Contributor Opinion By Noreen Bryan and Alice Liu: More On Victory Senior Housing

This is a contributor opinion. Rockville Central encourages readers to submit such opinions for consideration — the more voices the better. We especially welcome people who disagree with us. We ask that all such contributions be civil and we reserve the right to edit (in consultation with the author) or reject. Contributor opinions should not be seen as reflecting opinions held by Rockville Central editors, as they are just as frequently at odds with our own views. That’s the whole point!

The following contributor opinion is by Noreen Bryan and Alice Liu.

The article that was posted about Victory Senior Housing summarized the information presented by the developer at the Area Meeting. But this is only part of the story. Significant facts were missing from the presentation; others were incorrectly reported. Here is additional information that has been gleaned from reading the developer’s site plan and pre-application forms, researching with city staff and attending previous meetings with the developer.

The proposed building will have a huge presence from the Courthouse Walk townhouses, from South Washington St. and from the corner of Maryland Ave and Fleet St. The proposed building would be 19 to 26 feet taller than the Courthouse Walk townhouses (avg ht 38.5 ft). This is 2 to 2 ½ stories higher. Residents of Courthouse Walk and South Washington St. would see the proposed building towering over the townhouses. At the corner of Maryland and Fleet the proposed building would be a story higher than the historic house on Maryland. Max height for the proposed building is 61.5 ft which is just 1.5ft lower than the Town Center block between N. Washington St. and Gibbs St.

The developer’s attempt to imply that only the portions of the building nearest the townhouses would impact the neighborhood is disingenuous. The entire building would be in full view of the townhomes and the residences on S. Washington St. In the winter it would be a large visible presence from Argyle St.

The information presented in a video was misleading. It showed how the proposed building would look with new plantings. Trees were shown as tall mature plants, 20 to 50 years into the future, when in reality the developer plans to plant 8 to 10 ft trees that would provide no visual buffer of the proposed building. Only 22 of the trees will be evergreens.

Regarding parking, the developer currently has allotted 41 spaces on their site. Rockville zoning requires 30 spaces for 90 units of senior housing. The developer said that they need more parking and proposes to take over the parking lot in the historic district to gain twelve additional parking spaces. The developer says that is no problem for the historic houses on Fleet St. If they need additional parking they can use the garage across the street. This is unfair and puts the viability of the historic houses at risk. Instead of designing a building that can meet its parking needs on its own site the developer wants to spill into the historic district causing the users of the historic district to spill into the street or public parking.

Lastly, while it is true that the building is a horseshoe shape with the ends of the horseshoe towards the townhouses, it is again inaccurate to imply that the rest of the mass of the building will have little impact on the neighborhood. Visually it would be similar to looking at the Town Center building on N. Washington St. from across the street. The parking courtyard cut into the Town Center Building does not conceal or reduce the building’s mass.

The previous article indicated that the developer has made changes to the proposed plan based on conversations with residents. That is not true. The developer has NOT made any changes to their proposed plan in response to concerns raised by Courthouse Walk residents. Instead the building has grown in physical size and number of units (80 to 90). The parking lot has grown and now nearly abuts the property line of Courthouse Walk. Further the developer has not included other neighbors abutting or near the property in previous meetings.

Additional information that was not reported in the earlier article includes the following:

• No one spoke in favor of the development.
• There were many specific questions that were asked by audience members that were not answered by the developer. For example, what are the dimensions of the building? Will public funding be used? Is community support required to get public funding? What are the sizes of the trees that would be planted by the developer?

In summary, while the information in the previous article accurately portrays what the developer presented at the Area Meeting, it does not accurately portray the reality of the proposed development. It is not surprising since all developers want to portray a proposed project in the most favorable light. But that is precisely why a disinterested party (city staff?) is needed to lead the Area Meeting to assure that a more comprehensive view is presented to citizens and that citizen concerns are addressed. Our understanding is that the purpose of the Area Meeting is to include citizens at the beginning of the approval process and allow their concerns to be heard. It is a problem that the current process gives the developer control of the meeting. The developer sets the agenda and writes the meeting minutes. A neutral party should be doing this, not the developer. The zoning ordinance is new. This is an opportunity to fine tune and improve it.

Noreen Bryan, South Washington St. and Alice Liu, Courthouse Walk

Share This!