building façades provide the business area with human scale and small-town atmosphere. Façades are held together by a common building line, close proximity, and shared façade elements:

• A first floor with large display windows and recessed entrances.

• An upper façade with more wall and smaller regularly spaced windows or, in the case of one-story buildings, a wide wall band.

• The detailed cornice, pediment, or roof that crowns the building.

Building alterations shall respect and incorporate these original elements:

1. Blank walls are discouraged because they disrupt the street pattern and make it uninviting. Large windows and the decorative wall band at their top shall be emphasized in storefronts.

2. Upper story windows generally have a repeated pattern that ties together the façade. Windows and doors should be aligned and uniform window sizes used to bring order to the façade.

Architectural Elements|Façades and Fenestration

3. The size and proportion of windows and door openings should reflect the historic character of the M-U-TC and be compatible with adjacent façades.

4. If a window has deteriorated or is missing, the replacement should match the original. For example, a double-hung sash window should not be replaced by a single pane of glass. Existing openings should never be blocked or filled in with a stock window. As well as matching the design, the replacement materials should match original windows as much as possible.

5. Install new or enlarged windows or doors with careful consideration of façade composition, scale, and materials of the original building.

6. Building alterations shall preserve and restore original historic details, such as openings, cornices, lintels, and arches.

examPle of a storefront wItH larGe fIrst-floor dIsPlay wIndows.

50% GlassminimUm

D.40


Architectural Elements|Storefronts


Storefronts built from 1900 to 1940 featured large storefront windows, wood panels below the windows and transom windows above. Doors were generally wood and glass. Surviving wood-framed store windows are rare and should be valued and restored. Recessed entries were also typical and should be preserved since they provide a place for the door to swing out without danger of hitting a passerby.

1. Whenever possible, storefront restoration should return the façade to its original character and reopen windows and transoms.

2. Replacement display windows should be large, single- or multi-paned openings allowing views into the window display area.

3. Façades with storefronts shall have a minimum 50 percent windows with clear glass at the ground floor, and be attractive and inviting to customers. Creative and colorful display of merchandise is encouraged.

4. Storefront windows shall extend to at least eight feet above the sidewalk. The window base shall not exceed 30 inches in height.

5. Mirrored, dark, or heavily tinted glass is not permitted.

6. Storefront windows shall not be bricked or paneled. Bars and grills should be removed from windows.

examPle of a storefront In GeorGetown.

D.41



Unsightly mechanical equipment, dumpsters, satellite dishes, and other visually obtrusive mechanical equipment can detract from the appearance of the M-U-TC area. The following guidelines are intended to restrict the placement of mechanical equipment so that it will not be highly visible:

1. Air conditioning units protruding from windows obscure storefronts and drip on pedestrians. Units should be placed on the side or back façades whenever possible. If a storefront location cannot be avoided, the unit should be mounted flush with the exterior wall surface.

2. Exterior trash and storage areas, service yards, loading areas, transformers, satellite dishes, and air conditioning units shall be concealed from view of nearby streets and adjacent structures in a manner that is compatible with the building and site design. All roof equipment shall be screened from public view.

Architectural Elements|Utilities and Mechanical Equipment

3. Unsightly rooftop mechanical equipment shall be lowered below sight lines from the street or screened and painted to blend with the building. Mechanical equipment should be screened with rooflines, walls, fences, awnings, canopies, and parapets whose design and material is compatible with the style of the building.

examPles of walls and landscaPInG used to conceal mecHanIcal equIPment.

D.42



1. Metal bars and solid metal rolling gates are not permitted on windows or doors. Existing solid gates shall be phased out over time.

2. Storefronts shall provide clear views of interior spaces lit from within at night.

3. For interim security needs, perforated rolling gates are recommended as a security device.

4. If used, permanent, perforated security gates shall be installed in the interior of storefront windows.

5. Chain-link fences and barbed wire are prohibited.

Architectural Elements|Security

Perforated securIty screen wItH clear vIews Into InterIor sPaces at nIGHt. examPle of ProHIbIted solId roll Gates.

D.43


Architectural Elements| Color, Lighting, and Material


Color and LightingColors shall enhance or highlight the original or historic character of the building and be compatible with the historic feel of downtown Mount Rainier.

1. Buildings shall use a limited palette of paint colors (no more than three: one base color and one or two colors for trim or accents). Walls with artwork and murals are exempted.

2. Lighting fixtures should carefully blend in with building architecture. Lights highlighting architectural features, such as cornices and openings, are encouraged.

MaterialsSiding Natural wood or composite equivalent (eg. hardiplank) is permitted. Synthetic siding (eg. vinyl and aluminum) is not permitted.

Stucco Surfaces finished in stucco should be smooth and hand-troweled. Spray-on stucco finishes and exterior insulation and finish systems (EIFS) are discouraged.

Masonry Walls should be made of brick or natural stone. Masonry should retain its natural color and not be painted over.

examPle of color, lIGHtInG, and materIals workInG toGetHer to create a unIfIed façade.

D.44


Architectural Elements|Porches and Front Yards


1. Porch additions should enhance and blend with building architecture.

2. Open space between the lot line and building face should be enclosed by walls, fences or vegetation.

3. For commercial/retail uses, freestanding, pedestrian scaled signage may be placed in front yards.

4. Dumpsters, HVAC units, and utility equipment shall be completely screened and not visible from public sidewalks.

ProPosed front yard ImProvements.

examPle of a retaIl use wItH a front PorcH.

D.45


vIsIon for an addItIon to tHe eastern star buIldInG.

Architectural Elements|Additions


Additions to historic buildings are sometimes necessary to extend their functional or economic life. It is important to consider the effect that the addition’s location, size, and exterior appearance will have on an existing building. When deciding where to locate an addition, its visibility from a public right-of-way, the importance of the elevation to which it is attached, and the effect it will have on the overall form and character of a historic building should be carefully considered. The height, width, proportions, rhythm of windows and doors, roof shape, ornamentation, projections, and materials of the addition all contribute to its appearance.

The design of new side additions to older buildings should be distinct and should be differentiated as new elements so that they do not appear to have always examPle of a modern rooftoP addItIon to a buIldInG

D.46


Architectural Elements|Additions

existed. Compatibility, without duplication, or through appropriate contrast, ensures that the evolution of buildings can be seen, and that a false sense of their history is not created. Additionally, the design of additions should not make them look older than the original buildings.

Front Additions Some existing front additions were constructed when residential or other types of buildings were converted to commercial uses. These additions were often built to the front property lines. Typically, they were designed as commercial storefronts. If the existing additions are compatible with the original buildings, they should be retained. If not, the building owners may/should consider their removal or alteration back to the original designs of the contributing structures.

Rear Additions The most common type of existing additions found in Mount Rainier are those located on the rear of commercial buildings or houses. They may have originally been constructed as part of the normal growth of businesses on the sites or they may be screened porches that were enclosed to increase living space in houses. In other cases, they have been designed in stark contrast to the existing rear elevations.

While the latter is not in keeping with the design principles for additions, a contrasting rear addition may be acceptable if it is not visible from a public street or alley and when it does not destroy existing character-defining details, ornamentation, and materials of a rear elevation. A new rear addition that can be seen from a public street or alley should be compatible with the design of the rear elevation of the existing building. If the new addition is not visible from the street or alley, a less compatibly designed addition may be acceptable.

Side Additions While not as common as rear or front additions, existing side additions can be found particularly on free-standing residential buildings. These include open side porches as well as enclosed rooms. Since side additions

can usually be seen from the public street, they should be compatible with the design of the original buildings, respecting their characters without duplicating them exactly.

An existing side addition that detracts from the appearance of the original building due to its incompatibility in scale, proportions, rhythm, materials, or other design principles, may be altered or removed after consultation with the M-U-TC review committee and the Historic Preservation Commission. A new side addition should be designed to be compatible with the original building.

Rooftop AdditionsThe small scale of Mount Rainier is further reinforced by the number of purpose-built one story buildings. These buildings seem to invite additions, especially when situated adjacent to larger scale multistory buildings. New rooftop additions shall be designed so that they are inconspicuous from the public rights-of-way, and should be set back from the primary elevations of buildings. Rooftop additions should not damage character-defining features of historic buildings such as parapets or cornice work. Additions should also not generally be larger than the buildings on which the additions are placed. With this guidance, the Mount Rainier small lot sizes and long vistas would eliminate most rooftop additions in the M-U-TC plan area.

Generally, rooftop additions should not be more than one story high, a height of two stories being the maximum. Rooftop additions are more compatible on buildings adjacent to taller buildings. The rooftop additions should be differentiated as new elements. However, the additions should still be compatible in scale, size of windows, orientation, detailing, roof slope, and material.

D.47


Guidelines

The removal of an existing addition should only be done after carefully considering its architectural and historic significance in consultation with M-NCPPC staff, the Historic Preservation Commission and the M-U-TC review committee. In some examples, the additions are clearly not contributing and their removal will assist in the “unveiling” of the original historic structure behind the additions. In this case, if an existing addition is not architecturally or historically significant, it may be possible to remove it without adversely altering the character of a building. In other cases, additions may have some historical significance but may actually be hindering the original buildings from contributing to the district in a more significant manner.

Architectural Elements|Subtractions

klIne’s bakery buIldInG, cIrca 1905.

klIne’s bakery buIldInG, today.

If a non-contributing addition is removed, any damage done to the original building should be repaired or replaced using physical, photographic, or other documentary evidence.

D.48


Architectural Elements|Former Residential with Non-Residential Use


Commercial buildings originally constructed as residences shall maintain their residential character:

1. Closing all or any portion of existing window and door openings is prohibited.

2. Façade upgrades shall not include aluminum or vinyl sidings that poorly imitate original materials.

3. Window openings on front façades at the first floor level shall be widened to create picture windows—with respect to the existing proportions of the structures.

4. Window openings above the first floor shall not be enlarged or altered.

5. Parking shall be located to the side or rear of the lot, never in the front yard; front yards should remain green space and be appropriately landscaped.

6. Signs shall be confined to windows, awnings, canopies, and small free-standing signs. Sign panels should be compatible with existing architectural elements and should not clutter or obstruct front façades.

7. Preserve porches and stoops where present. Owners are encouraged to restore front porches that have been removed.

8. Avoid enclosing front porches except when the design retains the open appearance of the porches.

examPle In mount raInIer of a resIdentIal buIldInG tyPe contaInInG a non-resIdentIal use.

D.49


Architectural Elements|Signage


Signs should relate to their surroundings in terms of size, shape, color, texture, and lighting so that they complement the architecture of buildings. Signage considerations range from the name of a business and its address to temporary sales and product information.

1. All proposed flush mount, projecting, and window signage—as well as banners and flags—shall be included in the building sign plans submitted for review by the county and M-U-TC review committee. Signage plans shall specify size, type, and location of all signs on or adjacent to buildings.

2. All signs shall be attached to building façades. Signs shall be flat against façades or mounted projecting from façades. Buildings with existing front yards may also have free-standing bracket signs (as part of allowable signage gross area).

3. The maximum gross area of signage shall be one gross square foot of signage for every linear foot of building frontage. Total signage should not exceed 10 percent of the building’s façade area (also see sign dimension restrictions).

4. Signs shall relate in color, size, and placement to building architecture. Signs shall not block, alter, or remove architectural details—such as windows, cornices, or decorative details—or extend beyond the roofline.

5. Signage plans shall be submit-ted for multi-tenant buildings. Their tenants shall coordinate and present unified signage strategies.

6. Street numbers should be posted in a legible size and their locations should be coordinated for buildings with multiple tenants.

7. Signs shall be externally lit with indirect light sources. Illuminated signs shall be designed to enhance the overall composition of façades. Sign illumination shall be focused and sufficient to illuminate the signs only.

8. Backlit signs are prohibited, with the exception of channel letter signs with individually-lit letters and numbers.

9. Street numbers located in transoms should be sized proportional to the openings.

10. Signs shall be made of attractive and durable materials, such as metal, wood, and glass. Signs should manifest professional quality and finish. Signs shall be properly repaired and maintained throughout the year.

tyPe and locatIon of sIGnaGe.

Flat / Pin Mounted Sign

Awning Sign

Window Sign

Hanging Signs

an examPle of HIstorIcally-comPatIble sIGnaGe.

D.50


add store address number

restore HIstorIc transom

storefront adHesIve wIndow sIGn locatIon

buIldInG sIGn band locatIon

11. Signs form an important visual element of urban streetscapes in historic downtown areas. Signs should play a secondary role and not detract from building architecture.

12. Signage is an integral component of a building’s overall presentation and character. Signage should not only help enhance the retail storefront, but also the building’s historic preservation goals.

13. The diagrams on this page illustrate a few simple signage and historic preservation steps that improve the character of retail buildings.


examPles of sIGnaGe and PreservatIon for HIstorIc buIldInGs.

fabrIcawnInG

HIstorIcally aPProPrIate

accent lIGHtInG

rePlace wItH PerIod comPatIble wIndow tyPe

and materIalbrIck rePoIntInG

and rePaIr

D.51


Pin-mounted signs

Hanging signs

Adhesive window signs


Architectural Elements|Signage Types

1. Individual letter signs should be mounted on the front of the building. Fastening hardware shall not be visible from the street.

2. Pin-mounted letters should use clear, bold fonts.

3. The size and position of signs shall fit within architectural features.

1. Adhesive signs shall not significantly obscure views into the interior of a retail establishment.

2. Window signs, including those advertising sales in any one window, shall not exceed 20 percent of the area of the window space.

3. Text displaying website addresses and phone numbers shall not exceed three inches in height.

1. Hanging signs shall be suspended from brackets and mounted perpendicular to façades.

2. Hanging signs shall be hung 10 feet (minimum) above the sidewalk, shall project no more than 42 inches from the face of buildings, and may not exceed a width of 3 feet on any side.

3. The size of a hanging sign shall be proportional to the building façade. Hanging signs are typically four square feet in gross area.

D.52


Large flat signs1. Flat signs are mounted flush

against the walls of buildings.2. Flat signs shall respect building

proportions and architectural features, such as bays and cornices.

3. Lettering height should not exceed 12 inches.

Plaque signs1. Signs shall manifest professional

quality and finish. Metal or cast metal are recommended materials for plaques.

2. Signs are recommended for professional offices and home-work studios.

3. Signs shall be located adjacent to the main entrances to businesses.

Free-standing bracket signs1. Free-standing bracket signs are

only appropriate for buildings with existing setbacks and defined front-yard conditions.

2. Bracket signs shall be independent from buildings and typically mounted on wood or metal posts. Signs shall be pedestrian-scaled (maximum post height—five foot and six inches).

3. Only bracket-type signs shall be used on freestanding posts. Pole-mounted signs, especially those scaled for auto visibility, are prohibited.

Architectural Elements|Signage Types

D.53


banner sIGns.

Temporary Signage

1. Temporary banner-style signs are an acceptable interim low-cost option for new businesses in Mount Rainier.

2. Temporary signs shall be reviewed by the M-U-TC committee and will require permits. Temporary sign permits shall be valid for six months.

3. By the end of the six month period, permanent signage shall be approved and installed.

Internally-lIt PlastIc sIGns.

Pole-mounted sIGns. wIndow sIGns.

Prohibited Sign Types


The following sign types are prohibited in the M-U-TC downtown area:

1. Animated, flashing or electronic scrolling signs.

2. Tall, free-standing, or oversized signs that visually overpower.

3. Pole-mounted signs.4. Internally lit plastic signs or

box signs.5. Vinyl signs, except for

temporary signage for which permits have been issued (see temporary signage).

6. Window signs that block interior views.

multIPle Permanent vInyl sIGns.

D.54


Architectural Elements|Awnings


Awnings and canopies are traditional methods to give pedestrians protection from the weather and to protect merchandise from the sun. They provide color and a three-dimensional quality to storefronts. Awnings and canopies can make plain utilitarian exteriors more attractive or tie together different buildings along a block. They can be used for signs if printed with the name, symbol, and street number of the store.

1. Awnings shall be made of durable fabric and may be fixed or retractable. The design and color should complement building architecture and the historic character of Mount Rainier.

2. Metal, plasticized, synthetic, and back-lit awnings are prohibited.

3. A standard street awning shall be mounted with its valance between eight and twelve feet above the sidewalk so it will not obstruct pedestrian flow. Awnings shall project out a maximum of four to six feet and are exempt from setback requirements.

4. Logos, text and other signage should not cover more than 30 percent of the awning surface. This

signage surface area counts towards the gross signage area of a façade.

5. The awning should be attached above the display windows and below the cornice or sign panel. Individual awnings should be installed over each separate opening.

6. The awning should emphasize the frame of the storefront and should not cover the piers or be too close to the upper floor window sills or the building’s cornice.

examPles of awnInGs.

dIaGram sHowInG awnInG HeIGHt dImensIons.

D.55


Other Guidelines

This section describes design recommendations for public art, sustainable initiatives, parking, and historic preservation.

D.56


Other Guidelines|Public Art

A Vision for Public Art

As part of the Gateway Arts District, the City of Mount Rainier plays a key role in enriching an environment that gives exposure to the arts on all levels, physical and performance. Public art enhances the experience of our public spaces and promotes the identity of a community that values creativity and expression. Forming the foundation of the city’s cultural identity, public art and arts space engage the resident, business person, and visitor in a way that enlivens experience of place.

The city should initiate an effort to further develop a public art and arts space plan for the M-U-TC area based upon the framework outlined in this section of the guidelines. Drawing upon the resources of the artist community and other interested citizens, elected officials, city staff, business leaders, and land owners, this plan should establish policies and initiatives relating to possible public art/art space locations, art projects eligible for public funding, artist selection procedures,

art ownership and copyright, community involvement, program administration, and maintenance. A strong arts policy and plan will provide a vehicle for the arts to play an increasing role in the everyday life of city residents.

Identification of Specific Project Opportunities

New Development Proposals for new infill development should provide for inclusion of public art amenities. The county and city may negotiate for inclusion of the public art amenity as part of the site plan process or permit process. If public art or art space is included as an element of a project, then the M-U-TC review committee should review the art proposal, incorporating input from Mount Rainier area artists, and make

D.57


recommendations to the M-NCPPC’s Prince George’s County Planning Department and the Planning Director regarding the appropriateness of the new art-related proposal as a part of the project.

Street Improvements, Public SpacesPublic art should be an integral part, where appropriate, of new Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects for the city, the county, and the state. City, county, and state staff should work with the M-U-TC review committee and the community to identify opportunities and recommendations early in the process. This would ensure that projects are identified and funded at the earliest possible stages of CIP projects aimed at improvement of streets or public space.

Integrating Art with Architecture, Landscape, and Infrastructure Design: Fostering Creative Collaborations

As the role of public art has evolved, the opportunity for creative collaboration between architects, engineers, and artists has increased dramatically. Art pieces are often created independently; however, the architect or engineer can collaborate with the artist on a wide range of projects. Taking an integrated approach to art will allow infrastructure, architectural, and landscape projects to take on new meaning and depth. Infrastructure projects such as new bus shelters, the civic green stage, and a sculpture on the traffic circle have been identified as just a few projects that could be enriched through creative collaboration.

Artists Selection Process and Competitions for Prominent Sites

The process used for selection of artists may include open competition, competition by invitation, or direct selection based on a body of work and credentials. Community involvement will also form an important element in the development of a public art project and related selection process. If a competition model is chosen, the artist would be asked to submit a proposal for review by a selection committee or design jury. For

very prominent sites, the proposals may be presented to the public through exhibitions or open meetings before the final jury selection is made. This public engagement methodology (on prominent sites) fosters open dialogue about the nature of particular project locations or designs.

Other Guidelines|Public Art

D.58


Other Guidelines|Sustainability

Energy

1. Roof-mounted photovoltaic or solar hot water panels are encouraged to reduce grid energy use. Photovoltaic panels should be installed as close to the ideal angle for solar gain as possible. Panels shall not be visible from the street.

2. All lighting should use high-performance or LED lighting systems, where possible.

Buildings

1. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards, as set forth by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC, www.usgbc.org), should be reviewed and integrated into design and construction processes for all new infill development and renovation projects, where this does not negatively impact buildings’ historic character.

2. Awnings, overhangs and mature trees should be planted to shade south-facing glazing. Natural light should be maximized within building interiors, in order to reduce long-term energy use. When possible, align fenestration on opposite sides of buildings to facilitate cross-ventilation.

3. The use of green materials is strongly recommended in both the exterior and interior finishes of buildings. These include recycled or salvaged materials, rapidly renewable materials, and local materials.

Water Management

1. Surface parking and driveway areas should be constructed of durable pervious paving materials to promote groundwater recharge.

2. Capture slow runoff using drainage swales, cisterns, rain gardens, and other devices.

3. Use low-flow water faucets, shower heads, washing machines, and other water-consuming devices, where possible.

4. Site grading, paving and planting should be done in a manner that minimizes off-site stormwater runoff.

Landscaping

1. Use-drought resistant or slow-growing hardy grasses, native plants, shrubs, ground covers, and trees.

2. Use captured rainwater or building greywater in lawn irrigation systems. Where possible, the use of potable water should be avoided in permanent irrigation systems.

examPles of raIn Gardens.

D.59


Other Guidelines|Parking Strategy

Parking Standards

1. Multifamily Residential DevelopmentThe minimum number of off-street parking spaces permitted is 1.0 spaces per new dwelling unit plus .75 spaces per bedroom in excess of one per unit.

2. Non-residential Development The minimum number of off-street parking spaces permitted is 50 percent of the minimum number of required off-street parking spaces in accordance with Section 27-568(a) of the Zoning Ordinance.

PotentIal sHared ParkInG locatIons.

On-Street Parking

1. Existing parking meters should be replaced with multispace pay-on-foot parking meters.

2. Parking meters that incorporate solar power as an energy source are recommended.

Shared Parking

1. The plan vision identifies five locations for a shared public-private parking arrangement; private properties would be improved so as to provide public parking for nearby retail uses.

2. Visible, easy-to-use wayfinding signs shall be used to direct drivers to shared parking lots.

Bunker Hill Road

Rhode Island Avenue

Perry Street

34th

Stre

et

36th

Stre

et

35th Street

33rd

Stre

et

32nd

Stre

et

Eastern Avenue

NPotential shared parking locations

Future below grade shared parking

Boundary

LEGEND

D.60


Other Guidelines|Historic Buildings

Purpose and Benefits of the M-U-TC Historic Preservation Guidelines

Historic designation is an important planning tool. It is a way to improve the quality of life and protect neighborhoods from unmanaged change. The M-U-TC Historic Preservation Guidelines pertain to the exteriors of historic buildings and are intended to assist owners, tenants, architects, contractors, and others with maintaining, preserving, and enhancing the architectural character of historic properties within the M-U-TC area. The guidelines address issues important to maintaining and preserving the character of neighborhoods and districts, such as the design of additions to historic buildings, construction of new buildings in the historic district, and ensuring that historic buildings shall accommodate the disabled. The guidelines also address sustainable design and energy conservation issues.

Rehabilitation and Alterations of Historic BuildingsRehabilitation and alterations are typically made to historic buildings to improve or change their use. Alterations may be confined to the interiors by upgrading furnaces, replacing electrical wiring, or altering the shapes of non-character defining spaces. Alterations may also be made to the exteriors of buildings or to their sites by: adding awnings and storm windows to improve thermal efficiency, making an addition, or changing the grade of sidewalks to accommodate the disabled. However, retaining and preserving architectural features that define historic buildings is essential to preservation. Any alterations that affect the appearances of historic buildings or their landscapes should be done in a manner that does not detract from their character-defining features, their sites, or neighborhoods within the M-U-TC area.

To the extent possible, inconsistent layers of siding, signage, and incompatible additions to storefronts and building façades shall be removed in order to emphasize the design and materials of the original buildings. Additions to historic buildings must be compatible with and enhance their character and that of the surrounding M-U-TC neighborhood. New designs may be appropriate if a building has been altered to the point that the original design has been destroyed. Any new design should respect the proportions as well as the

detailing of the original design and should use materials which are consistent with those used in the original buildings. In summary, the following points must be considered when dealing with the rehabilitation and alteration of historic buildings in the M-U-TC area:

• Avoid concealing original façade materials with new work.

• Use methods that minimize damage to original materials when the disassembly of historic elements is necessary for their rehabilitation.

• Replace missing architectural elements with accurate duplications of original features.

• Preserve older alterations that have achieved historical significance in themselves. More recent alterations that are not historically significant are allowed to be removed.

New Construction in the Historic DistrictNew buildings in the historic district shall be compatible with the character of the district and neighboring buildings without exactly duplicating a historic style or architectural period. New construction shall follow the same general principles as additions to historic buildings. Attention should be paid to the location of new buildings, particularly their setbacks and how they align with the front façades of neighboring buildings. In addition, attention should be paid to the height of new buildings, as well as their width, massing, proportions, rhythm of doors and windows, roof shapes, ornamentation, projections, and materials. Additionally, the landscaping of properties around the new constructions must be compatible with the historic district. Main building entrances shall face the street. In summary, the following points must be considered when dealing with the new construction in the M-U-TC area:

• Align the façades of new buildings with the established setbacks of the area.

• Make new buildings similar in mass and scale to historic structures in the area.

• Use building materials that are similar to those employed historically for all major surfaces.

• Emphasize horizontal features that can align with other buildings.

D.61


Maintenance Repair and ReplacementMaintenance of existing materials, elements, and systems forms the best method of preserving the character of historic buildings. However, no matter how well maintained, most historic buildings will eventually require repair. If feasible, repairs to a historic building shall be done so that original materials and elements remain intact. If this proves impossible for technical or economic reasons, the building owner shall replace the deteriorated portion with material that is compatible with the original material. This will help ensure that the historic character of the building is not altered. If, for technical or economic reasons, replacement with compatible material proves not to be feasible, the building owner may then consider replacing the deteriorated material or element with a reasonable substitute material. However, the substitute material shall have the same appearance, size, shape, texture, color, and other defining characteristics as the original. The substitute material shall also be physically and chemically compatible with adjacent materials, so that it does not cause future maintenance problems. In summary, the following points must be considered when dealing with maintenance repair and replacement in the M-U-TC area:

• Use only the gentlest procedures for cleaning, refinishing, and replacing historic materials.

• Avoid removing or altering any historic materials or significant architectural features.

• Where feasible, replace only the missing portions of original building elements.

• Consider compatible scale and materials where reconstruction of elements is impossible due to lack of historical evidence.

• Maintain the original size and shape of storefront openings.

• Preserve original roof forms.• Preserve original door and window locations.

Other Guidelines|Historic Buildings

D.62


Specific Building Recommendations

This section describes design recommendations for specific historic structures and other important buildings. Recommendations cover historic detailing, fenestration, masonry/material repair, additions, subtractions, signage, and other architectural elements.

D.63


Specific Building Renovation Recommendations

Lightbown Building(3840 34th Street)

• Provide new historically compatible storefront doors and windows.

• Provide historically compatible lighting.• Repair signage and/or sign band.• Repair/replace cornice and coping.• Replace second floor windows with historically

compatible windows.• Repair and point brick as necessary.

Old Kline’s Bakery(3401 Bunker Hill Road)

Short Term: • Provide a new historically compatible storefront,

doors, and windows.• Provide historically compatible lighting, signage,

and/or sign band.• Repair and point brick as necessary.• Remove the incompatible front addition and repair

existing wood frame/masonry building.• Re-install historic porch, roof, and window elements.

Island Style Cafe(3829 34th Street)

• Make a new historically-compatible front addition to expand the interior retail space.

• Remove the existing ramp and install a more functional new one.

• Remove vinyl siding.• Provide historically compatible signage.• Repair wood elements.• No redevelopment is recommended.

D.64



Former Cameo Theater(3822 34th Street)

• Restore façade.• Replace windows and doors with historically

compatible elements.• Provide consistent signage if any.• Point/repair brick.• No new development is recommended.

Upper 34th West Cluster(4000-4008 34th Street)

• Restore clerestory windows above the storefront.• Repair existing and/or provide new historically

compatible storefront, doors, and windows.• Provide historically compatible lighting, signage,

and/or sign band.• Repair/replace cornice and coping.• Repair and point brick as required.• Coordinate signage and awnings.

Upper 34th East Cluster(4001-4011 34th Street)

• Paint and provide consistent signage.• No compatible addition is recommended.• Repair storefront windows.• Provide consistent awning design.• Provide outdoor display areas, if possible.• Repair brick.

D.65



Singer Building(3300 Rhode Island Avenue)

• Repair or replace windows and doors with consistent brushed aluminum (or historically accurate) metal windows.

• Clean, point, and repair brick.• Repair the stone cap.• Resolve front drainage issues.• Locate sign band.• Provide lighting.

3308 Rhode Island Avenue

• Repair or restore stucco.• Replace gutters and downspouts.• Repair clay tile roofing.• Locate coordinated sign band or awning element.• Replace windows and doors with historically

accurate elements.

Circle Cafe(3310 Rhode Island Avenue)

• Document façades.• Replace original cornice/trim at entry.• Repair stairs and replace windows and doors with

historically accurate elements.

D.66



Eastern Star Building(3405 Rhode Island Avenue)

• Build a new addition on the façade facing the civic green. Use elegant, modern materials (glass curtain walls) recommended for a new structure.

• Research and restore the original Rhode Island Avenue-facing façade.

• Renovate the interior to better fit the city’s program needs.

• Build new additions to connect the building with the city hall and city library.

Prince George’s Bank Building(3800 34th Street)

• Consider a public use for the Prince George’s Bank Building.

• Repair or replace windows and doors with historically compatible elements.

• Repair brick and stone; repair trim bands.• Replace or restore the historic cornice at the entry.• Preserve and restore the historic dome’s copper roof.• No redevelopment is recommended.

Sanitary Grocery Store(3401 Perry Street)

• Repair storefront elements.• Provide coordinated signage.• Point brick.• Restore/repair the awning.• Provide lighting.• No addition is recommended.

D.67



Funkhouser Building(3201 Rhode Island Avenue)

• Replace vinyl windows with uniform wood or metal.• Point brick.• Replace coping, gutters, and down spouts.• Locate a coordinated sign band.• Repair/restore the brushed aluminum awning or

install a consistent new awning.• Remove grilles.• Provide exterior lighting.• Install new storefronts of brushed/natural aluminum.• Provide proper drainage at the rear of the building.

Sinclair Gas Station(3220 Rhode Island Avenue)

• Stabilize immediately. • Research and document the original condition.• Integrate the roof and steel beam at the porte cochere.• Repair the clay tile roof.• Restore brick as necessary.• Replace/restore windows and doors.• Repair the frieze.• Be sensitive to adjacent development in completing

restorations and renovations.

Implementation E

E.2

Implementation

Implementation Philosophy and Priorities

Implementation Philosophy

For the effective implementation of the development plan vision, it is suggested that a number of key stakeholders will form new working relationships and coordinate initiatives. This chapter outlines a general framework for implementation, with special attention to priorities, timing, and possible funding strategies.

Comprehensive FrameworkNo simple formula exists to magically revitalize the downtown areas of Mount Rainier. Instead, the plan vision sets up a comprehensive framework for sustainable, long-term, and robust revitalization through a partnership between potential developers, existing businesses, and others in the private sector, supported by local government.

Building on Existing ResourcesImplementation should build on recent public- and private-funded momentum. Past public initiatives include the traffic circle, tree-lined median, Artspace, and the historic district. More recently, there have been two “sparks” of activity: 1) new and revitalized private businesses in 34th Street, and 2) city purchases along Rhode Island Avenue.

Priority and FocusFor the near-term future, both public and private resources are limited. Therefore, it becomes even more important to focus on projects and specific areas where stakeholders can create the biggest “bang for the buck.”

Recent private business investment and interest have focused on two areas: 34th Street and the Singer Building block. Additionally, public sector investment has focused on two areas: Properties on the north side of Rhode Island Avenue—between Eastern Avenue and 33rd Street—and the Eastern Star Building. Both public and private investment should build on this momentum and focus on these areas.

Even with limited budgets, many small-scale, low-cost actions can be taken. Collectively, these actions grow public awareness and confidence that Mount Rainier is changing for the better. Smaller projects give way to larger ones, and over time dramatic changes can be achieved.

E.3


Implementation Priorities

Like other commercial centers in older urban residential areas such as Barracks Row on 8th Street SE in the District of Columbia and Takoma Park, Maryland, successful redevelopment concepts are built on a combination of investments in (a) capital improvements such as streetscapes, new infill development, and façade improvements, and (b) institutional support providing ongoing management and branding. To get there, the big issues public officials must address within the framework of the development plan should include:

1. Support and recognition of the M-U-TC development plan as a critical tool that ensures a unified approach to decision making affecting downtown Mount Rainier. All public-related initiatives should be measured and tested against the best interests of the entire M-U-TC area. This will help in prioritizing strategies and allocating limited public resources to achieve the most impact.

2. Concentration of public investment and energy on specific areas within Rhode Island Avenue, the civic core, and 34th Street. Reinforcing specific locations can result in enhancing existing buildings and creating a higher economic impact. A “downtown” action plan should include:a. Prioritizing 34th Street-related improvements

as outlined in the implementation charts.b. Prioritizing the Singer Building triangle

and supporting redevelopment with Rhode Island Avenue ground-floor retail, including investment in streetscape and corner park improvements.

c. Committing to a civic green and plaza (and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority relocation) concept.

d. Renovate and modify the Eastern Star Building alongside the existing city hall/library so that they match a civic green and plaza concept.

3. Coordinate redevelopment of the properties occupied by the funeral home, Thrifty Car Rental, and the gas station.

4. Prioritize façade improvements and regulation.

5. Streamline the building- and business-permitting process.

6. Commit public investment in shared off-street parking.

7. Invest in an environmental showcase feature for a lower 34th Street or “green street” prototype.

8. Bring art into the public realm.

9. Channel resources into a dedicated Mount Rainier management and marketing entity (similar to the Maryland “main street” program but on a smaller scale).

E.4

Implementation

“Main Street” TakomaTakoma Park, MD

Main Street Takoma is a Maryland “main street” program that promotes and markets downtown Takoma Park businesses. Incorporated in 2008, the program has already recruited two new business tenants and is actively pursuing county, state, and federal grants.

Program Organization• Design Committee: organizes clean-up days,

window display competitions, plantings, signage, tree adoption, and façade improvements with matching grants from the State of Maryland BusinessWorks program.

• Economic Restructuring Committee: does market analysis and manages a revolving loan fund, parking, and outreach.

• Promotional Committee: manages monthly events, marketing, and a website.

• Organization Committee: controls membership, volunteering, and website review.

Program Accomplishments• “Main Street” Takoma executive director hired.• 501c(3) organization set up, a board of directors

established, and a web site launched (www.mainstreettakoma.org).

• Helped recruit two new tenants: Mayorga Coffee (open) and Ace Hardware (under construction).

• Completed a retail market analysis, which was funded via a Community Legacy Grant.

• Recently awarded a $250,000 DC Arts and Humanities Grant (a three-year process) for Art in Transit—an installation at the Takoma Park Metrorail Station—by Sam Gilliam, Marie Ringwald and Tim Tate.

Barracks Row (8th Street SE)Washington, D.C.

In 1999, the Barracks Row Business Alliance teamed up with key citizens to form Barracks Row Main Street. This group worked with the Washington, D.C., Government and was awarded a District Department of Tranportation (DDOT) grant in 2003 to create a comprehensive urban streetscape, complete with parking, public transit, water management, urban forestry and lighting. Since the program’s inception, Barracks Row has emerged as a highly successful and vibrant commercial corridor, and was awarded the 2005 Great American Main Street Award from the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Program Organization• Organization Committee: created a five-year

strategic plan, and organized fundraising events.• Design Committee: reviews façades, signage,

streetscapes, and historic preservation.• Promotion Committee: markets Barracks Row to

new customers through image campaigns, retail promotions, and special events.

• Economic Development Committee: provides market analysis and marketing brochures. The committee also promotes communication between property owners and businesses.

• Arts and Crafts Committee: the mission of the committee is to promote the arts along 8th Street and to create an environment conducive to more art galleries, antique dealers, design stores, and house wares.

Program Accomplishments• Public and private funds reinvested in the

community totaled $19 million. • Fifty-one façades have been restored.• Forty signs were replaced through private funding.• Forty-three net new businesses have opened,

including business expansions through 12 new outdoor cafés.

• 198 net new jobs have been created.• Three new buildings have been constructed.• A self-guided history trail was recently installed to

facilitate tours of the neighborhood.• In 2003 a DDOT streetscape project was launched.

Implementation Precedents

E.5


Implementation Area Recommendations and ChartsInstitutional/Regulatory/Economic Development“Main-Street” Type Program

Program ManagerTakoma Park, MD, as well as Barracks Row, SE, and H Street, NE, both in Washington, D.C., are local examples of successfully revitalized main streets. In these areas, setting up and committing to a full-time program manager and a marketing/promotion institution were extremely critical revitalization elements. Mount Rainier should create an institution, similar to a Maryland “main street” program, to promote Mount Rainier through a program manager who is primarily responsible for plan implementation, activities, and assisting partner organizations with grant proposals, advertising, promotional/special events, and marketing campaigns, etc. The program manager should use the plan vision as a tool to improve investor and consumer confidence, and to encourage commercial activity in the M-U-TC area.

Suggested program manager roles and responsibilities:

1. Program organization: a. Creating a strategic plan to implement the plan

vision.b. Developing a comprehensive fundraising plan

and conducting annual fundraising activities.

2. Design guideline liaison:a. Managing successful implementation of

M-U-TC design guidelines with the review committee.

b. Seeking funding for streetscape improvements such as signage, glass, and façades.

c. Supporting historic preservation initiatives.

3. Marketing and promotion: a. Marketing downtown Mount Rainier to

customers, investors, local brokers, new businesses, residents, and visitors by developing and carrying out image campaigns, retail promotions and special events. The program manager should also be a resource person.

b. Assisting with coordination of special events, including Mount Rainier Day, art walks, film fests, and Halloween.

4. Economic development: a. Developing and implementing an economic

strategy to identify Mount Rainier as a successful commercial corridor; providing sustainable business opportunities for merchants; and helping to create job opportunities, especially for local residents.

b. Creating a partnership with local institutions and non-profits.

c. Creating a database of all properties and contact information.

d. Communicating regularly with businesses and owners about the program manager’s work.

e. Facilitating access to financing programs for façade improvements and business expansion.

f. Establishing relations with local brokers and real estate organizations.

g. Pursuing grant funding for projects identified in the chapter on development plan implementation, and managing the grant funding process.

h. Streamlining the business license process, and serving as liaison between businesses, the city, and the county.

5. The arts:a. Coordinating with the Gateway Community

Development Corporation over arts inititives.b. Advancing the visibility of art in the community

by applying for public art-installation grants.c. Managing and overseeing public art once it is

installed.

6. Property oversight:a. Assisting with the management of real property

owned by the City of Mount Rainier and following up on recommendations concerning implementation of the development plan.

b. Engaging absentee landlords over facilitating implementation of the development plan.

c. Facilitating implementation of green building initiatives by promoting relevant programs.

d. Obtaining historic property designations on appropriate properties.

E.6

Implementation

M-U-TC Façade Improvement Program (FIP) Recommendations

Create a city-sponsored façade improvement program that coordinates activities with approved M-U-TC development plan priorities.

Plan elements include:

• Prioritizing the 40-45 properties within the M-U-TC that require some type of rehabilitation, upgrade, and/or restoration action under the auspices of the M-U-TC development plan. (Note: recommended façade improvement recommendations will be listed in the M-U-TC plan appendix.)

• Using specified criteria, the M-U-TC Committee would review and prioritize applicants for inclusion in the program. The reviews would apply analysis and plan guidelines created and approved under the M-U-TC development plan.

• Planning city investment around a five-year façade improvement program. The recommended public commitment to this program ranges from $30,000–$80,000 per year.

• Holding a public invitation-and-training session for building and property owners within the M-U-TC area, encouraging them to apply for matching façade improvement program (FIP) grants for a maximum of $10,000, allowing a shared maximum of $20,000 per façade. Owners would participate in a hands-on training session that discusses a variety of renovation topics: how to fill out the FIP applications; how to determine eligible repairs and upgrades, and how to delineate the scope of repairs for individual properties; and how to select an architect or a contractor and manage the construction process. The city should both accept applications and rank, score and award fund amounts based on pre-determined criteria for that fiscal year. All actions must comply with the new approved Mt. Rainier Mixed-Use Town Center Development Plan Guidelines.

• FIP application and approval process rankings that make properties eligible and competitive. The city would target specific areas—such as the 34th Street

corridor (as indicated in the proposed plan)—for the FIP program and combine it with the proposed public street improvement activities.

• An updated approval process that allows the M-U-TC Committee to streamline the process of permit review for pre-determined M-U-TC guideline-compliant activities.

• Guiding applicants through project permit applications and assisting them with the HAWP (historic area work permit) process.

E.7


City

Acti

ons/

Regu

lato

ry/I

mpl

emen

tatio

n Ch

art

IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G A

CTIO

NRE

SPO

NSI

BLE

AG

ENCI

ES/

STA

KEH

OLD

ERS

POSS

IBLE

IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G

TOO

LS A

ND

FU

ND

ING

SO

URC

ESPH

ASI

NG

PRIO

RITY

A

CTIO

N

1In

itiat

e a

“mai

n-st

reet

” ty

pe

prog

ram

and

cre

ate

the

posi

tion

of

a pr

ogra

m m

anag

er re

spon

sibl

e fo

r co

ordi

natin

g th

e fo

llow

ing

prog

ram

s on

beh

alf o

f the

city

:a.

Fa

çade

impr

ovem

ent p

rogr

am

(gea

red

tow

ard

hist

oric

pr

eser

vatio

n).

b.

Gat

eway

Art

s D

istr

ict:

i.

Art

s ev

ents

pro

gram

.

ii

. Pu

blic

art

pro

gram

.

ii

i. Po

p-up

art

gal

leri

es

prog

ram

.c.

M

arke

ting/

prom

otio

n pr

ogra

m.

d.

Des

ign/

sign

age/

way

findi

ng

prog

ram

.e.

Ec

onom

ic d

evel

opm

ent

prog

ram

.

City

, cou

nty,

G

atew

ay C

omm

unity

D

evel

opm

ent

Corp

orati

on, p

rope

rty

owne

rs, S

tate

of

Mar

ylan

d, a

nd

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d D

esig

n Ce

nter

.

• Th

e Co

mm

unity

Dev

elop

men

t Blo

ck G

rant

Pr

ogra

m (E

.29)

. •

The

Com

mun

ity L

egac

y Pr

ogra

m (E

.29)

. •

Prin

ce G

eorg

e’s

Coun

ty E

cono

mic

D

evel

opm

ent C

orpo

ratio

n (E

.29)

. •

Capi

tal I

mpr

ovem

ent P

roje

ct (E

.30)

. •

His

tori

c Pr

oper

ty G

rant

Pro

gram

(E.3

1).

• Ar

t in

Com

mun

ities

(E.3

5).

Nea

rte

rmYe

s

Not

e: T

he c

hart

sho

ws

poss

ible

fund

ing

sour

ces

for

impl

emen

ting

a gi

ven

port

ion

of th

e pl

an

visi

on. S

ome

unlis

ted

fund

ing

sour

ces

may

als

o be

app

licab

le.

E.8

Implementation

IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G A

CTIO

NRE

SPO

NSI

BLE

AG

ENCI

ES/

STA

KEH

OLD

ERS

POSS

IBLE

IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G

TOO

LS A

ND

FU

ND

ING

SO

URC

ESPH

ASI

NG

PRIO

RITY

A

CTIO

N

2En

gage

land

lord

s in

dia

logu

e to

im

plem

ent t

he p

lan

visi

on.

City

and

pro

pert

y ow

ners

.N

ot a

pplic

able

N

ear

term

3St

ream

line

the

perm

it pr

oces

s an

d m

ake

it cl

eare

r.Ci

ty, c

ount

y, a

nd

prop

erty

ow

ners

.N

ot a

pplic

able

N

ear

term

4Cr

eate

a fu

nd w

ithin

the

M-U

-TC

bo

unda

ry a

rea

with

the

obje

ctive

of

unde

rgro

undi

ng u

tility

line

s.

City

, cou

nty,

pro

pert

y ow

ners

, util

ity

com

pani

es, a

nd

the

Stat

e H

ighw

ay

Adm

inis

trati

on.

• Ca

pita

l Im

prov

emen

t Pro

ject

(E.3

0)•

Cont

ribu

tion

from

loca

l dev

elop

er (E

.30)

• Ca

pita

l Im

prov

emen

t Pro

gram

(E.3

2)

Med

ium

term

and

lo

ngte

rm

City

Acti

ons/

Regu

lato

ry/I

mpl

emen

tatio

n Ch

art (

conti

nued

)

Not

e: T

he c

hart

sho

ws

poss

ible

fund

ing

sour

ces

to im

plem

ent a

giv

en p

ortio

n of

the

plan

vis

ion.

So

me

unlis

ted

fund

ing

sour

ces

may

als

o be

ap

plic

able

.

E.9


This page has been left blank intentionally.

E.10

Implementation

Upper 34th Street

Implementation Action Timeline

PHASE LOCATION RECOMMENDATIONREFERENCE

NUMBER

NEAR TERM(0–5

years)

4000–4008 34th Street (behind ZZ’s Pizza)

New shared parking lot (public/private)

L4 on the facing page

3840 34th Street (Lightbown Building)

Renovation of building and new retail/restaurant at north end with outdoor seating

B4 on the facing page

Intersection at Bunker Hill Road and 34th Street

New pedestrian improvements (curb extensions and crosswalks)

T2 on the facing page

34th Street Bike sharrow lane and new pay-on-foot parking meters

T1 and T3 on the facing page

MEDIUM TERM(5–10 years)

34th Street New street trees, expanded and widened sidewalks, and new street lights (east side)


Middle 34th Street cluster Renovations, façade improvements, and outdoor seating

B5 on thefacing page

3401 Bunker Hill Road (Kline’s Bakery)

Removal of 1930s front addition, restoration of the original building façade, and new retail/restaurant with outdoor seating


LONG TERM(10+

years)

34th Street Underground utility lines T5 on the facing page

3841, 3815, and 3817 34th Street New infill buildings L2 and L3 on the facing page

E.11


T—TransporTaTion recommendaTions

L—Land use recommendaTions

B—BuiLding recommendaTions

Implementation Map—Upper 34th Street

34th

Stre

et

35th Street

Bunker Hill Road

T2

T4

T5

L4

L3

L2 B2

B3

B4

B1

B5

B5

B6

T1

T3

L1

N

E.12

ImplementationU

pper

34t

h St

reet

—Tr

ansp

orta

tion

and

Oth

er In

fras

truc

ture

Impl

emen

tatio

n Ch

art

IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G A

CTIO

NRE

SPO

NSI

BLE

AG

ENCI

ES/

STA

KEH

OLD

ERS

POSS

IBLE

IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G

TOO

LS A

ND

FU

ND

ING

SO

URC

ESPH

ASI

NG

PRIO

RITY

A

CTIO

N

T1Re

plac

e pa

rkin

g m

eter

s on

bot

h si

des

of 3

4th

Stre

et fr

om th

e ci

rcle

to

the

reta

il pr

oper

ties

just

nor

th o

f Bu

nker

Hill

Roa

d w

ith m

ulti-

spac

e pa

y-on

-foo

t par

king

met

ers.

City

• Pa

rkin

g eq

uipm

ent m

aint

enan

ce b

udge

t (E.

30)

• Re

tail

park

ing

reve

nue

(E.3

0)•

City

spe

ed c

amer

a le

gisl

ation

(E.3

0)

Nea

r

term

T2In

stal

l new

cro

ssw

alks

, cur

b ex

tens

ions

, and

text

ured

pav

emen

t in

the

cent

er o

f the

inte

rsec

tion

of

34th

Str

eet a

nd B

unke

r H

ill R

oad.

City

and

cou

nty

• Th

e Co

mm

unity

Dev

elop

men

t Blo

ck G

rant

Pr

ogra

m (E

.29)

.•

Side

wal

k an

d st

reet

mai

nten

ance

bud

get (

E.30

).•

City

spe

ed c

amer

a le

gisl

ation

(E.3

0).

• Ca

pita

l Im

prov

emen

t Pro

gram

(E.3

2).

Nea

rte

rmYe

s

T3In

stal

l sha

red

bicy

cle/

vehi

cula

r pa

vem

ent m

arki

ngs

(“sh

arro

ws”

) on

34th

Str

eet j

ust s

outh

of B

unke

r H

ill

Road

and

just

nor

th o

f the

circ

le in

bo

th d

irecti

ons.

City

Side

wal

k an

d st

reet

mai

nten

ance

bud

get (

E.30

)N

ear

term

T4U

pgra

de 3

4th

Stre

et p

edes

tria

n an

d pa

rkin

g ar

eas:

• Ex

pand

sid

ewal

ks o

n bo

th s

ides

of

34t

h St

reet

from

the

circ

le to

Bu

nker

Hill

Roa

d.•

Reco

nfigu

re o

n-st

reet

par

king

on

bot

h si

des

of 3

4th

Stre

et

from

the

circ

le to

just

nor

th o

f Bu

nker

Hill

Roa

d to

inst

all s

tree

t tr

ees

in c

urb

exte

nsio

ns.

City

and

cou

nty

• Si

dew

alk

and

stre

et m

aint

enan

ce b

udge

t (E

.30)

.•

Capi

tal I

mpr

ovem

ent P

roje

ct (E

.30)

.•

City

spe

ed c

amer

a le

gisl

ation

(E.3

0).

• Ca

pita

l Im

prov

emen

t Pro

gram

(E.3

2).

Med

ium

term

T5U

nder

grou

ndin

g of

util

ity li

nes

(34t

h St

reet

and

Bun

ker

Hill

Roa

d).

City

and

cou

nty

• Ca

pita

l Im

prov

emen

t Pro

ject

(E.3

0)•

Cont

ribu

tion

from

loca

l dev

elop

er (E

.30)

• Ca

pita

l Im

prov

emen

t Pro

gram

(E.3

2)

Long

term

Not

e: T

he c

hart

sho

ws

poss

ible

fund

ing

sour

ces

to im

plem

ent a

giv

en p

ortio

n of

the

plan

vis

ion.

So

me

unlis

ted

fund

ing

sour

ces

may

als

o be

ap

plic

able

.

E.13


Not

e: T

he c

hart

sho

ws

poss

ible

fund

ing

sour

ces

to im

plem

ent a

giv

en p

ortio

n of

the

plan

vis

ion.

So

me

unlis

ted

fund

ing

sour

ces

may

als

o be

ap

plic

able

. IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G A

CTIO

NRE

SPO

NSI

BLE

AG

ENCI

ES/

STA

KEH

OLD

ERS

POSS

IBLE

IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G

TOO

LS A

ND

FU

ND

ING

SO

URC

ESPH

ASI

NG

PRIO

RITY

A

CTIO

N

L1N

ew v

ibra

nt re

tail

(eg.

full-

serv

ice

rest

aura

nt) a

long

34t

h St

reet

.Ci

ty, p

rope

rty

owne

rs,

and

new

bus

ines

s ow

ners

.

• Th

e Co

mm

unity

Dev

elop

men

t Blo

ck G

rant

Pr

ogra

m (E

.29)

.•

The

Com

mun

ity L

egac

y Pr

ogra

m (E

.29)

.•

Publ

ic-p

rivat

e sh

ared

par

king

arr

ange

men

t (E.

30).

• M

ain

Stre

et M

aryl

and

(E.3

2).

• St

ate

of M

aryl

and

Smal

l Bus

ines

s D

evel

opm

ent

Cent

er (E

.34)

.

Nea

rte

rmYe

s

L240

00–4

008

34th

Str

eet (

park

ing

lot a

t rea

r of

bui

ldin

g): I

nsta

ll pe

rmea

ble

pave

rs o

n th

e ex

istin

g su

rfac

e lo

t to

prov

ide

shar

ed p

arki

ng

oppo

rtun

ities

for

mul

tiple

reta

il us

es

on 3

4th

Stre

et.

City

and

pro

pert

y ow

ner.

• Pu

blic

-priv

ate

shar

ed p

arki

ng a

rran

gem

ent (

E.30

).

• Pr

ince

Geo

rge’

s Co

unty

Red

evel

opm

ent

Aut

hori

ty (E

.31)

.•

The

Com

mun

ity L

egac

y Pr

ogra

m (E

.29)

.•

The

Com

mun

ity D

evel

opm

ent B

lock

Gra

nt

Prog

ram

(E.2

9).

Nea

rte

rm

L338

41 3

4th

Stre

et (e

mpt

y lo

t):

New

mix

ed-u

se in

fill b

uild

ing

(inte

rim

sha

red

park

ing

lot/

shor

t to

med

ium

term

).

City

and

pro

pert

y ow

ner.

• Th

e Co

mm

unity

Leg

acy

Prog

ram

(E.2

9).

• Pu

blic

-priv

ate

shar

ed p

arki

ng a

rran

gem

ent (

E.30

). •

Prin

ce G

eorg

e’s

Coun

ty R

edev

elop

men

t A

utho

rity

(E.3

1).

Long

term

L438

15/3

817

34th

Str

eet (

empt

y lo

t):

New

mix

ed-u

se in

fill b

uild

ing.

City

and

pro

pert

y ow

ner.

• Th

e Co

mm

unity

Leg

acy

Prog

ram

(E.2

9).

• Pu

blic

-priv

ate

shar

ed p

arki

ng a

rran

gem

ent (

E.30

). •

Prin

ce G

eorg

e’s

Coun

ty R

edev

elop

men

t A

utho

rity

(E.3

1).

• M

ain

Stre

et M

aryl

and

(E.3

2).

Long

term

Upp

er 3

4th

Stre

et—

Land

Use

Impl

emen

tatio

n Ch

art

Not

e: T

he c

hart

sho

ws

poss

ible

fund

ing

sour

ces

to im

plem

ent a

giv

en p

ortio

n of

the

plan

vis

ion.

So

me

unlis

ted

fund

ing

sour

ces

may

als

o be

ap

plic

able

.

E.14

Implementation

IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G A

CTIO

NRE

SPO

NSI

BLE

AG

ENCI

ES/

STA

KEH

OLD

ERS

POSS

IBLE

IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G

TOO

LS A

ND

FU

ND

ING

SO

URC

ESPH

ASI

NG

PRIO

RITY

A

CTIO

N

B138

40 3

4th

Stre

et

(Lig

htbo

wn

Build

ing)

:•

Out

door

sea

ting

and

upgr

aded

st

oref

ront

for

rest

aura

nt u

se.

• Fa

çade

impr

ovem

ents

.

City

, cou

nty,

pro

pert

y ow

ner,

and

busi

ness

ow

ner.

• Th

e Co

mm

unity

Dev

elop

men

t Blo

ck G

rant

Pr

ogra

m (E

.29)

.•

The

Com

mun

ity L

egac

y Pr

ogra

m (E

.29)

.•

Publ

ic-p

rivat

e sh

ared

par

king

arr

ange

men

t (E.

30).

• Co

ntri

butio

n fr

om lo

cal d

evel

oper

(E.3

0).

• Pr

ince

Geo

rge’

s Co

unty

’s R

evita

lizati

on A

rea

Tax

Cred

it Pr

ogra

m (E

.30)

.•

Prin

ce G

eorg

e’s

Fina

ncia

l Ser

vice

Cor

pora

tion

(E.3

1).

• H

isto

ric

Prop

erty

Gra

nt P

rogr

am (E

.31)

.•

Gat

eway

Com

mun

ity D

evel

opm

ent

Corp

orati

on (E

.32)

.

Nea

rte

rmYe

s

B240

00–4

008

34th

Str

eet

(ZZ’

s Pi

zza,

Circ

a 34

, etc

.):•

Faça

de im

prov

emen

ts

(bri

ng b

ack

orig

inal

bui

ldin

g).

• Si

gnag

e.

City

, cou

nty,

pro

pert

y ow

ner,

and

busi

ness

ow

ner.

• Th

e Co

mm

unity

Leg

acy

Prog

ram

( E.

29).

• Co

ntri

butio

n fr

om lo

cal d

evel

oper

(E.3

0).

• Pu

blic

-priv

ate

shar

ed p

arki

ng a

rran

gem

ent (

E.30

). •

Prin

ce G

eorg

e’s

Coun

ty’s

Rev

italiz

ation

Are

a Ta

x Cr

edit

Prog

ram

(E.3

0).

• M

ain

Stre

et M

aryl

and

(E.3

2).

Nea

rte

rm

B340

01 3

4th

Stre

et (G

LUT)

:•

Out

door

mar

ket s

tand

.•

Faça

de im

prov

emen

ts (b

ring

ba

ck o

rigi

nal b

uild

ing)

.

City

, pro

pert

y ow

ner,

and

busi

ness

ow

ner.

• Th

e Co

mm

unity

Leg

acy

Prog

ram

( E.

29)

• Co

ntri

butio

n fr

om lo

cal d

evel

oper

(E.3

0)•

Publ

ic-p

rivat

e sh

ared

par

king

arr

ange

men

t (E.

30)

• M

ain

Stre

et M

aryl

and

(E.3

2)

Nea

rte

rm

B438

29 3

4th

Stre

et (I

slan

d St

yle)

:•

Out

door

/ind

oor

seati

ng•

Faça

de im

prov

emen

ts

City

, pro

pert

y ow

ner,

and

busi

ness

ow

ner.

• Th

e Co

mm

unity

Leg

acy

Prog

ram

( E.

29)

• Co

ntri

butio

n fr

om lo

cal d

evel

oper

(E.3

0)•

Publ

ic-p

rivat

e sh

ared

par

king

arr

ange

men

t (E.

30)

• M

ain

Stre

et M

aryl

and

(E.3

2)

Nea

rte

rm

Upp

er 3

4th

Stre

et—

Build

ing

Impl

emen

tatio

n Ch

art

Not

e: T

he c

hart

sho

ws

poss

ible

fund

ing

sour

ces

to im

plem

ent a

giv

en p

ortio

n of

the

plan

vis

ion.

So

me

unlis

ted

fund

ing

sour

ces

may

als

o be

ap

plic

able

.

E.15


IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G A

CTIO

NRE

SPO

NSI

BLE

AG

ENCI

ES/

STA

KEH

OLD

ERS

POSS

IBLE

IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G

TOO

LS A

ND

FU

ND

ING

SO

URC

ESPH

ASI

NG

PRIO

RITY

A

CTIO

N

B5M

iddl

e 34

th S

tree

t clu

ster

:•

Sele

ctive

out

door

sea

ting

• Fa

çade

impr

ovem

ents

City

, pro

pert

y ow

ner,

and

busi

ness

ow

ner.

• Th

e Co

mm

unity

Leg

acy

Prog

ram

( E.

29)

• Co

ntri

butio

n fr

om lo

cal d

evel

oper

(E.3

0)•

Publ

ic-p

rivat

e sh

ared

par

king

arr

ange

men

t (E.

30)

• M

ain

Stre

et M

aryl

and

(E.3

2)

Med

ium

term

B634

01 B

unke

r H

ill R

oad

(Klin

e’s

Bake

ry):

• Re

mov

al o

f 193

0s fr

ont a

dditi

on.

• Re

stor

e or

igin

al b

uild

ing

faça

de

and

add

outd

oor

seati

ng a

nd

new

reta

il/re

stau

rant

.

City

, pro

pert

y ow

ner,

and

busi

ness

ow

ner.

• Th

e Co

mm

unity

Leg

acy

Prog

ram

( E.

29)

• Co

ntri

butio

n fr

om lo

cal d

evel

oper

(E.3

0)•

Publ

ic-p

rivat

e sh

ared

par

king

arr

ange

men

t (E.

30)

• M

ain

Stre

et M

aryl

and

(E.3

2)

Med

ium

te

rm

Upp

er 3

4th

Stre

et—

Build

ing

Impl

emen

tatio

n Ch

art (

conti

nued

)

Not

e: T

he c

hart

sho

ws

poss

ible

fund

ing

sour

ces

to im

plem

ent a

giv

en p

ortio

n of

the

plan

vis

ion.

So

me

unlis

ted

fund

ing

sour

ces

may

als

o be

ap

plic

able

.

E.16

Implementation

Rhode Island Avenue



NUMBER

NEAR TERM(0–5

years)

3200 Rhode Island Avenue (funeral home, Thrifty Car Rental)

New residential and cultural arts buildings

L1 and L2 on the facing page

3220 Rhode Island Avenue (historic gas station)

Renovation and new retail/outdoor seating


33rd Street and Rhode Island Avenue New pedestrian-activated signal and pedestrian crosswalk


Rhode Island Avenue Pay-on-foot parking meters T1 on thefacing page

3231, 3235 and 3239 Rhode Island Avenue cluster

Façade improvements and additions, restripe existing wide parking lanes

B3 and B4 on the facing page


Eastern Avenue and Rhode Island Avenue intersection

New pedestrian crosswalk T3 on the facing page

Rhode Island Avenue Expand the tree-lined median to Eastern Avenue

T2 on thefacing page

Rhode Island Avenue (north side)

Initial utility undergrounding (potential interim reconfiguration of lines in alleys)


LONG TERM(10+

years)

Rhode Island Avenue Boulevard streetscape and roadway improvements, pedestrian pavement at the circle area, and cycle tracks


Rhode Island Avenue (south side)

Undergrounding of “heavy” utility lines


Rhode Island Avenue DDOT light rail T7 on thefacing page

E.17





Implementation Map—Rhode Island Avenue

Rhode Island Avenue

Eastern Avenue

Perry Street

T4

T7

T3

T2

T2

T5

L2

L1

B2

B1

B3

B4

T1/T6

N

E.18

ImplementationRh

ode

Isla

nd A

venu

e—Tr

ansp

orta

tion

and

Oth

er In

fras

truc

ture

Impl

emen

tatio

n Ch

art

IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G A

CTIO

NRE

SPO

NSI

BLE

AG

ENCI

ES/

STA

KEH

OLD

ERS

POSS

IBLE

IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G

TOO

LS A

ND

FU

ND

ING

SO

URC

ESPH

ASI

NG

PRIO

RITY

A

CTIO

N

T1Re

plac

e pa

rkin

g m

eter

s on

bot

h si

des

of R

hode

Isla

nd A

venu

e fr

om

East

ern

Aven

ue to

the

circ

le w

ith

mul

ti-sp

ace

pay-

on-f

oot p

arki

ng

met

ers.

City

• Pa

rkin

g eq

uipm

ent m

aint

enan

ce b

udge

t (E.

30)

• Re

tail

park

ing

reve

nue

(E.3

0)N

ear

term

T2In

stal

l new

ped

estr

ian

cros

swal

ks

acro

ss R

hode

Isla

nd A

venu

e on

the

east

sid

e of

Eas

tern

Ave

nue

and

the

east

sid

e of

33r

d St

reet

.

City

and

Sta

te

Hig

hway

A

dmin

istr

ation

.

Side

wal

k an

d st

reet

mai

nten

ance

bud

get (

E.30

)N

ear

term

T3In

stal

l a p

edes

tria

n-ac

tivat

ed

cros

swal

k si

gnal

and

cur

b ex

tens

ions

at

Rho

de Is

land

Ave

nue

and

33rd

St

reet

.

City

and

Sta

te

Hig

hway

A

dmin

istr

ation

.

• Ci

ty s

peed

cam

era

legi

slati

on (E

.30)

• Fe

dera

l Gov

ernm

ent S

timul

us F

undi

ng (E

.30)

• Co

ntri

butio

n fr

om lo

cal d

evel

oper

(E.3

0)

Nea

rte

rm

T4Ex

pand

the

Rhod

e Is

land

Ave

nue

med

ian

betw

een

33rd

Str

eet a

nd

East

ern

Aven

ue to

pla

nt m

ore

orna

men

tal-s

ize

stre

et tr

ees

near

Ea

ster

n Av

enue

.

City

, cou

nty,

and

the

Stat

e of

Mar

ylan

d.•

Prin

ce G

eorg

e’s

Coun

ty T

ree

Rele

af P

rogr

am

(E.2

9).

• Ca

pita

l Im

prov

emen

t Pro

ject

(E.3

0).

• Ci

ty s

peed

cam

era

legi

slati

on (E

.30)

.•

Capi

tal I

mpr

ovem

ent P

rogr

am (E

.32)

.

Med

ium

term

Not

e: T

he c

hart

sho

ws

poss

ible

fund

ing

sour

ces

to im

plem

ent a

giv

en p

ortio

n of

the

plan

vis

ion.

So

me

unlis

ted

fund

ing

sour

ces

may

als

o be

ap

plic

able

.

E.19

City of Mount Rainier Mixed-Use Town Center (M-U-TC) Zone Development Plan

IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G A

CTIO

NRE

SPO

NSI

BLE

AG

ENCI

ES/

STA

KEH

OLD

ERS

POSS

IBLE

IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G

TOO

LS A

ND

FU

ND

ING

SO

URC

ESPH

ASI

NG

PRIO

RITY

A

CTIO

N

T5U

pgra

de b

oth

side

s of

Rho

de Is

land

Av

enue

(Str

eets

cape

):•

Inst

all a

cyc

le tr

ack

on th

e no

rth

side

of R

hode

Isla

nd A

venu

e.•

Inst

all t

wo

row

s of

str

eet t

rees

.•

Repl

ace

and

expa

nd e

xisti

ng

side

wal

ks.

• In

stal

l spe

cial

ped

estr

ian

pavi

ng.

• Pr

ovid

e ou

tdoo

r se

ating

for

adja

cent

land

use

s.

City

, cou

nty,

pr

oper

ty o

wne

rs,

and

Stat

e H

ighw

ay

Adm

inis

trati

on.

• D

epar

tmen

t of N

atur

al R

esou

rces

Sta

te F

ores

t Co

nser

vatio

n Pr

ogra

m (E

.29)

.•

Prin

ce G

eorg

e’s

Coun

ty T

ree

ReLe

af P

rogr

am

(E.2

9).

• Si

dew

alk

and

stre

et m

aint

enan

ce b

udge

t (E

.30)

.•

City

spe

ed c

amer

a le

gisl

ation

(E.3

0).

• Co

ntri

butio

n fr

om lo

cal d

evel

oper

(E.3

0).

• Ca

pita

l Im

prov

emen

t Pro

gram

(E.3

2).

Med

ium

term

Yes

T6U

nder

grou

ndin

g uti

lity

lines

City

, cou

nty,

and

pr

oper

ty o

wne

rs.

• Th

e Co

mm

unity

Leg

acy

Prog

ram

( E.

29).

• Pr

ince

Geo

rge’

s Co

unty

Eco

nom

ic S

timul

us

Prog

ram

(E.2

9).

• Co

ntri

butio

n fr

om lo

cal d

evel

oper

(E.3

0).

• Ca

pita

l Im

prov

emen

t Pro

gram

(E.3

2).

Long

term

T7Ex

tend

the

Dis

tric

t of C

olum

bia

DO

T lig

ht-r

ail t

rack

s on

Rho

de Is

land

Av

enue

into

Pri

nce

Geo

rge’

s Co

unty

.

City

, cou

nty,

St

ate

Hig

hway

A

dmin

istr

ation

, and

D

istr

ict o

f Col

umbi

a D

OT.

• Ca

pita

l Im

prov

emen

t Pro

ject

(E.3

0)•

Capi

tal I

mpr

ovem

ent P

rogr

am (E

.32)

Long

term

Rhod

e Is

land

Ave

nue—

Tran

spor

tatio

n an

d O

ther

Infr

astr

uctu

re Im

plem

enta

tion

Char

t (co

ntinu

ed)

Not

e: T

he c

hart

sho

ws

poss

ible

fund

ing

sour

ces

to im

plem

ent a

giv

en p

ortio

n of

the

plan

vis

ion.

So

me

unlis

ted

fund

ing

sour

ces

may

als

o be

ap

plic

able

.

E.20

Implementation

IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G A

CTIO

NRE

SPO

NSI

BLE

AG

ENCI

ES/

STA

KEH

OLD

ERS

POSS

IBLE

IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G

TOO

LS A

ND

FU

ND

ING

SO

URC

ESPH

ASI

NG

PRIO

RITY

A

CTIO

N

L132

12 R

hode

Isla

nd A

venu

e (T

hrift

y Ca

r Re

ntal

):•

New

cul

tura

l art

s ce

nter

• N

ew in

fill r

esid

entia

l bui

ldin

g

City

and

pro

pert

y ow

ner.

• Th

e Co

mm

unity

Dev

elop

men

t Blo

ck G

rant

Pr

ogra

m (E

.29)

.•

HO

ME

Inve

stm

ent P

artn

ersh

ip P

rogr

am (E

.29)

.•

Prop

erty

Tax

Aba

tem

ent (

E.31

).•

Prin

ce G

eorg

e’s

Coun

ty R

edev

elop

men

t A

utho

rity

(E.3

1).

Nea

rte

rmYe

s

L232

00-3

208

Rhod

e Is

land

Ave

nue

(fun

eral

hom

e):

• N

ew in

fill r

esid

entia

l bui

ldin

g

City

and

dev

elop

er•

The

Com

mun

ity D

evel

opm

ent B

lock

Gra

nt

Prog

ram

(E.2

9).

• H

OM

E In

vest

men

t Par

tner

ship

Pro

gram

(E.2

9).

• Pr

oper

ty T

ax A

bate

men

t (E.

31).

• Pr

ince

Geo

rge’

s Co

unty

Red

evel

opm

ent

Aut

hori

ty (E

.31)

.

Nea

rte

rmYe

s

Not

e: T

he c

hart

sho

ws

poss

ible

fund

ing

sour

ces

to im

plem

ent a

giv

en p

ortio

n of

the

plan

vis

ion.

So

me

unlis

ted

fund

ing

sour

ces

may

als

o be

ap

plic

able

.

Rhod

e Is

land

Ave

nue—

Land

Use

Impl

emen

tatio

n Ch

art

E.21


IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G A

CTIO

NRE

SPO

NSI

BLE

AG

ENCI

ES/

STA

KEH

OLD

ERS

POSS

IBLE

IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G

TOO

LS A

ND

FU

ND

ING

SO

URC

ESPH

ASI

NG

PRIO

RITY

A

CTIO

N

B132

01 R

hode

Isla

nd A

venu

e (F

unkh

ouse

r):

• Fa

çade

impr

ovem

ents

• Si

gnag

e

City

, pro

pert

y ow

ner,

and

busi

ness

ow

ner.

• Th

e Co

mm

unity

Leg

acy

Prog

ram

( E.

29)

• Co

ntri

butio

n fr

om lo

cal d

evel

oper

(E.3

0)•

Mai

n St

reet

Mar

ylan

d (E

.32)

Nea

rte

rm

B232

20 R

hode

Isla

nd A

venu

e

(his

tori

c ga

s st

ation

):•

Reno

vate

his

tori

c st

ruct

ure

• Re

use

as s

mal

l ret

ail s

tore

City

and

pro

pert

y ow

ner.

• Th

e Co

mm

unity

Leg

acy

Prog

ram

( E.

29)

• Co

ntri

butio

n fr

om lo

cal d

evel

oper

(E.3

0)•

His

tori

c Pr

oper

ty G

rant

Pro

gram

(E.3

1)•

Mai

n St

reet

Mar

ylan

d (E

.32)

Nea

rte

rmYe

s

B332

35/3

239

Rhod

e Is

land

Ave

nue

(t

wo-

stor

y offi

ce b

uild

ings

):•

Add

add

ition

al fl

oor

• Fa

çade

impr

ovem

ents

City

, pro

pert

y ow

ner,

and

busi

ness

ow

ner.

• Th

e Co

mm

unity

Leg

acy

Prog

ram

( E.

29)

• Co

ntri

butio

n fr

om lo

cal d

evel

oper

(E.3

0)•

Mai

n St

reet

Mar

ylan

d (E

.32)

Long

term

B4So

uth

Rhod

e Is

land

Ave

nue

clus

ter

• Fa

çade

impr

ovem

ents

• Si

gnag

e

City

, pro

pert

y ow

ner,

and

busi

ness

ow

ner.

• Th

e Co

mm

unity

Leg

acy

Prog

ram

( E.

29)

Med

ium

term

• Co

ntri

butio

n fr

om lo

cal d

evel

oper

(E.3

0)•

Mai

n St

reet

Mar

ylan

d (E

.32)

Rhod

e Is

land

Ave

nue—

Build

ing

Impl

emen

tatio

n Ch

art (

conti

nued

)

Not

e: T

he c

hart

sho

ws

poss

ible

fund

ing

sour

ces

to im

plem

ent a

giv

en p

ortio

n of

the

plan

vis

ion.

So

me

unlis

ted

fund

ing

sour

ces

may

als

o be

ap

plic

able

.

E.22

Implementation




NUMBER

NEAR TERM(0–5

years)

3300 Rhode Island Avenue (Singer Building and adjacent building)

Façade restoration, potential additional floor, and potential residential renovation

B2 and B5 on the facing page

3405 Rhode Island Avenue (Eastern Star Building)

Façade restoration, building renovation, and façade addition


Intersection of 34th Street and Rhode Island Avenue

Stormwater rain garden and “green street” prototype



3409 Rhode Island Avenue (library) Renovation and new building B4 facing page

North Rhode Island Avenue cluster Renovations and new infill buildings B6 and L3 on the facing page

LONG TERM(10+

years)

Bus turnaround removal Civic green, plaza with transit stop, landscaping, and gathering spaces


Traffic circle Monument, landscaping, and textured pavement

T5 and T8 on the facing page

Immediately south of M-U-TC area New MARC station T7 on thefacing page

Perry Street East cluster New infill buildings L2 facing page

E.23





Implementation Map—Civic Core/City Center

Rhode Island Avenue

34th

Stre

et

35th

Stre

et

Perry Street T5

T8

T7

T4

T6

T3

T1

T2

L1

L2

L3

L4

L5

B1B4

B2 B5

B6

B3

B7

N

E.24

Implementation

IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G A

CTIO

NRE

SPO

NSI

BLE

AG

ENCI

ES/

STA

KEH

OLD

ERS

POSS

IBLE

IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G

TOO

LS A

ND

FU

ND

ING

SO

URC

ESPH

ASI

NG

PRIO

RITY

A

CTIO

N

T1Re

plac

e pa

rkin

g m

eter

s on

bot

h si

des

of R

hode

Isla

nd A

venu

e fr

om

the

circ

le to

the

east

ern

end

of th

e M

-U-T

C bo

unda

ry w

ith m

ultis

pace

pa

y-on

-foo

t par

king

met

ers.

City

Park

ing

equi

pmen

t mai

nten

ance

bud

get (

E.30

)N

ear

term

T2Ra

in g

arde

n, s

torm

wat

er, “

gree

n st

reet

” pr

otot

ype.

City

and

util

ity

com

pani

es.

• Th

e Co

mm

unity

Dev

elop

men

t Blo

ck G

rant

Pr

ogra

m (E

.29)

.•

Capi

tal I

mpr

ovem

ent P

roje

ct (E

.30)

.

Nea

rte

rmYe

s

T3U

pgra

de th

e no

rth

side

of R

hode

Is

land

Ave

nue

east

of t

he c

ircle

to

the

east

ern

M-U

-TC

boun

dary

:•

Inst

all t

wo

row

s of

str

eet t

rees

.•

Repl

ace

and

expa

nd e

xisti

ng

side

wal

ks.

• In

stal

l spe

cial

ped

estr

ian

pavi

ng

trea

tmen

ts to

em

phas

ize

the

wal

king

pat

h al

ong

Rhod

e Is

land

Av

enue

.•

Reco

nfigu

re th

e on

-str

eet

park

ing

to fi

t with

in th

e pr

opos

ed c

urb

exte

nsio

ns.

• Pr

ovid

e ou

tdoo

r se

ating

for

adja

cent

land

use

s.

City

, pro

pert

y ow

ners

, an

d St

ate

Hig

hway

A

dmin

istr

ation

.

• Si

dew

alk

and

stre

et m

aint

enan

ce b

udge

t (E

.30)

.•

Capi

tal I

mpr

ovem

ent P

roje

ct (E

.30)

.•

City

spe

ed c

amer

a le

gisl

ation

(E.3

0).

• Co

ntri

butio

n fr

om lo

cal d

evel

oper

(E.3

0).

• Ca

pita

l Im

prov

emen

t Pro

gram

(E.3

2).

Med

ium

term

Yes

Civi

c Co

re/C

ity C

ente

r—Tr

ansp

orta

tion

and

Oth

er In

fras

truc

ture

Impl

emen

tatio

n Ch

art

Not

e: T

he c

hart

sho

ws

poss

ible

fund

ing

sour

ces

to im

plem

ent a

giv

en p

ortio

n of

the

plan

vis

ion.

So

me

unlis

ted

fund

ing

sour

ces

may

als

o be

ap

plic

able

.

E.25


IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G A

CTIO

NRE

SPO

NSI

BLE

AG

ENCI

ES/

STA

KEH

OLD

ERS

POSS

IBLE

IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G

TOO

LS A

ND

FU

ND

ING

SO

URC

ESPH

ASI

NG

PRIO

RITY

A

CTIO

N

T4A

dd p

edes

tria

n cu

rb e

xten

sion

s at

the

nort

hern

mos

t Rho

de Is

land

Av

enue

cro

ssw

alk

near

the

libra

ry.

City

and

Sta

te

Hig

hway

A

dmin

istr

ation

.

Side

wal

k an

d st

reet

mai

nten

ance

bud

get (

E.30

)M

ediu

mte

rm

T5Tr

affic

Circ

le: I

nsta

ll ne

w la

ndm

ark

mon

umen

t.Ci

tySi

dew

alk

and

stre

et m

aint

enan

ce b

udge

t (E.

30)

Med

ium

Term

T6Re

desi

gn b

us tu

rnar

ound

as

a ne

w

civi

c gr

een

and

plaz

a:•

Ope

n gr

een

spac

e•

Land

scap

e pl

atfor

m

City

, Sta

te H

ighw

ay

Adm

inis

trati

on, a

nd

WM

ATA

.

Capi

tal I

mpr

ovem

ent P

rogr

am (E

.32)

Long

Term

Yes

T7A

dvoc

ate

new

MA

RC tr

ain

stati

onCi

ty, c

ount

y, a

nd S

tate

of

Mar

ylan

d.Th

e Co

mm

unity

Dev

elop

men

t Blo

ck G

rant

Pro

gram

(E

.29)

Long

term

T8Tr

affic

Circ

le: I

nsta

ll sp

ecia

l pav

ing

trea

tmen

t on

the

circ

le in

teri

or.

Stat

e H

ighw

ay

Adm

inis

trati

onCa

pita

l Im

prov

emen

t Pro

gram

(E.3

2)Lo

ngte

rm

Civi

c Co

re/C

ity C

ente

r—Tr

ansp

orta

tion

and

Oth

er In

fras

truc

ture

Impl

emen

tatio

n Ch

art (

conti

nued

)

Not

e: T

he c

hart

sho

ws

poss

ible

fund

ing

sour

ces

to im

plem

ent a

giv

en p

ortio

n of

the

plan

vis

ion.

So

me

unlis

ted

fund

ing

sour

ces

may

als

o be

ap

plic

able

.

E.26

Implementation

IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G A

CTIO

NRE

SPO

NSI

BLE

AG

ENCI

ES/

STA

KEH

OLD

ERS

POSS

IBLE

IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G

TOO

LS A

ND

FU

ND

ING

SO

URC

ESPH

ASI

NG

PRIO

RITY

A

CTIO

N

L1N

ew re

tail/

rest

aura

nt u

se in

Si

nger

Bui

ldin

g.Ci

ty a

nd p

rope

rty

owne

r.•

The

Com

mun

ity D

evel

opm

ent B

lock

Gra

nt

Prog

ram

(E.2

9).

• H

OM

E In

vest

men

t Par

tner

ship

Pro

gram

(E.2

9).

Nea

rte

rmYe

s

L2Co

rner

of P

erry

Str

eet a

nd

33rd

Str

eet:

New

resi

denti

al d

uple

x/tr

iple

x.

City

, cou

nty,

and

pr

oper

ty o

wne

r.Pr

ince

Geo

rge’

s Co

unty

Red

evel

opm

ent A

utho

rity

(E

.31)

Nea

rte

rm

L334

24-3

428

Rhod

e Is

land

Ave

nue

(em

pty

lot)

: New

mix

ed-u

se in

fill

build

ing.

City

and

pro

pert

y ow

ner.

• Pu

blic

-priv

ate

shar

ed p

arki

ng a

rran

gem

ent (

E.30

). •

Prin

ce G

eorg

e’s

Coun

ty’s

Rev

italiz

ation

Are

a Ta

x Cr

edit

Prog

ram

(E.3

0).

• Pr

ince

Geo

rge’

s Co

unty

Red

evel

opm

ent

Aut

hori

ty (E

.31)

.•

Prop

erty

Tax

Aba

tem

ents

(E.3

1).

Med

ium

term

L438

05 3

4th

Stre

et (e

mpt

y lo

t): N

ew

mix

ed-u

se in

fill b

uild

ing.

City

, cou

nty,

and

pr

oper

ty o

wne

r.Pr

ince

Geo

rge’

s Co

unty

Red

evel

opm

ent A

utho

rity

(E

.31)

Med

ium

term

L534

01-3

415

Perr

y St

reet

clu

ster

(S

outh

Per

ry S

tree

t ): N

ew in

fill

resi

denti

al b

uild

ing,

new

com

mer

cial

offi

ce b

uild

ing,

or

mix

ed-u

se

build

ing.

City

and

pro

pert

y ow

ner.

• Th

e Co

mm

unity

Dev

elop

men

t Blo

ck G

rant

Pr

ogra

m (E

.29)

.•

Prop

erty

Tax

Aba

tem

ent (

E.31

).•

Prin

ce G

eorg

e’s

Coun

ty R

edev

elop

men

t A

utho

rity

(E.3

1).

• G

atew

ay C

omm

unity

Dev

elop

men

t Co

rpor

ation

(E.3

2).

Long

term

Civi

c Co

re/C

ity C

ente

r—La

nd U

se Im

plem

enta

tion

Char

t

Not

e: T

he c

hart

sho

ws

poss

ible

fund

ing

sour

ces

to im

plem

ent a

giv

en p

ortio

n of

the

plan

vis

ion.

So

me

unlis

ted

fund

ing

sour

ces

may

als

o be

ap

plic

able

.

E.27


IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G A

CTIO

NRE

SPO

NSI

BLE

AG

ENCI

ES/

STA

KEH

OLD

ERS

POSS

IBLE

IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G

TOO

LS A

ND

FU

ND

ING

SO

URC

ESPH

ASI

NG

PRIO

RITY

A

CTIO

N

B134

05 R

hode

Isla

nd A

venu

e

(Eas

tern

Sta

r):

• Re

nova

tion

for n

ew m

unic

ipal

use

.•

Faça

de a

dditi

on/r

enov

ation

on

wes

tern

sid

e, to

war

ds c

ivic

gre

en.

City

• Th

e Co

mm

unity

Leg

acy

Prog

ram

(E.2

9)•

Capi

tal I

mpr

ovem

ent P

roje

ct (E

.30)

• H

isto

ric

Prop

erty

Gra

nt P

rogr

am (E

.31)

Nea

rte

rmYe

s

B233

00 R

hode

Isla

nd A

venu

e

(Sin

ger

Build

ing)

:•

Expl

ore

addi

tiona

l floo

r.•

Faça

de im

prov

emen

ts.

• Re

nova

te b

uild

ing

for

mix

ed-u

se

(ret

ail/

resi

denti

al).

City

and

pro

pert

y ow

ner.

• Th

e Co

mm

unity

Dev

elop

men

t Blo

ck G

rant

Pr

ogra

m (E

.29)

.•

HO

ME

Inve

stm

ent P

artn

ersh

ip P

rogr

am (E

.29)

.•

Prop

erty

Tax

Aba

tem

ents

(E.3

1).

• H

isto

ric

Prop

erty

Gra

nt P

rogr

am (E

.31)

.

Nea

rte

rmYe

s

B338

00 3

4th

Stre

et (b

ank

build

ing)

:•

Faça

de im

prov

emen

ts/

reno

vatio

ns.

• Si

gnag

e.

City

and

pro

pert

y ow

ner.

• Th

e Co

mm

unity

Leg

acy

Prog

ram

( E.

29)

• Ca

pita

l Im

prov

emen

t Pro

ject

(E.3

0)•

Mai

n St

reet

Mar

ylan

d (E

.32)

Nea

rte

rm

B434

09 R

hode

Isla

nd A

venu

e

(libr

ary)

: New

or

reno

vate

d lib

rary

bu

ildin

g.

City

and

cou

nty

Capi

tal I

mpr

ovem

ent P

roje

ct (E

.30)

Med

ium

term

B533

08–3

310

Rhod

e Is

land

Ave

nue

(h

isto

ric

tria

ngle

):•

Build

ing

reno

vatio

n•

Faça

de im

prov

emen

ts•

New

reta

il/re

stau

rant

use

City

, pro

pert

y ow

ner,

and

busi

ness

ow

ner.

• Th

e Co

mm

unity

Leg

acy

Prog

ram

( E.

29)

• Co

ntri

butio

n fr

om lo

cal d

evel

oper

(E.3

0)•

Mai

n St

reet

Mar

ylan

d (E

.32)

Med

ium

term

Civi

c Co

re/C

ity C

ente

r–Bu

ildin

g Im

plem

enta

tion

Char

t

Not

e: T

he c

hart

sho

ws

poss

ible

fund

ing

sour

ces

to im

plem

ent a

giv

en p

ortio

n of

the

plan

vis

ion.

So

me

unlis

ted

fund

ing

sour

ces

may

als

o be

ap

plic

able

.

E.28

Implementation

IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G A

CTIO

NRE

SPO

NSI

BLE

AG

ENCI

ES/

STA

KEH

OLD

ERS

POSS

IBLE

IMPL

EMEN

TIN

G

TOO

LS A

ND

FU

ND

ING

SO

URC

ESPH

ASI

NG

PRIO

RITY

A

CTIO

N

B6N

orth

Rho

de Is

land

Ave

nue

clus

ter

(tra

nsit-

serv

ing

reta

il):

• Fa

çade

impr

ovem

ents

• Si

gnag

e

City

, pro

pert

y ow

ner,

and

busi

ness

ow

ner.

• Th

e Co

mm

unity

Leg

acy

Prog

ram

( E.

29)

• Co

ntri

butio

n fr

om lo

cal d

evel

oper

(E.3

0)•

Mai

n St

reet

Mar

ylan

d (E

.32)

Med

ium

term

B738

02 3

4th

Stre

et

(Old

Joe’

s M

ovem

ent E

mpo

rium

):•

Add

add

ition

al fl

oor

• Fa

çade

impr

ovem

ents

• Bu

ildin

g re

nova

tions

City

and

pro

pert

y ow

ner.

• Th

e Co

mm

unity

Leg

acy

Prog

ram

( E.

29)

• Co

ntri

butio

n fr

om lo

cal d

evel

oper

(E.3

0)•

Mai

n St

reet

Mar

ylan

d (E

.32)

Med

ium

term

Civi

c Co

re—

Build

ing

Impl

emen

tatio

n Ch

art (

conti

nued

)

Not

e: T

he c

hart

sho

ws

poss

ible

fund

ing

sour

ces

to im

plem

ent a

giv

en p

ortio

n of

the

plan

vis

ion.

So

me

unlis

ted

fund

ing

sour

ces

may

als

o be

ap

plic

able

.

E.29


Implementation Tools and Programs

The implementation charts describe actions that should be taken to revitalize the M-U-TC area. These actions can utilize numerous funding programs that will achieve the plan vision for the area. Residential development is recommended as the primary growth opportunity with focused ancillary new commercial/retail space and designated arts space.

Numerous incentives and techniques can be employed to facilitate these developments, minimize existing barriers and development constraints, and build on specific opportunities created by the plan. They range from fairly conceptual and more specific incentives and programs to direct subsidies and assistance by the public sector. These programs and incentives should be considered individually and collectively for their applicability to desired development and redevelopment projects.

Current Successful Programs

The City of Mount Rainier currently utilizes, or can potentially utilize, several programs that serve as vital funding resources for community development. Throughout implementation of the development plan, the city should continue its work with the following ten programs:

1. The Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). A Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administered program, CDBG provides communities with resources to address a wide range of development needs. It is administered and sponsored by the State of Maryland’s Department of Housing and Community Development. Grants for projects can range from community infrastructure repairs to affordable housing and public facilities.

2. HOME Investment Partnership Program. This HUD initiative provides formula grants to states and localities that communities often use in partnership with local non-profit groups. The grants are used to buy, build and/or rehabilitate affordable housing for rent or homeownership.

3. The Community Legacy Program. Funding from this program is provided through

the Maryland Community Development Administration (Neighborhood Revitalization). It supports various community projects that enhance smart growth efforts and economic development. Funds are awarded to local governments for revitalization projects comprising main street façade improvements, building renovations for public facilities (i.e., Mount Rainier Library), housing acquisition and rehabilitation, technical and planning studies, streetscape improvements, demolition of derelict properties, and the redevelopment of vacant parcels.

4. Prince George’s County Economic Development Corporation (EDC). EDC provides grants for market analysis.

5. Maryland Technical Assistance Program. This program provides funding for market and feasibility analyses that are administered through Maryland’s Department of Housing and Community Development Neighborhood Revitalization program.

6. State Bond Bills. The City of Mount Rainier used this funding mechanism to obtain a $150,000 capital grant via a Senate Bond Bill for renovation of the community center/public library located at 3409 Rhode Island Avenue.

7. Department of Natural Resources State Forest Conservation Program. This program supports the city’s matching fund requirement for its tree replacement stock.

8. Prince George’s County Tree ReLeaf Program. Awards funds to the City of Mount Rainier for the planting of new trees required to replace diseased and dying trees. The city’s matching funds are provided via a state grant.

9. Congressional Appropriations. The City of Mount Rainier requests this direct funding for specific projects (i.e., acquisition of vacant and blighted buildings).

10. Prince George’s County Economic Stimulus Program. The City of Mount Rainier can apply for state funding through the County Executive’s office.

E.30

Implementation

Transportation Implementation Tools

1. Parking Equipment Maintenance Budget The City of Mount Rainier has an annual budget for parking meter maintenance that can be used to gradually phase in multispace pay-on-foot meters.

2. Retail Parking Revenue Revenue associated with retail parking spaces on 34th Street and Rhode Island Avenue would defray the cost of meter installation and maintenance. Any remaining revenue would go into the city’s general fund.

3. Sidewalk and Street Maintenance Budget The City of Mount Rainier has an annual budget for sidewalk and street maintenance that can be used to gradually phase in plan vision recommendations.

4. Public-Private Shared Parking Arrangement The City of Mount Rainier makes agreements with private property owners enabling them to retain access to parking spaces serving their developments and to lease or allow area patrons to use their excess parking. In terms of these agreements the city could install meters for excess parking on private properties.

5. Capital Improvement Project The City of Mount Rainier allocates funds towards construction projects with a fixed budget and timeline.

6. City Speed Camera Legislation The City Council of Mount Rainier has passed speed camera legislation that allows speed cameras to be placed within the city. The legislation allows municipalities to use photo speed monitoring systems in school zones and to issue citations or warnings to vehicle owners who exceed posted speed limits by 12 miles an hour. Since 95 percent of Mount Rainier lies within half a mile of an elementary school, practically the whole city is covered by this legislation. Revenue will defray the costs of operating the cameras and processing citations. Any remaining revenue would go to the city’s general fund and could possibly be used for plan vision initiatives.

7. Federal Government Stimulus Funding The city received a $98,000 portion of a federal

grant for city sidewalks near Kaywood Gardens. Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley has made a portion of the $206.7 million federal grant available to local jurisdictions that have highway projects “shovel-ready.” Thirty percent of the remaining funds, or $62 million, will be made available to counties throughout the state.

8. Contribution from Local Developer Any major redevelopment project that would benefit from streetscape improvements would warrant a contribution from the project developer.

Prince George’s County Economic Revitalization Programs

1. Prince George’s County’s Revitalization Area Tax Credit ProgramThis program offers a diminishing county property tax credit over several years for assessable improvements made to commercial, industrial, and residential properties. The tax credits are intended to help enhance the financial feasibility of projects by reducing operating costs. Qualifying commercial projects receive a graduated tax credit over five years, beginning with a 100 percent credit the first year, 80 percent in the second year, 60 percent in the third year, 40 percent in the fourth year, and 20 percent in the fifth year. Residential property taxes are abated 100 percent in the first year, 66 percent in the second year, and 33 percent in the third year.

2. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) Property tax revenues are frozen when a TIF is implemented. This base revenue will continue to flow to the taxing entities throughout the life of the district. However, as development and redevelopment occur, property tax revenues increase. This increase in property tax revenue from the base year (or the increment) is retained in a special allocation fund (TIF fund). These funds can be reinvested in the district or used to purchase land and/or fund capital investment through TIF revenue bonds underwritten by the dedicated increment of related municipal taxes and guaranteed by the issuing municipality.

E.31


ACE-NET: This program offers equity financing from $250,000 to $3 million for smaller-scale entrepreneurs looking for equity financing.

7. Prince George’s County Redevelopment Authority Business Building Re-Use Program (BBRP): The BBRP is designed to help encourage the re-use of vacant or underutilized business buildings. For example, if market studies indicate that a vacant or underutilized strip center is no longer viable as a retail facility, the BBRP will provide up to 25 percent, but no more than $1.0 million, of the financing necessary to convert the property into another viable business use. New Building Loan Program (NBLP): The NBLP is designed to help encourage new retail, commercial, and industrial development projects in inner-Beltway communities where market studies indicate that new facilities can be supported. This program will provide up to 50 percent, but no more than $2.0 million, of the financing necessary for the construction cost of a project.

8. Prince George’s County Economic Development Corporation (EDC)EDC primarily assists with business recruitment and retention (i.e., provides grants for market analysis).

9. Historic Property Grant Program This program is designed to preserve, protect, and enhance historic properties; encourage others to preserve, protect, and enhance historic properties; and promote interest in the study of historic properties. Grants are awarded for the rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, or acquisition of historic property.

10. Land Readjustment Programs Also known as land consolidation or land pooling, this approach involves the private sector pooling land for the purpose of creating a larger unified development site. It allows property owners to retain the incremental value gained from the development of their land to more intensive use rather than having the benefit accrue to the developer after the land is sold.

3. Property Tax Abatements This comprises the abatement of defined municipal taxes for a specified period, usually not exceeding 10 to 15 years, and perhaps on a declining scale. The abated city, and if applicable, county taxes, are retained by the development entity to help cover a shortfall in financing for municipally prioritized private development.

4. Business Improvements District (BID) BIDs are targeted areas managed by local business-oriented organizations. These organizations are supported by supplemental fees paid by affected property owners and businesses.

5. Revolving Loan Program This program is directed toward for-profit organizations with 50 or fewer employees, whose primary sales are generated by engineering, life sciences, computer sciences, electronics, and other technology activities. Companies that provide technical products or services through the commercialization of advanced technology are also targets of this program. In order to qualify for this program companies must have an operating physical facility or headquarters located in a priority funding area in Prince George’s County, such as Mount Rainier. Loan amounts range from $25,000 to $100,000.

6. Prince George’s Financial Service Corporation Small Business Growth Fund: This program targets businesses with 25 or fewer employees. Funding from this source is often directed towards expansion of existing businesses, but start-up funding is considered on a case-by-case basis. Funding can be used for building renovations or leasehold improvements. SBA 504: This federal program is administered through the Prince George’s Financial Services Corporation (FSC). The target of this program is healthy, expanding small businesses. The FSC offers financing at below-market rate, which can be used to acquire land or buildings, construct buildings, make leasehold improvements, or to purchase machinery.

E.32

Implementation

Properties are consolidated through a private corporation, landowners association, public corporation, or public agency. Owners are accorded shares relating their assessed property values as percentages of the total value of all properties combined. The land is then planned without regard to property lines and is resubdivided and returned to individual property owners with all development requirements having been satisfied. The project can then be built out separately by several developers or by a single developer. Some lots may be sold to offset the cost of infrastructure improvements. The result is that the original property owners realize greater value for their properties by creating a larger developable site.

11. Capital Improvement Program Direct funding is allocated from either city or county budgets for specific public infrastructure or community revitalization initiatives.

12. Gateway Community Development Corporation This corporation targets arts-based revitalization and economic development in the Gateway Arts District, which spans two miles along US 1 from Mount Rainier to Hyattsville.

13. Public Parking Public parking is appropriate when a range of land uses, rather than a single user, benefit from the parking. The Prince George’s County Revenue Authority’s mission is to create revenue streams for the county and to encourage economic development. As initial costs may be high, partnerships with municipalities, the Redevelopment Authority, a business association, or other entities may be required. The Redevelopment Authority, with the approval of a municipality and the direction of the County Council, may create a parking district within any municipal commercial area. A parking district collects parking fees for all public parking spaces in the district from individual users, commercial center businesses, or an alternative entity such as a business association. Initial financing would come from non-city sources, but in the long run projected parking revenue must be sufficient to pay off construction, financing, and maintenance.

14. Foreclosure Prevention Prince George’s County has the highest rate of foreclosures in the state. Foreclosures destabilize neighborhoods by displacing residents, reducing property values, and creating an abandoned housing stock that potentially attracts criminal activity. A variety of programs and services exist to prevent foreclosures. These include the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development’s Bridge to HOPE Loan Program, Lifeline Refinance Mortgage Program, Homesaver Mortgage Refinance Program, and the Prince George’s County Department of Social Services’ Homelessness Prevention Program.

Maryland State Programs

1. Maryland Economic Development Assistance Authority and Fund (MEDAAF)Local Economic Development Opportunity: This program targets expanding businesses that have already had dramatic economic development impacts on their communities. The local jurisdiction must sponsor the businesses and must participate in the form of either guarantees, direct loans or grants in amounts equal to at least 10 percent of the state’s financial assistance. Loans may be made up to $5 million, while conditional loans and grants may be made up to $2 million.

2. Main Street Maryland This is a comprehensive downtown revitalization program that was created in 1998 by the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development. The program strives to strengthen the economic potential of Maryland’s traditional main streets and neighborhoods. The City of Takoma Park is a successful local example of the Main Street Maryland program.

3. Maryland’s Job Creation Tax Credit This program provides income tax credits to businesses that create new jobs to encourage them to expand or relocate in Maryland. In most cases, the credit is 2.5 percent of annual wages for all newly created, full-time jobs, subject to a limit of $1,000 per new job. In a state enterprise zone, a federal empowerment zone, or a Maryland

E.33


Department of Housing and Community Development designated neighborhood, the credit is increased to five percent of annual wages for all newly created full-time jobs. Tax credits are subject to a limit of $1,500 per new job. The total credit earned by a qualified business entity may not exceed $1 million per credit year. If the credit is more than the tax liability, the unused credit may be carried forward for five years following the credit year. The credit may be recaptured if the business experiences job losses.

4. One Maryland Economic Development Tax Credit Businesses can qualify for up to $5.5 million in income tax credits under the income tax credit program. Businesses that invest in an economic development project in a “qualified distressed county” may qualify for project tax credits of up to $5 million and start-up tax credits of up to $500,000. Project tax credits of up to $5 million are based on qualifying costs and expenses incurred by the business entity in connection with the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, installation, and equipping of an eligible economic development project. Eligible costs may include, among others, land acquisition, performance and contract bonds, insurance, architectural and engineering services, environmental damage mitigation, and utility installation. Eligible project costs must be at least $500,000; project costs in excess of $5 million are not eligible for the project tax credit.

5. Start-up Tax Credits These are provided for the expense of moving a business into Maryland and for the costs of furnishing and equipping a new location for ordinary business functions. Examples of eligible start-up costs include the cost of fixed telecommunications equipment, office equipment, or office furnishings. The start-up credit earned may not exceed the lesser of $500,000 of eligible start-up costs or $10,000 times the number of new, qualified positions created.

6. Regional or Local Revolving Loan Fund This program provides grants to local jurisdictions to help capitalize local revolving loan funds. Eligible applicants include a county or regional economic development agency, whether public or private. A jurisdiction may transfer all, or a portion of its allocation to a regional revolving loan fund. The Department of Business and Economic Development (DBED) may not make grants totaling more than $2 million per fiscal year. To qualify for a grant, the local government must provide a matching grant of funds to the local revolving loan fund.

7. Maryland Industrial Development Financing Authority (MIDFA)This program encourages private sector financing in economic development projects located in priority funding areas. MIDFA facilitates capital access by issuing private activity revenue bonds and can provide credit insurance in the form of a deficiency guaranty to reduce lender’s risk. While the transaction size is generally not limited, the credit enhancement is subject to the applicable program limits. MIDFA-provided Private Activity Revenue Bonds comes in two forms, a Taxable Bond or Tax Exempt Bond. The first type of bond provides access to long-term capital markets for primarily fixed asset financing. The second type of bond provides access to long-term capital markets for fixed asset financing at tax-exempt rates. Eligibility is limited by federal tax law to 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations, manufacturing facilities, and certain energy projects. Additional limitations apply to each specific transaction type. MIDFA also provides credit insurance through a conventional program that insures up to 80 percent, not to exceed $2.5 million, of transactions made by a financial institution. Export transactions may be insured up to 90 percent. The second type of credit insurance is provided through a bond program that insures bonds up to 100 percent, not to exceed $7.5 million, of taxable or tax-exempt bonds. A third type of insurance is associated with a linked deposit. In certain rural areas with qualifying high unemployment, MIDFA can provide a certificate

E.34

Implementation

of deposit to the lender as a funding source and pricing incentive to provide below market rate loans to an eligible small business. The certificate of deposit is not a guaranty or collateral to the loan.

8. Maryland Economic Development Corporation This state enabled corporation issues bonds to finance public benefit developments.

9. Community Investment Tax Credits (CITC) Formerly named Neighborhood Partnership Program (NPP), this program supports nonprofit projects by awarding allocations of state tax credits to the sponsoring organizations to use as incentives for business contributions. Any business may reduce its Maryland tax liability by contributing cash, goods, or real property to CITC projects. Contributions of real property are limited to designated nonprofits that sponsor community activities. The Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) must authorize the real property donation before the contribution transaction. Contributions of services are not eligible for tax credits. The business earns credits equal to 50 percent of the contribution, in addition to deductions on both state and federal taxes as a result of the charitable contribution.

10. Offices and Commercial Space Conversion Initiative This initiative assists in the revitalization of Maryland's downtown areas by converting older office and commercial space into new, market rate, rental housing. The program is designed to supplement conventional financing. There are no income limits and processing requirements are limited to those that are necessary to ensure prudent lending practices and compliance with the program's statutory requirements. A recommendation from local government is required as a condition for the submission of an application.

11. Maryland Capital Access Program (MCAP) This program is a revitalization resource to support the growth and success of small businesses in priority funding areas throughout the State of Maryland. MCAP is a small business credit enhancement program that enables private lenders to establish a loan loss reserve fund from fees paid by lenders, borrowers, and the State of Maryland.

Communities that have small businesses receiving financing through loans enrolled in MCAP will benefit from new or expanded services provided by the small businesses. Most Maryland small businesses, including nonprofit organizations, are eligible. Businesses must be located in Maryland’s “priority funding areas” (PFAs) approved by the Maryland Department of Planning for state funding in accordance with the Smart Growth Act of 1997. Nearly all populated areas of the state are recognized PFAs. Lenders that may participate are federally insured financial institutions, institutions regulated by the Commissioner of Financial Regulation, and others who have a participation agreement with DHCD. An enrolled loan, or portion of a loan, may range from $10,000 to $1,000,000.

12. Neighborhood BusinessWorks Program This program (formerly named Neighborhood Business Development Program) provides flexible gap financing in the form of below-market interest rate loans to small businesses and nonprofit organizations locating or expanding in locally designated neighborhood revitalization areas. Financing ranges from $25,000 to $500,000 for up to 50 percent of a project’s total cost. Eligibility requirements include the pre-lease rate of 51 percent before loan closing. The Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development administers this program. The program also requires that the applicant have a 5 percent minimum cash equity, based on total development cost, in the project. Personal guarantees and collateral are required. There are no application fees and no prepayment penalties.

13. State of Maryland Small Business Development CenterThe center provides a wide variety of services, including classes and one-on-one counseling. Many services are free. These free services include a Neighborhood Business Development Program that provides gap financing for new or expanding businesses for a wide range of needs, including real estate acquisition and working capital. Loans of $25,000-$500,000—covering up to 50 percent of project costs—can be provided.

E.35


14. Small Business Development Financing Authority The authority provides a range of loans, bond guarantees, and equity investments. Many are targeted at socially and economically disadvantaged business owners.

15. Capacity Building Sources of capacity building include the Catalyst Program—available statewide to any entity submitting a funding application to Maryland’s Department of Housing and Community Development and to partners committed to strengthening Maryland’s neighborhoods—and the Center for Nonprofit Advancement.

16. Community Legacy: CDFI (Community Development Finance Institution) Neighborhood InterventionCDFI provides financial assistance to individuals or business entities that are owner-occupants, community development organizations, or local governments for the purpose of buying properties that are in need of rehabilitation and are located in stable neighborhoods. Neighborhood Intervention Demolition provides funding to local governments to demolish properties that are dangerous to use or occupy, are so deteriorated that rehabilitation is not feasible, and are located in stable neighborhoods. Neighborhood Intervention—Redevelopment Ready provides funding for projects sponsored by a local government for the purpose of demolishing improvements on property to prepare the property for revitalization, redevelopment or re-use as part of a redevelopment plan.

17. Maryland Technical Assistance Program This program provides funding for market and feasibility analyses that are administered through Maryland’s Department of Housing and Community Development Neighborhood Revitalization program.

18. Art in Communities This is a quarterly grant program for Maryland non-profit organizations that produce or present the arts.

19. Community Arts Development Public Art Project grants and Community Arts Development grants are administered through this program.

20. Department of Natural Resources State Forest Conservation ProgramThis program supports the city’s matching fund requirement for its tree replacement stock.

Federal Programs

1. Congressional Appropriations Direct funding for prioritized municipal projects is provided.

2. New Market Tax Credits Federal tax credits could be used in a variety of ways to facilitate a project by providing an additional equity or financing source. Although these tax credits are federally provided, the Prince George’s County Community Capital Corporation is the local intermediary that applies to the U.S. Treasury Department to receive New Market Tax Credits (NMTC).

3. Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUB Zones)This is a federal program in which the HUB Zones are located in census tracts that have been designated as “statutory mandated designation of qualified census tracts and difficult development areas” for Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1996. A non-metropolitan county area is also considered a HUB Zone if the median household income of the county is less than 80 percent of the non-metropolitan state median household income, or has an unemployment rate that is more than 1.4 times the statewide average.

4. Small Business Administration Federal Microloan Program: Loans of $500-$25,000. SBA authorizes over 100 micro lenders nationwide to administer the SBA 7(m) Microloan program.

E.36

Implementation

Property and building cluster profiles on the following pages provide details pertaining to the existing conditions and development potential for major development/redevelopment opportunity sites highlighted in the plan vision.

The Existing Conditions sections include information such as: lot area, land use, building details, historic integrity, and ownership. The Implementation Factors refer to general implementation, cost, benefit, and phasing factors as well as other additional comments.

properTy and BuiLding cLusTer profiLes LocaTion map

N

Property and Building Cluster Profiles

Rhode Island Avenue

34th

Stre

et

Bunker Hill Road

Perry Street

45

67

16

17

12

13

14

15

10

11

98

12 3

45

3

1 2

Property profile

Building cluster profile

Boundary

LEGEND

##

E.37


Existing Condition Lot Area (sf) 5,895 Existing Improvements (sf) 16,000 (est) Building Height (ft) 40 (est) Land Use Mixed-use (commercial and residential) Year Built 1936 Description / Physical Condition Three-story brick building in poor condition having been vacant for 20 years Historic Designation and Integrity Moderate Leased or Owned For sale Ownership Entity Metro Development

Proposed Development Plan Vision Land Use Mixed-use Product Type Retail and residential Square Footage 16,000 Building Height 40 ft / 3-stories Historic Preservation Design Standards and Guidelines Design Factors TBD Parking Off site Other Use of sidewalk space

Implementation Factors Phasing Near term (priority) Cost High Benefit High Regulatory / Incentives / Etc. TBD

Comments

1

Building Redevelopment

Singer Building - 3300 Rhode Island Avenue

Singer triangle rebirth potential - coordinate redevelopment with 3308 and 3310 Rhode Island Avenue as much as possible.

Civic Core

Rhode Island Avenue

34th

Stre

et

33rd

Stre

et

Perry Street

Property profile

Building cluster profile

Boundary

E.38

Implementation

Existing Condition Lot Area (sf) 1,475 Existing Improvements (sf) 2,200 Building Height (ft) 35 (est) Land Use Commercial / retail Year Built 1925 Description / Physical Condition Two-story vacant brick building in fair condition Historic Designation and Integrity Moderate Leased or Owned Vacant for lease Ownership Entity Neil Letren

Proposed Development Plan Vision Land Use Commercial Product Type Retail / office Square Footage 2,200 Building Height 35 (est) Historic Preservation Design Standards and Guidelines Design Factors TBD Parking Off site Other Use of sidewalk space

Implementation Factors Phasing Near term Cost Medium Benefit Medium Regulatory / Incentives / Etc. TBD

Comments Singer triangle rebirth potential - coordinate redevelopment with 3300 and 3310 Rhode Island Avenue as much as possible.

Civic Core2



Rhode Island Avenue

34th

Stre

et

33rd

Stre

et

Perry Street

E.39


Existing Condition Lot Area (sf) 1,520 Existing Improvements (sf) 1,650 Building Height (ft) 32 (est) Land Use Commercial / Retail Year Built 1966 Description / Physical Condition One-story vacant brick building in fair condition Historic Designation and Integrity Moderate Leased or Owned Vacant for lease Ownership Entity Circletree LLC

Proposed Development Plan Vision Land Use Commercial Product Type Retail Square Footage 1,650 Building Height 32 (est) Historic Preservation Design Standards and Guidelines Design Factors TBD Parking Off site Other Use of sidewalk space


Comments Singer triangle rebirth potential - coordinate redevelopment with 3300 and 3308 Rhode Island Avenue as much as possible.

Civic Core3


Circle Café - 3310 Rhode Island Avenue

Perry Street

Rhode Island Avenue

34th

Stre

et

33rd

Stre

et

E.40

Implementation

Existing Condition Lot Area (sf) 32,906 Existing Improvements (sf) 7,424 Building Height (ft) 20 (est) Land Use Commercial Year Built 1920 Description / Physical Condition Historic Designation and Integrity Low Leased or Owned Owned Ownership Entity City of Mount Rainier (3200 and 3701 are under contract)

Proposed Development Plan Vision Land Use Residential Product Type Multifamily/stacked townhomes Square Footage 65,000+ Building Height 50 ft Historic Preservation No Design Factors TBD Parking On site Other Possible limited retail

Implementation Factors Phasing Near to medium term (priority) Cost High Benefit High Regulatory / Incentives / Etc. TBD

Comments

4

Infill Development

3200, 3204, 3208 Rhode Island Avenue and 3701, 3703, 3705 Eastern Avenue

Boulevard

This proposal is based on the assumption that the city acquires the funeral home, that parcels are consolidated, and that buildings are demolished.

Six lots combined improved with a single family residence.

Perry Street

Rhode Island AvenueEastern Avenue

E.41


Existing Condition Lot Area (sf) 19,425 Existing Improvements (sf) 8,910 Building Height (ft) 30 (est) Land Use Commercial Year Built 1940 Description / Physical Condition

Historic Designation and Integrity Low Leased or Owned Owned Ownership Entity Arrow, Inc.

Proposed Development Plan Vision Land Use Mixed use Product Type Residential with some retail Square Footage 25,000+ Building Height TBD Historic Preservation No Design Factors TBD Parking On site Other N/A

Implementation Factors Phasing Near to medium term (priority) Cost High Benefit High Regulatory / Incentives / Etc. TBD

Comments

5

Infill Development

3210 - 3212 Rhode Island Avenue

Boulevard

Does not include two adjacent sites totaling 7,908 sf owned by Arrow, Inc. Redevelopment should be coordinated with adjacent city sites.

Two-story brick building currently operating as a Thrifty Car Rental with adjacent surface parking lot.

Perry Street


E.42

Implementation

Existing Condition Lot Area (sf) 2,500 Existing Improvements (sf) N/A Building Height (ft) N/A Land Use Commercial Year Built N/A Description / Physical Condition Vacant surface parking lot Historic Designation & Integrity None Leased or Owned Owned Ownership Entity Arrow, Inc.

Proposed Development Plan Vision Land Use Civic Product Type Performing/Cultural Arts Square Footage TBD Building Height Three stories Historic Preservation No Design Factors TBD Parking Integrated with adjacent parcels Other

Implementation Factors Phasing Near term (priority) Cost High Benefit Very High Regulatory / Incentives / Etc. TBD

Comments Parcel is currently part of the Thrifty Car Rental site and redevelopment should be coordinated with the entire 3200 block.

Boulevard6

Infill Development


Perry Street


E.43


Existing Condition Lot Area (sf) 5,408 Existing Improvements (sf) 520 Building Height (ft) 20 (est) Land Use Commercial Year Built 1934 Description / Physical Condition One-story vacant former gas station in poor condition Historic Designation and Integrity High Leased or Owned Owned Ownership Entity Arrow, Inc. (Larry Solomon)

Proposed Development Plan Vision Land Use Commercial Product Type Retail Square Footage TBD Building Height One story Historic Preservation Design Standards and Guidelines Design Factors TBD Parking On site Other Use of outdoor space

Implementation Factors Phasing Near term Cost Medium Benefit High Regulatory / Incentives / Etc. TBD

Comments Parcel is currently part of the Thrifty Car Rental site and redevelopment should be coordinated with the entire 3200 block.

Boulevard7

Building Renovation


Perry Street


E.44

Implementation

Existing Condition Lot Area (sf) 10,745 Existing Improvements (sf) None Building Height (ft) N/A Land Use Vacant lot (temporary garden) Year Built N/A Description / Physical Condition Two vacant lots surrounded by single-family dwellings Historic Designation and Integrity None Leased or Owned Owned Ownership Entity Jadja Bonhomme

Proposed Development Plan Vision Land Use Residential (low density) Product Type Two to three-story single-family Square Footage TBD Building Height TBD Historic Preservation No Design Factors TBD Parking On site Other N/A


Comments

8

Infill Development

Corner of Perry and 33rd Streets

Two lots (may be two different owners) that are listed for sale.

Civic Core

Rhode Island Avenue

34th

Stre

et

33rd

Stre

et

Perry Street

E.45


Existing Condition Lot Area (sf) 1,706 Existing Improvements (sf) 3,024 Building Height (ft) 30 (est) Land Use Commercial Year Built 1920 Description / Physical Condition Two+ stories historic brick building in good condition Historic Designation and Integrity Very high Leased or Owned Owned Ownership Entity Latin American Folk Institute

Proposed Development Plan Vision Land Use Commercial Product Type Commercial Square Footage 3,024 Building Height 30 ft (est) Historic Preservation Design Standards and Guidelines Design Factors TBD Parking Off site Other N/A

Implementation Factors Phasing Medium term Cost Medium Benefit High Regulatory / Incentives / Etc. TBD

Comments

3800 34th Street - Prince George's Bank Building

A significant historic building situated on a high profile corner location.

9Civic Core

Building Renovation

Perry Street Rhode Island Avenue

34th

Stre

et

33rd

Stre

et

E.46

Implementation

Existing Condition Lot Area (sf) 2,600 Existing Improvements (sf) 4,088 Building Height (ft) 50+ (est) Land Use Commercial Year Built 1902 Description / Physical Condition Two and one-half story historic building in good condition Historic Designation and Integrity Moderate Leased or Owned Owned Ownership Entity Adah Chapter No 25 Order Eastern Star (city purchasing)

Proposed Development Plan Vision Land Use Civic Product Type City Hall expansion / civic Square Footage 4,088 Building Height 50+ (est) Historic Preservation Design Standards and Guidelines Design Factors TBD Parking Off site Other Façade/bldg. merger (new addition)

Implementation Factors Phasing Near term (priority) Cost Medium Benefit High Regulatory / Incentives / Etc. TBD

Comments

10

Building Renovation / Additions

Eastern Star Building - 3405 Rhode Island Avenue

This proposal is based on the assumption that the City of Mount Rainier acquires the site and expands its civic uses.

Civic Core

Perry Street

34th

Stre

et

Rhode Island Avenue

E.47


Existing Condition Lot Area (sf) 12,700 Existing Improvements (sf) None Building Height (ft) N/A Land Use Surface parking Year Built N/A Description / Physical Condition Two vacant lots Historic Designation and Integrity None Leased or Owned Owned Ownership Entity Randhawa and Gill LLC

Proposed Development Plan Vision Land Use Mixed use Product Type Residential / commercial Square Footage TBD Building Height TBD Historic Preservation No Design Factors TBD Parking On site Other N/A

Implementation Factors Phasing Medium term Cost High Benefit High Regulatory / Incentives / Etc. TBD

Comments

11

Infill Development


Redevelopment may include existing adjacent buildings under same ownership.

Civic Core

Perry Street

Rhode Island Avenue

34th

Stre

et

E.48

Implementation

Existing Condition Lot Area (sf) 875 Existing Improvements (sf) None Building Height (ft) N/A Land Use Vacant Year Built N/A Description / Physical Condition Small vacant lot (former building) Historic Designation and Integrity None Leased or Owned Owned Ownership Entity William and Bertha Moore

Proposed Development Plan Vision Land Use Commercial Product Type TBD Square Footage TBD Building Height TBD Historic Preservation No Design Factors TBD Parking TBD Other N/A

Implementation Factors Phasing Medium term Cost Medium Benefit Medium Regulatory / Incentives / Etc. TBD

Comments

12

Infill Development

3805 34th Street

Civic Core

Potential is there for the lot to be redeveloped in conjunction with 3424-3428 Rhode Island Avenue.

Perry Street

Rhode Island Avenue

34th

Stre

et

E.49


Existing Condition Lot Area (sf) 1,500 Existing Improvements (sf) None Building Height (ft) N/A Land Use Vacant lot Year Built N/A Description / Physical Condition Small vacant parcel Historic Designation and Integrity None Leased or Owned Owned Ownership Entity City of Mount Rainier

Proposed Development Plan Vision Land Use Commercial Product Type Commercial Square Footage TBD Building Height TBD Historic Preservation No Design Factors TBD Parking TBD Other N/A


Comments

13

Infill Development

Parcel Between 3815 and 3817 34th Street

Possible access to 3424-3428 Rhode Island Avenue redevelopment and parking.

Main Street

Perry Street

Rhode Island Avenue

34th

Stre

et

E.50

Implementation

Existing Condition Lot Area (sf) 5,600 Existing Improvements (sf) None Building Height (ft) N/A Land Use Vacant lot (former house) Year Built N/A Description / Physical Condition Vacant lot Historic Designation and Integrity None Leased or Owned Owned Ownership Entity Metropolitan Church of God

Proposed Development Plan Vision Land Use Commercial or mixed use Product Type TBD Square Footage TBD Building Height TBD Historic Preservation No Design Factors TBD Parking TBD Other N/A

Implementation Factors Phasing Longer term Cost High Benefit Medium Regulatory / Incentives / Etc. TBD

Comments

14

Infill Development

3841 34th Street

Possible interim use as a surface parking lot. Shared parking.

Main Street

Bunker Hill Road

Rhode Island Avenue34th

Stre

et

E.51


Existing Condition Lot Area (sf) 8,720 Existing Improvements (sf) 4,720 Building Height (ft) 30 (est) Land Use Commercial Year Built 1912 (original building) Description / Physical Condition

Historic Designation and Integrity Very High Leased or Owned Leased Ownership Entity David and Lisette Attias

Proposed Development Plan Vision Land Use Commercial Product Type Commercial Square Footage TBD Building Height 30 ft +/- Historic Preservation Design Standards and Guidelines Design Factors TBD Parking Off site Other N/A

Implementation Factors Phasing Medium term Cost High Benefit High Regulatory / Incentives / Etc. TBD

Comments

3401 Bunker Hill Road - Kline Bakery

Explore the possibility of removing the storefront addition and restoring the historic façade and porch to its original integrity.

15Main Street

Building Renovation

Two and one-half story brick building with a storefront addition in good condition

Bunker Hill Road

34th

Stre

et

E.52

Implementation

Existing Condition Lot Area (sf) 23,357 Existing Improvements (sf) 17,010 Building Height (ft) 10-20 (est) Land Use Low to Moderate Year Built 1920, 1940, and 1965 Description / Physical Condition A one-story and two two-story commercial buildings with some vacancy Historic Designation and Integrity None Leased or Owned Owned and leased Ownership Entity Jay & Sun Yu, Sam Reynolds, Rahimi Investments

Proposed Development Plan Vision Land Use Commercial or mixed use Product Type Commercial Square Footage TBD Building Height Three stories Historic Preservation Design Standards and Guidelines Design Factors TBD Parking Off site Other N/A

Implementation Factors Phasing Longer term Cost Medium Benefit Medium Regulatory / Incentives / Etc. TBD

Comments

16

Building Renovation / Addition

3231, 3235, and 3239 Rhode Island Avenue

Potential to rebuild and/or add another floor to establish a continuous multi-story streetfront.

Boulevard

33rd

Stre

et

Rhode Island Avenue

Eastern Avenue

E.53


Existing Condition Lot Area 29,375 Existing Improvements 9,705 Building Height 30 (est) Land Use Commercial Year Built 1900-1940 Description / Physical Condition Multiple buildings and a surface parking lot in good condition Historic Designation and Integrity 3401 Perry Street has a high designation Leased or Owned Leased and owned Ownership Entity Multiple

Proposed Development Plan Vision Land Use Mixed use Product Type TBD Square Footage TBD Building Height TBD Historic Preservation Design Standards and Guidelines Design Factors TBD Parking TBD Other N/A

Implementation Factors Phasing Longer term Cost High Benefit Medium Regulatory / Incentives / Etc. TBD

Comments

17

Infill Development

3401, 3403, 3407, 3409, 3411, and 3415 Perry Street

Possible longer-term consolidated lot redevelopment opportunity. The City of Mount Rainier is in the process of acquiring the vacant lot.

Civic Core

34th

Stre

et

Perry Street

Rhode Island Avenue

E.54

Implementation

Existing Condition Lot Area (sf) 20,721 Existing Improvements (sf) 8,526 Building Height (ft) 20 (est) Land Use Commercial / retail Year Built 1910 Description / Physical Condition Several one-story brick buildings in good condition Historic Designation and Integrity Moderate Leased or Owned Leased and owned Ownership Entity Mustapha and Nancy Atouani and Ramatu Jalloh

Proposed Development Vision Plan Land Use Commercial Product Type Retail Square Footage 4,392 Building Height (ft) 20 Historic Preservation Design Standards and Guidelines Design Factors TBD Parking On and off site Other N/A


Comments

BC - 1

Building Renovations

4000 - 4008 34th Street

Current tenants include ZZ's Pizza, Circa 34, Crown of Glory, Oscar's Flowers, and Marie's Variety Store.

Main Street

Bunker Hill Road

34th

Stre

et

E.55


Existing Condition Lot Area (sf) 6,922 Existing Improvements (sf) 5,382 Building Height (ft) 20 (est) Land Use Commercial / retail Year Built 1910, 1937 Description / Physical Condition Several one-story historic brick buildings in average condition Historic Designation and Integrity Moderate Leased or Owned Leased and Owned Ownership Entity Glut Foods Inc, Denise and Erwin Baylor, Gerald Goldberg/Janice Burrus

Proposed Development Vision Plan Land Use Commercial Product Type Retail Square Footage 5,382 Building Height (ft) 20 (est) Historic Preservation Design Standards and Guidelines Design Factors TBD Parking Off site Other N/A


Comments

BC - 2


4001 - 4011 34th Street

Current tenants include Glut Co-Op, Nisey's Boutique and Smarter Bar Café / Quest for Fresh.

Main Street

34th

Stre

et

Bunker Hill Road

E.56

Implementation

Existing Condition Lot Area (sf) 5,480 Existing Improvements (sf) 9,760 Building Height (ft) 30 (est) Land Use Commercial / mixed-use Year Built 1920 Description / Physical Condition Two-story brick building in average condition with some vacancy Historic Designation and Integrity Moderate Leased or Owned Leased Ownership Entity Lisette Attias

Proposed Development Vision Plan Land Use Mixed use Product Type Retail and residential/restaurant Square Footage 9,760 Building Height (ft) 30 (est) Historic Preservation Design Standards and Guidelines Design Factors TBD Parking Off site Other Outdoor seating

Implementation Factors Phasing Near to medium term Cost Medium Benefit Medium Regulatory / Incentives / Etc. TBD

Comments

BC - 3


3840 - 3856 34th Street - Lightbown Building

Current tenants include the Mount Rainier Mini-Grocery, laundromat, Aura Adams Fruits and Salads, France's Carry Out, and residential.

Main Street

Bunker Hill Road

34th

Stre

et

E.57


Existing Condition Lot Area (sf) 17,867 Existing Improvements (sf) 6,481 Building Height (ft) 15 (est) Land Use Commercial Year Built 1910 Description / Physical Condition Historic Designation and Integrity Moderate Leased or Owned Leased Ownership Entity Rosa Paik

Proposed Development Vision Plan Land Use Commercial/Mixed Use Product Type Retail/Commercial-Office Square Footage 6,481 Building Height (ft) 15 (est) Historic Preservation Design Standards and Guidelines Design Factors TBD Parking Off site Other N/A


Comments

BC - 4


3802 - 3808 34th Street

Main Street

Current tenants include Just in Time Beauty / Color by Tangie, Mount Rainier Martial Arts, Electric Eye Antiques, Community Vision Consultants, refinancing office, and some vacancy.

One-story brick retail building formerly occupied by Joe's Movement

34th

Stre

et

Rhode Island Avenue

Perry Street

E.58

Implementation

Existing Condition Lot Area (sf) 9,475 Existing Improvements (sf) 10,696 Building Height (ft) 30 (est) Land Use Commercial Year Built 1935, 1927 Description / Physical Condition

Historic Designation and Integrity Low Leased or Owned Owned and leased Ownership Entity Gill and Randhawa II LLC, Fouad and Vivian Fawzi

Proposed Development Vision Plan Land Use Commercial Product Type Retail Square Footage 10,696 Building Height (ft) 30 (est) Historic Preservation Design Standards and Guidelines Design Factors TBD Parking Off site Other N/A

Implementation Factors Timing Medium to longer term Cost High Benefit High Regulatory / Incentives / Etc. TBD

Comments

BC - 5



Boulevard

Current tenants include a barber shop, Variety Store, Chuck's Liquors, and some vacancy.

Several two-story historic brick building with some vacancy in average to good condition.

34th

Stre

et

Rhode Island Avenue

Perry Street

Appendix

The Mount Rainier M-U-TC Review Committee and Historic Preservation Commission staff generally adhere to The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation when considering the appropriateness of proposed changes to historic buildings and new construction in historic districts. The Standards for Rehabilitation were initially developed in the mid-1970s to determine appropriate changes to income producing National Register properties seeking federal investment tax credits. Over the years, The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation has also been used as the basis for local historic preservation guidelines in cities across the country.

Property owners, architects, contractors and others involved in rehabilitating historic buildings or new construction in the historic district in Mount Rainier are strongly encouraged to use the M-U-TC Historic Preservation Guidelines when designing the project. This will help to ensure that the project is compatible with the character of the historic building, landscape and neighborhood. The M-U-TC Historic Preservation Guidelines address the exteriors of historic buildings, additions to historic buildings, new construction, and landscapes in historic districts. They also accommodate the disabled and address energy conservation. Although primarily written for residential and small commercial structures, the guidelines are applicable to all types and sizes of historic buildings. Additionally, the Secretary of Interior’s Standards provide guidance in the following areas.

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Preservation:

1. A property will be used as it was historically, or be given a new use that maximizes the retention of distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. Where a treatment and use have not been identified, a property will be protected and, if necessary, stabilized until additional work may be undertaken.

Appendix|The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Preservation, Restoration, and Rehabilitation

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The replacement of intact or repairable historic materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate, and conserve existing historic materials and features will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection, and properly documented for future research.

4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

6. The existing condition of historic features will be evaluated to determine the appropriate level of intervention needed. Where the severity of deterioration requires repair or limited replacement of a distinctive feature, the new material will match the old in composition, design, color, and texture.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Restoration:

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use which reflects the property’s restoration period.

App-2

Appendix

2. Materials and features from the restoration period will be retained and preserved. The removal of materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize the period will not be undertaken.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Work needed to stabilize, consolidate and conserve materials and features from the restoration period will be physically and visually compatible, identifiable upon close inspection, and properly documented for future research.

4. Materials, features, spaces, and finishes that characterize other historical periods will be documented prior to their alteration or removal.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the restoration period will be preserved.

6. Deteriorated features from the restoration period will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials.

7. Replacement of missing features from the restoration period will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. A false sense of history will not be created by adding conjectural features, features from other properties, or by combining features that never existed together historically.


9. Archeological resources affected by a project will be

protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

10. Designs that were never executed historically will not be constructed.

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation:

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record

of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.

4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic

significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and

construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.


App-3


8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

10. New additions and adjacent or related new

construction will be undertaken in a such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.

App-4

Appendix

Alter or Alteration: A change in the exterior appearance of a building or structure or its site, other than demolition, for which a permit is required; these terms may also apply to changes in any interior space that has been specifically designated as historic.

Applicant: A person, entity, or authorized representative responsible for submission of an application.

Character-Defining Feature: The form, materials, and details of those architectural features identified as important to a building’s historic character and significance and whose retention will preserve that character and significance. (a) The character of a historic building may be defined by exterior features such as façades, roofs, porches, and windows, and exterior materials such as masonry, wood, glass, and metal. (b) The character of a historic building may be defined by its structural features such as bearing walls, floor and roof framing, or structural materials such as brick, steel, and wood. (c) The character of a historic interior may be defined by features such as room configurations, spatial relationships, stairs, trim, and decoration, and by materials such as partitions, woodwork, plaster, and finishes. (d) The site and setting of a historic property may be defined by features such as views to and from the property, landscaping, walls, fencing, and materials such as brick, stone and vegetation.

Committee: The Mount Rainier M-U-TC Review Committee as defined in this chapter.

Committee Standards or Guidelines: Any design guidelines, and/or design and construction standards, such as The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, adopted by the Mount Rainier M-U-TC Review Committee for the conduct of its work.

Compatible: Possessing characteristics that allow for a harmonious relationship. Compatibility does not require the matching or replication of attributes, and may involve a relationship of dissimilar things that are juxtaposed to produce an agreeable effect.

Contributing Building, Structure, or Site: A building, structure, or site located within a historic district that reflects the district’s historic, architectural and/or cultural significance, and its sense of time, place, and historical development.

The following considerations apply when: 1) Determining whether a property meets the definition of a contributing building, structure, or site; and 2) Determining whether a property or site can be subject to compatible alterations and additions (as approved by the M-U-TC review committee and/or county review), or be replaced in whole or in part through compatible new development:

(a) A building, structure or site has been identified as contributing to a district by virtue of its integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. (b) An archeological site adds to the archeological values for which a property is significant because it was present during the period of significance and is capable of yielding information about the period.

Demolish or Demolition: The razing or destruction of an entire principal or secondary façade—or a significant part of it—or the removal of more than 50 percent of the interior structural elements, principal façades, roofs, major character defining features, etc., of a building or structure. For the purposes of these guidelines, the relocation of a structure in whole or in part shall be considered demolition.

Demolition by Neglect: Failure to maintain, repair, or secure a historic building or structure in a historic district that results in avoidable deterioration of an exterior feature of the building or structure, or loss of the structural integrity of the building or structure.

Design: Either of the following, depending upon the context: (a) The sum of elements that create the physical form, plan, space, structure, and architectural style of a property (when used as a quality of integrity).(b) Exterior architectural features including height, appearance, texture, color, and nature of materials (when used in the context of the review of new construction pursuant to the implementation of design guidelines).

Appendix|M-U-TC Historic Preservation Definitions

App-5


Elevation: The exterior wall of a building or structure (see also “secondary elevation”).

Façade: The primary building elevation that possesses significant architectural composition or features such as the entrance (see also “principal façade”).

Guidelines (M-U-TC Review Committee Guidelines): see “Committee Standards or Guidelines.”

Historic Building or Property: A general reference to a structure or piece of land either listed in the county’s Inventory of Historic Resources as a historic site, historic resource, or as a contributing building within a designated historic district.

Historic District: A defined area included in the Prince George’s County Inventory of Historic Resources as a locally designated historic district, or a defined area listed in the National Register of Historic Places as a historic district, or both; a historic district listed only in the National Register of Historic Places is not subject to the regulations and benefits associated with a locally designated historic district.

Historic Preservation Commission (HPC): The Prince George’s County Historic Preservation Commission was established pursuant to the Prince George’s County Historic Preservation Ordinance (Subtitle 29 of the Prince George’s County Code). The HPC is the body charged with implementing the Historic Preservation Ordinance through adopted policies, procedures and guidelines.

Historic Preservation Organization(s): Membership organizations that include among their purposes the promotion of historic preservation in Prince George’s County, as expressed in the organization’s articles of incorporation, articles of association, charter, or bylaws.

Historic Preservation Section or HPS: The professional staff of the Prince George’s County Planning Department, M-NCPPC, that provides technical support to the Prince George’s County Planning Board and the Prince George’s County Historic Preservation Commission.

Historic Site: A designated building, site, structure, object, or feature, and its associated property, listed in the Prince George’s County Inventory of Historic Resources.

Incompatible: Existing or new development, building, or site characterized by clashing or conflicting qualities that lead to an incongruous, discordant, or disagreeable relationship. Diversity, variety, or a contrast of qualities does not necessarily imply incompatibility as long as harmonious relationships are maintained.

Integrity: Authenticity of a property’s historic, architectural, and cultural identity, evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the period of significance associated with a building, site, structure, object, or feature.

Materials: As a quality of integrity, the physical elements that were combined or deposited in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.

M-U-TC Review Committee (M-U-TCRC): Duly appointed members of the Mount Rainier M-U-TC Review Committee tasked with the review and approval of building permits and site plans submitted for work within the M-U-TC area.

National Historic Landmark (NHL): A building, site, structure, object, or district that possesses exceptional value and quality in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the United States, as designated by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the Historic Sites Act of 1935 (16 U.S.C. §461–467) and the National Historic Preservation Act.

National Historic Preservation Act: The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (80 Stat. 915 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq).

National Register of Historic Places (National Register or NRHP): The nation’s official record of buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts that are significant to American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture, as maintained by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to § 101 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

App-6

Appendix

Non-contributing Building, Structure, or Site: A building, structure, or site that does not reflect the historic, architectural, or cultural significance of the historic district within which it is located.

The following considerations apply when: 1) Determining whether a property meets the definition of a non-contributing building, structure, or site; and 2) Determining whether a property or site can be subject to compatible alterations and additions (as approved by the M-U-TC review committee and/or county review), or be replaced in whole or in part through compatible new development:

(a) A building, structure or site has been identified as non-contributing to a district by virtue of irretrievable loss of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, or a building structure or site within a district that was constructed outside of the identified period of significance for the district.

(b) An archeological site does not contribute to the archeological values for which a district is significant if it postdates the district’s period of significance, does not relate to its documented significance, or is no longer capable of yielding important information about the period due to disturbance or other changes.

Period of Significance: The span of time in which a historic property attained the significance for which it has been determined to meet established criteria for historic site or historic districts designation.

Prince George’s County Inventory of Historic Resources: The official list of those historic properties subject to provisions of Subtitle 29, The Prince George’s County Historic Preservation Ordinance. The Inventory of Historic Resources is maintained by the county’s Historic Preservation Commission and its staff in accordance with the requirements of Subtitle 29.

Principal Façade: A building elevation that faces a street or public open space, or any other major building elevation that possesses significant architectural composition or features. For example, a mid-block rowhouse has a single principal façade (the front), while

a corner rowhouse has two principal façades (the front and side). On a freestanding building, based on the level of architectural detail, all elevations may be considered principal façades.

Raze: The destruction or removal of a structure in its entirety. See also “demolition.”

Rehabilitate or Rehabilitation: The process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repairs or alterations, which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values.

Replacement-in-Kind: Replacement of an architectural feature with a feature of the same material that replicates the feature in proportion, appearance, texture, design, detail, and dimensions.

Restore or Restoration: The act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time, either through the removal of features from other periods, or the reconstruction of missing features, or both.

Secondary Elevation: A wall of a building that does not face a street or public open space, and that does not possess significant architectural composition or features. Typically, the rear or alley side of a rowhouse is considered a secondary elevation. The sides and rear of a freestanding building may or may not be considered secondary elevations, depending on their function and architectural detail.

Secretary’s Standards: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (36 CFR § 67.7, as amended) are a set of technical statements and guidelines developed and promulgated by the National Park Service (Department of the Interior) to address a range of issues affecting historic properties.

Setting: As a quality of integrity, the physical environment of a historic property.

Special Merit: A plan or building having significant benefits to the city or to the community by virtue

App-7


of exemplary architecture, specific features of land planning, or social or other benefits having a high priority for community services.

State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO): An individual designated by a governor to administer a state’s federally and locally mandated historic preservation responsibilities and programs; the administrative head of a State Historic Preservation Office.

Structure: Anything constructed, including a building, which requires fixed location on the ground, or is attached to something having a fixed location on the ground.

Workmanship: As a quality of integrity, the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture, people, or artisan.

App-8

Appendix

Complete M-U-TC Building Inventory

The Complete M-U-TC Building Inventory lists the number of stories, the built square footage, lot square footage, current use, year built, level of historic preservation, and repair/rehabilitation and development recommendations for each building and/or property within the M-U-TC study area boundary.

App-9


Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3719

34t

h St

reet

21,

296

5,50

0C

omm

erci

al19

27N

/ARe

pair

woo

d el

emen

ts. R

epla

ce

win

dow

s and

doo

rs a

s req

uire

d w

ith

HA

elem

ents.

No

deve

lopm

ent

reco

mm

ende

d.

3721

34t

h St

reet

N/A

05,

500

Vaca

nt la

nd/

chur

ch

park

ing

lot

N/A

Non

eSh

ort t

erm

: Sha

red

park

ing

lot.

Long

term

: dev

elop

men

t pos

sible

w

ith n

ew tw

o- to

thre

e-sto

ry

build

ing.

3723

34t

h St

reet

13,

600

5,50

0In

stitu

tiona

l19

48Lo

wSh

ort t

erm

: Sha

red

park

ing

lot.

Long

term

: dev

elop

men

t pos

sible

w

ith tw

o- to

thre

e-sto

ry n

ew

build

ing.

3801

34t

h St

reet

22,

016

2,41

4C

omm

erci

al19

00H

igh

Repa

ir/re

furb

ish w

indo

ws,

door

s and

br

ickw

ork.

Pro

vide

DS-

cons

isten

t sig

nage

. No

deve

lopm

ent

reco

mm

ende

d.

Com

plet

e M

-U-T

C Bu

ildin

g In

vent

ory—

34th

Str

eet

Not

es:

DS

= de

sign

stand

ards

HA

= hi

storic

ally

app

ropr

iate

HP

= hi

storic

pre

serv

atio

n

App-10

Appendix

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3719

34t

h St

reet

21,

296

5,50

0C

omm

erci

al19

27N

/ARe

pair

woo

d el

emen

ts. R

epla

ce

win

dow

s and

doo

rs a

s req

uire

d w

ith

HA

elem

ents.

No

deve

lopm

ent

reco

mm

ende

d.

3721

34t

h St

reet

N/A

05,

500

Vaca

nt la

nd/

chur

ch

park

ing

lot

N/A

Non

eSh

ort t

erm

: Sha

red

park

ing

lot.

Long

term

: dev

elop

men

t pos

sible

w

ith n

ew tw

o- to

thre

e-sto

ry

build

ing.

3723

34t

h St

reet

13,

600

5,50

0In

stitu

tiona

l19

48Lo

wSh

ort t

erm

: Sha

red

park

ing

lot.

Long

term

: dev

elop

men

t pos

sible

w

ith tw

o- to

thre

e-sto

ry n

ew

build

ing.

3801

34t

h St

reet

22,

016

2,41

4C

omm

erci

al19

00H

igh

Repa

ir/re

furb

ish w

indo

ws,

door

s and

br

ickw

ork.

Pro

vide

DS-

cons

isten

t sig

nage

. No

deve

lopm

ent

reco

mm

ende

d.

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3805

34t

h St

reet

N/A

087

5Va

cant

land

N/A

Non

eC

ompa

tible

infil

l dev

elop

men

t site

. M

axim

um sc

ale:

two

storie

s.

3807

34t

h St

reet

21,

900

1,23

4C

omm

erci

al19

05M

ediu

mRe

pair/

refu

rbish

bay

s. Pa

int a

nd

repa

ir tr

im e

lem

ents.

Pro

vide

D

S-co

nsist

ent s

igna

ge a

nd li

ghtin

g.

Rem

ove

inco

mpa

tible

ele

men

ts:

mod

ern

bow

fron

t, sid

ing

(exp

ose

bric

k if

exist

ing)

. Rep

air a

nd

repl

ace

corn

ices

and

trim

ban

ds a

s re

quire

d. N

o co

mpa

tible

add

ition

s re

com

men

ded.

3815

34t

h St

reet

22,

264

1,66

3C

omm

erci

al19

10M

ediu

mRe

pair/

refu

rbish

bay

s. Pa

int a

nd

repa

ir tr

im e

lem

ents.

Pro

vide

D

S-co

nsist

ent s

igna

ge a

nd li

ghtin

g.

Rem

ove

inco

mpa

tible

ele

men

ts:

mod

ern

bow

fron

t, sid

ing

(exp

ose

bric

k if

exist

ing)

. Rep

air a

nd

repl

ace

corn

ices

and

trim

ban

ds a

s re

quire

d. N

o co

mpa

tible

add

ition

s re

com

men

ded.

3817

34t

h St

reet

22,

737

1,72

5C

omm

erci

al19

15M

ediu

mRe

pair/

refu

rbish

bay

s. Pa

int a

nd

repa

ir tr

im e

lem

ents;

pro

vide

D

S-co

nsist

ent s

igna

ge a

nd li

ghtin

g.

Rem

ove

inco

mpa

tible

ele

men

ts:

mod

ern

bow

fron

t, sid

ing

etc.

(e

xpos

e br

ick

if ex

istin

g). R

epai

r and

re

plac

e co

rnic

es a

nd tr

im b

ands

as

requ

ired.

No

com

patib

le a

dditi

ons

reco

mm

ende

d.

Com

plet

e M

-U-T

C Bu

ildin

g In

vent

ory

- 34t

h St

reet

Not

es:

DS

= de

sign

stand

ards

HA

= hi

storic

ally

app

ropr

iate

HP

= hi

storic

pre

serv

atio

n

App-11


Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

Vaca

nt lo

t be

twee

n 38

17 a

nd

3827

34t

h St

reet

N/A

04,

750

Vaca

nt la

ndN

/AN

one

Prov

ide

DS

edge

(fen

cing

) at

perim

eter

. Tw

o- to

four

-sto

ry

deve

lopm

ent a

ntic

ipat

ed.

3827

34t

h St

reet

23,

150

6,15

0C

omm

erci

al/

apar

tmen

ts19

39Lo

wRe

pair

or re

plac

e win

dow

s and

doo

rs

with

HA

elem

ents.

Rep

air b

rick/

stone

. Rep

air t

rim b

ands

. Rep

lace/

resto

re H

A aw

ning

at en

try

and

corn

ice a

t ent

ry. R

epai

r cop

ing.

Sh

ort T

erm

: No

deve

lopm

ent

reco

mm

ende

d. L

ong T

erm

: tw

o- to

th

ree-

story

futu

re co

mpa

tible

addi

tion

or re

plac

emen

t bui

ldin

g po

ssibl

e with

H

P/M

-U-T

C g

uide

line r

evie

w.

3829

34t

h St

reet

32,

530

6,85

0C

omm

erci

al19

20Lo

wRe

mov

e sid

ing

and

rem

ove/

rede

sign

ram

p. P

rovi

de D

S-co

nsist

ent s

igna

ge.

Repa

ir w

ood

elem

ents.

No

deve

lop-

men

t rec

omm

ende

d.

3833

34t

h St

reet

23,

666

6,65

0C

omm

erci

al19

20Lo

wSh

ort-t

erm

repa

irs: P

rovi

de

DS-

cons

isten

t sig

nage

and

ligh

ting.

Lo

ng te

rm: T

wo-

to th

ree-

story

de

velo

pmen

t pos

sible

with

M-U

-TC

re

view

.

Com

plet

e M

-U-T

C Bu

ildin

g In

vent

ory—

34th

Str

eet

Not

es:

DS

= de

sign

stand

ards

HA

= hi

storic

ally

app

ropr

iate

HP

= hi

storic

pre

serv

atio

n

App-12

Appendix

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

Vaca

nt lo

t be

twee

n 38

17 a

nd

3827

34t

h St

reet

N/A

04,

750

Vaca

nt la

ndN

/AN

one

Prov

ide

DS

edge

(fen

cing

) at

perim

eter

. Tw

o- to

four

-sto

ry

deve

lopm

ent a

ntic

ipat

ed.

3827

34t

h St

reet

23,

150

6,15

0C

omm

erci

al/

apar

tmen

ts19

39Lo

wRe

pair

or re

plac

e win

dow

s and

doo

rs

with

HA

elem

ents.

Rep

air b

rick/

stone

. Rep

air t

rim b

ands

. Rep

lace/

resto

re H

A aw

ning

at en

try

and

corn

ice a

t ent

ry. R

epai

r cop

ing.

Sh

ort T

erm

: No

deve

lopm

ent

reco

mm

ende

d. L

ong T

erm

: tw

o- to

th

ree-

story

futu

re co

mpa

tible

addi

tion

or re

plac

emen

t bui

ldin

g po

ssibl

e with

H

P/M

-U-T

C g

uide

line r

evie

w.

3829

34t

h St

reet

32,

530

6,85

0C

omm

erci

al19

20Lo

wRe

mov

e sid

ing

and

rem

ove/

rede

sign

ram

p. P

rovi

de D

S-co

nsist

ent s

igna

ge.

Repa

ir w

ood

elem

ents.

No

deve

lop-

men

t rec

omm

ende

d.

3833

34t

h St

reet

23,

666

6,65

0C

omm

erci

al19

20Lo

wSh

ort-t

erm

repa

irs: P

rovi

de

DS-

cons

isten

t sig

nage

and

ligh

ting.

Lo

ng te

rm: T

wo-

to th

ree-

story

de

velo

pmen

t pos

sible

with

M-U

-TC

re

view

.

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3837

34t

h St

reet

31,

890

6,20

0Re

siden

tial

1905

Low

Repa

ir w

ood

elem

ents.

Rep

lace

w

indo

ws a

nd d

oors

as r

equi

red

with

H

A el

emen

ts. R

epla

ce g

utte

rs a

nd

dow

nspo

uts a

s req

uire

d.

No

deve

lopm

ent r

ecom

men

ded.

3841

34t

h St

reet

N/A

05,

600

Vaca

nt la

nd/

park

ing

lot

N/A

Non

ePr

ovid

e D

S ed

ge (f

enci

ng) a

t pe

rimet

er. S

hort

term

: sha

red

park

ing

reco

mm

ende

d. L

ong

term

: Tw

o- to

four

-sto

ry d

evel

opm

ent w

ith

HP/

M-U

-TC

gui

delin

e re

view

.

4001

34t

h St

reet

11,

482

2,04

7C

omm

erci

al19

10H

igh

Pain

t and

pro

vide

DS-

cons

isten

t sig

nage

. No

com

patib

le a

dditi

on

reco

mm

ende

d. R

epai

r sto

refro

nt

elem

ents.

Pro

vide

con

siste

nt a

wni

ng

desig

n. P

rovi

de o

utdo

or d

ispla

ys

if po

ssib

le. R

epai

r bric

k. S

ee n

otes

at

400

9 fo

r res

tora

tion

and/

or

repl

icat

ion

of b

ayfro

nt e

lem

ents

if ex

istin

g or

pro

pose

d.

4005

34t

h St

reet

11,

300

1,62

4C

omm

erci

al19

15H

igh

See n

otes

at 4

009

34th

Stre

et fo

r re

stora

tion

and/

or re

plica

tion

of b

ayfro

nt el

emen

ts if

exist

ing

or p

ropo

sed.

Pain

t and

pro

vide

D

S-co

nsist

ent s

igna

ge. N

o co

mpa

t-ib

le ad

ditio

n re

com

men

ded.

Rep

air

store

front

elem

ents.

Pro

vide

cons

isten

t aw

ning

des

ign.

Pro

vide

out

door

di

splay

s if p

ossib

le. R

epair

bric

k.

Com

plet

e M

-U-T

C Bu

ildin

g In

vent

ory—

34th

Str

eet

Not

es:

DS

= de

sign

stand

ards

HA

= hi

storic

ally

app

ropr

iate

HP

= hi

storic

pre

serv

atio

n

App-13


Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

4007

34t

h St

reet

11,

300

1,62

5C

omm

erci

al19

15H

igh

See

note

s at 4

009

34th

Stre

et fo

r “r

esto

ratio

n” o

f bay

front

ele

men

ts.

Pain

t and

pro

vide

DS-

cons

isten

t sig

nage

. No

com

patib

le a

dditi

on

reco

mm

ende

d.

4009

34t

h St

reet

11,

300

1,62

5C

omm

erci

al19

37H

igh

Mod

el fo

r “re

stora

tion”

of b

ay-

front

ele

men

ts. P

aint

and

pro

vide

D

S-co

nsist

ent s

igna

ge. N

o co

mpa

t-ib

le a

dditi

on re

com

men

ded.

4013

34t

h St

reet

11,

406

5,91

3 Re

siden

tial

1927

N/A

Repa

ir w

ood

elem

ents.

Rep

lace

w

indo

ws a

nd d

oors

as r

equi

red

with

H

A el

emen

ts. N

o de

velo

pmen

t re

com

men

ded.

4017

34t

h St

reet

11,

638

5,52

0 Re

siden

tial

1920

N/A

Repa

ir w

ood

elem

ents.

Rep

lace

w

indo

ws a

nd d

oors

as r

equi

red

with

H

A el

emen

ts. N

o de

velo

pmen

t re

com

men

ded.

Com

plet

e M

-U-T

C Bu

ildin

g In

vent

ory—

34th

Str

eet

Not

es:

DS

= de

sign

stand

ards

HA

= hi

storic

ally

app

ropr

iate

HP

= hi

storic

pre

serv

atio

n

App-14

Appendix

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

4007

34t

h St

reet

11,

300

1,62

5C

omm

erci

al19

15H

igh

See

note

s at 4

009

34th

Stre

et fo

r “r

esto

ratio

n” o

f bay

front

ele

men

ts.

Pain

t and

pro

vide

DS-

cons

isten

t sig

nage

. No

com

patib

le a

dditi

on

reco

mm

ende

d.

4009

34t

h St

reet

11,

300

1,62

5C

omm

erci

al19

37H

igh

Mod

el fo

r “re

stora

tion”

of b

ay-

front

ele

men

ts. P

aint

and

pro

vide

D

S-co

nsist

ent s

igna

ge. N

o co

mpa

t-ib

le a

dditi

on re

com

men

ded.

4013

34t

h St

reet

11,

406

5,91

3 Re

siden

tial

1927

N/A

Repa

ir w

ood

elem

ents.

Rep

lace

w

indo

ws a

nd d

oors

as r

equi

red

with

H

A el

emen

ts. N

o de

velo

pmen

t re

com

men

ded.

4017

34t

h St

reet

11,

638

5,52

0 Re

siden

tial

1920

N/A

Repa

ir w

ood

elem

ents.

Rep

lace

w

indo

ws a

nd d

oors

as r

equi

red

with

H

A el

emen

ts. N

o de

velo

pmen

t re

com

men

ded.

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3800

34t

h St

reet

23,

024

1,70

6C

omm

erci

al

(vac

ant)

1920

Hig

hRe

pair

or re

plac

e w

indo

ws a

nd

door

s with

HA

elem

ents.

Rep

air

bric

k/sto

ne. R

epai

r trim

ban

ds.

Repl

ace/

resto

re H

A co

rnic

e at

ent

ry.

No

deve

lopm

ent r

ecom

men

ded.

3802

34t

h St

reet

16,

481

17,8

67C

omm

erci

al19

10Lo

wPr

ovid

e D

S-on

siste

nt si

gnag

e,

light

ing

and

awni

ng. R

epai

r sto

refro

nt a

s req

uire

d. A

futu

re tw

o-to

thre

e-sto

ry c

ompa

tible

add

ition

or

repl

acem

ent b

uild

ing

is po

ssib

le w

ith

M-U

-TC

des

ign

revi

ew.

3820

34t

h St

reet

26,

624

9,00

0C

omm

erci

al/

insti

tutio

nal

1920

Med

ium

Resto

re fa

çade

. Rep

lace

win

dow

s and

do

ors w

ith H

A el

emen

ts. P

rovi

de

DS-

cons

isten

t sig

nage

if a

ny.

Poin

t/rep

air b

rick.

No

deve

lopm

ent

reco

mm

ende

d.

3822

34t

h St

reet

21,

540

3,00

0In

stitu

tiona

l19

40M

ediu

mRe

store

faça

de. R

epla

ce w

indo

ws a

nd

door

s with

HA

elem

ents.

Pro

vide

D

S-co

nsist

ent s

igna

ge if

any

. Po

int/r

epai

r bric

k.

Com

plet

e M

-U-T

C Bu

ildin

g In

vent

ory—

34th

Str

eet

Not

es:

DS

= de

sign

stand

ards

HA

= hi

storic

ally

app

ropr

iate

HP

= hi

storic

pre

serv

atio

n

App-15


Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3824

34t

h St

reet

33,

107

5,25

0C

omm

erci

al/

insti

tutio

nal

1913

Low

Repa

ir w

ood

elem

ents.

Rep

air g

utte

rs

and

dow

nspo

uts a

s req

uire

d. R

emov

e no

n-co

ntrib

utin

g el

emen

ts at

faça

de.

Repl

ace

win

dow

s and

doo

rs w

ith H

A el

emen

ts. R

epla

ce st

oref

ront

with

DS

elem

ents.

Sho

rt te

rm: N

o ad

ditio

nal

deve

lopm

ent r

ecom

men

ded.

3828

34t

h St

reet

31,

152

6,08

5Re

siden

tial/

insti

tutio

nal

1922

Low

Repa

ir w

ood

elem

ents.

Rep

air

gutte

rs a

nd d

owns

pout

s as r

equi

red.

Re

pair

sidin

g. R

epla

ce w

indo

ws a

nd

door

s with

HA

elem

ents.

Rep

lace

sto

refro

nt w

ith D

S el

emen

ts.

Shor

t ter

m: N

o de

velo

pmen

t re

com

men

ded.

3830

34t

h St

reet

32,

700

6,00

0C

omm

erci

al19

10Lo

wRe

pair

woo

d el

emen

ts. R

epai

r gu

tters

and

dow

nspo

uts a

s req

uire

d.

Repa

ir sid

ing.

Rep

lace

win

dow

s an

d do

ors w

ith H

A el

emen

ts.

Repl

ace

store

front

with

DS

and

HA

elem

ents.

Rem

ove

and

repl

ace

all n

on-c

ontr

ibut

ing

elem

ents

(bay

fini

shes

, doo

rs, e

tc.)

with

H

A el

emen

ts. S

hort

term

: No

deve

lopm

ent r

ecom

men

ded.

3838

34t

h St

reet

31,

568

3,80

0Re

siden

tial

1980

Low

Repa

ir w

ood

elem

ents

and

porc

h.

Repa

ir gu

tters

and

dow

nspo

uts

as re

quire

d. R

epai

r sid

ing.

Re

plac

e w

indo

ws a

nd d

oors

with

H

A el

emen

ts. S

hort

Ter

m: N

o de

velo

pmen

t rec

omm

ende

d.

Com

plet

e M

-U-T

C Bu

ildin

g In

vent

ory—

34th

Str

eet

Not

es:

DS

= de

sign

stand

ards

HA

= hi

storic

ally

app

ropr

iate

HP

= hi

storic

pre

serv

atio

n

App-16

Appendix

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3824

34t

h St

reet

33,

107

5,25

0C

omm

erci

al/

insti

tutio

nal

1913

Low

Repa

ir w

ood

elem

ents.

Rep

air g

utte

rs

and

dow

nspo

uts a

s req

uire

d. R

emov

e no

n-co

ntrib

utin

g el

emen

ts at

faça

de.

Repl

ace

win

dow

s and

doo

rs w

ith H

A el

emen

ts. R

epla

ce st

oref

ront

with

DS

elem

ents.

Sho

rt te

rm: N

o ad

ditio

nal

deve

lopm

ent r

ecom

men

ded.

3828

34t

h St

reet

31,

152

6,08

5Re

siden

tial/

insti

tutio

nal

1922

Low

Repa

ir w

ood

elem

ents.

Rep

air

gutte

rs a

nd d

owns

pout

s as r

equi

red.

Re

pair

sidin

g. R

epla

ce w

indo

ws a

nd

door

s with

HA

elem

ents.

Rep

lace

sto

refro

nt w

ith D

S el

emen

ts.

Shor

t ter

m: N

o de

velo

pmen

t re

com

men

ded.

3830

34t

h St

reet

32,

700

6,00

0C

omm

erci

al19

10Lo

wRe

pair

woo

d el

emen

ts. R

epai

r gu

tters

and

dow

nspo

uts a

s req

uire

d.

Repa

ir sid

ing.

Rep

lace

win

dow

s an

d do

ors w

ith H

A el

emen

ts.

Repl

ace

store

front

with

DS

and

HA

elem

ents.

Rem

ove

and

repl

ace

all n

on-c

ontr

ibut

ing

elem

ents

(bay

fini

shes

, doo

rs, e

tc.)

with

H

A el

emen

ts. S

hort

term

: No

deve

lopm

ent r

ecom

men

ded.

3838

34t

h St

reet

31,

568

3,80

0Re

siden

tial

1980

Low

Repa

ir w

ood

elem

ents

and

porc

h.

Repa

ir gu

tters

and

dow

nspo

uts

as re

quire

d. R

epai

r sid

ing.

Re

plac

e w

indo

ws a

nd d

oors

with

H

A el

emen

ts. S

hort

Ter

m: N

o de

velo

pmen

t rec

omm

ende

d.

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3840

34t

h St

reet

29,

770

5,48

0C

omm

erci

al19

20H

igh

Ligh

tbow

n Bu

ildin

g: P

rovi

de n

ew

HA

store

front

, doo

rs, a

nd w

indo

ws.

Prov

ide

HA/

DS

light

ing,

sign

age,

an

d sig

n ba

nd. R

epai

r/re

plac

e co

rnic

e an

d co

ping

. Rep

lace

seco

nd-

floor

win

dow

s with

HA

win

dow

s.Re

pair

and

poin

t bric

k as

requ

ired.

4000

34t

h St

reet

14,

392

12,9

36C

omm

erci

al19

10H

igh

Resto

re c

lere

story

win

dow

s abo

ve

store

front

. Pro

vide

new

HA

store

front

, doo

rs, a

nd w

indo

ws.

Prov

ide

HA/

DS

light

ing.

Sh

ort T

erm

: Rel

ocat

e/re

desig

n aw

ning

/sig

nage

and

/or s

ign

band

in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith M

-U-T

C g

uide

lines

. Re

pair

and

poin

t bric

k as

requ

ired.

4006

34t

h St

reet

12,

184

3,80

7C

omm

erci

al19

10H

igh

Resto

re c

lere

story

win

dow

s abo

ve

store

front

. Rep

air e

xisti

ng o

r pro

vide

ne

w H

A sto

refro

nt, d

oors

, and

w

indo

ws.

Prov

ide

HA/

DS

light

ing,

sig

nage

, and

sign

ban

d. R

epai

r or

repl

ace

corn

ice

and

copi

ng. R

epai

r an

d po

int b

rick

as re

quire

d.

4008

34t

h St

reet

11,

950

3,97

8C

omm

erci

al19

10H

igh

Resto

re c

lere

story

win

dow

s abo

ve

store

front

. Rep

air e

xisti

ng o

r pro

vide

ne

w H

A sto

refro

nt, d

oors

, and

w

indo

ws.

Prov

ide

HA/

DS

light

ing,

sig

nage

, and

sign

ban

d. R

epai

r or

repl

ace

corn

ice

and

copi

ng. R

epai

r an

d po

int b

rick

as re

quire

d.

Com

plet

e M

-U-T

C Bu

ildin

g In

vent

ory—

34th

Str

eet

Not

es:

DS

= de

sign

stand

ards

HA

= hi

storic

ally

app

ropr

iate

HP

= hi

storic

pre

serv

atio

n

App-17


Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

4010

34t

h St

reet

11,

049

7,67

8C

omm

erci

al19

10Lo

wSh

ort T

erm

: Pro

vide

new

stor

efro

nt,

door

s, aa

nd w

indo

ws.

Prov

ide

HA/

DS

light

ing,

sign

age

and

sign

band

. Rep

air a

nd p

oint

bric

k as

re

quire

d. M

ediu

m T

erm

: Rem

ove

inco

mpa

tible

fron

t add

ition

and

re

pair

exist

ing

woo

d fra

me

build

ing.

Com

plet

e M

-U-T

C Bu

ildin

g In

vent

ory—

34th

Str

eet

Not

es:

DS

= de

sign

stand

ards

HA

= hi

storic

ally

app

ropr

iate

HP

= hi

storic

pre

serv

atio

n

App-18

Appendix

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

4010

34t

h St

reet

11,

049

7,67

8C

omm

erci

al19

10Lo

wSh

ort T

erm

: Pro

vide

new

stor

efro

nt,

door

s, aa

nd w

indo

ws.

Prov

ide

HA/

DS

light

ing,

sign

age

and

sign

band

. Rep

air a

nd p

oint

bric

k as

re

quire

d. M

ediu

m T

erm

: Rem

ove

inco

mpa

tible

fron

t add

ition

and

re

pair

exist

ing

woo

d fra

me

build

ing.

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3303

Bun

ker H

ill

Road

N/A

06,

112

Vaca

nt la

nd/

park

ing

lot

N/A

Non

ePa

rkin

g fo

r rec

ently

reha

bilit

ated

/co

nstr

ucte

d ar

ts ve

nue.

Sho

rt T

erm

: N

o de

velo

pmen

t rec

omm

ende

d.

3305

Bun

ker H

ill

Road

23,

360

4,65

0C

omm

erci

al

Art

1959

Low

Rece

ntly

reha

bilit

ated

art

s ven

ue.

Shor

t ter

m: N

o de

velo

pmen

t re

com

men

ded.

3309

Bun

ker H

ill

Road

216

,798

8,77

9C

omm

erci

al

Art

1964

Low

Rece

ntly

reha

bilit

ated

art

s ven

ue.

Shor

t ter

m: N

o de

velo

pmen

t re

com

men

ded.

3321

Bun

ker H

ill

Road

23,

566

4,10

0C

omm

erci

al/

resid

entia

l19

05Lo

wRe

pair

mas

onry

and

woo

d el

emen

ts.

Repl

ace

win

dow

s/do

ors a

s req

uire

d w

ith H

A el

emen

ts. S

hort

Ter

m: N

o de

velo

pmen

t rec

omm

ende

d.

Long

term

: tw

o- to

thre

e-sto

ry

HP/

M-U

-TC

des

ign

com

patib

le

cons

truc

tion

poss

ible

.

Com

plet

e M

-U-T

C Bu

ildin

g In

vent

ory—

Bunk

er H

ill R

oad

Not

es:

DS

= de

sign

stand

ards

HA

= hi

storic

ally

app

ropr

iate

HP

= hi

storic

pre

serv

atio

n

App-19


Com

plet

e M

-U-T

C Bu

ildin

g In

vent

ory

- Bun

ker

Hill

Roa

d

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3401

Bun

ker H

ill

Road

24,

720

8,72

0C

omm

erci

al19

12M

ediu

mSh

ort t

erm

: Pro

vide

new

HA

store

front

, doo

rs, a

nd w

indo

ws.

Prov

ide

HA/

DS

light

ing,

sign

age

and

sign

band

. Rep

air a

nd p

oint

bric

k as

requ

ired.

Med

ium

term

: Rem

ove

inco

mpa

tible

fron

t add

ition

and

re

pair

exist

ing

woo

d fra

me/

mas

onry

bu

ildin

g. R

eins

tall

HA

porc

h, ro

of,

and

win

dow

ele

men

ts.

3400

Bun

ker H

ill

Road

11,

536

3,56

0C

omm

erci

al/

mar

ket

1912

Hig

hSe

e no

tes o

n 40

01 3

4th

Stre

et.

Not

es:

DS

= de

sign

stand

ards

HA

= hi

storic

ally

app

ropr

iate

HP

= hi

storic

pre

serv

atio

n

App-20

Appendix

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3401

Bun

ker H

ill

Road

24,

720

8,72

0C

omm

erci

al19

12M

ediu

mSh

ort t

erm

: Pro

vide

new

HA

store

front

, doo

rs, a

nd w

indo

ws.

Prov

ide

HA/

DS

light

ing,

sign

age

and

sign

band

. Rep

air a

nd p

oint

bric

k as

requ

ired.

Med

ium

term

: Rem

ove

inco

mpa

tible

fron

t add

ition

and

re

pair

exist

ing

woo

d fra

me/

mas

onry

bu

ildin

g. R

eins

tall

HA

porc

h, ro

of,

and

win

dow

ele

men

ts.

3400

Bun

ker H

ill

Road

11,

536

3,56

0C

omm

erci

al/

mar

ket

1912

Hig

hSe

e no

tes o

n 40

01 3

4th

Stre

et.

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3701

Eas

tern

Av

enue

286

44,

785

Com

mer

cial

/ fu

nera

l hom

e19

17Lo

wPr

ovid

e D

S fe

ncin

g. R

epai

r de

terio

rate

d w

ood

elem

ents.

C

onfir

m h

istor

ic in

tegr

ity/

cont

ribut

ing

natu

re. T

wo-

to th

ree-

story

dev

elop

men

t pos

sible

with

H

istor

ic P

rese

rvat

ion/

M-U

-TC

de

sign

revi

ew.

3703

Eas

tern

Av

enue

N/A

04,

765

Vaca

nt la

nd/

park

ing

lot

N/A

Non

ePr

ovid

e D

S ed

ge (f

enci

ng) a

t pe

rimet

er. T

wo-

to fo

ur-s

tory

de

velo

pmen

t ant

icip

ated

.

3705

Eas

tern

Av

enue

N/A

04,

375

Vaca

nt la

nd/

park

ing

lot

N/A

Non

eSh

ort t

erm

: Pro

vide

per

imet

er e

dge

cont

rol (

DS

fenc

ing)

. Sho

rt/m

ediu

m

term

: Tw

o- to

four

-sto

ry d

evel

op-

men

t rec

omm

ende

d.

3200

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

e2

6,56

05,

856

Com

mer

cial

/va

cant

fune

ral

hom

e

1920

Low

Shor

t ter

m: P

rovi

de p

erim

eter

edg

e co

ntro

l (D

S fe

ncin

g). S

hort

/med

ium

te

rm: T

wo-

to fo

ur-s

tory

dev

elop

-m

ent r

ecom

men

ded.

Com

plet

e M

-U-T

C Bu

ildin

g In

vent

ory—

East

ern

and

Rhod

e Is

land

Ave

nues

Not

es: D

S =

desig

n sta

ndar

ds. H

A =

histo

rical

ly a

ppro

pria

te. H

P =

histo

ric p

rese

rvat

ion.

App-21


Com

plet

e M

-U-T

C Bu

ildin

g In

vent

ory

- Rho

de Is

land

Ave

nue

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3204

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

eN

/A0

4,37

5Va

cant

land

/pa

rkin

g lo

tN

/AN

one

Shor

t ter

m: P

rovi

de p

erim

eter

edg

e co

ntro

l (D

S fe

ncin

g).

Shor

t to

med

ium

term

: Tw

o- to

four

- sto

ry d

evel

opm

ent r

ecom

men

ded.

3208

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

eN

/A0

8,75

0Va

cant

land

/pa

rkin

g lo

tN

/AN

one

Shor

t ter

m: P

rovi

de p

erim

eter

edg

e co

ntro

l (D

S fe

ncin

g).

Shor

t to

med

ium

term

: Tw

o- to

four

-sto

ry d

evel

opm

ent r

ecom

men

ded.

3210

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

e2

8,91

04,

375

Com

mer

cial

1940

Low

Shor

t ter

m: R

epai

r/re

plac

e w

indo

ws

as re

quire

d. R

epai

r par

apet

cap

. Pr

ovid

e co

mpa

tible

(per

iod)

doo

rs.

Prov

ide

DS

signa

ge, l

ight

ing,

and

aw

ning

. Med

ium

term

: Tw

o- to

fo

ur-s

tory

com

patib

le d

evel

opm

ent

(add

ition

s or r

epla

cem

ent)

poss

ible

w

ith h

istor

ic p

rese

rvat

ion/

MU

TC

gu

idel

ine

com

patib

ility

revi

ew.

3212

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

eN

/A0

8,50

5Va

cant

land

/pa

rkin

g lo

tN

/AN

one

Shor

t ter

m: P

rovi

de p

erim

eter

edg

e co

ntro

l (D

S fe

ncin

g). S

hort

to

med

ium

term

: Tw

o- to

four

-sto

ry

deve

lopm

ent r

ecom

men

ded.

Not

es:

DS

= de

sign

stand

ards

HA

= hi

storic

ally

app

ropr

iate

HP

= hi

storic

pre

serv

atio

n

App-22

Appendix

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3204

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

eN

/A0

4,37

5Va

cant

land

/pa

rkin

g lo

tN

/AN

one

Shor

t ter

m: P

rovi

de p

erim

eter

edg

e co

ntro

l (D

S fe

ncin

g).

Shor

t to

med

ium

term

: Tw

o- to

four

- sto

ry d

evel

opm

ent r

ecom

men

ded.

3208

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

eN

/A0

8,75

0Va

cant

land

/pa

rkin

g lo

tN

/AN

one

Shor

t ter

m: P

rovi

de p

erim

eter

edg

e co

ntro

l (D

S fe

ncin

g).

Shor

t to

med

ium

term

: Tw

o- to

four

-sto

ry d

evel

opm

ent r

ecom

men

ded.

3210

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

e2

8,91

04,

375

Com

mer

cial

1940

Low

Shor

t ter

m: R

epai

r/re

plac

e w

indo

ws

as re

quire

d. R

epai

r par

apet

cap

. Pr

ovid

e co

mpa

tible

(per

iod)

doo

rs.

Prov

ide

DS

signa

ge, l

ight

ing,

and

aw

ning

. Med

ium

term

: Tw

o- to

fo

ur-s

tory

com

patib

le d

evel

opm

ent

(add

ition

s or r

epla

cem

ent)

poss

ible

w

ith h

istor

ic p

rese

rvat

ion/

MU

TC

gu

idel

ine

com

patib

ility

revi

ew.

3212

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

eN

/A0

8,50

5Va

cant

land

/pa

rkin

g lo

tN

/AN

one

Shor

t ter

m: P

rovi

de p

erim

eter

edg

e co

ntro

l (D

S fe

ncin

g). S

hort

to

med

ium

term

: Tw

o- to

four

-sto

ry

deve

lopm

ent r

ecom

men

ded.

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

Vaca

nt lo

t be

twee

n 32

13

and

3220

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

e

N/A

02,

500

Vaca

nt la

nd/

park

ing

lot

N/A

Non

eSh

ort t

erm

: Pro

vide

per

imet

er e

dge

cont

rol (

DS

fenc

ing)

. Sho

rt to

M

ediu

m te

rm: T

wo-

to fo

ur-s

tory

de

velo

pmen

t rec

omm

ende

d.

3220

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

e1

520

5,40

8C

omm

erci

al/

vaca

nt g

as

statio

n

1934

Hig

hG

as st

atio

n: Im

med

iate

stab

iliza

tion

requ

ired.

Res

earc

h an

d do

cum

ent

orig

inal

con

ditio

n: ro

of a

nd st

eel

beam

at p

orte

coc

hère

. Rep

air

clay

tile

roof

. Bric

k re

stora

tion

is re

quire

d. W

indo

w a

nd d

oor

repl

acem

ent o

r res

tora

tion

is re

quire

d. R

epai

r frie

ze. N

o ad

ditio

n re

com

men

ded:

the

build

ing

was

sta

nd a

lone

. Adj

acen

t dev

elop

men

t sh

ould

be

care

fully

ana

lyze

d. It

is

a ra

re e

xam

ple

of a

n ea

rly d

rive-

thro

ugh

gas s

tatio

n. N

ote:

The

alle

y be

hind

the

build

ing

has d

rain

age

prob

lem

s. A

storm

dra

in n

eeds

to

be a

dded

at t

he e

ntry

to th

e al

ley:

re

grad

e as

nec

essa

ry.

3300

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

e3

11,8

495,

895

Com

mer

cial

/va

cant

ap

artm

ent

build

ing

1936

Med

ium

Sing

er B

uild

ing:

repa

ir or

repl

ace

win

dow

s and

doo

rs w

ith c

onsis

tent

br

ushe

d al

umin

um (o

r hist

oric

ally

ac

cura

te) m

etal

win

dow

s. C

lean

, po

int,

and

repa

ir br

ick.

Rep

air s

tone

ca

p. R

esol

ve fr

ont d

rain

age

issue

s. Lo

cate

sign

ban

d. P

rovi

de li

ghtin

g.

Long

term

: a o

ne-s

tory

roof

top

addi

tion

or d

evel

opm

ent i

s pos

sible

w

ith H

P/M

-U-T

C d

esig

n re

view

.

Com

plet

e M

-U-T

C Bu

ildin

g In

vent

ory—

Rhod

e Is

land

Ave

nue

Not

es:

DS

= de

sign

stand

ards

HA

= hi

storic

ally

app

ropr

iate

HP

= hi

storic

pre

serv

atio

n

App-23


Com

plet

e M

-U-T

C Bu

ildin

g In

vent

ory

- Rho

de Is

land

Ave

nue

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3308

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

e2

2,20

01,

475

Com

mer

cial

1925

Med

ium

3306

-330

8 R

hode

Isla

nd A

venu

e:

Repa

ir/re

store

stuc

co. R

epla

ce

gutte

rs/d

owns

pout

s. Re

pair

clay

tile

ro

ofing

. Loc

ate

coor

dina

ted

sign

band

or a

wni

ng e

lem

ent.

Repl

ace

win

dow

s and

doo

rs w

ith h

istor

ical

ly

accu

rate

ele

men

ts.

Long

Ter

m: O

ne-s

tory

roof

top

addi

tion/

deve

lopm

ent p

ossib

le w

ith

HP/

M-U

-TC

com

patib

ility

revi

ew.

3310

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

e1

1,65

01,

520

Com

mer

cial

1966

Med

ium

3310

Rho

de Is

land

Ave

nue:

D

ocum

ent f

açad

es—

repl

ace

orig

inal

co

rnic

e/tr

im a

t ent

ry. R

epai

r sta

irs

and

repl

ace

win

dow

s and

doo

rs

with

hist

oric

ally

acc

urat

e el

emen

ts.

Long

Ter

m: A

dditi

on/d

evel

opm

ent

poss

ible

with

HP/

M-U

-TC

des

ign

revi

ew.

3410

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

e2

6,00

4 4,

900

Com

mer

cial

1935

Low

3402

-341

2 R

hode

Isla

nd A

venu

e:

Prov

ide

new

stor

efro

nt, d

oors

and

w

indo

ws.

Prov

ide

HA/

DS

light

ing,

sig

nage

, and

sign

ban

d. R

epai

r or

repl

ace

corn

ice

and

copi

ng. R

epla

ce

seco

nd-fl

oor w

indo

ws w

ith H

A ve

rsio

ns. R

epai

r and

poi

nt b

rick

as

requ

ired.

3414

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

e2

2,39

2 2,

075

Com

mer

cial

/ Re

siden

tial

1927

Low

Rem

ove

sidin

g. E

xpos

e br

ick

if ex

istin

g. R

epai

r trim

wor

k an

d fre

ize.

Con

firm

hist

oric

ity o

f bay

s. If

bays

ar

e or

igin

al re

quire

HA

elem

ents

at

stree

t lev

el. I

f bay

s are

not

orig

inal

re

quire

com

patib

le e

lem

ents

at

stree

t lev

el. R

epla

ce w

indo

ws a

nd

door

s with

HA

elem

ents.

Pro

vide

D

S-co

nsist

ent s

igna

ge a

nd li

ghtin

g.

Not

es:

DS

= de

sign

stand

ards

HA

= hi

storic

ally

app

ropr

iate

HP

= hi

storic

pre

serv

atio

n

App-24

Appendix

Com

plet

e M

-U-T

C Bu

ildin

g In

vent

ory—

East

ern

and

Rhod

e Is

land

Ave

nues

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3416

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

e2

2,30

0 2,

500

Com

mer

cial

1935

Low

Prov

ide

new

stor

efro

nt, d

oors

and

w

indo

ws.

Prov

ide

HA/

DS

light

ing,

sig

nage

and

/or s

ign

band

. Rem

ove

defu

nct s

igna

ge. R

epla

ce se

cond

flo

or w

indo

ws w

ith H

A w

indo

ws.

Poin

t bric

k as

requ

ired.

Rep

lace

gu

tters

and

dow

nspo

ut. S

hort

te

rm: N

o ad

ditio

nal d

evel

opm

ent

reco

mm

ende

d.

3424

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

eN

/A0

6,15

0 Va

cant

/ pa

rkin

g lo

tN

/AN

one

Repa

ir sta

irs a

nd w

all a

s req

uire

d.

Prov

ide

a D

S-co

nsist

ent f

ence

at t

he

uppe

r lev

el o

f the

wal

l as a

scre

en.

3248

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

eN

/A0

6,55

0 Va

cant

/ pa

rkin

g lo

tN

/AN

one

Repa

ir w

all a

s req

uire

d. P

rovi

de a

D

S-co

nsist

ent f

ence

at t

he u

pper

le

vel o

f the

wal

l as a

scre

en.

3623

Eas

tern

Av

enue

21,

623

6,74

0 In

stitu

tiona

l19

30Lo

wPr

ovid

e D

S fe

ncin

g. R

epai

r det

erio

-ra

ted

woo

d el

emen

ts. C

onfir

m

histo

ric in

tegr

ity/c

ontr

ibut

ing

natu

re. A

two-

to th

ree-

story

de

velo

pmen

t is p

ossib

le w

ith h

istor

ic

pres

erva

tion/

M-U

-TC

des

ign

revi

ew.

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3308

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

e2

2,20

01,

475

Com

mer

cial

1925

Med

ium

3306

-330

8 R

hode

Isla

nd A

venu

e:

Repa

ir/re

store

stuc

co. R

epla

ce

gutte

rs/d

owns

pout

s. Re

pair

clay

tile

ro

ofing

. Loc

ate

coor

dina

ted

sign

band

or a

wni

ng e

lem

ent.

Repl

ace

win

dow

s and

doo

rs w

ith h

istor

ical

ly

accu

rate

ele

men

ts.

Long

Ter

m: O

ne-s

tory

roof

top

addi

tion/

deve

lopm

ent p

ossib

le w

ith

HP/

M-U

-TC

com

patib

ility

revi

ew.

3310

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

e1

1,65

01,

520

Com

mer

cial

1966

Med

ium

3310

Rho

de Is

land

Ave

nue:

D

ocum

ent f

açad

es—

repl

ace

orig

inal

co

rnic

e/tr

im a

t ent

ry. R

epai

r sta

irs

and

repl

ace

win

dow

s and

doo

rs

with

hist

oric

ally

acc

urat

e el

emen

ts.

Long

Ter

m: A

dditi

on/d

evel

opm

ent

poss

ible

with

HP/

M-U

-TC

des

ign

revi

ew.

3410

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

e2

6,00

4 4,

900

Com

mer

cial

1935

Low

3402

-341

2 R

hode

Isla

nd A

venu

e:

Prov

ide

new

stor

efro

nt, d

oors

and

w

indo

ws.

Prov

ide

HA/

DS

light

ing,

sig

nage

, and

sign

ban

d. R

epai

r or

repl

ace

corn

ice

and

copi

ng. R

epla

ce

seco

nd-fl

oor w

indo

ws w

ith H

A ve

rsio

ns. R

epai

r and

poi

nt b

rick

as

requ

ired.

3414

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

e2

2,39

2 2,

075

Com

mer

cial

/ Re

siden

tial

1927

Low

Rem

ove

sidin

g. E

xpos

e br

ick

if ex

istin

g. R

epai

r trim

wor

k an

d fre

ize.

Con

firm

hist

oric

ity o

f bay

s. If

bays

ar

e or

igin

al re

quire

HA

elem

ents

at

stree

t lev

el. I

f bay

s are

not

orig

inal

re

quire

com

patib

le e

lem

ents

at

stree

t lev

el. R

epla

ce w

indo

ws a

nd

door

s with

HA

elem

ents.

Pro

vide

D

S-co

nsist

ent s

igna

ge a

nd li

ghtin

g.

Not

es: D

S =

desig

n sta

ndar

ds. H

A =

histo

rical

ly a

ppro

pria

te. H

P =

histo

ric p

rese

rvat

ion.

App-25


Com

plet

e M

-U-T

C Bu

ildin

g In

vent

ory

- Oti

s St

reet

and

Rho

de Is

land

Ave

nue

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3206

Otis

Stre

et2

1,55

4 2,

769

Com

mer

cial

/ re

siden

tial

1929

Low

Prov

ide

DS

fenc

ing.

Rep

air

dete

riora

ted

woo

d el

emen

ts;

Repl

acem

ent w

indo

ws s

houl

d be

DS

(woo

d). C

onfir

m h

istor

ic in

tegr

ity/

cont

ribut

ing

natu

re.

No

deve

lopm

ent r

ecom

men

ded.

3201

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

e3

34,1

33

13,6

53

Com

mer

cial

/ ap

artm

ents

1938

Med

ium

Funk

hous

er B

uild

ing:

Rep

lace

vin

yl

win

dow

s with

uni

form

woo

d/m

etal

. Po

int b

rick.

Rep

lace

cop

ing,

gut

ters

, an

d do

wn

spou

ts. L

ocat

e co

ordi

nate

d sig

n ba

nd. R

epai

r/re

store

bru

shed

al

umin

um a

wni

ng, o

r int

rodu

ce a

co

nsist

ent a

wni

ng. R

emov

e gr

illes

. Pr

ovid

e ex

terio

r lig

htin

g. P

rovi

de

new

stor

efro

nts o

f bru

shed

/nat

ural

al

umin

um. P

rovi

de p

rope

r dra

inag

e at

the

rear

of t

he b

uild

ing.

3221

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

e1

816

2,35

0 C

omm

erci

al19

20Lo

wSh

ort t

erm

: Poi

nt b

rick.

Rep

lace

co

ping

, gut

ters

, and

dow

n sp

outs.

Lo

cate

coo

rdin

ated

sign

ban

d.

Repl

ace

awni

ng w

ith D

S sy

stem

. Pr

ovid

e a

perio

d-co

mpa

tible

(b

rush

ed n

atur

al) a

lum

inum

sto

refro

nt sy

stem

. Pro

vide

DS

exte

rior l

ight

ing.

A o

ne-to

two-

story

ad

ditio

n/de

velo

pmen

t is p

ossib

le

with

HP/

M-U

-TC

com

patib

ility

re

view

.

3225

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

e2

2,40

0 2,

675

Com

mer

cial

1925

Low

Shor

t ter

m: P

oint

bric

k. R

eplac

e co

ping

, gut

ters,

and

dow

n sp

outs.

Lo

cate

coor

dina

ted

sign

band

. Re

plac

e aw

ning

with

DS

syste

m.

Prov

ide a

per

iod-

com

patib

le (b

rush

ed

natu

ral)

alum

inum

stor

efro

nt sy

stem

. Pr

ovid

e DS

exte

rior l

ight

ing.

A o

ne-

story

addi

tion/

deve

lopm

ent i

s pos

sible

with

HP/

M-U

-TC

com

patib

ility

re

view

.

Not

es: D

S =

desig

n sta

ndar

ds. H

A =

histo

rical

ly a

ppro

pria

te. H

P =

histo

ric p

rese

rvat

ion.

App-26

Appendix

Com

plet

e M

-U-T

C Bu

ildin

g In

vent

ory—

Rhod

e Is

land

Ave

nue

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3231

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

ve1

2,01

0 6,

423

Com

mer

cial

1920

Low

Shor

t ter

m: R

epai

r or r

epla

ce st

ore-

front

ele

men

ts. E

stabl

ish c

onsis

tent

sig

nage

loca

tion.

Pro

vide

aw

ning

. Re

mov

e cl

osed

gril

le. P

rovi

de D

S lig

htin

g; L

ong

term

: A tw

o-sto

ry

roof

top

or th

ree-

story

repl

acem

ent

deve

lopm

ent i

s pos

sible

with

M

-U-T

C d

esig

n re

view

.

3235

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

ve2

7,00

0 7,

783

Com

mer

cial

1940

Low

Shor

t ter

m: R

epai

r or r

epla

ce st

ore-

front

ele

men

ts. E

stabl

ish c

onsis

tent

sig

nage

loca

tion.

Pro

vide

aw

ning

an

d re

pair

or re

plac

e up

per-

leve

l w

indo

ws.

Rem

ove

the

clos

ed g

rille

. Pr

ovid

e D

S lig

htin

g. R

emov

e sid

ing.

Lo

ng te

rm: A

one

-sto

ry ro

of to

p ad

ditio

n or

thre

e-sto

ry re

plac

emen

t de

velo

pmen

t is p

ossib

le w

ith

HP/

M-U

-TC

com

patib

ility

revi

ew.

3239

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

ve2

8,00

0 9,

142

Com

mer

cial

1965

Low

Bake

rySh

ort t

erm

: Rep

air o

r rep

lace

stor

e-fro

nt e

lem

ents.

Esta

blish

con

siste

nt

signa

ge lo

catio

n. P

rovi

de a

n aw

ning

an

d re

pair

or re

plac

e up

per-

leve

l w

indo

ws.

Rem

ove

the

clos

ed g

rille

. Pr

ovid

e D

S lig

htin

g. R

emov

e sid

ing.

Lo

ng te

rm: A

one

-sto

ry ro

of to

p or

th

ree-

story

repl

acem

ent d

evel

opm

ent

is po

ssib

le.

3249

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

ve1

7,60

0 9,

141

Com

mer

cial

1940

Hig

hPo

lice

Stat

ion

Shor

t ter

m: R

ecen

tly re

habi

litat

ed.

Prov

ide

DS

light

ing.

Lon

g te

rm:

Set b

ack.

A h

istor

ical

ly c

ompa

tible

on

e-sto

ry ro

of to

p de

velo

pmen

t is

poss

ible

.

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3206

Otis

Stre

et2

1,55

4 2,

769

Com

mer

cial

/ re

siden

tial

1929

Low

Prov

ide

DS

fenc

ing.

Rep

air

dete

riora

ted

woo

d el

emen

ts;

Repl

acem

ent w

indo

ws s

houl

d be

DS

(woo

d). C

onfir

m h

istor

ic in

tegr

ity/

cont

ribut

ing

natu

re.

No

deve

lopm

ent r

ecom

men

ded.

3201

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

e3

34,1

33

13,6

53

Com

mer

cial

/ ap

artm

ents

1938

Med

ium

Funk

hous

er B

uild

ing:

Rep

lace

vin

yl

win

dow

s with

uni

form

woo

d/m

etal

. Po

int b

rick.

Rep

lace

cop

ing,

gut

ters

, an

d do

wn

spou

ts. L

ocat

e co

ordi

nate

d sig

n ba

nd. R

epai

r/re

store

bru

shed

al

umin

um a

wni

ng, o

r int

rodu

ce a

co

nsist

ent a

wni

ng. R

emov

e gr

illes

. Pr

ovid

e ex

terio

r lig

htin

g. P

rovi

de

new

stor

efro

nts o

f bru

shed

/nat

ural

al

umin

um. P

rovi

de p

rope

r dra

inag

e at

the

rear

of t

he b

uild

ing.

3221

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

e1

816

2,35

0 C

omm

erci

al19

20Lo

wSh

ort t

erm

: Poi

nt b

rick.

Rep

lace

co

ping

, gut

ters

, and

dow

n sp

outs.

Lo

cate

coo

rdin

ated

sign

ban

d.

Repl

ace

awni

ng w

ith D

S sy

stem

. Pr

ovid

e a

perio

d-co

mpa

tible

(b

rush

ed n

atur

al) a

lum

inum

sto

refro

nt sy

stem

. Pro

vide

DS

exte

rior l

ight

ing.

A o

ne-to

two-

story

ad

ditio

n/de

velo

pmen

t is p

ossib

le

with

HP/

M-U

-TC

com

patib

ility

re

view

.

3225

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

e2

2,40

0 2,

675

Com

mer

cial

1925

Low

Shor

t ter

m: P

oint

bric

k. R

eplac

e co

ping

, gut

ters,

and

dow

n sp

outs.

Lo

cate

coor

dina

ted

sign

band

. Re

plac

e aw

ning

with

DS

syste

m.

Prov

ide a

per

iod-

com

patib

le (b

rush

ed

natu

ral)

alum

inum

stor

efro

nt sy

stem

. Pr

ovid

e DS

exte

rior l

ight

ing.

A o

ne-

story

addi

tion/

deve

lopm

ent i

s pos

sible

with

HP/

M-U

-TC

com

patib

ility

re

view

.

Not

es:

DS

= de

sign

stand

ards

HA

= hi

storic

ally

app

ropr

iate

HP

= hi

storic

pre

serv

atio

n

App-27


Com

plet

e M

-U-T

C Bu

ildin

g In

vent

ory—

Rhod

e Is

land

Ave

nue

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3301

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

ve1

4,28

0 4,

850

Com

mer

cial

1950

Low

Shor

t ter

m: P

rovi

de D

S sig

nage

. Li

ghtin

g is

requ

ired

that

is co

mpa

t-ib

le w

ith M

-U-T

C d

esig

n gu

ideli

nes.

Prov

ide a

n aw

ning

. Pain

t or r

emov

e the

ve

rtica

l alu

min

um si

ding

at th

e roo

f. A

com

patib

le ad

ditio

n to

thre

e- to

four

-sto

ries i

s pos

sible

at n

onco

ntrib

utin

g sit

e. Lo

ng te

rm: A

two-

story

roof

top

addi

tion

or th

ree-

story

repl

acem

ent

deve

lopm

ent i

s pos

sible

with

M-U

-TC

co

mpa

tibili

ty re

view

.

3311

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

ve4

68,4

41

39,9

19

Com

mer

cial

/ap

artm

ents

2005

Low

Con

siste

nt si

gnag

e, w

ayfin

ding

and

lig

htin

g is

requ

ired.

No

othe

r wor

k is

reco

mm

ende

d.

Bus t

rans

it pl

aza

N/A

0 39

6 Bu

s tra

nsit

plaz

aN

/AN

one

Rem

ove

tran

sit re

late

d ac

tiviti

es fr

om

this

area

and

relo

cate

. Red

evel

op a

s a

park

or o

pen

spac

e fo

r the

civ

ic c

ore.

Bus t

rans

it pl

aza

area

N/A

0 2,

528

Vaca

nt/b

us

stop

N/A

Non

eRe

mov

e tr

ansit

rela

ted

activ

ities

from

th

is ar

ea a

nd re

loca

te. R

edev

elop

as a

pa

rk o

r ope

n sp

ace

for t

he c

ivic

cor

e.

Not

es:

DS

= de

sign

stand

ards

HA

= hi

storic

ally

app

ropr

iate

HP

= hi

storic

pre

serv

atio

n

App-28

Appendix

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3301

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

ve1

4,28

0 4,

850

Com

mer

cial

1950

Low

Shor

t ter

m: P

rovi

de D

S sig

nage

. Li

ghtin

g is

requ

ired

that

is co

mpa

t-ib

le w

ith M

-U-T

C d

esig

n gu

ideli

nes.

Prov

ide a

n aw

ning

. Pain

t or r

emov

e the

ve

rtica

l alu

min

um si

ding

at th

e roo

f. A

com

patib

le ad

ditio

n to

thre

e- to

four

-sto

ries i

s pos

sible

at n

onco

ntrib

utin

g sit

e. Lo

ng te

rm: A

two-

story

roof

top

addi

tion

or th

ree-

story

repl

acem

ent

deve

lopm

ent i

s pos

sible

with

M-U

-TC

co

mpa

tibili

ty re

view

.

3311

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

ve4

68,4

41

39,9

19

Com

mer

cial

/ap

artm

ents

2005

Low

Con

siste

nt si

gnag

e, w

ayfin

ding

and

lig

htin

g is

requ

ired.

No

othe

r wor

k is

reco

mm

ende

d.

Bus t

rans

it pl

aza

N/A

0 39

6 Bu

s tra

nsit

plaz

aN

/AN

one

Rem

ove

tran

sit re

late

d ac

tiviti

es fr

om

this

area

and

relo

cate

. Red

evel

op a

s a

park

or o

pen

spac

e fo

r the

civ

ic c

ore.

Bus t

rans

it pl

aza

area

N/A

0 2,

528

Vaca

nt/b

us

stop

N/A

Non

eRe

mov

e tr

ansit

rela

ted

activ

ities

from

th

is ar

ea a

nd re

loca

te. R

edev

elop

as a

pa

rk o

r ope

n sp

ace

for t

he c

ivic

cor

e.

Com

plet

e M

-U-T

C Bu

ildin

g In

vent

ory-

Rhod

e Is

land

Ave

nue

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

Mou

nt R

aini

er

City

Hal

l3

Publ

ic/c

ity

hall

Low

Coo

rdin

ate

faça

de/e

ntry

with

ne

w p

ark

or o

pen

spac

e el

emen

ts.

Coo

rdin

ate

entr

y, lig

htin

g, a

nd

way

findi

ng w

ith fu

ture

civ

ic c

ore

addi

tions

and

ope

n sp

ace

elem

ents.

Addi

tions

or d

evel

opm

ent a

re

poss

ible

with

M-U

-TC

des

ign

revi

ew.

3405

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

venu

eN

/A44

8 44

8 C

omm

erci

al/

chur

ch

N/A

Med

ium

Easte

rn S

tar B

uild

ing:

Red

esig

n R

I fa

çade

. Res

tora

tion:

Res

earc

h an

d re

store

orig

inal

faça

de e

lem

ents.

Al

tern

ate:

Red

esig

n or

pro

vide

a

com

patib

le a

dditi

on b

ecau

se o

f the

cu

rren

t lac

k of

inte

grity

. Add

ition

s or

dev

elop

men

t are

pos

sible

with

H

P/M

-U-T

C d

esig

n re

view

.

3409

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

ve2

4,04

0 5,

640

Publ

ic li

brar

y19

15Lo

wC

onfir

m th

e co

ntrib

utin

g na

ture

of

the

libra

ry si

te. A

com

patib

le

two-

to th

ree-

story

add

ition

is

poss

ible

with

HP/

M-U

-TC

gui

delin

e re

view

. Cur

rent

repa

irs: p

rovi

de a

co

mpa

tible

(DS—

cons

isten

t with

R

I Ave

nue

desig

n sta

ndar

ds) a

wni

ng

and

signa

ge. R

epla

ce w

indo

ws a

nd

door

s with

hist

oric

ally

app

ropr

iate

(H

A) st

oref

ront

fram

ing.

Rep

air o

r re

plac

e pl

ante

r if n

ot H

A. P

rovi

de

DS-

cons

isten

t lig

htin

g.

3413

Rho

de

Isla

nd A

ve2

3,12

9 4,

925

Com

mer

cial

/ ap

artm

ents

1939

Low

Repl

ace

win

dow

and

doo

rs w

ith H

A el

emen

ts. P

oint

and

repa

ir br

ick.

Add

D

S-co

nsist

ent s

igna

ge a

nd a

wni

ng.

Shor

t ter

m: N

o de

velo

pmen

t is

reco

mm

ende

d. L

ong

term

: A th

ree-

story

dev

elop

men

t is p

ossib

le w

ith

HP/

M-U

-TC

des

ign

revi

ew.

Not

es:

DS

= de

sign

stand

ards

HA

= hi

storic

ally

app

ropr

iate

HP

= hi

storic

pre

serv

atio

n

App-29


Com

plet

e M

-U-T

C Bu

ildin

g In

vent

ory—

Perr

y St

reet

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

Vaca

nt L

ot e

ast o

f 32

06 P

erry

Stre

etN

/A0

6,54

5 Va

cant

land

N/A

Non

eVa

cant

lot:

Two-

to th

ree-

story

, H

P/M

-U-T

C c

ompa

tible

, res

iden

tial

deve

lopm

ent r

ecom

men

ded.

Vaca

nt L

ot e

ast o

f 32

06 P

erry

Stre

etN

/A0

4,20

0 Va

cant

land

N/A

Non

eVa

cant

lot:

Two-

to th

ree-

story

, H

P/M

-U-T

C c

ompa

tible

, res

iden

tial

deve

lopm

ent r

ecom

men

ded.

3300

Per

ry S

treet

3N

/AN

/ARe

siden

tial

N/A

Low

Rece

ntly

reha

bilit

ated

apa

rtm

ent

build

ing:

No

deve

lopm

ent

reco

mm

ende

d.

3304

Per

ry S

treet

31,

320

6,00

0 Re

siden

tial

1922

Low

Repa

ir w

ood

elem

ents.

Rep

lace

w

indo

ws a

nd d

oors

as r

equi

red

with

H

A el

emen

ts. N

o de

velo

pmen

t re

com

men

ded.

Not

es:

DS

= de

sign

stand

ards

HA

= hi

storic

ally

app

ropr

iate

HP

= hi

storic

pre

serv

atio

n

App-30

Appendix

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

Vaca

nt L

ot e

ast o

f 32

06 P

erry

Stre

etN

/A0

6,54

5 Va

cant

land

N/A

Non

eVa

cant

lot:

Two-

to th

ree-

story

, H

P/M

-U-T

C c

ompa

tible

, res

iden

tial

deve

lopm

ent r

ecom

men

ded.

Vaca

nt L

ot e

ast o

f 32

06 P

erry

Stre

etN

/A0

4,20

0 Va

cant

land

N/A

Non

eVa

cant

lot:

Two-

to th

ree-

story

, H

P/M

-U-T

C c

ompa

tible

, res

iden

tial

deve

lopm

ent r

ecom

men

ded.

3300

Per

ry S

treet

3N

/AN

/ARe

siden

tial

N/A

Low

Rece

ntly

reha

bilit

ated

apa

rtm

ent

build

ing:

No

deve

lopm

ent

reco

mm

ende

d.

3304

Per

ry S

treet

31,

320

6,00

0 Re

siden

tial

1922

Low

Repa

ir w

ood

elem

ents.

Rep

lace

w

indo

ws a

nd d

oors

as r

equi

red

with

H

A el

emen

ts. N

o de

velo

pmen

t re

com

men

ded.

Com

plet

e M

-U-T

C Bu

ildin

g In

vent

ory—

Perr

y St

reet

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3310

Per

ry S

treet

23,

322

6,00

0 C

omm

erci

al19

20Lo

wRe

pair

mas

onry

and

woo

d el

emen

ts.

Repl

ace

win

dow

s and

doo

rs a

s re

quire

d w

ith H

A el

emen

ts.

No

deve

lopm

ent r

ecom

men

ded.

3316

Per

ry S

treet

21,

819

3,38

7 Re

siden

tial

1902

Low

Repa

ir w

ood

elem

ents.

Rep

lace

w

indo

ws a

nd d

oors

as r

equi

red

with

HA

elem

ents.

Sho

rt T

erm

: N

o de

velo

pmen

t rec

omm

ende

d.

Long

Ter

m: C

ompa

tible

repl

acem

ent

build

ing

poss

ible

with

HP/

M-U

-TC

de

sign

revi

ew.

3318

Per

ry S

treet

31,

916

6,00

0 C

omm

erci

al19

02Lo

wRe

pair

woo

d el

emen

ts. R

epla

ce

win

dow

s and

doo

rs a

s req

uire

d w

ith H

A el

emen

ts. S

hort

Ter

m: N

o de

velo

pmen

t rec

omm

ende

d.

Long

Ter

m: C

ompa

tible

repl

acem

ent

build

ing

poss

ible

with

HP/

M-U

-TC

de

sign

revi

ew.

3724

35t

h St

reet

1,58

2 6,

250

Resid

entia

l19

27N

/ARe

pair

woo

d el

emen

ts. R

epla

ce

win

dow

s and

doo

rs a

s req

uire

d w

ith

HA

elem

ents.

No

deve

lopm

ent

reco

mm

ende

d.

Not

es:

DS

= de

sign

stand

ards

HA

= hi

storic

ally

app

ropr

iate

HP

= hi

storic

pre

serv

atio

n

App-31


Com

plet

e M

-U-T

C Bu

ildin

g In

vent

ory

- Per

ry a

nd 3

5th

Stre

ets

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3724

35t

h St

reet

21,

120

6,25

0 Re

siden

tial

1918

N/A

Repa

ir w

ood

elem

ents.

Rep

lace

w

indo

ws a

nd d

oors

as r

equi

red

with

H

A el

emen

ts. N

o de

velo

pmen

t re

com

men

ded.

3401

Per

ry S

treet

11,

875

3,75

0 In

stitu

tiona

l/ sto

re fr

ont

1930

Hig

hSa

nita

ry G

roce

ry: R

epai

r sto

refro

nt

elem

ents.

Pro

vide

coo

rdin

ated

sig-

nage

. Poi

nt b

rick.

Res

tore

or r

epai

r th

e aw

ning

. Pro

vide

ligh

ting.

No

addi

tion

is re

com

men

ded.

3403

Per

ry S

treet

22,

006

2,12

5 C

omm

erci

al19

00Lo

wIf

the s

truct

ure i

s com

mer

cial p

rovi

de

M-U

-TC

gui

delin

e DS-

cons

isten

t sig

nage

. Pain

t and

repa

ir de

terio

rate

d w

ood

or m

ason

ry el

emen

ts. R

eplac

e w

indo

ws a

nd d

oors

as re

quire

d w

ith H

A ele

men

ts. N

o sh

ort-

term

dev

elopm

ent o

r add

ition

is

reco

mm

ende

d. M

ediu

m to

long

term

: Tw

o- to

thre

e-sto

ry fu

ture

repl

acem

ent

build

ing

or co

mpl

ex is

pos

sible

with

H

P/M

-U-T

C g

uide

line r

eview

.

3407

Per

ry S

treet

21,

176

5,87

5 C

omm

erci

al19

18Lo

wIf

the

stru

ctur

e is

com

mer

cial

pr

ovid

e M

-U-T

C g

uide

line

DS-

cons

isten

t sig

nage

. Pai

nt a

nd re

pair

dete

riora

ted

woo

d or

mas

onry

el

emen

ts. R

epla

ce w

indo

ws a

nd

door

s as r

equi

red

with

HA

elem

ents

. N

o sh

ort t

erm

dev

elop

men

t or

addi

tion

is re

com

men

ded.

Med

ium

to

long

term

: A tw

o- to

thre

e-st

ory

futu

re re

plac

emen

t bui

ldin

g/co

mpl

ex is

pos

sible

with

H

P/M

-U-T

C g

uide

line

revi

ew.

Not

es:

DS

= de

sign

stand

ards

HA

= hi

storic

ally

app

ropr

iate

HP

= hi

storic

pre

serv

atio

n

App-32

Appendix

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3724

35t

h St

reet

21,

120

6,25

0 Re

siden

tial

1918

N/A

Repa

ir w

ood

elem

ents.

Rep

lace

w

indo

ws a

nd d

oors

as r

equi

red

with

H

A el

emen

ts. N

o de

velo

pmen

t re

com

men

ded.

3401

Per

ry S

treet

11,

875

3,75

0 In

stitu

tiona

l/ sto

re fr

ont

1930

Hig

hSa

nita

ry G

roce

ry: R

epai

r sto

refro

nt

elem

ents.

Pro

vide

coo

rdin

ated

sig-

nage

. Poi

nt b

rick.

Res

tore

or r

epai

r th

e aw

ning

. Pro

vide

ligh

ting.

No

addi

tion

is re

com

men

ded.

3403

Per

ry S

treet

22,

006

2,12

5 C

omm

erci

al19

00Lo

wIf

the s

truct

ure i

s com

mer

cial p

rovi

de

M-U

-TC

gui

delin

e DS-

cons

isten

t sig

nage

. Pain

t and

repa

ir de

terio

rate

d w

ood

or m

ason

ry el

emen

ts. R

eplac

e w

indo

ws a

nd d

oors

as re

quire

d w

ith H

A ele

men

ts. N

o sh

ort-

term

dev

elopm

ent o

r add

ition

is

reco

mm

ende

d. M

ediu

m to

long

term

: Tw

o- to

thre

e-sto

ry fu

ture

repl

acem

ent

build

ing

or co

mpl

ex is

pos

sible

with

H

P/M

-U-T

C g

uide

line r

eview

.

3407

Per

ry S

treet

21,

176

5,87

5 C

omm

erci

al19

18Lo

wIf

the

stru

ctur

e is

com

mer

cial

pr

ovid

e M

-U-T

C g

uide

line

DS-

cons

isten

t sig

nage

. Pai

nt a

nd re

pair

dete

riora

ted

woo

d or

mas

onry

el

emen

ts. R

epla

ce w

indo

ws a

nd

door

s as r

equi

red

with

HA

elem

ents

. N

o sh

ort t

erm

dev

elop

men

t or

addi

tion

is re

com

men

ded.

Med

ium

to

long

term

: A tw

o- to

thre

e-st

ory

futu

re re

plac

emen

t bui

ldin

g/co

mpl

ex is

pos

sible

with

H

P/M

-U-T

C g

uide

line

revi

ew.

Com

plet

e M

-U-T

C Bu

ildin

g In

vent

ory—

Perr

y St

reet

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3409

Per

ry S

treet

22,

372

5,87

5 Re

siden

tial

1920

Low

If th

e stru

ctur

e is c

omm

ercia

l pro

vide

M-U

-TC

gui

delin

e DS-

cons

isten

t sig

nage

. Pain

t and

repa

ir de

terio

rate

d wo

od o

r mas

onry

elem

ents.

Rep

lace

wind

ows a

nd d

oors

as re

quire

d wi

th H

A ele

men

ts. N

o sh

ort-t

erm

dev

elopm

ent

or ad

ditio

n is

reco

mm

ende

d; S

hort

term

: Rem

ove i

ncom

patib

le fro

nt

addi

tion

and

insta

ll re

desig

ned

HP/

M-U

-TC

gui

delin

e-co

mpl

iant

front

addi

tion.

Med

ium

to lo

ng te

rm:

A tw

o- to

thre

e-sto

ry fu

ture

repl

acem

ent

build

ing

or co

mpl

ex is

pos

sible

with

H

P/M

-U-T

C g

uide

line r

eview

.

3411

Per

ry S

treet

N/A

0 5,

375

Com

mer

cial

N/A

Non

eIf

the

struc

ture

is c

omm

erci

al,

prov

ide

M-U

-TC

gui

delin

e

DS-

cons

isten

t sig

nage

. Pai

nt a

nd

repa

ir de

terio

rate

d w

ood

or m

ason

ry

elem

ents.

Rep

lace

win

dow

s and

do

ors a

s req

uire

d w

ith H

A el

emen

ts;

No

shor

t-ter

m d

evel

opm

ent o

r ad

ditio

n is

reco

mm

ende

d. M

ediu

m

to lo

ng te

rm: A

two-

to th

ree-

story

fu

ture

repl

acem

ent b

uild

ing

or

com

plex

is p

ossib

le w

ith

HP/

M-U

-TC

gui

delin

e re

view

.

3415

Per

ry S

treet

32,

276

6,37

5 C

omm

erci

al19

30Lo

wIf

the s

truct

ure i

s com

mer

cial,

pro

vide

M

-U-T

C g

uide

line D

S-co

nsist

ent

signa

ge. P

aint

and

repa

ir de

terio

rate

d w

ood

or m

ason

ry el

emen

ts. R

eplac

e w

indo

ws a

nd d

oors

as re

quire

d w

ith H

A ele

men

ts. N

o sh

ort-

term

dev

elopm

ent o

r add

ition

is

reco

mm

ende

d. M

ediu

m to

long

te

rm: A

two

to th

ree-

story

futu

re

repl

acem

ent b

uild

ing

or co

mpl

ex is

po

ssibl

e with

HP/

M-U

-TC

gui

delin

e re

view

.

Not

es:

DS

= de

sign

stand

ards

HA

= hi

storic

ally

app

ropr

iate

HP

= hi

storic

pre

serv

atio

n

App-33


Com

plet

e M

-U-T

C Bu

ildin

g In

vent

ory—

Perr

y St

reet

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3501

Per

ry S

treet

23,

328

6,25

0 C

omm

erci

al19

10Lo

wIf

the s

truct

ure i

s com

mer

cial,

prov

ide M

-U-T

C g

uide

line D

S-co

nsist

ent s

igna

ge. P

aint a

nd re

pair

dete

riora

ted

woo

d or

mas

onry

ele

men

ts. R

eplac

e win

dow

s and

doo

rs as

requ

ired

with

HA

elem

ents.

No

shor

t-ter

m d

evelo

pmen

t or a

dditi

on

reco

mm

ende

d; M

ediu

m to

long

term

: Tw

o- to

thre

e-sto

ry fu

ture

repl

acem

ent

build

ing

or co

mpl

ex is

pos

sible

with

H

P/M

-U-T

C g

uide

line r

eview

.

3503

Per

ry S

treet

N/A

0 6,

250

Vaca

nt/

park

ing

lot

N/A

Non

eIf

the

struc

ture

is c

omm

erci

al,

prov

ide

M-U

-TC

gui

delin

e D

S-co

nsist

ent s

igna

ge. P

aint

and

repa

ir de

terio

rate

d w

ood

or m

ason

ry

elem

ents.

Rep

lace

win

dow

s and

do

ors a

s req

uire

d w

ith H

A el

emen

ts.

No

shor

t-ter

m d

evel

opm

ent o

r ad

ditio

n is

reco

mm

ende

d.

Med

ium

to lo

ng te

rm: A

two-

to

thre

e-sto

ry fu

ture

repl

acem

ent

build

ing

or c

ompl

ex is

pos

sible

with

H

P/M

-U-T

C g

uide

line

revi

ew.

3503

Per

ry S

treet

13,

966

6,25

0 C

omm

erci

al/

med

ical

1964

Low

If th

e str

uctu

re is

com

mer

cial

, pr

ovid

e M

-U-T

C g

uide

line

DS-

cons

isten

t sig

nage

. Pai

nt a

nd re

pair

dete

riora

ted

woo

d or

mas

onry

el

emen

ts. R

epla

ce w

indo

ws a

nd

door

s as r

equi

red

with

HA

elem

ents.

N

o sh

ort-t

erm

dev

elop

men

t or

addi

tion

is re

com

men

ded.

M

ediu

m to

long

term

: A tw

o- to

th

ree-

story

futu

re re

plac

emen

t bu

ildin

g or

com

plex

is p

ossib

le w

ith

HP/

M-U

-TC

gui

delin

e re

view

.

Not

es:

DS

= de

sign

stand

ards

HA

= hi

storic

ally

app

ropr

iate

HP

= hi

storic

pre

serv

atio

n

App-34

Appendix

Add

ress

Phot

ogra

phN

umbe

r of

St

orie

s

Squa

re

Foot

age

Lot

Squa

re

Foot

age

Curr

ent

Use

Year

Bu

iltLe

vel o

f H

isto

ric

Pres

erva

tion

Repa

ir/R

ehab

ilita

tion

an

d D

evel

opm

ent

Reco

mm

enda

tion

s

3501

Per

ry S

treet

23,

328

6,25

0 C

omm

erci

al19

10Lo

wIf

the s

truct

ure i

s com

mer

cial,

prov

ide M

-U-T

C g

uide

line D

S-co

nsist

ent s

igna

ge. P

aint a

nd re

pair

dete

riora

ted

woo

d or

mas

onry

ele

men

ts. R

eplac

e win

dow

s and

doo

rs as

requ

ired

with

HA

elem

ents.

No

shor

t-ter

m d

evelo

pmen

t or a

dditi

on

reco

mm

ende

d; M

ediu

m to

long

term

: Tw

o- to

thre

e-sto

ry fu

ture

repl

acem

ent

build

ing

or co

mpl

ex is

pos

sible

with

H

P/M

-U-T

C g

uide

line r

eview

.

3503

Per

ry S

treet

N/A

0 6,

250

Vaca

nt/

park

ing

lot

N/A

Non

eIf

the

struc

ture

is c

omm

erci

al,

prov

ide

M-U

-TC

gui

delin

e D

S-co

nsist

ent s

igna

ge. P

aint

and

repa

ir de

terio

rate

d w

ood

or m

ason

ry

elem

ents.

Rep

lace

win

dow

s and

do

ors a

s req

uire

d w

ith H

A el

emen

ts.

No

shor

t-ter

m d

evel

opm

ent o

r ad

ditio

n is

reco

mm

ende

d.

Med

ium

to lo

ng te

rm: A

two-

to

thre

e-sto

ry fu

ture

repl

acem

ent

build

ing

or c

ompl

ex is

pos

sible

with

H

P/M

-U-T

C g

uide

line

revi

ew.

3503

Per

ry S

treet

13,

966

6,25

0 C

omm

erci

al/

med

ical

1964

Low

If th

e str

uctu

re is

com

mer

cial

, pr

ovid

e M

-U-T

C g

uide

line

DS-

cons

isten

t sig

nage

. Pai

nt a

nd re

pair

dete

riora

ted

woo

d or

mas

onry

el

emen

ts. R

epla

ce w

indo

ws a

nd

door

s as r

equi

red

with

HA

elem

ents.

N

o sh

ort-t

erm

dev

elop

men

t or

addi

tion

is re

com

men

ded.

M

ediu

m to

long

term

: A tw

o- to

th

ree-

story

futu

re re

plac

emen

t bu

ildin

g or

com

plex

is p

ossib

le w

ith

HP/

M-U

-TC

gui

delin

e re

view

.

Project team core members—community Planning north DivisionVanessa Akins Mosley, Division Chief

Ragaei Abdelfattah, Planning Supervisor Robert E. Metzger, Ph.D., Project ManagerRobert J. Duffy, AICP, Project Facilitator

Roberto Duke, AICP, Planner CoordinatorShannon Guzman, Senior Planner

Sara Chadwick, Planner

Project team resource members—community Planning north DivisionGary R. Thomas, Principal Planning TechnicianBriana Davis, Principal Administrative Assistant

Gena Tapscott, Principal Administrative Assistant

Project resource team—countywiDe Planning DivisionFaramarz Mokhtari, Planner Coordinator

Fred Shaffer, Planner CoordinatorTiffany Williams Jennings, Planner Coordinator

Jay Mangalvedhe, Planner CoordinatorE. Fatimah Hasan, Planner Coordinator

Howard Berger, Planner CoordinatorTed Kowaluk, Planner Coordinator

Joe Valenza, Master Planner Susan Lareuse, RLA, Master PlannerScott Rowe, Planner Coordinator *

Joseph McDuffie, Planner Coordinator*

DePartment of Parks anD recreationEileen Nivera, Planner Coordinator

technical assistance—office of the Planning DirectorSusan Kelly, Manager, Office and Publications Services

Robert Meintjes, Publications SpecialistCatrell Thomas, Publications Specialist *Ralph Barrett, Supervisor, Office Services

La’Tasha Harrison, Stock Clerk IIJames Johnson, Stock Clerk II

city of mount rainierMayor Malinda Miles

Councilmember Jimmy TarlauCouncilmember Alta Morton

Councilmember Brian KnedlerCouncilmember Ivy ThompsonJeannelle Wallace, City Manager

Michael Jackson, Assistant City Manager

sPecial thanks to:Mount Rainier M-U-TC CommitteeMount Rainier Design Review BoardMount Rainier Business Association

Bunker Hill Fire StationGateway CDC

Neighborhood Design CenterCunningham|Quill Architects

And the other elected officials, residents, property owners, and business owners that attended meetings, participated in discussions, and assisted with drafting the development plan.

*Former employee

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSFern V. Piret, Ph.D., Planning Director

Albert G. Dobbins III, AICP, Deputy Planning Director

The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commissionwww.mncppc.org/pgco

Draft Secondary Amendment to the City of Mount Rainier Mixed-Use Town Center Zone Development Plan

Documents

Transcript of Draft Secondary Amendment to the City of Mount Rainier Mixed-Use Town Center Zone Development Plan