Comments on: Zoning change could raise the roof in Fenton Village

By: Glenn Kreger

Glenn Kreger — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:30:51 +0000

There is also a significant area available for high rise development in the Ripley District just south of the transit center, between the railroad tracks and Georgia Avenue. So far, only two projects have been approved in the Ripley District; neither has been constructed yet.

Editor’s note: Glenn Kreger is acting chief of community-based planning with the county’s planning department. — JD (Apr 23, 2008)

By: Easley

Easley — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:31:05 +0000

Quite a few people opposing higher buildings in ESS are doing so because they are worried that a tall building will block the sun on their home. Being that I live in the shadow of Silver Spring Towers, I can see that arguement, but considering you live in an Urban district, thems the breaks.

By: Woodsider

Woodsider — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:01:34 +0000

The lower cap on GA is probably because of the “historic” storefronts of 1-2 stories that most certainly have to be preserved. I don’t know this for sure but am guessing. I agree that they should be, too, but there’s nothing wrong with a very fast rise in stories behind these storefronts.

By: paul_silver_spring

paul_silver_spring — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:53:34 +0000

I understand the lower cap near the residential neighborhoods on the other side of fenton… but why’s there a lower cap along georgia?? It’s a wide street with no single family homes in sight… that part makes no sense to me….

By: Thayer Avenue

Thayer Avenue — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:43:24 +0000

I’m with David. Where else are we going to put density to support the growing businesses in the CBD? Faulkland Chase is out. The Paul Sarbanes Transit Center is going to eat up real estate. Where do we go? I think the only answer is up. Maybe not to 143 feet, but I think the 60-foot barrier for everything else in the “Village” is unrealistic, and saying that this could “ruin the whole idea of Fenton as a Village” is shortsighted.

What defines a village? I would say the people define the village, and if we can maintain the focus on affordable housing while balancing with smart growth, why not build to 143′ in some places? Sure, we’ll need to have the infrastructure – especially where transportation is concerned – to support it, but don’t we have the time to plan for that? Shouldn’t that be a focus instead of drawing a line in the sand on building height?

By: David

David — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:38:52 +0000

I rencetly posted my support for higher building heights in Fenton Village in response to a similar story recently published in The Silver Spring Scene, so I won't repeat my comments here except to say that I'm not on board with "Fenton Village" remaining a "village" in the sense that the land uses would be mostly 1-2 story buildings. The area is in the heart of an urban district and should become more dense to accomodate the county's growing population and provide workforce housing. It's possible to do this while accomodating useful green space (see the MNCPPC's concept of a green space plan for the central business district) and by stepping down heights to the East. I also think care should be taken to support local business and to encourage small-scale ground floor retail in Fenton Village and this too should be compatable with greater density.