FLOG - the Friends of White Flint Blog

A letter received by a Friend of White Flint (reprinted including HTML code; we do not endorse or recommend using the links directly; please use caution):

High tech jobs are an important goal for Montgomery County, but where we put those jobs is important too. County officials are considering two vastly different development proposals – one for massive expansion of the Life Sciences Center in Gaithersburg and the other a centrally located transit-oriented development at White Flint Metro.

Good Idea, Wrong Location

Massive expansion of the Life Sciences Center, located almost as far out as Dulles Airport in Virginia, would increase traffic, energy use, water and air pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. The location has poor transit connections and is far from existing business districts.

Trying to commute here from the populous eastern and southern parts of the county would require multiple bus transfers or a long drive. Full build-out of the plan may occur before the proposed Corridor Cities Transitway could be built, and funding for the CCT isn’t even guaranteed. Instead, we should focus jobs at our existing Metro stations.

White Flint can become a vibrant, walkable place improving housing and transportation choices.

White Flint: Efficient, Convenient, Sustainable

Instead of adding new jobs in hard-to-reach locations, how about locating them right at existing transit stations? We care about the environment and the most sustainable solution is to create walkable, transit-oriented communities that reduce driving, energy use, and climate changing emissions. The White Flint Metro Station is a convenient location for jobs and homes, and walkable designs can reuse acres of parking lots while improving conditions along Rockville Pike.

Ask the County to Support an Energy Efficient, Sustainable Future

Send an email today to let our elected officials know you oppose massive expansion of the Life Sciences Center, which would be a step back from saving the Bay, addressing climate change, and reducing traffic. Urge the county to create a great plan for the White Flint Metro Station and to focus new growth near existing transit stations.

Creating a Vision for White Flint

The good news is that Montgomery County is currently updating the plan for the White Flint Metro station to become the vibrant, walkable center for North Bethesda. The White Flint Sector Plan meets county goals of providing jobs, homes, and transportation choices through redevelopment of Metro stations into mixed use communities. The plan is in progress and continued input from the public will ensure we get the best result possible.

The vision for White Flint includes: new parks and green space, an improved local street network, a vibrant mix of uses, more housing choices, and good pedestrian/bicyclist access. The plan also calls for the redesign of Rockville Pike into a grand boulevard. These approaches will help moderate the traffic on the Pike by conveniently locating jobs and housing and increasing options to use transit, walk and bike. You can read more on the Montgomery County Planning Department website.

Montgomery County has a strong commitment to smart growth and should uphold this vision by placing a priority on Metro station communities and improving existing commercial corridors like Rockville Pike. Massive expansion of the Life Sciences Center would directly undermine these county efforts. With a good plan for the future of White Flint and its other Metro stations, the county can remain a leader in sustainable transportation, energy and climate solutions, offering residents more transportation and housing choices.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Perring
action@smartergrowth.net
Coalition For Smarter Growth

So another, and probably the final Planning Board worksession is complete. Observers after the session were buzzing about what appeared to be mistakes, both simple and fundamental, in the presentations and discussions on staging and implementation. And some of the Commissioners’ statements were internally contradictory, as well as inconsistent with the principles which have guided this process for years. Perhaps everyone was just punchy after several hours of intense deliberation on complex issues, but the questions remain.

 Is anyone really thinking that having an express library, or even fire and rescue, is crucial to the success of Phase One, let alone Phase Two? As opposed to getting reconstruction of Rockville Pike underway?

Are we really talking about waiting ten years to get any improvements in roads and the street network?

Will necessary improvements in transportation, now scheduled for Phase Two, be forced to wait until some agency, somewhere, decides that the streetscaping is adequately funded?

And why would private interests agree to tax themselves if the infrastructure they were counting on to support those taxes could be held up for aesthetic reasons?

The whole discussion was very odd.

Barnaby Zall

Live blogging from the June 4, 2009 worksession of the Montgomery County Planning Board. Topics remaining include implementation and staging.

Dan Hardy, chief transportation planner, and Piera Weiss, Master Planner for White Flint, joined by Jacob Sesker, financing wizard. Staging proposals from handouts. Board is concerned that some of the items on the list are “must haves” and some are “should haves.”

Chairman Hanson: Further development is triggered by completion and don’t want important things to be held up because something that is just “nice” isn’t done. Go back and figure out what we want out of Stage One. We want land for library and Civic Green, and street improvements as development occurs. The others are just CIP items, not triggers for Stage Two because they don’t really change capacity. Phasing is connected to infrastructure, and mainly to transportation. If we don’t have the additional roadways we can’t get to the other things that need to be done. We’ve got to build these roadways before we can rebuild Rockville Pike in Phase Two. Not the same for the library or the Civic Green. Presley: but let’s not strip the Plan of the things that will make this all work, so keeping these in so the people who want these will have something to measure against and complain to Council if it isn’t done. Robinson: I would limit Phase One to the absolutely vital projects. Presley: those which must be built.  Robinson: essential elements in Phase One, public facilities.

Bottom of P. 28, and P. 29 of the Handout have the phasing milestones for Phases One and Two. Board went through these and edited. Motion by Robinson: take out as milestones which have to be completed to trigger Phase Two, but which must be in the CIP budget by the end of Phase One and completed half-way through Phase Two: Civic Green, Wall Park parking, library, streetscape within 1/4 mile of Metro, and circulator study.

Don Briggs, Federal Realty, crucial issue is if you expect private community to tax ourselves, we need to know with relative certainty that we’ll be able to capitalize on our investments. Each of these items is a different agency and different approvals, beyond the purview of this Board, and you broaden the process. Stage Two is far enough along that the Board may have the time to lobby to get the other things done.

Robinson: I thought we needed transportation capacity to be built, not just funded. If it’s in the CIP, implication is that it will be completed within six years. My problem is that the transportation absolutely has to be done. I feel differently about transportation capacity than the other things. Phase Two could be 10-15 years. Hanson: I agree. Phase One is not a year. Timelags between planning and actual construction, we’re already out a minimum of six years from now. Amount of development we’re talking about here, will take a while. Briggs: 4-5 year gap between approval and beginning of construction. Hanson: so talking about ten years out. In that 10 year period, assuming we put this in the CIP, we have an opportunity to build anything in here.

Cryor: Phase Two, new school site point. Unanimous.

Phase Three. Robinson: need to add that reconstruction of Rockville Pike should be moved up as soon as possible.

Live blogging from June 4, 2009 worksession of Montgomery County Planning Board. Live streaming video is available at www.montgomeryplanningboard.org.

Dan Hardy, head of transportation planning, is going over parking management issues. Jacob Sesker, financing and implementation expert, joins him. On May 7, the Board made decisions summarized on P. 31 of the handout (May 28 memo). Recommended language on P. 31, creating an Urban Service District to coordinate with Bethesda-Chevy-Chase Regional Service Center. Hanson: it seems awfully vague. Are we getting offices in White Flint? Sesker: Master Plan doesn’t specify that level of detail.

Financing: worked with Executive’s Office. They want a toolbox and we should be explicit about what tools to use. So language recommended on P. 32.

Hanson: we need to say what we mean and say what we think needs to be created. If we need a Tax Increment Financing District, we should say so. Otherwise, Council will say something good should be done, people will twiddle their thumbs, and nothing will be done. We won’t get the financing necessary to get this done. I’m happy to be more specific. Until someone comes in with a better idea, we should have our idea out there. Otherwise it isn’t going to happen. We could easily model legislation on other jurisdictions in Maryland. Lay out a marker and if there’s a better idea, then hurrah. I’m for any better idea. Let’s go with a TIF. Sesker: I believe we have the authority to do that.

Cmsnr Presley: parking district? Hanson: if the county is going to handle parking, it needs to either buy the garage or contract it. Are we going to send up with the Plan, legislation to create an authority? Hardy: earlier we were so specific in the Plan that nobody liked it. Hanson: either we assign that responsibility to someone or we forget it. Hardy: top of P. 28, are the pre-requisites. Hanson: add the TIF in there. That will focus the options so they can tell us what they really want.

Live blogging from the June 4 2009 worksession of the Montgomery County Planning Board. Live streaming video is available at www.montgomeryplanningboard.org.

Dan Hardy, head of the Vision Division and chief transportation planner, on coordination on Rockville Pike recommendations that have occurred since the May 21 worksession. What should the plan be? Recommendation to change centerline to existing plan, and reserve additional right of way to accommodate the Partnership Glatting Jackson plan.

First, original idea was to shift the centerline of the Pike easement to have a curb lane for transit and bikes, and on-street parking during off-hours. Partnership proposed transitway in the median. Same as in Georgia Avenue-Glenmont. 50′ median. Full-time on-street parking with bike lane, and space outside right of way for sidewalk elements of Pike. Our plan was 150′ right of way; Partnership was 162′ right of way, with additional improvements going out to 180′.

Comparisons: pedestrian tunnel area just north of Marinelli Rd. Maps on P. 19 of May 28 staff memo.

We are recommending shifting back to existing centerline. This would take additional right of way from both sides of the Pike. Areas where this is a real issue is south of Nicholson Lane. We’ll have a special design for the federal properties anyway. Recommended language on P. 15 and 21 of handout (May 28 memo).

We needed to clarify what we were trying to do with reconstruction of the Pike. Moving goods and people in all modes in a safe and efficient manner, providing connectivity for travel to, from, and through all Sector Plan neighborhoods and adjacent communities. Balance long-distance needs with local uses. Needs to be an intensive design analysis during the first stage of implementation. First phase of staging. Then needs to have the right roads network. Need to solve the bus access needs of the Sector; that has been the focus for two years: how do we get people to and from the Sector on busses. The decision on whether a median transitway is right for the Pike is something that we won’t know for another year until the study that the Council has just approved on county-wide BRT network is finished. We have laid out plans for long-haul and feeder service. We need the right folks to buy into the Master Plan concept.

Questions about full-day, on-street parking because of volumes of traffic on Rockville Pike.

We believe the typical right of way for the Pike would be the 150′ we recommended int he Public Hearing Draft, but we want to reserve additional space because we may have, within a year, a different recommendation for the Pike. So we don’t have to come back and amend this Plan if the County decides to go with BRT.

Rita Mathews , State Highway Administration. In support of 162′ right of way. We would support county-wide BRT because of use of Rockville Pike. That study will help recommend what should be done there. Also should look at speed limits and parking uses. Need a continuity of speed limits throughout the Pike. Financial part of this; in order to move Pike forward, need a study to show it’s a priority. Hanson: would a study also look at east-west traffic on Montrose Parkway. Matthews, yes. Hardy, county-wide study will be done next year, but additional studies on the Pike. Need an SHA study to find out what county wants. By then we should have a Plan adopted by Council and we can begin looking at alternatives for the Pike. We need to coordinate with Rockville, because the State won’t use the Sector boundaries as the limits of their study.

Robin Macalvie, WMATA. We have buildings throughout the region built over Metro, so that’s not a problem, just need to check the engineering. Additional transit would help the Metrorail system. We just want to be at the table. Pedestrian tunnel; we are not opposed to that going away in the future. An asset now, but we would want it replaced with an outstanding pedestrian environment. We would want to look at that and what would replace it in the future.

Hanson: go back to existing centerline, and establish right of way of at least 150′ and up to 162′. Leave the final cross-section to the study. Everybody agrees with that. Cryor: financing? How does it break down? Matthews. Once study is done, county would move forward with any section of the Pike it wanted to go forward. We would need to identify funds. In the past, if it’s a huge county priority, the county puts up the funds for the study. So we’d have to identify the funds at that point. Anywhere from $2 to $12 million for a study. Just the planning studies.

Presley: are there studies of the user acceptance of median-based transit? Matthews: part of study. Hardy: we’d take what we know about BRT and apply it to this site. Georgia Avenue doesn’t need many stops, where K Street does. Some studies show curb lane transit is better because all the activity is focussed on the sidewalk. Like newstands, etc.

Live blogging from the June 4, 2009, worksession #12 of the Montgomery County Planning Board. Live streaming is available at www.montgomeryplanningboard.org. The staff proposed a series of options, but the Board turned immediately to the option of a system under which there would be fewer zones covering the Sector, with text explaining how the zones would be applied across larger blocks of properties.

Piera Weiss, Master Planner, and lead on the White Flint Sector Plan, went over the implementation pattern, and the CR Zone decisions made in the May 21 Board worksession.

Weiss: Staff recommends CR zoning for new mixed use development, confirms existing residential development at the Wisconsin and Grand, Forum, White Flint Station, sterling, and the Gallery. Confirms exising zoning on public uses where redevelopment is unlikely: at the NRC, the pre-release center, Washington Gas, and Wall Park. We’re not changing zoning everywhere. There are a lot of high-rise buildings already, and you’ll see a lot of TMS and TMX zones still on the map. Not going to be changing zoning, and now will add the northern site we just dealt with.

Flexibility in commercial-residential mix. To reach the maximum density, you must provide both uses. [Shows tables of possible uses and zonings.]  If you permit swapping ratios between properties you won’t get the best result. Nine zones to cover all possible mixes and heights, and we’ll apply these using the Design Guidelines. So we return to our density and height maps, where we crafted a more finely detailed mix of densities and heights. New map showing “tenting” of heights, low at residential neighborhoods, and cresting at the Metro. [Shows 3-D height map.] So you can see the transitions better than flat maps.

Weiss: so White Flint Mall site, with changes from May 21 meeting. Mid-block pedestrian connection added, as well as several public use sites. Gradation of very fine tuning. Prescribing exactly what can happen at each location, and that’s not good planning. Cmsnr Alfandre: why control that much? Weiss: to have a gradation of heights. Which can’t migrate between or across properties. The real aspect of CR Zone is more the building heights that control; the densities are pretty much similar. So a pattern with only one height limit, but we’ll control heights through text. Same effect, but only need one zone to do it. But the critical thing is to have the language in the text to do that. So, for example, on Page 13 of today’s handout memo [dated May 28], with pure zones. Block Two, and Block Four are examples. Text describes limitations within the overall property. Hanson: though courts have been generous with the uniformity requirement, it’s still there. Within zones, there must be uniformity. The Master Plan can be as specific as we think it needs to be, and my preference is to describe the objectives we’re trying to achieve. The Design Guidelines can be more specific. The problem is that we got what we asked for: state law requiring that site plans must be consistent with the Master Plan. So if the Master Plan is explicit about a currently-proposed idea, the only way to vary from that is to amend the Master Plan, and when we talk about a 30 year life for a Master Plan, I don’t want to impose my ideas in perpetuity on everyone.

Alfandre: I need a schematic, not a flat map for this. Robinson: need something that’s concrete enough for both parties to a proposed transaction to rely on. Particularly true in this area. From a Master Plan process and general planning theory, we’d generally lay our philosophy. I’ve thoght our plans over the last 30 years have been overly restrictive. There should be something that has a high degree of rigidity to bind future property owners. Alfandre: rigidity or certainty? Risk on both sides.  I think the market should work more loosely, but I understand where you’re going with this. Want to create, not break, a streetscape. Don’t have confidence that this would happen without this restriction. Weiss: the CR Zone is incredibly flexible. Who knows what will happen? But this permits you to create that streetscape. We want the zoning to be flexible, but we want the Master Plan to be absolutely clear on what we want.

Hanson: we have to focus on Page 13 which is text.

Cryor: you have to go back to the beginning to see where this comes together, which was transportation. Without that, I don’t think we have anything. This isn’t just trying to put up a lot of tall buildings. We need to see how everything works together. Weiss: this will be in the next draft. Hanson: we’re on the implementation section of the Plan. Cryor: I just don’t want this to be lost.

Hanson: last paragraph under Block 4 should indicate the gradient between the transit-oriented section of the property and the residential areas further away from transit, not the precise bands in the middle. No precise line drawing where the height drops. Talking about a slope.

Weiss: fewer zones give the Board more flexibility to respond to changes in proposals. Allows alternatives. No risk to that. Language is clear as to the intent, and the Board can respond flexibly so long as it is within the parameters of the policy. The fewer zones, the more judgment the Board has as to what is appropriate. The language says what is appropriate.

Hanson: we could just use fuzzy lines. That was what we did with the General Plan, but I don’t support that here. Robinson: for practical engineering reasons, we don’t have a lot of flexibility across these lines. Consumers are accepting the risk that they’d have to come in and get a formal modification. Hanson: I have some confidence that whatever variation there is from the lines will be vigorously contested, so there will have to be some good reasons. Cryor: the word flexibility does not mean ambiguity. Hanson: minor variation.  [A long period of silence while various Commissioners try their hands at crafting a sentence acceptable to the other Board members.] We don’t want a lot of messing around with this and attempts to substitute heights. We want that gradient to occur. I think we’re trying to get away from “how many developers can we impale on the head of a pin?” We just want to see if something is compatible with the principles of the Master Plan.

Hanson: this plan has to go to Council by the end of July. HAS to. When the staff gets a red-line draft, we have to be ready for any changes, precise written changes. We won’t have time to debate general propositions. We’ll have to have language which can be put in front of us in the form of motions. We can’t take more than the usual 4 hours on July 9th, because we have two other Plans going forward. We cannot slip the day. We have to get this one done. If you don’t like something, you’ll have to come in with language.

Weiss: so we are going to use as few zones as possible, but use particular language to show flexibility. I think we’ll have to have the density and height map in the Plan. So the maps you have in front of you right now will appear in the Plan.

Barnaby Zall

Live blogging from June 4, 2009 worksession of the Montgomery County Planning Board. Live streaming video is available at www.montgomeryplanningboard.org.

At its May 21 worksession, the Planning Board considered what to suggest for the vacant land in the small triangle just north of the Montrose Parkway at Mid-Pike Plaza. The favored recommendation was to place fire and police facilities for the Sector on that land. Prior to deciding that recommendation, the Board asked for more input from the county fire and police services. Today the planning staff, represented by Master Planner Piera Weiss and Planner Nkosi Yearwood, reported on meetings with those agencies and with Peerless Rockville, a historical society active in the area.

Yearwood: two options, one on the north side, the other on the south side of the Parkway. Fire and rescue favored southern version because of easier access to Rockville Pike and areas north and south. Access on the northern site is more limited. So staff is recommending the southern location, on the Mid-Pike Plaza site, at the intersection of the new street B-16 and Rockville Pike.

Cmsnr Robinson: what’s the opportunity cost to society if we do that? Yearwood: public housing, auto facilities, in that area. Public uses. On the northern site, could be housing. Chairman Hanson: I can’t conceive of using that triangular section as housing. Yearwood: parking. Hanson: would be a “wonderful” entrance to the sector. Where will people go after they park there? Yearwood: commuters. Robinson: will the transportation improvements facilitate walking? Yearwood: as part of the Parkway. Hanson: if we agree with staff to move fire and rescue to southern, we still have the triangular area north of the Parkway. Right now the proposal is for parking on the triangle, I suppose served by busses. Surface parking. Yearwood: approximately 100 spaces. Cmnsr Cryor: surface parking? No structure? Where do they go? Yearwood: primarily NIH commuter parking. Cmsnr Presley: surface parking doesn’t fit with what we’re trying to do. Weiss: some structures must be on the north and some on the south, and the ones on the south must be compatible with residential uses.  Hanson: we will have a development pattern consistency requirement. Cmsnr Alfandre: so we’d turn southern into parking?

Hanson: I can’t see any reason to apply the CR zone apply to the triangle, because it’s not suitable for either commercial or residential uses. it’s a traffic island. Parking may be a suitable use if it’s structured parking. Issue is the effect of fire and rescue uses on the residential uses near the southern uses. Robinson: so we would need to coordinate with City of Rockville for commuter use on Rockville Pike.

Hanson: so I see on southern site, idea would be to give fire and rescue access to the new street in the development. Robinson: what does the private sector say?

Don Briggs: Federal Realty, developer of Mid-Pike Plaza. Board should consider if we are able to come to an agreemnt with the County or the State on how to integrate the northern site, we could look at the whole 24 acre site on how to accommodate public uses. The best mix of uses on this site could then be worked out. Having a fire station right there would be a detriment to our planned retail master street. We already have deals in play for the opposite corner and a fire station would be very detrimental. On the northern site, you could put a slave light on the Pike similar to what is on Connecticut, that would only be triggered in emergencies. Allow us to negotiate a beneficial solution for all parties. Hanson: ultimately, we’ll have to have a fire/rescue station in this area. Only way the north piece would work is if you did have a slave light there. Briggs: right, and we recommend that. Hanson: stacking on the Pike? Presley: would a slave light be a problem? Yearwood: we briefly explored that, but we knew that would be afunction of the state, we would not determine that. That would help to get access. Hanson: was their position on the northern site: “Hell, no!” Yearwood: no, just a preference. Alfandre: if the station went there, what is the chance of housing being built there? Briggs: none. That’s a retail street that leads to a great green square, and a fire station right there wouldn’t be compatible.

Hanson: I think we’ve got the picture here. Robinson: quality land is so scarce. Better to have fire and rescue on the north side. That’s where it should be. Hanson: Board agrees.

Weiss: talked to Peerless Rockville about Montrose school, and they are not interested in moving the site. They have access. The Montrose Parkway design works around them now, and they want to keep what they’ve got. No redevelopment potential. They have accepted their fate. Hanson: let them stay there. Weiss: we’ll leave it there.

The Montgomery County Planning Board does much of its work on the White Flint Sector Plan in worksessions organized around topics. Today’s worksession is likely to cover four important topics:

the Design Guidelines which add details to the broad outlines painted by the Master Plan itself;

the new CR (Commercial/Residential) Zone expected to be created for White Flint and other areas in order to provide flexibility between various types of development, while limiting overall density and heights;

implementation and staging of the various White Flint improvements and projects, particularly infrastructure (transportation, including the conversion of Rockville Pike into a boulevard); and

financing, involving how to pay for the various improvements.

This will likely be the final preliminary worksession before the Board receives the staff’s recommendation for a final draft Plan. That presentation is scheduled for June 18. The Board hopes to complete its work on the White Flint Plan by July 9.  

Streaming video can be found at www.montgomeryplanningboard.org.