Scribd
Upload
28 views

Kensington, Md. 20895 August 1.2008 Ms. Piera Weiss

The document is a letter from the Garrett Park Estates-White Flint Park Citizens' Association providing comments on a July 22nd presentation about plans to redevelop the White Flint area. The letter offers support for some elements of the plan but also raises several concerns. It provides specific feedback on various pages of the presentation materials and recommends changes to address issues like density levels that transition to existing communities, ensuring adequate public facilities and green space, improving transportation infrastructure, and maintaining a green buffer along the sector plan boundary. The letter concludes by thanking the recipients for the opportunity to comment and expressing a desire to continue dialogue on the important project.

Uploaded by

Planning Docs
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
28 views

Kensington, Md. 20895 August 1.2008 Ms. Piera Weiss

The document is a letter from the Garrett Park Estates-White Flint Park Citizens' Association providing comments on a July 22nd presentation about plans to redevelop the White Flint area. The letter offers support for some elements of the plan but also raises several concerns. It provides specific feedback on various pages of the presentation materials and recommends changes to address issues like density levels that transition to existing communities, ensuring adequate public facilities and green space, improving transportation infrastructure, and maintaining a green buffer along the sector plan boundary. The letter concludes by thanking the recipients for the opportunity to comment and expressing a desire to continue dialogue on the important project.

Uploaded by

Planning Docs
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

08/Bl/2008 16:01 3019462334 GOLDBERG PAGE 02

5015 Aurora Drive


Kensington,Md. 20895
August1.2008

Ms. PieraWeiss.
Colmnunity Based Planning
Maryland National Capital Park &! Planning Commission
8787 Georgia Ave. '
Silver Spring,Md. 20910-376(.

Dear Piera:
Garrett ParkEstates -White Flint 'plU'kCitizens' Association offers these commentsin response
to the .July22ndpresentationto the White Flint Planning Advisory Committee. Many residentsof
our conununity were in attendanc~at this briefing. We have reviewed the written materiaJand
offer the following commen~ andIsuggestions:

We would be delighted to seeRockville Pike transfonned into a boulevard with a greenmedian;


however. there are several aspec* under consideration that concernthe community. For
example)we cannot envision parking along RockvilIe Pike while, at the sametime, maintaining

traffic flow,
08/81/2008 16:01 3019462334
GCLDBERG

Specific comments based upon thep8ges in the presentation as follows:

Page9: Intensity Principles..The increased development along RockviUe Pike continuing


to the sectorplan boundary is not Consistentwith a transition to existing communities. Areas
below Security Lane should bed~reased in intensity, Areas southof EdsonLane, we" beyond
the 1/2 mile walking diStance,shouldbe at the minimum density. The land Use Concept shown
on Page8 seemsto reflect this conCept,but the Page 9 chart doesnot. Plus, the high density
shown along the Pike marksthis as a "canyon wall of tal] buildings."

Pages10 and 11: Intensity~rinciples and ProposedLand Use. We assumethat the


greenishyellow on Page 10reflects residential as shown as the yellow on Page 11. However, the
area alongthe Pike betweenthe eJ(istingMedical Office Buildings and Edsonlane is shown in
greenishyellow whereas the proposedland use shows 1tas mixed use.We WOllldsupporte1theruse
-forthisa.r~~~~~~ ~h~~c~_.~w. Our major concernis the transition to exiSting
resl~~n11'p.:.Wehave supportea&t,reenwayalong this boundary since it is adjacentto our
houses.We also note that along White F1int Local Park, the chart on Page 11.shows an area
where mixed use comes up to the park boundary. The sameareaon Page 10 is greenishyellow.
We would prefer a greenbutTer~tween our community and mixed use low development
MinimaJly, there should be a continuum of residential and green buffer along the sector plan
boundary, espocially if the White Flint site is choscn as a schoolsite. Additionally, there are a
considerablenumber of matw-etreesalong the edge of White Flint Loca) Park and care should be
taken to preserve them.

Page 12 and 13: Public fatilities There appearto be no greenspacesor public facilities
southof Executive Blvd. Especially,there is nothing shown for White Flint Mall/Plaza area.This
is also true in the designguideline sectionuntil we get to page45 of the Design Guideljne which
appearsto show pockets of green,We hope that thesepockets of greenerywill in fact be open
spacedesignated as parks and available to the public, We note that the Fire/EMS is at the
extreme north of the site. It is assumedthat this is relocated from Rollins Avenue. A police sub-
stationappearsto be at the Pre-ReleaseCenter site A better loc.ationwould be at Nicholson
Court.

Page ]4: Public Facilities. We have no objection to the proposedschool site at White
Flint Mall and the Plaza.,but the site does not appearto be 5 acresin size and would lack play
a~-There is a steep slope on the site which might causeproblems with construction and create
runoff problems for our neighborhood.We urge that theseissuesbe thoroughly investigated
before this site is proposed for a $Chool.We alS()question vehicular accessto the site. We

2
08/01/2008 16: 01 3B19462334
GCLDBERG
PAGE 04

Page23: Nebel and Nichol!ion Court Districts. We supportthe retention of industria]


propertiesand urge that the MARt stationsite be at the northernlocation as close to the Metro
site and high density development'aspossible We envision the MARC station as connecting
White Flint to SiJver Spring, serviftgcommuters going to and from jobs in both locations. It is
suggeStedthat a Nicholson Coun ~ite be considered for a police sub-stationor the Police District
2 stationrelocation.

Page 24 Level ofDeveloprnent It is recommended that another column be added to


include estimated population and .bb projections

Page25: Mobility, While ~e understand the r~s for avoiding a grade separated
interchangeat Nicholson LarJeand 355, we believe there needsto be some intersection
improvementdesignated at that p<>int, The intersection CUTTentlycausesbackups both northbouod
and southbound,and will becomean increasing bottleneck unleJSeither turning movementis
limited, or one street goes under the other, Also, we had!~mmend~ a~Q~d Metro entrance
at the westside of355- It is showlingon the east side in the map.

Page27: Mobility. We as~me the legend "Potential Metro Station" is aCtuaJlythe two
potential MARC stations since th~ location is along the rai)roadtracks and not 355. Seeour
commentsabove on Page23.

Page28: Transpon8.tionCapacity. We are concerned with the change in road capacity at


EdsonLane and Rockville Pike aftdbelieve that unless this issueis addressedthere will be
seriousbackups across FlandersAve. (our ex:it onto Rockville Pike) and down to Strathmore.We
would like to discuss the options for this intersection including reducing turning movement,
disallowing thru traffic acrossthe Pike on Edson Lane, creatingone way east-weststreets?or
other approaches:staff can suggest,We believe any transportationanalysis should include
Rockville Pike and StrathmoreAwenue,

Page29: Transportation Capacity. For us the appropriateoomparison on this chart is not


the changesduring the iterative fkocess, but .-ather the comparisonbetween buildout under the
1992 plan and the current scenario. We notice that both employeework trips and other local
-tripsincrease.These trip increasusshould be a much smaller percentageincreasethat the
increasein development shown on Page24. Without the exactnumberswe cannot do the
evaluation.

"\
-08/81/2008 16:01 3 e 19462334
GQDBERG
PAGE 05

Page35: Design Guidelines-Gateways and Landmarks-We fail to understandthe need


for landmark building beyondthe density and height itse1[ We note that the 24 story point tower
at White Flint Crossing wa.~desig~edto "create a landmark gatewayfor the southern oogeof the
White Flint Area," It is appropriattto retain tbis concept at this site. There does not needto be a
landmark on the eastern side of3S5 at the White Aint Man or medicalbuilding sites. Anything
here will overshadow our single-~mily houses and is not necessary

Page45: Design Guidelin~s.~. We oote that there are increments of green building
tmoUghoutthe design guidelinesand we regret that we do not rememberthe audio presemation
explaining the different typesof$feen space We did not seethis groonon Pages 12 and ]3, as
mentioned above We urge that the spaceson this page be available for public use

Page46: Design Guidelines-Retail. We suppon the retail activity fronting Rockville


Pike as shown on this page We would also support retail betweenNicholson and Executive Blvd
on the westernside of the Pike, believing that it makessenseto havea continuum of retail from
Metro Center outward.

Page49: Implementation. We note the desisn concept as pictured has a ring ofhigb rise
buildings on the White Flint Mall site next to our neighborhood This does not presentthe low
density or greenway transition th~t we have consistently talked about We have sajd that we
supportthe increased density at tne north side of the property but not adjacent to our houses

In conclusion, we appreciatethe [)plX>rtunity to oommenton the July 22ndpresentationand we


hope that our comments will merit careful consideration, We look forward to continuing the
dia1.ogueon this important projedt.

Sincerely,
/"""'" ~
Acting President
Garrett Park Estates/White Flint "ParkCitizen Association

Cc: Nkosi Yearwood, Community Based Planning


MaTga.-et Rifkin, Co~munitt Based ~18nnin8 .
Dan Hardy, CountYWIde TrWnsportanon Planning

You might also like