gaithersblog.net

Update: [8/9/07] The planning commission last night was generally supportive of the redevelopment of the 201 E Diamond Ave property, somewhat split on the height issue, and more or less speaking as one in their dislike of the architecture and what it would do to the streetscape. Several members of the public spoke, again generally supportive of redeveloping the property but having varying levels of concern about the building’s size and appearance as shown in the concept plan. Other issues that were raised include the width of the front sidewalk, the lack of sidewalk on the west (alley) side, and the question of parking and space for such things as dumpsters. It was explained that CBD zoning allowed for buildings up to four stories (including any sub-surface stories, if which this building would have one) by right — and thus they could build up to three stories above ground without a waiver. Waivers are allowed up to nine stories in this zone, but Mr. Ossont mentioned that such tall buildings were intended for the wye site. The developer was encouraged to continue on with this project but also advised to put a little more thought into the facade.

This Wednesday’s Planning Commission meeting has several major items on the agenda, including final site plan reviews of Neighborhood 3, Phase I of Aventiene (Crown Farm), and a new 43-unit neighborhood of villas at Asbury (the latter will be located near the corner of N Summit/Goshen Rd and Odendhal, on land recently used for garden plots). But the item I find most concerning is a new proposal — up for concept plan review — to replace the Chris’ Steakhouse building with a new four-story office strucuture, as shown above. Chris’ has been closed for some time; the building was constructed around 1924 and used as a restaurant since the 1930’s. The restaurant had operated as Chris’ since 1964. Now, I’m not going to say that I think the building should be preserved. It is much altered from it’s original design, and I don’t think it is particularly attractive or useful as it stands. The opportunities for adaptive reuse in this core business district are limited. From a preservation standpoint, I think there are other properties on that block which are much more valuable, and thus this property would be a good candidate for redevelopment. The property was reviewed by HPAC last week, and they voted unanimously to not recommend it for historic designation. Following are a couple of pictures of the streetscape containing the building in question:

As you can see, this is not a street presently containing tall buildings. While I think that taller buildings will eventually come to, and will be welcome on this block, I think that this new building is just too far out of scale with what’s there now; this is too big a step, too soon. It also, from the initial concept drawings, is entirely out of character from an architectural standpoint. Below is the only drawing provided in the background materials of the east side of the building, facing the present Guatemalteca bakery (the image didn’t reduce all that well, sorry). The diagonally-shaded portion at the bottom is the profile that the bakery will make against the side of this building, so you can see how much out of scale it will be. It is also apparent, from the lack of any features on this side, that the architects are expecting that the bakery building will be similarly torn down and replaced with a high-rise.

I think that this building is just too generic, too insensitive to context, and perhaps even a bit ugly. I hope that the Planning Commission will turn a jaundiced eye toward this project.

Agenda - Planning Commission Meeting, 8/8/2007
Posted 7/30/2007

City of Gaithersburg
31 South Summit Avenue
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877

Telephone: 301-258-6330

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA [subject to change]
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
7:30 P.M.
City Hall Council Chambers

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

July 25, Planning Commission Meeting
TBA - Background Material (pdf format)

RECORD PLATS

CONSENT

AFP-07-021 –   Stefanou Property
R-90 Zone
20 Maryland Avenue
New Garage (Demolition of Existing)
AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format - 2.5M)

 AFP-07-027 – Lee Property
MXD Zone
656 Bright Meadow Mews
Addition of Storage Room Under Existing Sunroom
AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format)

SITE PLANS

AFP-07-025 – Gaithersburg North Research
MXD Zone
200 Professional Drive
Modifications to Parking

AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format - 3M)

SP-07-0007 – Bank Street
C-2 Zone
1 Bank Street/Quince Orchard Road

One-Story Bank
PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format - 3.7M)

SP-07-0004 – Aventiene
MXD Zone

Neighborhood 3, Phase I
FINAL SITE PLAN
Background Material (pdf format - 12.5M)

SP-07-0001 – Asbury Methodist Village

R-90 Zone
201 Russell Avenue
43 Single-Family Homes
FINAL PLAN REVIEW
Background Material (pdf format - 5.4M)

CSP-07-002 – 201 East Diamond Avenue
CBD Zone
(Formerly Chris Steakhouse)
Four-Story Office Building
CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW

Background Material (pdf format - 5.2M)

FROM THE COMMISSION

FROM STAFF

ADJOURNMENT

Joe Coombs writes in the Washington Business Journal: Et tu, Centex? Developer lends a Roman name to Crown Farm

“A frightening, violent place, with rival gangs fighting for power” is not the image Centex Homes was going for when it decided to rename Crown Farm in Gaithersburg after one of the seven hills of Rome.

But anyone who’s watched HBO’s popular “Rome” series or read that description on fan blogs will recognize the reference to the Aventine, the setting for much of the show’s sweaty day-to-day commerce, combat, carousing and business deals ending in beheadings.

Also, Kevin J. Shay writes in the Gazette: When in Gaithersburg …

Developers of a proposed $1 billion mixed-use urban community in Gaithersburg have changed the project’s name from Crown Farm to Aventiene, a name evocative of ancient Rome.

The 180-acre project, off Fields Road near Interstates 370 and 270 west of The Washingtonian, is slated to include up to 2,250 homes and 320,000 square feet of retail space.

The name Aventiene is derived from Mons Aventinus, one of the seven hills on which Rome originally stood. The original spelling of Aventine was changed to give the project its ‘‘distinctive development and Internet presence,” officials said in a statement.

• Chris Robinson writes: Seniors call for new center to serve upcounty area:
  

  City leaders and area seniors on Monday night rejected a feasibility study’s proposed $2.5 million in upgrades at the Upcounty Senior Center in Gaithersburg, opting instead for short-term improvements while developing a new facility.

• Chris Robinson writes: Crown Farm neighborhoods get early nod:
  

  The outline for two of the five neighborhoods in the proposed Crown Farm Village community were approved last week, paving the way for Gaithersburg’s largest residential project of this century.

• Sebastian Montes writes: Options for saving pool dry up:
  

  It appears that two last-ditch options for YMCA members trying to save the 45-year-old pool in Montgomery Village have come up short.

From the City’s Website:

City of Gaithersburg
31 South Summit Avenue
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877

Telephone: 301-258-6330

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA*
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
7:30 P.M.
City Hall Council Chambers

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

March 7, 2007, Planning Commission Meeting

Background Material (pdf format)

RECORD PLATS

RECOMMENDATION TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL

SDP-06-005 – Gary Unterberg, Rodgers Consulting, for Crown Farm Village, LLC
Request for approval of Schematic Development Plan SDP-06-005, per annexation X-182, known as the Crown Property (Parcels 445, 600, 905, 883, & 820), in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The proposed plan includes a mix of uses, including 2250 residential units and 320,000 square feet of future commercial uses on approximately 180 acres of land. The initial SDP application primarily concerns Neighborhoods 2 and 3 with the associated infrastructure. The subject property is bordered by Fields Road, Sam Eig Highway, and Omega Drive.
Note: no additional testimony will be taken at this time.
Staff Comments (pdf format)

Background Material

FROM THE COMMISSION

FROM STAFF

ADJOURNMENT

This Wednesday, February 7 2007, the Planning Commission will meet to discuss three topics: Minor revisions to the plans for Watkins Mill Town Center (if I’m reading it correctly, the developer wants to change the orientation of some rooftop decks), an issue regarding site plan requirements for older neighborhoods, and something — it’s unclear what, exactly, having to do with Crown Farm. Regarding the Crown Farm discussion, the only recent additions (from 1/26/07) to the Crown Farm Record are some emails between the city and some residents in the slice of unincorporated County between Washingtonian/Rio and Crown Farm; the residents are concerned about the impact of the Crown Farm development on their neighborhoods. The agenda does not make clear if this is the issue that staff plans on raising.

The site plan requirement issue is concerning, I think. Some of the older neighborhoods in the City were built before the CIty started to require site development plans; examples listed include Deer Park, West Riding, Rosemont, Walker’s Addition and Observatory Heights. There appears to be some concern that modifications, alterations and additions to homes in these neighborhoods require “nothing more than a residential building permit”, and thus there is not the opportunity for public input that exists in the newer developments in the City.

Personally, I think that there is a significant chance that many people purchased homes in these older neighborhoods specifically because of the lack of this intense sort of public scrutiny over what one can and cannot do with one’s property. I think that a change such as this would represent a taking of property rights, and I’m strongly opposed to its adoption.

SITE PLAN

AFP-07-002 –  Watkins Mill Town Center
MXD Zone
Metropolitan Grove Road
Elevation Revisions for Fairgate Townhouses
AMENDMENT TO FINAL PLAN REVIEW

Background Material ( pdf format: Large File - 7.5M)

DISCUSSION

T-373 — Single-Family Lot Review
Ordinance to Amend Zoning Ordinance § 24-168

Background Material (pdf format)

FROM STAFF

SDP-06-005 — Crown Farm
MXD Zone
Fields Road/Sam Eig Highway/Omega Drive

Mixed Use Development
Background Material

Update: The City has posted the video of this meeting.

The City will hold a work session tonight, a major topic of which is the Crown Farm development. Note that there are sixteen new documents posted on the Crown Farm/SDP-06-005 page. One major concern is that the the Crown Farm plans could get ahead of the historic preservation review process. As part of the annexation agreement (section 10 (b), pages 18 and 19 of the agreement, pages 46 and 47 of the pdf), the historic structures on the Crown Farm property are to go through the City’s normal historic preservation process, but with some language that says that this review will not delay various other parts of the planning process. However, to my knowledge, HPAC has yet to be asked to review any properties. And as the agreement states that the City will bear all the costs associated with historic preservation, I would think it would be the City that needs to get a move on here. I’d encourage anyone concerned with the impending loss of historic structures in Crown Farm to make your concerns known to the City, possibly by coming to the work session tonight.

Another concern I have heard has to do with the planned density in some parts of Crown Farm; many people believe that some of the proposed densities are too high. However, I would generally be supportive of having some pockets of very high density, especially near the planned transit stop. In order to have a successful pedestrian center in a development like this, you need there to be a large number of people within a short walking distance, and you need to make it easier to walk and take public transportation than to drive. I believe that this is one thing that has not worked well in, for example, Kentlands. While they built a large number of properties within a reasonable walking distance of a retail center, they kept the overall density of Kentlands low, and designed everything around the the automobile according to the classic suburban pattern — retail may be only a five minute walk away, but it also a two-minute drive. The retail center itself is dominated by large, sprawlish parking lots which are daunting to cross on foot, and the most pedestrian-friendly parts — notably Market Square near the movie theater — face away from these parking lots and as a result many people don’t even have any idea what stores are in there. I would hope that Crown Farm would not repeat this mistake, and that they are able to build a vibrant, high-density, modern urban core, near high-quality public transportation.

City of Gaithersburg
JOINT WORK SESSION
Mayor and City Council
Planning Commission
Monday, December 11, 2006

7:30 p.m.

• Presentation of the Cultural Arts Advisory Committee’s "Cultural Arts Programs, Facilities, and Initiatives Plan," Followed by Selected Cultural Arts Update
  Background Material (pdf file)

• Joint - SDP-06-005 - Crown Farm (Proposed Plan Includes a Mix of Uses, Including 2,250 Residential Units and 320,000 Square Feet of Future Commercial Uses on approximately 180 Acres of Land)
  Background Material - Part 1 (pdf file)
  Background Material - Part 2

First, however note three things:

• The City has posted the video and outcomes of the 12/04/06 Council meeting.
• Also Posted is the video and outcomes of the 12/05/06 meeting of the Planning Commision
• This is my 200th post since starting Gaithersblog in August.

Next Monday, December 11, 2006, there will be a joint Mayor, Council and Planning Commission work session:

• Presentation of the Cultural Arts Advisory Committee’s "Cultural Arts Programs, Facilities, and Initiatives Plan," Followed by Selected Cultural Arts Update
  Background Material (pdf file)

• Joint - SDP-06-005 - Crown Farm (Proposed Plan Includes a Mix of Uses, Including 2,250 Residential Units and 320,000 Square Feet of Future Commercial Uses on approximately 180 Acres of Land)
  Background Material - Part 1 (pdf file)
  TBA - Background Material - Part 2 (pdf file)

I’ll update this post when I see that the remainder of the Crown Farm background is made available. Also note that the agenda, as posted on the City’s website, may in fact contain the first public statement of the Rocha Rule:

Hand held signs brought in to the Council Chambers may not be displayed in a manner which:

• Disrupts the meeting
• Blocks the view of spectators or cameras
• Poses a safety concern (i.e., signs mounted on stakes)

The following week, on Monday, December 18, 2006, the Mayor, Council and Planning Commission will hold a joint public hearing:

The City of Gaithersburg Mayor and Council and Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing at the time and place noted below.

Meeting: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Application Type:TEXT AMENDMENT

File Number:T-380
Applicant: GREG OSSONT FOR MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
Day/ Date/Time:
DECEMBER 18, 2006 AT 7:30 P.M.

Place: GAITHERSBURG CITY HALL

IMPORTANT

This is a proposal to amend Chapter 24 of the City Code (City Zoning Ordinance), Article III, Division 15, “I-3 Zone, Industrial and Office Park” §24-143, entitled, “ Uses permitted by right,” to eliminate redundant and conflicting provisions and renumber accordingly. This is an opportunity to publicly participate, other than providing written testimony that must be submitted before the public hearing record closes . Contact the Planning and Code Administration City Planner (listed below) at 301-258-6330, if you should have any questions and/or to learn more about this process and your ability to offer testimony and input.

• DRAFT Text Amendment T-380 (pdf file)

Some outcomes of last night’s meeting:

• In the City Manager’s Day Laborer Report, Mr. Humpton told the Council that staff now believes that there is no viable location within the City for a day laborer center. He was preparing to suggest to the County that they (the County) were going to need to be more flexible in finding a location for this facility, and suggested that places such as Oakmont Avenue and the Airpark might stand a better chance. He also stated that the day laborer activity at 17 N Frederick needed to be shut down. Council offered strong support for these positions.
• The Crown Farm presentation went on just short of forever. Council and the Planning Commission kept their records open “indefinitely”.
• The anti-solicitation ordinance was introduced, with strong support from the Council. There was a bit of concern over possible unintended consequences.
• Alternative 2 (Olde Towne treated differently) of the affordable housing ordinance (T-379) was adopted by the Council.
• The 120-day deferral is dead. Were there to have been a motion to adopt it, it would have failed two (Alster & Edens) to three (Marraffa, Schlichting and Sesma).
• The bond bill is legislation that allows the State to borrow money for the City.
• The Council expressed willingness to consider providing financial incentives for the Bozzuto project, although concern was expressed about the possibility of this setting a precedent.

Several members of the public, as well as the Council members and the City Manager, expressed concern over recent gang activity. City staff has set up an internal task force to try to expand and improve the City’s response to the gangs, and they are attempting to get MCPS to work more closely with them on this issue.

Chuck Floyd showed up and took his three minutes at the podium to speak about illegal immigrants and crime. Largely it was a campaign speech, although he did do a reasonable job of sticking to matters relevant to the City Council.

Update: Nancy Trejos has an article in today’s Washington Post:

Gaithersburg officials abandoned plans last night to find a location for a county-funded day-laborer center in the city.

After more than a year of searching for a site acceptable to residents, the City Council agreed to send a letter to Montgomery County officials asking them to look elsewhere in the county.

[The City Manager] welcomed the county to find such a place in the city limits. “I don’t think that’s going to happen. I’ve been trying,” he said.

The City Council also agreed to consider later this month an ordinance that would strengthen its ability to ban loitering in an effort to keep the day laborers from continuing to congregate at the parking lot on North Frederick Avenue.

In addition, the council unanimously voted to require developers to set aside affordable housing for moderate-income and working-class families, despite objections from residents who said it could hinder economic development in some areas.

Actually, as far as I know, no residents — or even developers — expressed opposition to the ordinance itself. The opposition was toward having it apply in Olde Towne, which, as Ms. Trejos notes, didn’t happen:

The council decided to exempt from the requirements housing in the Olde Towne area, which contains the city’s main commercial district. In lieu of providing affordable housing units, developers would contribute to a housing fund set up by the city.

Update: The City has published an Outcomes document for this meeting, as well as the Video, two parts: Part 1, Part 2.

The agenda for Monday Night’s Council meeting is extensive — more than two dozen items in seventeen segments — so I’ll just hit a few highlights here. Refer to the agenda as posted on the City’s website for complete details.

• The City Manager’s Day Laborer Report. As this is the first meeting since the failure of the Festival site, I have no idea what Mr. Humpton might have to say here.
• Joint public hearing on SDP-06-005 for Crown Farm. I’ve discussed this previously.
• The draft anti-solicitation ordinance.
• T-379, affordable housing ordinance. Note that the latest background materials reflect the planning commission’s recommendation for alternative 2 of the ordinance, which treats Olde Towne as a special case. The planning commission also suggested that the ordinance “require affordable housing as Olde Towne approaches the same levels of vitality as the remainder of the City”, although this would happen automatically if my suggestion — that the ordinance merely be sensitive to the amount of affordable housing near any proposed project — were implemented.
• The 120-day deferral ordinance, which in my estimation is probably dead in the water, given the progress on T-379. One interesting aspect of this, however, is the list given in the background materials of all the redevelopment projects currently under consideration. This is yet another bit-mapped PDF, so what follows is OCR’d, and the original document should be consulted before commenting. I’m more or less familiar with almost all of the projects listed here except for the last one, for “redeveloping several blocks of North Frederick Avenue”. I find this quite interesting, because the entirety of North Frederick Ave is not much more than “several” blocks long in the first place. Such a project could have a major impact on what many people see as “Gaithersburg”.

  But my primary reaction to this is that it really is a sad state of affairs; it is a litany of failure, uncertainty and stalemate. Money continues to flow into greenfield developments such as Crown Farm and Watkins Mill Town Center as if it were water over the Niagara. But when it comes to Olde Towne revitalization, we see at best a slow drip from a leaky faucet, most of it evaporating before it can serve any useful purpose. At this rate, I don’t think that the Planning Commission really has to worry all that much about Olde Towne “[approaching] the same levels of vitality as the remainder of the City” any time soon.

  West Deer Park Apartments (198 units)-RST Development has indicated they can not move forward with this redevelopment due to adjustments in the housing market and high costs of materials.

  Executive Garden Apartments (85 units)-Property was recently purchased, and developer has showed staff a concept plan for redevelopment. Concept plan shows 78 townhouse units. Staff has told the developer that we believe the plan is too dense, lacking green space, and is severely under parked. Developer maintains that this project will only be economically viable if he can build 78 units. To date, formal application has not been submitted.

  Water Street (52 units)-The same developer that purchased Executive Gardens has 52 units on Water Street under contract. While he has not yet produced a concept plan, he recently indicated that he would not move forward with purchasing the properties unless the City was supportive of the density he was proposing for Executive Gardens.

  Stratford Place Apartments (350 units)-Property owner has requested that the Mayor and City Council approve a text amendment that would allow a waiver for four stories in the residential portion of the CD zone. This text amendment is scheduled for policy discussion on December 4, 2006. If the text amendment is approved, the property owner has indicated he will be filing a request for rezoning and a schematic development plan requesting approval of a mixed-use residential development including townhouses, apartments, and two-over-two condominiums.

  East Diamond Avenue consolidation (73 units)-Staff is still working with a developer and the property owners of three small apartment complexes who would like to redevelop this area with fairly high density apartments. During a work session on May 30, 2006, the City Council indicated general support for the project but expressed concern about the scale and density of the project. To date, no application has been submitted.

  Frederick Avenue consolidation (75 units)-Several months ago, staff met with a group of developers that expressed an interest in redeveloping several blocks of North Frederick Avenue that included several commercial buildings and 75 apartments. To the best of staffs knowledge, the developer does not have the apartments under contract and has not prepared a plan.

• Proposed Legislative Priorities for the 2007 General Assembly Legislative Session. Most of what is listed in the background document seems pretty straightforward, and I’m happy to see a couple of items in there about increasing funding for public safety. However, I’m quite curious about the first listed item:
  

  A bond bill for City Capital project(s).

  What could this possibly mean? The City is not especially given to borrowing money for capital projects, and in fact they have frequently been criticized for not doing this. Does this item indicate a change? Or am I completely missing their intent here?

• Financial incentives for the Bozzuto project on North Summit. That project is currently languishing, with nothing but bulldozed dirt and a sales office at the corner of Park & Summit (as of this writing the local.live.com image shows the corner before the houses were torn down). It’s being proposed that the City would provide such incentives as down payment assistance to prospective buyers of homes in this new project. Will we ever see an unsubsidized redevelopment project in Olde Towne again?

• 11/01/06 Planning Commission Outcomes
  I’ll update my previous post with the results, and may have a separate post after I’ve had a chance to watch the video. Biggest news is, for the APFO, “Directed staff to prepare a recommendation for further review on November 15, 2006″, and for the Affordable Housing policy, “Recommended approval of Alternative #2 with modifications”. Alternative #2 calls for Olde Towne to be treated separately.
• Full agenda for the 11/06/06 meeting of the Mayor and Council.
  I’ll have a separate post later, it is a huge agenda.
• 11/09/06 Board of Appeals meeting
  Request for a setback variance at 789 Kimberly Court West.
• Notice of a 11/13/06 work session on Affordable Housing Regulations.
  No background materials are yet available.