Another look at Beall's Grant II
This blog entry was written by Helen Triolo and posted on Sep 25, 2008
Since I first heard and posted about the proposed Beall's Grant II project last April, the project has come under more intense scrutiny from the public. Concerned and angry residents of neighborhoods along Beall and North Van Buren spoke out at the Planning Commission hearing in July, and began distributing STOP BEALL'S GRANT II yard signs, which now appear in several neighborhoods in the vicinity of the project. Others have spoken out in support of the project, including Brad Rourke and longtime Rockville residents Cindy CG and Brigitta Mullican in postings and comments at Rockville Central, adding to endorsements previously given by the West End Civic Association, and the Mayor and Council.
After reading Joe Jordan's commentary on the Planning Commission hearing at Rockville Central (thank you, Brad and Cindy, for keeping the wider community aware of meetings like this, and the fact that they can be viewed online after the event), my husband and I watched the entire hearing to see what objections were being raised. Some of them seemed like legitimate concerns, like overcrowding at Beall Elementary and increased traffic on what should not be a busy residential street. Others seemed a bit more speculative, like the implied equation of a unit containing some percentage of affordable housing with an increase in crime in the surrounding neighborhood. I recently spoke with Rob Goldman, president of Montgomery Housing Partnership, (before I realized he had already addressed many of these concerns in a Gazette article) to get his response to each of the concerns I heard raised, and wanted to post that here.
Does affordable housing lead to an increase in crime?
Several speakers at the planning commission hearing, especially those living near the corner of North and N Van Buren, spoke very graphically about their concerns and personal experiences of crime on their block, and one block over, on Dawson St. Their implication appeared to be either that crime would increase or would appear again in neighborhoods where residents and police have worked together to eliminate it, if Beall's Grant II is built. I asked Mr. Goldman if he could specify more details about who are the proposed tenants for Bealls Grant II and whether increased crime is a legitimate concern.
His response was that based on the financing they are currently seeking, 20 to 30% of the units would be market rate, 60 to 70% would be reserved for people with incomes between $35,000 and $60,000, and 10% for incomes below 35,000. Beall's Grant I (also run by MHP) has a similar mix, and Rockville Police Chief Treschuk reports an average number of calls for a residential unit/complex (ie, disturbances are on a par with any other apartment complex in the city). Montgomery Housing Partnership, the non-profit developer of Beall's Grant II, has a history of providing well-managed complexes throughout Montgomery County and no reason to want to undermine that reputation with this new project. Like Rockville residents, they want Beall's Grant II to be "a pleasant place to live," according to Rob Goldman. As with their existing projects, they conduct screening and background checks of every potential resident, and hire site managers who are adept at identifying and dealing with problems (by eviction if necessary) as they arise. Wouldn't we rather have a local non-profit, recipient of the 2003 Nonprofit Development of the Year Award and two Montgomery County’s Best Honor Awards, developing and managing this property than a faceless out-of-state developer?
Won't these units lead to even more over-crowding at Beall Elementary School?
The Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance adopted by Rockville in 2005 requires that "MCPS schools located in Rockville—including all elementary, middle and high schools—not have enrollments exceeding 110 percent of program capacity within two years," when considering the impact of new development. As Mr. Goldman notes, the Use Permit application for Beall's Grant II could not be processed and approved for 2 years because the school enrollment was projected to be too high (the APFO is strictly adhered to). MCPS estimates for the next two years now show enrollment declining below the 110% mark, though, and thus Beall's Grant II meets the necessary requirements of both the City and MCPS. (It may be noted also that the City's APFO requirements are much stricter than the County's -- according to this blog post about Rockville's APFO, the Rockville standard in 2005 shows Beall Elementary at 119 percent of capacity, whereas the county pegged it at 72 percent of capacity).
As far as the number of children expected at Beall's Grant II, again the numbers are MCPS-based estimates which are calculated based on the type of building (# of stories, etc) and number and size of units, and that estimate is fewer than 10 elementary-school-age children. Mr. Goldman noted that the same formula was applied to Beall's Grant I and is right on target for that unit, so there is no reason to suppose it would not be on target for Beall's Grant II. If overcrowding is an issue at Beall Elementary School, it will not be solved by opposing Beall's Grant II.
With 109 units, won't traffic on Beall Avenue become even worse than it already is?
Some citizens at the planning commission hearing spoke about how Beall Avenue is already used as a cut-through for traffic going to 270 and avoiding 28, and that traffic from Beall's Grant would make this even worse. Rob Goldman notes that project approval for Beall's Grant II required a traffic study done by a professional traffic expert, which was reviewed by the City and approved. He offered two other points for consideration:
One is that Beall's Grant II will have two parking areas (of roughly equal size), each with its own separate entrance and exit. Cars entering the parking area from one entrance can only exit from the same (the parking areas do not connect). Thus, only half of the cars will be able to exit onto Beall at any time, and the other half will exit onto Dawson. Because cut-through traffic on Beall is already a known issue, following the development of Town Center and projected development of other properties in the area, John Britton of the City council has already been actively looking into ways to calm and regulate traffic on that street. And as Cindy CG has noted, there are further steps which could be implemented if necessary, like forcing a left turn out of the complex onto Beall (away from the direction of 270).
The other thing Mr. Goldman noted is that although there are a large number of parking spaces slated for Beall's Grant II (because of City requirements), it is expected that many fewer will actually be used, because of the development's proximity to the metro and Town Center. At Beall's Grant I, with 60 units, only 30-35 parking spaces are actually used.
Isn't this complex too big compared to the building it is replacing?
Beall's Grant II falls squarely within the zoning identified by the City for this site, a transition area between high-density Town Center and lower density neighborhoods. The four stories proposed for the building are not tall compared to those in Town Center, and the building is similar in height to 3-story Beall's Grant I, so will not be disproportionately high for its location. The lower parking level will not be seen from the front, where the lower level is rental office and lobby. Other aesthetic enhancements (as opposed to detractions) to the neighborhood include the continuation of existing sidewalk all the way to Beall Ave, and an actual turn onto the extension of N. Washington Street that runs in front of Snowden Funeral Home instead of the current fork, which is something of a pedestrian hazard.
I don't feel that any of the objections to Beall's Grant II are strong enough to outweigh the benefits of having this much-needed affordable, green, well-managed, and aesthetically-appealing project built in Rockville. I imagine any potential future residents, like those speaking out on this page would agree.
After reading Joe Jordan's commentary on the Planning Commission hearing at Rockville Central (thank you, Brad and Cindy, for keeping the wider community aware of meetings like this, and the fact that they can be viewed online after the event), my husband and I watched the entire hearing to see what objections were being raised. Some of them seemed like legitimate concerns, like overcrowding at Beall Elementary and increased traffic on what should not be a busy residential street. Others seemed a bit more speculative, like the implied equation of a unit containing some percentage of affordable housing with an increase in crime in the surrounding neighborhood. I recently spoke with Rob Goldman, president of Montgomery Housing Partnership, (before I realized he had already addressed many of these concerns in a Gazette article) to get his response to each of the concerns I heard raised, and wanted to post that here.
Does affordable housing lead to an increase in crime?
Several speakers at the planning commission hearing, especially those living near the corner of North and N Van Buren, spoke very graphically about their concerns and personal experiences of crime on their block, and one block over, on Dawson St. Their implication appeared to be either that crime would increase or would appear again in neighborhoods where residents and police have worked together to eliminate it, if Beall's Grant II is built. I asked Mr. Goldman if he could specify more details about who are the proposed tenants for Bealls Grant II and whether increased crime is a legitimate concern.
I'd rather see Beall's Grant II here
His response was that based on the financing they are currently seeking, 20 to 30% of the units would be market rate, 60 to 70% would be reserved for people with incomes between $35,000 and $60,000, and 10% for incomes below 35,000. Beall's Grant I (also run by MHP) has a similar mix, and Rockville Police Chief Treschuk reports an average number of calls for a residential unit/complex (ie, disturbances are on a par with any other apartment complex in the city). Montgomery Housing Partnership, the non-profit developer of Beall's Grant II, has a history of providing well-managed complexes throughout Montgomery County and no reason to want to undermine that reputation with this new project. Like Rockville residents, they want Beall's Grant II to be "a pleasant place to live," according to Rob Goldman. As with their existing projects, they conduct screening and background checks of every potential resident, and hire site managers who are adept at identifying and dealing with problems (by eviction if necessary) as they arise. Wouldn't we rather have a local non-profit, recipient of the 2003 Nonprofit Development of the Year Award and two Montgomery County’s Best Honor Awards, developing and managing this property than a faceless out-of-state developer?
Won't these units lead to even more over-crowding at Beall Elementary School?
The Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance adopted by Rockville in 2005 requires that "MCPS schools located in Rockville—including all elementary, middle and high schools—not have enrollments exceeding 110 percent of program capacity within two years," when considering the impact of new development. As Mr. Goldman notes, the Use Permit application for Beall's Grant II could not be processed and approved for 2 years because the school enrollment was projected to be too high (the APFO is strictly adhered to). MCPS estimates for the next two years now show enrollment declining below the 110% mark, though, and thus Beall's Grant II meets the necessary requirements of both the City and MCPS. (It may be noted also that the City's APFO requirements are much stricter than the County's -- according to this blog post about Rockville's APFO, the Rockville standard in 2005 shows Beall Elementary at 119 percent of capacity, whereas the county pegged it at 72 percent of capacity).
As far as the number of children expected at Beall's Grant II, again the numbers are MCPS-based estimates which are calculated based on the type of building (# of stories, etc) and number and size of units, and that estimate is fewer than 10 elementary-school-age children. Mr. Goldman noted that the same formula was applied to Beall's Grant I and is right on target for that unit, so there is no reason to suppose it would not be on target for Beall's Grant II. If overcrowding is an issue at Beall Elementary School, it will not be solved by opposing Beall's Grant II.
With 109 units, won't traffic on Beall Avenue become even worse than it already is?
Some citizens at the planning commission hearing spoke about how Beall Avenue is already used as a cut-through for traffic going to 270 and avoiding 28, and that traffic from Beall's Grant would make this even worse. Rob Goldman notes that project approval for Beall's Grant II required a traffic study done by a professional traffic expert, which was reviewed by the City and approved. He offered two other points for consideration:
One is that Beall's Grant II will have two parking areas (of roughly equal size), each with its own separate entrance and exit. Cars entering the parking area from one entrance can only exit from the same (the parking areas do not connect). Thus, only half of the cars will be able to exit onto Beall at any time, and the other half will exit onto Dawson. Because cut-through traffic on Beall is already a known issue, following the development of Town Center and projected development of other properties in the area, John Britton of the City council has already been actively looking into ways to calm and regulate traffic on that street. And as Cindy CG has noted, there are further steps which could be implemented if necessary, like forcing a left turn out of the complex onto Beall (away from the direction of 270).
The other thing Mr. Goldman noted is that although there are a large number of parking spaces slated for Beall's Grant II (because of City requirements), it is expected that many fewer will actually be used, because of the development's proximity to the metro and Town Center. At Beall's Grant I, with 60 units, only 30-35 parking spaces are actually used.
Isn't this complex too big compared to the building it is replacing?
Beall's Grant II falls squarely within the zoning identified by the City for this site, a transition area between high-density Town Center and lower density neighborhoods. The four stories proposed for the building are not tall compared to those in Town Center, and the building is similar in height to 3-story Beall's Grant I, so will not be disproportionately high for its location. The lower parking level will not be seen from the front, where the lower level is rental office and lobby. Other aesthetic enhancements (as opposed to detractions) to the neighborhood include the continuation of existing sidewalk all the way to Beall Ave, and an actual turn onto the extension of N. Washington Street that runs in front of Snowden Funeral Home instead of the current fork, which is something of a pedestrian hazard.
I don't feel that any of the objections to Beall's Grant II are strong enough to outweigh the benefits of having this much-needed affordable, green, well-managed, and aesthetically-appealing project built in Rockville. I imagine any potential future residents, like those speaking out on this page would agree.
