Seasonal End of Empty Spaces

It’s almost a year since we originally spoke of seasonal rhythms. I was reminded of this fact when I turned onto Compromise Street and traffic was backed up for several blocks. I realized that the drawbridge was up; traffic was at a standstill. It took about 15 minutes before I reached the gas station at Compromise and Severn.

This gridlock is the price we pay for living in a picturesque and quaint community. Eastport and Annapolis take on heightened Spring and Summer seasonal rhythms. The ‘off-season’ is much slower and calmer, full of empty spaces.

Both Eastport and Inner Annapolis have achieved equilibrium, uneasy though it sometimes is, between community scale and the road system. This is no easy accomplishment. Within our Eastport part of the overall community, in approximately a half-mile radius from the drawbridge, there are mostly single family homes, small scale multi-family housing, small businesses and a pocket park or two. On the Annapolis side of the drawbridge, two major facilities, the Academy and State Government, are anchors that have helped to shape the community, helped to limit the feasibility and wisdom of expansion without commensurate infrastructure. Fortunately, there are currently no new large facilities planned, on the Annapolis side, that would cause significant additional demands on our road system. A very good  thing, since it is already operating in excess of its capacity.

We’ve all experienced the impact on traffic in the off-season when the drawbridge is infrequently raised, or as is currently the case, one lane at City Dock and Compromise is closed due to the work on the bulkhead, or, just normally, when a delivery truck is stopped for a period of time on any of our side streets, or on Compromise in front of the Marriott, or a trash truck is going about its business slowly moving up Main Street. And in tourist season – April through November – the drawbridge opens every half hour, there are a lot more cars competing for position and the traffic is exponentially heavier and louder.

So I am concerned about any project that will impact traffic patterns near the drawbridge, like the AYC expansion  project.  Even if it ends up somewhat downsized from the enormous mega-project that was advertised last year, it will result in a plug that will block traffic. In turn, the whole community could grind to a halt. The Yacht Club expansion project, along with other proposed nearby projects, cannot be viewed as single entity projects. That view misses the entire point. All of the projects planned for Eastport are interrelated. They must be considered as a whole since their impacts will certainly be cumulative. Trucks and cars idling in congestion-belching fumes are not the basis for a healthy environment or a healthy community.

This will be our year-round scenario, to varying seasonal degrees, if massive projects are permitted to further overwhelm our traffic patterns.

Questions and More Questions

Below, you will find our submission to Planning and Zoning – our opinion and many, many questions on the Public Notice about the AYC expansion project.

Oh, and by the way, we are seeing a rewarding amount of traffic on our post that details the ways in which you may contact P&Z with your comments on the project.  We hope this indicates the intent of many of you to submit your own  comments  to Planning and Zoning.  We are early in the process.  We can be movers on this one, not just those who are moved to the side and disregarded.

[So, for your convenience, here’s a summary of how to contact  P&Z

Call Kevin Scott’s office and speak to him personally about your concerns over this project.  410-263-7961, ext. 7795.  If you would like to see the site design maps you can make an appointment for him to show them to you.

Email your comments to:

kcscott@annapolis.gov  If you wish you can cc your email to Mr. Scott to pgutwald@annapols.gov  and to ets@annapolis.gov

Be sure to note the project numbers:  SDP2016-011  and SE2016-004.   And an email address where they can contact you with updates.]

 NOW, OUR COMMENTS. EMAILED YESTERDAY TO P&Z:

The area bounded by Compromise Street, Severn Avenue and the block of 300 Burnside Street appears to have an interesting amphitheater quality.

The 300 block of Burnside is a dead-end street.  It is usually very quiet.  There is little, or no, commercial light or odor pollution.  When there is background conversation or radio noise (even as far away as Severn Avenue) it can still be heard from the privately owned residential building housing the YCC – Yacht Club Condominium.  There is no connection between the AYC and the YCC.

My point:  Will these unique features (the quiet, the freedom from light and odor pollution) of the overall site be respected, considered, and maintained?

The site plan, as presented at the recent Ward 8 Town Hall meeting, if not changed in the interim, indicated a buffer plan. As I understand it, the buffer plan has two components.  The first concerns the buffering alongside Burnside Street and is, essentially, for visual purposes only. The second is to separate the AYC proposed project from the YCC to protect the YCC from noise, light and odor pollution.  The buffer was generally based on plants, shrubs and trees with a certain specification for distance between the proposed project and existing facilities.  The specifications are important, but not as important as the performance/outcomes of the buffering.

Will the buffer plan be based on maintaining the existing decibel level, light level, odor/commercial smell levels on a daily (day and night) seasonal and situational basis?  Will the proposed building materials also be selected to achieve a stated set of performance metrics?  Will the surface treatments and other hardscape features eliminate negatives on the environment in such areas as, but not limited to storm water runoff, formation of heat islands, and erosion?  How will all of those concerns be handled?  If the site plan is approved, how will they be monitored?

What is the available documentation to affirm the assertions made by the Architect and project proponents as to the effectiveness of the buffers and environmental protection?

Have they performed post-occupancy evaluations on other similar projects to ensure that what they said they would construct and actually did construct were actually the same?  Will that be true for the life-cycle of the project?

Further, the construction of the building and other proposed project elements only take us so far. While the project operations may not be part of this phase of the approval process, operations influence the day to day impacts of the proposed project.  Shouldn’t the proposed project  ‘concept of operations’ also be put on the table for discussion due to the integration of projected operations and the joint second and third order effects?

Here’s a piece of recent history:  The AYC constructed a meeting building and patio on the site a few years ago.  They included an appliance or the like that has an outside motor.  The motor kicks on and off throughout the day and night, and with the site’s amphitheater quality is loud, annoying, and an intrusion.  There was no notification by the AYC for their neighbors.  This is unacceptable and cannot be the status quo going forward.

Are the detailed plans for the expansion available on the Hammond-Wilson website as Leo Wilson, the architect for the project, said  he would arrange?

Are we letting the AYC off the hook for letting the properties on Burnside Street deteriorate?  They put some paint on the structures but it’s obvious the properties have not been kept up to any reasonable standard.  These are middle-income rental units now being put on the demolition block.  Don’t just take my word; check out the condition of the property at 321 Burnside Street.  It should be considered the dictionary definition of ‘neglect.’  Obviously, the AYC plan has long been to demolish these properties to clear the way for their expansion project.  But aren’t there building codes requiring property owners to maintain a reasonable standard?  Is this another example of a different set of rules for the AYC and everyone else?

Other points:

What standards will this project be required to adhere to?  Are there other such project types that this can be compared to, to be sure we are asking all the right questions?  Is the project defined as a ‘Resort,’ a ‘Family Activity Center,’ or some other type of entity?  Does this get reviewed as disassociated single entities such as a swimming pool, a restaurant, a meeting facility, a gymnasium, etc., or is it evaluated as a whole?  Once the proposed project is approved, are the functions associated with it locked in, and is the proponent prevented from adding additional facilities or functions in the  future, for example to promote and support a high membership drive?  How will this facility be regulated?

Is the review going to be conducted in a piecemeal manner or will all the parts and pieces be reviewed both individually and collectively?

Way too many questions remain for us to blindly accept, as a positive, the AYC expansion project.

Worth Repeating-Time to Reassess

We are all concerned about providing the best educational system possible for our children.  This was the subject of an article in the Capital this weekend by Rick Hutzell.  We are also concerned about the need for economic development, sound economic development.  I have suggested, on this site and in a Capital Guest Column, the possibility of building on an intersection of at least two of the pillars that are needed to support smart economic development:  education and innovation.

It’s worth repeating:

Currently, public education is a 19^th century construct consisting of the memorization of facts.  It is badly in need of a total transformation into one that connects those fact dots into useful skill sets.  The educational techniques may use STEM or may use STEAM.  They may use models as yet unknown and waiting to be developed.  What is essential is that current and future generations become critical thinkers and problem solvers.

Toward this end I propose a Network of Education/Innovation Incubators.  These incubators will link the classroom to the real world.  They will bridge fact and application and reinforce both to define our future as a community, as a nation and as a world.  Maslow’s hierarchy of need has food, clothing and shelter.  We must bring It into the new millennium by including education in that hierarchy in order to recognize the complex and ever-changing demands of the modern age.

So, how do the incubators work?

Entrepreneurial Innovators from every discipline and walk of life will be invited to use the incubator sites for problem solving and/or development of their projects.  The Innovators will benefit by their participation in the site and in turn, benefit the site through the problems they are trying to solve or the product they are trying to develop. The innovators will also be asked to be mentors for the students in the Education component of the incubator.  They will be a vital resource assisting in student projects.  Make no mistake, the projects the students will initiate, and in which the innovators will assist, will require a serious level of science and technology, mechanical and design and other skills.  They will not just be watching a Chia Pet sprout.

These initiatives will be funded through public/private partnerships.

The first incubator site will be in Annapolis, MD, midway between Washington, DC and Baltimore, MD.  This particular incubator will benefit from the unique location of Annapolis, having access to the Naval Academy, Chesapeake Bay, mid-Atlantic State colleges and universities, government and business.

The incubator will provide a wide range of educational opportunities.  Example?  A student may establish and participate in his/her own research, goal setting, understanding of financial issues, personnel/staffing considerations, the business of operating facilities, and so much more.

The proposed incubators will have regional themes.  What might that mean for Annapolis, which is surrounded by water?  The Annapolis site may be working on a water theme:  How do we measure and maintain water quality; how do we deal with rising water levels; how can we communicate effectively through water; how do we ensure our water resources are able to support sustainable food resources?

The Annapolis incubator will have the capability of linking to other incubators, let’s say to an incubator in Los Angeles, which may attack the water theme by addressing the problem of too little fresh water and the use of sea water to fill in the gaps.  There are many themes for the incubators, wherever they are located.  Among these themes may be health care, air quality, sustainable food production and preservation, and climate change.  All these themes have the potential to be linked among incubator sites.

The hundreds of students throughout each region taking part in this program will not be required to be ‘A’ students.  All students, A,B,C  and yes, even those who may currently be poor performers due, in part, to lack of interest, will benefit from that spark generated by the incubators.

It is time to meet the challenges of this millennium, starting with meaningful changes in the education of our children, building our community and our regional economy.

Mr. Hutzell is hoping for the best from our educational system.  Hope is not a strategy.

Share this:

The Notice and Agenda for the Monday City Council Meeting can be found in Share:  Community Announcements

Buffers and Amphitheaters: Performance Metrics

The area bounded by Compromise Street, Severn Avenue and the block of 300 Burnside Street appears to have an interesting amphitheater quality.

The 300 block of Burnside is a dead-end street.  It is usually very quiet.  There is little, or no, commercial light or odor pollution.  When there is background conversation or radio noise (even as far away as Severn Avenue) it can still be heard from the privately owned residential building housing the YCC – Yacht Club Condominium.  There is no connection between the AYC and the YCC.

My point:  Will these unique features (the quiet, the freedom from light and odor pollution) of the overall site be respected, considered, and maintained?

The site plan, as presented at the recent Ward 8 Town Hall meeting, if not changed in the interim, indicated a buffer plan. As I understand it, the buffer plan has two components.  The first concerns the buffering alongside Burnside Street and is, essentially, for visual purposes only. The second is to separate the AYC proposed project from the YCC to protect the YCC from noise, light and odor pollution.  The buffer was generally based on plants, shrubs and trees with a certain specification for distance between the proposed project and existing facilities.  The specifications are important, but not as important as the performance/outcomes of the buffering.

Will the buffer plan be based on maintaining the existing decibel level, light level, odor/commercial smell levels on a daily (day and night) seasonal and situational basis?  Will the proposed building materials also be selected to achieve a stated set of performance metrics?  Will the surface treatments and other hardscape features eliminate negatives on the environment in such areas as, but not limited to storm water runoff, formation of heat islands, and erosion?  How will all of those concerns be handled?  If the site plan is approved, how will they be monitored?

What is the available documentation to affirm the assertions made by the Architect and project proponents as to the effectiveness of the buffers and environmental protection?

Have they performed post-occupancy evaluations on other similar projects to ensure that what they said they would construct and actually did construct were actually the same?  Will that be true for the life-cycle of the project?

Further, the construction of the building and other proposed project elements only take us so far. While the project operations may not be part of this phase of the approval process, operations influence the day to day impacts of the proposed project.  Shouldn’t the proposed project  ‘concept of operations’ also be put on the table for discussion due to the integration of projected operations and the joint second and third order effects?

Here’s a piece of recent history:  The AYC constructed a meeting building and patio on the site a few years ago.  They included an appliance or the like that has an outside motor.  The motor kicks on and off throughout the day and night, and with the site’s amphitheater quality is loud, annoying, and an intrusion.  There was no notification by the AYC for their neighbors.  This is unacceptable and cannot be the status quo going forward.

Are the detailed plans for the expansion available on the Hammond-Wilson website as Leo Wilson, the architect for the project, said  he would arrange?

Are we letting the AYC off the hook for letting the properties on Burnside Street deteriorate?  They put some paint on the structures but it’s obvious the properties have not been kept up to any reasonable standard.  These are middle-income rental units now being put on the demolition block.  Don’t just take my word; check out the condition of the property at 321 Burnside Street.  It should be considered the dictionary definition of ‘neglect.’  Obviously, the AYC plan has long been to demolish these properties to clear the way for their expansion project.  But aren’t there building codes requiring property owners to maintain a reasonable standard?  Is this another example of a different set of rules for the AYC and everyone else?

Other points:

What standards will this project be required to adhere to?  Are there other such project types that this can be compared to, to be sure we are asking all the right questions?  Is the project defined as a ‘Resort,’ a ‘Family Activity Center,’ or some other type of entity?  Does this get reviewed as disassociated single entities such as a swimming pool, a restaurant, a meeting facility, a gymnasium, etc., or is it evaluated as a whole?  Once the proposed project is approved, are the functions associated with it locked in, and is the proponent prevented from adding additional facilities or functions in the  future, for example to promote and support a high membership drive?  How will this facility be regulated?

Is the review going to be conducted in a piecemeal manner or will all the parts and pieces be reviewed both individually and collectively?

Too many questions remain for us to blithely accept, as a positive, the AYC expansion project.

Details on Public Notice AYC

I called Planning and Zoning for contact information on the Public Notice for the AYC expansion project.  I would strongly suggest that you contact them, by one means or another listed below.  This is the type of situation I’ve remarked on time and again, where there is still time remaining to modify the outcome before irrevocable decisions are made without our input.

P&Z is waiting for your comments.  You can:

Call Kevin Scott’s office and speak to him personally about your concerns over this project.

410-263-7961, ext. 7795.  If you would like to see the site design maps you can make an appointment for him to show them to you.

Email your comments to:

kcscott@annapolis.gov  If you wish you can cc your email to Mr. Scott to

pgutwald@annapols.gov  and to

ets@annapolis.gov

Be sure to note the project numbers:  SDP2016-011  and SE2016-004

If you prefer traditional mail:

Annapolis Planning and Zoning Department, 145 Gorman Street, 3^rd Floor, Annapolis, MD  21401

You can go online to Annapolis.gov  P&Z Forms and Permits  Follow the prompts to see the site design review process maps.

Comments are invited through April 8, 2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Public Notice on AYC Project

Standing Up for the Community

What do we, as the community, need to do to save our neighborhood from over-development?  Let’s take an obvious case in point:  The Crystal Spring Forest project.

The project proposal ‘updates’ keep on coming, the community has voiced its overwhelming opposition complete with informed arguments.  The process has been ongoing for years.  The proposal has been tweaked by the developer.  But, bottom line, Crystal Spring Forest remains on the endangered list.  We keep waiting for the literal ax to fall.  Why are we in this untenable position?  Because at the stage of a project actually being proposed, the public is already at a considerable disadvantage.   Strong opposition, well organized, seems to be having little impact at what is closer to the end, than the beginning of the process.

Once the basics of planning and zoning have been set in place, and the development chess pieces are locked in, the outcome is inevitable.  Why is the community at a disadvantage?  Because, unlike the project proponents, we are in unfamiliar territory.  The developers, their  lawyers and consultants, deal with planning and zoning, public policy, regulatory tools and the legislative process all the time. It’s what they do.  They have no vested interest in our environment or in us, as residents.  Their interest is in making a profit.

We, the community, need a community-friendly tool that informs us about the elements of these processes and lets us know when and how to be involved at the stages where we can make a difference.  In effect, we need an early warning system.

Below you will find an example of a process flow chart that can be used by Planning and Zoning as well as other agencies involved in the Planning and Zoning development process.  This may help give the community a clear heads-up (that early warning) concerning which step in the process is being worked on, and where and how the community needs to be involved.

The last two Town Hall meetings held by Alderman Arnett (the first primarily about the AYC project, the second about the Eastport Shopping Center), had the expected combination of platitudes, pretty pictures and heavy-handed marketing.  The range of comments indicated concerns that the Eastport we all know may be on the road to extinction.  Sure, part of that concern is a response to change, but much of it is well-founded and based on the fear that the developers are on the verge of taking over.

Leo Wilson, architect for both projects, offered the predictable platitudes about the benefits of the projects.  But here are two things that were unexpected:  First, both projects seem to have been cut back;  second, during this last briefing, the one on the Shopping Center, it was as though Wilson separated himself from the project and placed himself in the position of an immediate neighbor, as if he would have to live next door to the project, would have to live with the building, the pedestrian and road traffic and all the impacts of a large building project.  His design vocabulary focused on variable roof lines, waterfront community facades and concern for scale.

What am I getting at?  Finally, it may be that attention is being paid to the importance of the context of the building, height, site density.  Architect Wilson prefaced several of his presentation points with “What is Eastport?”  That, of course, is the essence of everything we discuss on this site, Eastport Defined.  Could it be we’re getting through, even just a little?  Take a look at that chart:

In order to preserve and protect Eastport we need to involve ourselves in this process early and often.  We need to understand the elements that constitute our community as a whole, as well as the elements of family and neighborhood that make Eastport unique and worthy of protection.  One of those elements is Eastport’s diversity.  Interestingly, the turnout at the town halls did not reflect that diversity. 

So here’s a new additional challenge:  How can we define our community or protect that community if we don’t have representation from the whole community?

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome and will be responded to quickly.

Share this:

We received a request from the friends of Crystal Spring Forest.  We are sharing it with all of you in the hope that you will sign their new petition.  As we are continuingly aware, the developer has no intention of stopping his plans to decimate our forest.

The email from Crystal Spring is in Share:  Community Announcements