According to a nugget in this week’s Washington Business Journal, JBG has signed three new tenants for the North Bethesda Market complex on the Rockville Pike across from the White Flint Mall. These are: Seasons 52, Dolcé Amoré Café, and Arhaus Furniture. These additions will join Whole Foods and L.A. Fitness.
Seasons 52 is a restaurant chain based in Florida, and owned by the Darden Restaurants, according to Wikipedia. Other restaurant chains in their portfolio include Red Lobster and the Olive Garden. Seasons 52 boasts 4 menus, one for each season (the '52' refers to the 52 weeks of one year). We checked out the dinner menu for summer which states the menu consists of “Seasonally inspired cooking with every item under 475 calories." Entrees seem reasonably priced and include this random sample: Tiger Shrimp Penne Pasta, Grilled Boneless Rainbow Trout, Grilled Rack of New Zealand Lamb. Key Lime pie, one of my personal favorites, is on the dessert menu, and given that the chain is based in Florida, we are assuming this will be made with fresh key limes! We can’t wait to try it out.
Dolcé Amoré Café is rooted in Del Ray, Florida (we sense a theme here) where, according to tripadvisor, it is a ‘hidden gem.’ The dinner menu ranges from Chicken Saltimbocca to Eggplant Parmigiana to Chicken Caprese. The menu is moderate to expensive. The owners seem firmly rooted in their community too, which will be a big plus.
When JBG presented their plans to the Planning Board they talked about open sidewalk cafes facing Woodglen and we assume these restaurants will fulfill that promise to we nearby residents who will be walking to the restaurants.
We can't wait too for the sculpture on the interior 'Paseo' street that JBG promised in their presentation to the Planning Board way back when.
Finally, furniture store Arhaus, which looks to be a chain store with branches in Annapolis and Baltimore, as well as Tyson’s Corner and Fairfax. To get an idea of their furniture, check out the website, here.
Gee, these all sound like great additions to our neighborhood. One comment to all the developers: please keep looking for some more unusual stores and restaurants as well. Check out Busboys & Poets; check out E Street Cinema; take a chance on some local restaurants. That’s how Volt and The Tasting Room got started up in Frederick. We who live here all know that little Thai or Cuban restaurant, or that barbeque spot located out of the way…Take a chance.
Paula B.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
White Flint Sector Plan Design Guidelines Out Now
The Planning Department has released the Draft Design Guidelines for the White Flint Sector Plan, and here they are! The Planning Board will discuss and vote on the Guidelines this coming Thursday, May 27.
White Flint Urban Design Draft Guidelines May2010
...and here is the May 21, 2010 Staff Report that accompanies the Draft Design Guidelines
White_Flint_Design_Guidelines Staff Report May 21, 2010
Paula B.
White Flint Urban Design Draft Guidelines May2010
...and here is the May 21, 2010 Staff Report that accompanies the Draft Design Guidelines
White_Flint_Design_Guidelines Staff Report May 21, 2010
Paula B.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Sectional Map Amendment
Yesterday I attended the public hearing on the White Flint Sectional Map amendment. There was only one speaker with no written testimony, just casual comments. It's interesting that the PHED committee meeting on this is set for the end of July. This is May. I'm curious why there was such a rush to approve White Flint when there appears to be several months to spare.
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Metro Report is Public and we have it!
There has been so much going on with Metro, its safety, maintenance, and financing now and for the future that I thought I would roll up the articles that have been published in the neighborhood newspapers to address our question, how exactly will Montgomery County achieve the 50 percent non-auto mode share promised in the White Flint Sector ‘Plan.’ And, according to the ‘Plan’ when will this be achieved? Is there a Plan B in case the 50 percent target is not reached? Well, of course, the second question is easy to answer. No. There is no Plan B. And the corollary question, what then? Answer from the Council: So what. It is only a ‘Plan.’
Most recently, a study was completed describing in some detail the problems with Metro. The report was presented by David Gunn, General Manager of WMATA from 1991-1994. Thanks to pushing by Congress to make this report public, including our own Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the study was made public in late April. And, here it is!
Paula B.
Washington, D.C. Metro Study David Gunn Presentation March 11, 2010
Most recently, a study was completed describing in some detail the problems with Metro. The report was presented by David Gunn, General Manager of WMATA from 1991-1994. Thanks to pushing by Congress to make this report public, including our own Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the study was made public in late April. And, here it is!
Paula B.
Washington, D.C. Metro Study David Gunn Presentation March 11, 2010
Proposed Sectional Map Amendment for the White Flint Sector Plan
Here you go, folks! The Sectional Map Amendment, to be heard by the Montgomery County, MD Planning Board on Tuesday, May 18th, at 1:30 pm. What great timing for public involvement, in keeping with the philosophy of this Planning Board and Planning Department. Hold the public hearing in the middle of the afternoon, so no one from the public can attend unless they can take an entire day off. We expect the room will be filled with the developers, their planners, and their attorneys however. happy days.
Paula B.
Montgomery County MD Sectional Map Amendment for White Flint April 2010
Paula B.
Montgomery County MD Sectional Map Amendment for White Flint April 2010
Saturday, May 1, 2010
The Proposed New Transportation Policy Area Review
Here is the latest and greatest from our Montgomery County, MD County Executive, Ike Leggett, and MoCo DOT, Edgar Gonzalez and staff. If you have comments post them here and of course don't hesitate to tell our County Exec, at ocemail@montgomerycountymd.gov.
Paula B.
Montgomery County, MD Proposed Transportation Policy Area Review 4-19-2010
Paula B.
Montgomery County, MD Proposed Transportation Policy Area Review 4-19-2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Growth Policy Amendment
This Tuesday the Council unanimously passed the Growth Policy amendment, with no discussion of the staff recommendations or of the community concern for a balance between density and infrastructure..
A number of Councilmembers including Councilmember Berliner, Councilmember Leventhal, Councilmember Elrich and Councilmember Tractenberg spoke about the importance of the financial plan and how it is going to insure that the needed infrastructure is funded. Mentioned was how the Financial Plan is a public process and that it requires approval by the Planning Board and the Council. What was missing from the discussion is the fact that infrastructure alone will not provide balance and that there needs to be a clear measure for adequacy.
The Sector Plan provides for CLATR and identification of problems, but not until the end of Phase I or the end of Phase II is there any mention of delaying development until intermediate mode share goals are met. Until then existing communities will be forced to deal with increasing congestion.
If the Council argument is correct and you can buy your way out of congestion via the Financial Plan, then why are they loath to support the APFO and loath to have an adequacy test? The existing communities are the losers on this.
Natalie
A number of Councilmembers including Councilmember Berliner, Councilmember Leventhal, Councilmember Elrich and Councilmember Tractenberg spoke about the importance of the financial plan and how it is going to insure that the needed infrastructure is funded. Mentioned was how the Financial Plan is a public process and that it requires approval by the Planning Board and the Council. What was missing from the discussion is the fact that infrastructure alone will not provide balance and that there needs to be a clear measure for adequacy.
The Sector Plan provides for CLATR and identification of problems, but not until the end of Phase I or the end of Phase II is there any mention of delaying development until intermediate mode share goals are met. Until then existing communities will be forced to deal with increasing congestion.
If the Council argument is correct and you can buy your way out of congestion via the Financial Plan, then why are they loath to support the APFO and loath to have an adequacy test? The existing communities are the losers on this.
Natalie
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Bus Rapid Transit Presentation April 19 7:30Pm
Paula B.
DATE: April 19
TIME: 7:30 PM
LOCATION: Garrett Park Town Hall
10814 Kenilworth Ave
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Growth Policy
Last Thursday I was at the Planning Board for the consideration of the Growth Policy Amendment. There were three speakers: myself, concerned about traffic; the attorney for Federal Realty supporting the amendment and offering a modification to the amendment; and a woman concerned that the Wshington Post picture failed to show the congestion on the Pike. What was most concerning to me was that neither the Planning Board staff, nor any of the three Planning Board members made any mention of Adequate Public Facilities or managing congestion. It was cleary stated by one Planning Board member that this change would make it easier for development to move faster. What a shame that approval of the White Flint Sector Plan has allowed our public officials to forget about managing traffic and about the existing communities who will be so adversely affected by unmanaged growth
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Closing the Metro Budget Gap: Public Hearing Thursday, April 1, 7pm
WMATA is currently holding hearings on the estimated $189 million budget gap for FY11. Hearings in Montgomery County are scheduled for this Thursday, April 1. This is Hearing No. 553.
An online survey to get public input on how the transit agency should close a $189 million budget gap in fiscal year 2011 is also available. To take the survey go here.
The public is invited to provide input on a number of proposals to balance the budget, which include a combination of fare increases, Metrorail and Metrobus service reductions, changes to the MetroAccess fare structure and service area allowed under the Americans with Disabilities Act, departmental and staff reductions, additional contributions from the jurisdictions that fund Metro, and the use of capital funds to pay for preventive maintenance.
In addition to the General Manager’s proposed budget, Metro is including suggestions from the Riders’Advisory Council, other rider groups and ATU Local 689 for the public’s consideration during the hearings. More detailed information about the proposals will be posted on Metro’s Web site, http://www.wmata.com/, with the public hearing docket in mid-March.
Directions can be found here.
Proposals to balance the budget include the widest array of options possible to help the Board of Directors get the public input they need before they make a final decision on the budget in June. Not all of the options presented are necessary to balance the budget. Any proposed fare increases, service reductions and changes to MetroAccess service would start June 27, 2010.
Possible fare increases being considered for FY2011 include:
• Increasing the Metrorail peak period boarding charge from $1.65 to up to $2;
• Increasing the Metrorail maximum peak period fare from $4.50 to up to $5:45;
• Implementing a surcharge of up to 50 cents for “peak-of-the-peak” trips from 7:30 to 9 a.m. and 4:30 to 6 p.m. weekdays;
• Increasing the Metrorail off-peak boarding charge from $1.35 to up to $1.65;
• Increasing Metrorail and Metrobus passes so the price is consistent with boarding charges;
• Increasing the Metrobus boarding charge from $1.25 to up to $1.60 with SmarTrip® and from $1.35 to up to $1.70 with cash;
• Increasing the MetroAccess fare to up to twice the comparable fixed route fare;
• Increasing all daily parking rates by up to $1.15; and
• Increasing the bicycle locker yearly rental fee from $70 to up to $200.
Service reductions being considered for FY2011 include:
• Making seasonal adjustments to service to meet demand;
• Increasing intervals between trains and buses;
• Closing some station mezzanines and rail stations during periods of low ridership (such as weekends or late at night);
• Beginning rail service later in the mornings;
• Modifying late-night rail and bus service; and
• Eliminating some low-ridership bus routes or portions of routes.
Changes to MetroAccess service being considered for FY2011 include:
• Reducing the MetroAccess service area (within Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines) to reflect actual fixed-route bus and rail service areas reflecting the actual time, day and location;
• Charging a premium for service provided to locations beyond the ¾-mile corridor around fixed-route services. The premium for zones would be up to $5 for zone 1, up to $10 for zone 2, up to $15 for zone 3 and up to $20 for zone 4;
• Aligning the MetroAccess fare structure to the maximum allowed under the ADA definition, which is twice the equivalent of fixed-route fare; and
• Restricting the use of the Free Ride Program to only those MetroAccess certified persons with conditional eligibility.
To establish a witness list for the public hearings, individuals and representatives of organizations who wish to be heard at the hearings are asked to provide in writing their name, address, telephone number and organization affiliation, if any, to Office of the Secretary, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 600 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20001. Alternatively, requests to speak may be faxed to 202-962-1133 or e-mailed to public-hearing-testimony@wmata.com. Please submit only one speaker’s name per letter and reference the hearing number. Lists of individual speakers will not be accepted. Others present at the hearing may be heard after people who have registered have spoken. Public officials will be heard first and will be allowed five minutes each to make their presentations. All other speakers will be allowed two minutes each. Relinquishing of time by one speaker to another will not be permitted.
Written statements and exhibits may be sent to the Office of the Secretary, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 600 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, or e-mailed to public-hearing-testimony@wmata.com. Please reference the hearing number. Submissions must be received by 5 p.m. Tuesday, April 6.
Paula B.
An online survey to get public input on how the transit agency should close a $189 million budget gap in fiscal year 2011 is also available. To take the survey go here.
The public is invited to provide input on a number of proposals to balance the budget, which include a combination of fare increases, Metrorail and Metrobus service reductions, changes to the MetroAccess fare structure and service area allowed under the Americans with Disabilities Act, departmental and staff reductions, additional contributions from the jurisdictions that fund Metro, and the use of capital funds to pay for preventive maintenance.
In addition to the General Manager’s proposed budget, Metro is including suggestions from the Riders’Advisory Council, other rider groups and ATU Local 689 for the public’s consideration during the hearings. More detailed information about the proposals will be posted on Metro’s Web site, http://www.wmata.com/, with the public hearing docket in mid-March.
Open House 6:30 pm; Meeting at 7:00 pm
Montgomery County Executive Office Building, Cafeteria
101 Monroe Street (entrance on Jefferson Street)
Rockville, MD
Directions can be found here.
Proposals to balance the budget include the widest array of options possible to help the Board of Directors get the public input they need before they make a final decision on the budget in June. Not all of the options presented are necessary to balance the budget. Any proposed fare increases, service reductions and changes to MetroAccess service would start June 27, 2010.
Possible fare increases being considered for FY2011 include:
• Increasing the Metrorail peak period boarding charge from $1.65 to up to $2;
• Increasing the Metrorail maximum peak period fare from $4.50 to up to $5:45;
• Implementing a surcharge of up to 50 cents for “peak-of-the-peak” trips from 7:30 to 9 a.m. and 4:30 to 6 p.m. weekdays;
• Increasing the Metrorail off-peak boarding charge from $1.35 to up to $1.65;
• Increasing Metrorail and Metrobus passes so the price is consistent with boarding charges;
• Increasing the Metrobus boarding charge from $1.25 to up to $1.60 with SmarTrip® and from $1.35 to up to $1.70 with cash;
• Increasing the MetroAccess fare to up to twice the comparable fixed route fare;
• Increasing all daily parking rates by up to $1.15; and
• Increasing the bicycle locker yearly rental fee from $70 to up to $200.
Service reductions being considered for FY2011 include:
• Making seasonal adjustments to service to meet demand;
• Increasing intervals between trains and buses;
• Closing some station mezzanines and rail stations during periods of low ridership (such as weekends or late at night);
• Beginning rail service later in the mornings;
• Modifying late-night rail and bus service; and
• Eliminating some low-ridership bus routes or portions of routes.
Changes to MetroAccess service being considered for FY2011 include:
• Reducing the MetroAccess service area (within Americans with Disabilities Act guidelines) to reflect actual fixed-route bus and rail service areas reflecting the actual time, day and location;
• Charging a premium for service provided to locations beyond the ¾-mile corridor around fixed-route services. The premium for zones would be up to $5 for zone 1, up to $10 for zone 2, up to $15 for zone 3 and up to $20 for zone 4;
• Aligning the MetroAccess fare structure to the maximum allowed under the ADA definition, which is twice the equivalent of fixed-route fare; and
• Restricting the use of the Free Ride Program to only those MetroAccess certified persons with conditional eligibility.
To establish a witness list for the public hearings, individuals and representatives of organizations who wish to be heard at the hearings are asked to provide in writing their name, address, telephone number and organization affiliation, if any, to Office of the Secretary, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 600 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20001. Alternatively, requests to speak may be faxed to 202-962-1133 or e-mailed to public-hearing-testimony@wmata.com. Please submit only one speaker’s name per letter and reference the hearing number. Lists of individual speakers will not be accepted. Others present at the hearing may be heard after people who have registered have spoken. Public officials will be heard first and will be allowed five minutes each to make their presentations. All other speakers will be allowed two minutes each. Relinquishing of time by one speaker to another will not be permitted.
Written statements and exhibits may be sent to the Office of the Secretary, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 600 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001, or e-mailed to public-hearing-testimony@wmata.com. Please reference the hearing number. Submissions must be received by 5 p.m. Tuesday, April 6.
Paula B.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Growth Policy Amendment at Planning Board on March 25
And here is the amendment on the Growth Policy that will go before the Montgomery County, MD Planning Board. Get your cards and letters in folks! Email Royce Hanson, the Planning Board Chair, at MCP-Chairman@mncppc-mc.org. The Planning Board will be voting on this amendment on March 25.
Paula B.
Montgomery County, MD Planning Board Growth Policy Amendment White Flint Mar-19-2010
Paula B.
Montgomery County, MD Planning Board Growth Policy Amendment White Flint Mar-19-2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
White Flint Sector Plan: The Resolution
"Amend the Growth Policy to expand the White Flint Metro Station Policy Area (MSP A) to encompass the Sector Plan boundary, and to exempt development within White Flint from the Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR) test. The traffic from existing and approved development in the White Flint MSP A would still be counted in the PATR of all other Policy Areas, including North Bethesda."
Paula B.
White Flint Sector Plan Resolution Mar19 2010
Saturday, March 13, 2010
USPS to sell Bethesda Post Office
In addition to the article, USPS is advertising a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) on page 6 of that newspaper. According to the advertisement, "The property has significant development rights and the successful Buyer will be required to condo back the space the United States Postal Service requires to maintain its current Retail operations at this location." For more information on the purchase requirements, here is the website: www.cbre.com/USPSBethesdaMPO
Here is an excerpt from Ms. Krouse's article:
"The U.S. Postal Service has issued a request for qualifications from developers interested in buying its small office at 7400 Wisconsin Ave. in Bethesda and selling back the service’s retail space.Paula B.
The office is 4,296 square feet and sits on a 13,211-square-foot site atop the Bethesda Metro, but the site could ultimately accommodate up to 40,000 square feet.
Nearby Bethesda land owners such as The Meridian Group, The JBG Cos. and Clark Construction Group LLC have all approached the service in the past about the potential to purchase the Wisconsin Avenue site in part for its independent appeal, but also because they might be able to transfer development rights from that site to another project in the county.
Qualifications are due March 22."
Saturday, March 6, 2010
County Council Vote on WF Sector Plan March 23: Read the Resolution!
The Council is scheduled to take action on the White Flint Sector Plan on March 23. A DRAFT of the resolution is available for interested parties to review. Council staff will accept comments on the draft resolution until close of business on Monday March 15. The only changes that will be made are those that are consistent with Council decisions on the Sector Plan. Comments should be sent to Marlene.Michaelson@montgomerycountymd.gov.
The draft is available at http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/doc/wf_res_draft.pdf. Or you can read it here.
Paula Bienenfeld
Wf Res Draft
The draft is available at http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/council/pdf/doc/wf_res_draft.pdf. Or you can read it here.
Paula Bienenfeld
Wf Res Draft
Sunday, February 28, 2010
WF Relies on Metro -- But How Safe?
Last week from February 23 – 25, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) held hearings on the June 22, 2009 metro accident that occurred at the Fort Totten Metro Stop in Washington, D.C. A number of documents were also released by the NTSB, to be found here. They make for fascinating reading, BTW. A synopsis of the hearings and some video can be found here.
While the White Flint Sector Plan is predicated on additional train cars and, as Planning Board Chair Royce Hanson has stated repeatedly, 2-½-minute headways, the reality is quite different. How will the non-auto driver mode share, or NADMS, be achieved? NADMS refers to any other type of travel, carpool, bicycling, walking, or public transit, anything other than driving your car alone. To meet the stated goal the White Flint Sector Plan must meet an ambitious mode share – 51% for residents; and 50% for employees. Good luck with that. Read about it in the latest staff report, here.
When will that happen? How will it happen? Will it happen? Let’s take off the rose-colored glasses and look at reality. As a first step, let’s compare our 30-year old system to the 100+ year system in New York City. The website http://www.nycsubway.org/ has posted all the accidents on this system, starting with an accident that took place on October 3, 1918. In that accident, according to the report in The New York Times the next day, two people were killed, including the motorman, and 28 people sustained injuries.
Our own metro system has been in place for almost 34 years, starting on March 27, 1976. The Washington Post has provided a list of all the fatalities in that time. In that time there were 14 fatalities. Four of these deaths, 29%, occurred in one year, 2009. In that same time 12 people died in New York subway system accidents, including in 1986, one motorman who suffered a heart attack and died. It is worth remembering the difference in the number of cars, trips, and miles between the two systems. According to Wikipedia, our Metro system has 86 stations, 5 lines, and 106.3 miles of track. In 2008, there were 218.5 million trips, and 727,684 trips each weekday. According to Wikipedia, the New York system has 468 stations and covers 229 miles of routes, or as the Wikipedia article states, “229 miles (369 km) of routes, translating into 656 miles (1,056 km) of revenue track; and a total of 842 miles (1,355 km) including non-revenue trackage;” and in 2008, delivered over 5 million rides each weekday. That year, it delivered approximately 1.623 billion rides. While I am not about to do the math, it strikes me that if we use the data from a 100+ year-old system that is almost seven times the size of our own metro (based on weekday trips) with fewer fatalities in the same time span, and compare those data with the data from metro, including of course the qualitative knowledge that our own metro is now under investigation by the NTSB, this could mean that the official county government expectations for the public transit capacity of the White Flint Sector Plan may be somewhat wide of the mark. We shall see.
Paula Bienenfeld
While the White Flint Sector Plan is predicated on additional train cars and, as Planning Board Chair Royce Hanson has stated repeatedly, 2-½-minute headways, the reality is quite different. How will the non-auto driver mode share, or NADMS, be achieved? NADMS refers to any other type of travel, carpool, bicycling, walking, or public transit, anything other than driving your car alone. To meet the stated goal the White Flint Sector Plan must meet an ambitious mode share – 51% for residents; and 50% for employees. Good luck with that. Read about it in the latest staff report, here.
When will that happen? How will it happen? Will it happen? Let’s take off the rose-colored glasses and look at reality. As a first step, let’s compare our 30-year old system to the 100+ year system in New York City. The website http://www.nycsubway.org/ has posted all the accidents on this system, starting with an accident that took place on October 3, 1918. In that accident, according to the report in The New York Times the next day, two people were killed, including the motorman, and 28 people sustained injuries.
Our own metro system has been in place for almost 34 years, starting on March 27, 1976. The Washington Post has provided a list of all the fatalities in that time. In that time there were 14 fatalities. Four of these deaths, 29%, occurred in one year, 2009. In that same time 12 people died in New York subway system accidents, including in 1986, one motorman who suffered a heart attack and died. It is worth remembering the difference in the number of cars, trips, and miles between the two systems. According to Wikipedia, our Metro system has 86 stations, 5 lines, and 106.3 miles of track. In 2008, there were 218.5 million trips, and 727,684 trips each weekday. According to Wikipedia, the New York system has 468 stations and covers 229 miles of routes, or as the Wikipedia article states, “229 miles (369 km) of routes, translating into 656 miles (1,056 km) of revenue track; and a total of 842 miles (1,355 km) including non-revenue trackage;” and in 2008, delivered over 5 million rides each weekday. That year, it delivered approximately 1.623 billion rides. While I am not about to do the math, it strikes me that if we use the data from a 100+ year-old system that is almost seven times the size of our own metro (based on weekday trips) with fewer fatalities in the same time span, and compare those data with the data from metro, including of course the qualitative knowledge that our own metro is now under investigation by the NTSB, this could mean that the official county government expectations for the public transit capacity of the White Flint Sector Plan may be somewhat wide of the mark. We shall see.
Paula Bienenfeld
Friday, February 26, 2010
Commercial/Residential (CR) Zone: the vote for the Closed Session
Before the public session on the CR Zone, the council held a closed session, apparently with their attorney, as the legality of this zone was questioned. We don't know because the discussion was "closed." The motion was made by Councilmember Duchy Trachtenberg, and Councilmember Valerie Ervin seconded the vote. Here is the document recording that vote.
CR Zone Closed Meeting Vote Montg Co Council MD
CR Zone Closed Meeting Vote Montg Co Council MD
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Two Important Upcoming Meetings from our friends in Gaithersburg
Hi Everyone,
Two upcoming meetings will provide excellent opportunities to express our concerns about the Gaithersburg West Master Plan and get answers from the County Council. Please make every effort to attend as everyone is invited to both meetings and is encouraged to attend.
What: The Cities of Rockville and Gaithersburg will meet with the County Council
When: Monday, March 1 at 6:30 p.m.
Where: In the Mayor and Council Chambers, Rockville City Hall, 111 Maryland Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20850.
Key Topic: City officials from Rockville and Gaithersburg will discuss their concerns about the traffic and other issues regarding the Gaithersburg West Master Plan with the County Council.
The entrance to the Rockville City Hall is on Vinson Street which across the street from the County Council Building. There is parking in the lot next to the City Hall and an overflow parking lot off of South Washington Street behind City Hall. Google maps does not give the correct location for the City Hall. There is a map on the Rockville website: http://www.rockvillemd.gov/parks-facilities/cityhall.htm .
For those who live in Gaithersburg or Rockville, please email your Mayor and Council members to urge them to ask the tough questions.
Rockville: http://www.rockvillemd.gov/government/mc/
Gaithersburg: http://www.gaithersburgmd.gov/poi/default.asp?POI_ID=258&TOC=256;258
What: Town Hall Meeting, hosted by the North Potomac Citizen Association (NPCA)
When: March 9, 2010, 7:00 - 9:00 pm
Where: Quince Orchard HS, Cafeteria
Key Topic: Gaithersburg West Master Plan
Participants: The Four "At-Large" Montgomery County Councilmembers: Nancy Floreen, George Leventhal, Duchy Trachtenberg, and Mark Elrich
If you haven’t had a chance to read the “Science City vs. The Pentagon” comparisons, please visit www.scale-it-back.com . I guarantee you will have LOTS of questions to ask the Council once you see that the Science City will be equivalent in size to four and a half Pentagons...without the transportation options.
Thanks and best regards,
Donna Baron
Coordinator
The Gaithersburg - North Potomac - Rockville Coalition
Two upcoming meetings will provide excellent opportunities to express our concerns about the Gaithersburg West Master Plan and get answers from the County Council. Please make every effort to attend as everyone is invited to both meetings and is encouraged to attend.
What: The Cities of Rockville and Gaithersburg will meet with the County Council
When: Monday, March 1 at 6:30 p.m.
Where: In the Mayor and Council Chambers, Rockville City Hall, 111 Maryland Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20850.
Key Topic: City officials from Rockville and Gaithersburg will discuss their concerns about the traffic and other issues regarding the Gaithersburg West Master Plan with the County Council.
The entrance to the Rockville City Hall is on Vinson Street which across the street from the County Council Building. There is parking in the lot next to the City Hall and an overflow parking lot off of South Washington Street behind City Hall. Google maps does not give the correct location for the City Hall. There is a map on the Rockville website: http://www.rockvillemd.gov/parks-facilities/cityhall.htm .
For those who live in Gaithersburg or Rockville, please email your Mayor and Council members to urge them to ask the tough questions.
Rockville: http://www.rockvillemd.gov/government/mc/
Gaithersburg: http://www.gaithersburgmd.gov/poi/default.asp?POI_ID=258&TOC=256;258
What: Town Hall Meeting, hosted by the North Potomac Citizen Association (NPCA)
When: March 9, 2010, 7:00 - 9:00 pm
Where: Quince Orchard HS, Cafeteria
Key Topic: Gaithersburg West Master Plan
Participants: The Four "At-Large" Montgomery County Councilmembers: Nancy Floreen, George Leventhal, Duchy Trachtenberg, and Mark Elrich
If you haven’t had a chance to read the “Science City vs. The Pentagon” comparisons, please visit www.scale-it-back.com . I guarantee you will have LOTS of questions to ask the Council once you see that the Science City will be equivalent in size to four and a half Pentagons...without the transportation options.
Thanks and best regards,
Donna Baron
Coordinator
The Gaithersburg - North Potomac - Rockville Coalition
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Today at the Council: White Flint and the CR Zone
"The Montgomery County Council endorsed major revisions to its zoning code Tuesday, the first stage of a broader debate over how to transform strip malls and commercial buildings into more walkable, livable settings.
The council took a series of straw votes on the details of a proposed "commercial-residential" zone that would encourage mixed-use projects while also reducing parking, allowing taller buildings and, in some instances, limiting required green space."And, she reports, Planning Board Chair Royce Hanson stated that this new zone would produce "a really great environment." Apparently others were not so sure, as the Council staff actually recommended against the zone, as did the Montgomery County Civic Federation; and former Planning Board member Pat Baptiste, who stated, "It is structured so that there is no interest in what the local community wants."
As for the speedy review of the White Flint Sector Plan, which will be reviewed next week as well, wow, it went by so fast your reporter can barely remember what happened. What a blur! Staff reviewed all the developer properties and sped by the transportation issues. Not to worry, though, we have assurances that the 50% mode share will be no problem. Then within the hour the full council adjourned to discuss the financing mechanisms, at the PHED worksession. Perfect timing, too, as April 15 is almost here! Financing will be on the table for awhile, we hear.
And as for staging, that is tomorrow, February 24, read the staff report here.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Tuesday Feb 23rd at the Council: WF Sector Plan Worksession and CR Zone Vote
And, that same afternoon of Tuesday, February 23rd, at 2pm, the Council will hold a closed session to discuss the legality of the proposed Commercial/Residential (CR) Zone. And...the vote on said CR Zone will take place just a few minutes later, at 2:30pm. Read the staff report on the CR Zone here.
Be there folks to watch your county council discuss these issues which will impact your quality of life in the coming decades. The Montgomery County Civic Federation has sent a letter to the Council stating they have ‘grave doubts’ about the CR Zone.
And, according to a memo signed by former Planning Board members Pat Baptiste and Meredith Wellington,
“…the Legislative Attorney told the members of the PHED Committee that, as presently drafted, he could not recommend the CR zone to the full Council.”
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Time to Speak Up on Commercial/Residential (CR) Zone
We received the following from Meredith Wellington, a former Montgomery County (MD) Planning Board member. She asks that you contact the County Council by this Monday, February 22, and tell them to reject this zone. To send an email to Nancy Floreen, click here. To send an email to the whole council, click here.
Dear Friends,
It is time to speak up again about the CR zone. The Full Council took it up yesterday, and is supposed to have its final vote next Tuesday, February 23rd in the afternoon. In a three and a half hour work session, it became clear that the CR zone is inferior to existing zones, and that it carries with it a serious set of problems, as explained in the attached memo. We ask that you send an email to Nancy Floreen, Council President (Councilmember.Floreen@montgomerycountymd.gov)--it should arrive no later than COB on Monday, February 22-- that includes some of the following ideas:
The CR zone should be rejected because it is untimely, untested, legally deficient, overly complex, and contrary to Montgomery County’s tradition of public participation. Further, it is a “one size fits all” zone when, in fact, one size does not fit all in communities as different as White Flint, Kensington, and Takoma/Langley. The imposition of the zone throughout the entire County will result in fewer significant public benefits throughout, and, in certain parts of the County, little, if any, benefits at all. Please reject this zone, and look to existing zones, like the TMX, that do not have the problems currently found in the CR zone.
Please feel free to forward this to other civic organizations.
Thanks very much,
Meredith Wellington
Dear Friends,
It is time to speak up again about the CR zone. The Full Council took it up yesterday, and is supposed to have its final vote next Tuesday, February 23rd in the afternoon. In a three and a half hour work session, it became clear that the CR zone is inferior to existing zones, and that it carries with it a serious set of problems, as explained in the attached memo. We ask that you send an email to Nancy Floreen, Council President (Councilmember.Floreen@montgomerycountymd.gov)--it should arrive no later than COB on Monday, February 22-- that includes some of the following ideas:
The CR zone should be rejected because it is untimely, untested, legally deficient, overly complex, and contrary to Montgomery County’s tradition of public participation. Further, it is a “one size fits all” zone when, in fact, one size does not fit all in communities as different as White Flint, Kensington, and Takoma/Langley. The imposition of the zone throughout the entire County will result in fewer significant public benefits throughout, and, in certain parts of the County, little, if any, benefits at all. Please reject this zone, and look to existing zones, like the TMX, that do not have the problems currently found in the CR zone.
Please feel free to forward this to other civic organizations.
Thanks very much,
Meredith Wellington
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
