www.takomadcplan.org
|
Takoma
DC Growth Plans www.takomadcplan.org |
Official Small Area Plan | Media Coverage |
| Developer Plans | Metro. Branch Trail | ||
| Transportation Study | Update Log Links | ||
COMMENTS ON SMALL AREA PLAN
October 10, 2001
Lou Lieb
ANC4B03
L_Lieb@msn.com
Generally, I believe that there's a lot to like in the draft small area plan
(SAP). The emphasis on mixed use (residential, commercial and retail) in the
central district, the recommendation to do away with industrial uses are good.
The retail zoning overlay and Main Street program incentives on Carroll St.
may work.
Land Use and Urban Design
However, I think that there are some problems with the plan. First, it does
not mention the proposed project across the street from the metro station on
Carroll St. by Russell Katz. This project, as I understand it, is moving forward
quickly and is consistent with the recommendations of the plan. As such, it
may demonstrate the feasibility of development in the vicinity of metro without
involvement of the metro lot itself. Additionally, I believe that the Eichner
project is moving forward, albeit slowly.
I think that many of us in the community were supportive of the metro development
mostly because we felt that it was the "only game in town". One of my main concerns
- and motivations for supporting development - was to improve the blighted properties
in the area. I saw the metro project as encouraging, by example, other developments,
which would improve those blighted properties. The metro lot itself I would
not consider blighted. I find the metro lot relatively pleasant, on the whole,
though the parking area is not beautiful, and the whole thing could possibly
be improved upon.
My understanding is that the plan purports to reflect the "desires of the
community". Since the community has been so sharply divided on this issue, it
does not seem that the plan accomplishes the goal of adequately addressing or
reflecting the desires of the community.
On the other hand, if the document is intended to be an independent professional
appraisal of the utility of the metro development (as well as many other issues),
apart from the wishes of the community, then it might be a good idea to address
the concerns of the vocal opposition head on, and state why they're not valid.
If it would be replied that more people in the community favor the development
than oppose it (absent a community referendum, I don't know what the factual
basis for such a statement would be, other than conjecture), then that could
be stated and discussed in the plan too.
My conclusion here is that, in light of the other developments in the neighborhood,
and the sharp divisions in the neighborhood regarding the metro development,
the plan's endorsement of 65-90 townhouses on the metro site may be overstated.
I don't personally feel very strongly about the metro development, one way
or the other. One reason is that very little attempt has been made to demonstrate
with visual simulation techniques the implications and "feel" of 65-90 townhouses
on the metro site. I understand that there are many such simulation techniques
available. The drawings that have been produced have been rather crude (e.g.,
page 42 of the SAP). For this reason, the planning process has done nothing
to address my main concern, which is: "will it feel too congested?" Whenever
you have a dramatic increase in density, there is some concern about it. Unfortunately,
nothing has occurred to alleviate that concern.
One of the impacts of development that concerns people a lot is the impact
on traffic. There does not seem to have been any attempt made to quantify the
impact on traffic of development in the area. While the draft plan calls for
some kind of traffic study, it seems like that should have been in the plan
itself. Otherwise, we can't gauge the implications of the recommendations in
the plan.
On a technical point, I'm not convinced that the metro property is capable
of doing adequately everything that is proposed for it. (Refer to the drawing
on page 46.) Significantly, the drawing on page 46 is done without any measurement
labels attached, so it is difficult to gauge with any precision that the plans
are logical and feasible. Our only recourse would be to take on faith that the
drawing pictures a reality that could work smoothly.
Vague suggestions are made about finding some alternative site for metro parking,
but the idea is never fleshed out, nor even made sufficiently concrete that
one would know what to make of it. I presume that the planners are suggesting
that WMATA purchase a nearby property, but one can only conjecture. The stated
goal of simultaneously providing metro and retail parking is a good one, because
lack of parking is a substantial hindrance to the development of retail businesses
in the area, particularly on 4th St.
Parenthetically, the suggestion of an alternative metro parking site may indicate
some doubt on the part of planners that the metro site can do everything intended
for it - including a parking structure.
While I like the suggestion of a "village green" on the metro site, I am not
quite sure what it means, or whether in practice it means little more than the
green space that exists there now. It would be nice to see more detail on this.
This could involve a description of sites in other parts of the city or country.
It could involve more description of the town in North Carolina that is pictured
on page 42. I would like to know what characteristics make vibrant city parks
possible, and whether this site could possess those qualities.
The suggestion of one or two Metro entry/exit points from the west side of
the tracks is an excellent one. However, it would be good if some indication
of feasibility from WMATA were available.
Pointing out the metro underpass as a problem area is good. Is WMATA willing
to sponsor or tolerate public art in that location? Further, I'm not at all
clear what kind of landscaping is suggested for that location.
Transportation
Other residents have pointed out difficulties with some of the traffic suggestions
in the SAP, including one way on 4th St., and closing a section of
Blair Road. Further, as I understand it, it would not be feasible to put a sidewalk
on the west side of Blair Road, between Cedar and Piney Branch, as recommended
by the plan.
Market Analysis
I believe there is a mistake in logic on page 25. The analysis concludes that
183 to 275 units can be absorbed in Takoma between 2000 and 2010. Since neither
the EYA nor the Eichner developments have been built as of 2001, one would surmise
that the market limit given above would include the EYA and Eichner proposals
of around 140 units. Instead, the report states that 183 to 275 units could
be absorbed in addition to the EYA and Eichner projects. This seems like a mistake.
General Comments - Environmental Issues
WASA is under a deadline to comply with clean water standards, and is contemplating
spending about a billion dollars over the next fifteen years to comply. Given
the problems of storm water in the metropolitan area, it would be helpful if
we applied methods for delaying and using rainwater on site. These methods include
"rain gardens", "rain barrels", and "green roofs." It's particularly appropriate
to apply these methods in new developments, where there is a chance to build
them into the initial design. I believe that the plan should include a section
on low impact development, which could also include standards for energy conservation.
