1
00:00:02,080 --> 00:00:07,279
This conference will now be recorded.
There you go.

2
00:00:05,520 --> 00:00:12,559
» Great. Okay. So, we'll call the meeting
to order. The board has called this

3
00:00:10,160 --> 00:00:16,560
special meeting to ensure that we can
finalize and submit to the planning

4
00:00:14,320 --> 00:00:21,359
board detailed written testimony by
early September. That will also be the

5
00:00:18,720 --> 00:00:26,320
basis for the oral testimony that vi
board vice chair Lou Morsburgger will

6
00:00:23,840 --> 00:00:30,560
provide during the planning board's
September 14th public hearing on the

7
00:00:28,240 --> 00:00:34,640
friendship heights sector plan draft.
That's our action item tonight to

8
00:00:32,719 --> 00:00:38,239
finalize our written testimony for
September. We have a very tight

9
00:00:36,719 --> 00:00:45,040
turnaround, hence the need to have
tonight's virtual emergency meeting. Um,

10
00:00:42,879 --> 00:00:49,200
I want to convey the board's sincere
thank you to our village ad hoc

11
00:00:47,600 --> 00:00:54,239
friendship hike sector plan committee
for its recommendations. The committee

12
00:00:51,760 --> 00:00:58,000
has been working tirelessly. Bill Van
Horn, Jonathan Halprren, Allison D.

13
00:00:56,480 --> 00:01:01,359
Giovani
um the committee's very thoughtful

14
00:00:59,840 --> 00:01:06,640
recommendations will be discussed
tonight and committee member Allison

15
00:01:03,280 --> 00:01:10,640
will be speaking later in this meeting.
Also under consider our consideration is

16
00:01:08,720 --> 00:01:14,240
all the comments and feedback from
residents that have been gathered by

17
00:01:11,920 --> 00:01:17,280
village staff. The board has been
provided with all of the written

18
00:01:15,520 --> 00:01:21,600
testimony and comments submitted to the
village office through 4 p.m. this

19
00:01:19,680 --> 00:01:25,759
afternoon.
Um we're all in this together. The

20
00:01:24,000 --> 00:01:31,360
members of the board of managers of Chvy
Chase Village and I believe all of our

21
00:01:27,600 --> 00:01:35,520
residents support a revitalized mixeduse
Friendship Heights that strengthens the

22
00:01:33,840 --> 00:01:39,600
commercial district, improves
walkability and public space, and

23
00:01:37,280 --> 00:01:45,280
importantly also respects the
established single family neighborhoods

24
00:01:41,600 --> 00:01:49,439
immediately in joining the plan area.
It's important to emphasize that the

25
00:01:46,960 --> 00:01:53,360
village wishes to remain an active and
constructive partner with Montgomery

26
00:01:51,600 --> 00:01:58,240
County Council, Montgomery County
Planning, the Cherry Chase Land Company,

27
00:01:55,759 --> 00:02:02,640
the Village Friendship Heights as the
sector plan evolves and proceeds. We're

28
00:02:00,640 --> 00:02:08,959
stakeholders and we have a voice at the
table. Um, it's inevitable that the plan

29
00:02:06,960 --> 00:02:13,200
will allow for increased commercial
residential density and building

30
00:02:10,959 --> 00:02:17,760
heights. Our voice at the table is that
we want this to be accompanied by a

31
00:02:15,680 --> 00:02:22,480
clear, durable, enforcable transition
from the village. I think about this all

32
00:02:20,480 --> 00:02:26,400
the time when I'm walking around. What
will the edge look like? How can we

33
00:02:24,319 --> 00:02:31,360
prepare for the edge with enhanced
landscaping and greenery? And how will

34
00:02:28,800 --> 00:02:36,800
that buffering edge be written into a
new enforcable overlay zone?

35
00:02:34,720 --> 00:02:41,519
Um, we've been gathering advice from our
zoning council and other land use

36
00:02:38,560 --> 00:02:46,879
professionals. I believe that anything
overly aggressive proposed at this stage

37
00:02:44,400 --> 00:02:51,920
could be counterproductive later when
the pro process proceeds from the

38
00:02:49,440 --> 00:02:56,959
planning board to the county council.
Um, as you know, we modified our agenda

39
00:02:54,959 --> 00:03:03,120
for this evening to include a public
hearing. Residents who wish to speak are

40
00:03:00,400 --> 00:03:08,400
asked to type their name into the chat
and to remain muted until your name is

41
00:03:05,280 --> 00:03:12,319
called. I think um Shaina will be
referring that and depending on the

42
00:03:10,720 --> 00:03:16,400
number of people who wish to speak, I'll
put a two-minute limit on each speaker

43
00:03:14,159 --> 00:03:20,959
so that we can have time to conduct the
board's business of our written

44
00:03:18,319 --> 00:03:25,840
testimony. If you've already submitted a
written comment, um it's been provided

45
00:03:23,840 --> 00:03:30,720
to us and you're encouraged to generally
summarize your position so that the

46
00:03:27,599 --> 00:03:36,799
board has sufficient time to discuss its
position on the various proposals.

47
00:03:34,319 --> 00:03:41,599
Um, everyone knows this, but I'm going
to remind us all anyway. The village has

48
00:03:39,360 --> 00:03:46,080
an important stake in the sector plan,
but the final decision on the plan will

49
00:03:43,680 --> 00:03:50,319
not be decided by the village board.
We're not the deciders. The planning

50
00:03:48,400 --> 00:03:54,480
board will review the current draft,
make revisions, transmit its

51
00:03:52,319 --> 00:04:00,319
recommendations in a revised draft to
the county council, who make a final

52
00:03:56,799 --> 00:04:04,879
decision after making its own revisions.
But village residents can continue to

53
00:04:02,480 --> 00:04:10,159
lobby the county. We're not working at
cross purposes to that. We urge

54
00:04:07,519 --> 00:04:14,319
residents to submit written testimony or
sign up to testify before the planning

55
00:04:12,080 --> 00:04:18,079
board to ensure that your concerns are
heard by the planning board as they

56
00:04:16,320 --> 00:04:22,560
consider the current draft plan
recommendations.

57
00:04:19,680 --> 00:04:26,960
Um before the public hearing, I'll turn
the meeting over to our zoning attorney,

58
00:04:24,240 --> 00:04:31,040
Michelle Rosenfeld, to provide an
overview of the sector plan schedule,

59
00:04:29,680 --> 00:04:36,720
highlighting the opportunities for
continued public engagement, followed by

60
00:04:33,600 --> 00:04:41,600
the public hearing. Um Michelle, thank
you. Your help and time has been

61
00:04:39,120 --> 00:04:46,199
invaluable. Really, thank you so much.
So, I'm turning it over to Michelle

62
00:04:42,960 --> 00:04:46,199
right now.

63
00:04:51,600 --> 00:04:55,240
Uh, you're muted.

64
00:04:57,840 --> 00:05:01,120
You're muted.
>> There we go. Is that better?

65
00:05:00,160 --> 00:05:05,040
» Yeah. Thank you.
>> Sorry about that. Um before we get into

66
00:05:03,360 --> 00:05:09,680
the substance of the recommendations
tonight, I wanted to just give a very

67
00:05:06,800 --> 00:05:13,680
brief overview of the multiple steps
that occur during the sector plan

68
00:05:12,000 --> 00:05:20,400
amendment process and then the
implementation phases that follow. At

69
00:05:16,880 --> 00:05:24,479
this point, we are at the uh staff draft
and there will be the upcoming public

70
00:05:22,400 --> 00:05:28,560
hearings before the planning board. The
planning board will hear testimony at

71
00:05:26,320 --> 00:05:34,080
that hear at those hearings, receive
written correspondence, and subsequently

72
00:05:31,199 --> 00:05:38,000
schedule its own work sessions where the
planning board and staff will discuss

73
00:05:36,160 --> 00:05:42,639
the various recommendations and the
public testimony that's been presented.

74
00:05:40,320 --> 00:05:47,280
And the board will develop its own
recommendations. It will accept a number

75
00:05:44,960 --> 00:05:52,720
of them. It may well modify a number of
them. And then staff will take the

76
00:05:49,759 --> 00:05:57,520
board's recommendations and amend the
current document and convert that into

77
00:05:54,880 --> 00:06:02,160
the planning board draft. And that will
go up to the county council for review

78
00:05:59,840 --> 00:06:06,560
and consideration.
At that point, the county council will

79
00:06:03,840 --> 00:06:12,800
conduct its own public hearings and then
send the draft to one of its committees

80
00:06:10,240 --> 00:06:17,120
for committee review and consideration,
which then will send its own

81
00:06:14,720 --> 00:06:21,440
recommendations to the council. and then
the council will have its own work

82
00:06:18,639 --> 00:06:26,880
sessions as well. So there will be
multiple opportunities for additional

83
00:06:23,919 --> 00:06:31,919
public hearings and additional input.
There is not an overlay zone at the

84
00:06:29,440 --> 00:06:36,720
moment as we all know. Planning staff
has advised us that they will be

85
00:06:33,919 --> 00:06:41,840
drafting an overlay zone after the
planning board recommendations have been

86
00:06:38,639 --> 00:06:45,840
issued and there will be public a public
hearing before the planning board on the

87
00:06:43,919 --> 00:06:50,400
draft overlay zone. The planning board
will hold its work session and then it

88
00:06:47,919 --> 00:06:55,680
will transmit a proposed draft overlay
zone to the council with a

89
00:06:52,479 --> 00:07:02,160
recommendation that it be introduced and
that will run roughly in parallel with

90
00:06:59,120 --> 00:07:05,840
the sector plan process. Uh the overlay
zone may not be adopted until shortly

91
00:07:04,160 --> 00:07:12,080
after the sector plan but it will
reflect the recommendations in the final

92
00:07:08,720 --> 00:07:17,199
plan as as approved by the council. So
that process also will have multiple

93
00:07:14,639 --> 00:07:22,720
opportunities for public testimony and
input both at the planning board and at

94
00:07:19,599 --> 00:07:27,680
the county council level. The next step
is a sectional map amendment which is a

95
00:07:25,840 --> 00:07:33,039
very straightforward process where the
county council legislatively reszones

96
00:07:31,199 --> 00:07:40,800
the properties that are subject to the
sector plan and basically plants the new

97
00:07:36,639 --> 00:07:45,440
zoning on the properties. And it's
really a ministerial type of process.

98
00:07:43,440 --> 00:07:50,880
Technically, there's public a public
hearing opportunity, but it generally is

99
00:07:48,080 --> 00:07:56,479
just a reflection of mapping uh in the
zoning maps the recommendations that

100
00:07:53,199 --> 00:08:03,120
come out of the sector plan itself.
And then if we could just quickly go to

101
00:07:58,240 --> 00:08:07,759
the next page, um the there also uh and
I'm going up now to the development

102
00:08:05,440 --> 00:08:13,280
process itself.
Um once after the sector after the

103
00:08:11,199 --> 00:08:18,319
sectional map amendment is in effect and
the zoning is in effect then there are

104
00:08:16,319 --> 00:08:24,560
three subsequent opportunities for
public input through the development

105
00:08:21,360 --> 00:08:31,120
process itself. There is a sketch plan
which is a very general overview of what

106
00:08:27,919 --> 00:08:35,680
a developer may propose. Uh it allows
for a public hearing before the planning

107
00:08:33,039 --> 00:08:42,640
board and it just reflects general
design, density, circulation, public

108
00:08:39,200 --> 00:08:48,240
benefits at a very high level. A sketch
plan approval requires a planning board

109
00:08:45,519 --> 00:08:52,560
determination that the proposal will
substantially conform with the

110
00:08:50,480 --> 00:08:59,600
recommendations of the applicable master
plan. That is required zoning ordinance

111
00:08:55,760 --> 00:09:04,000
finding. So even absent a an overlay
zone and I'm not discounting the

112
00:09:01,680 --> 00:09:09,360
importance of an overlay zone but even
absent an overlay zone the sector plan

113
00:09:07,120 --> 00:09:14,240
recommendations become essentially
binding with respect to this conformity

114
00:09:11,920 --> 00:09:18,000
finding. That conformity finding is
repeated at preliminary plan where the

115
00:09:16,720 --> 00:09:24,560
boundaries of the property are
established primarily um requiring uh

116
00:09:21,839 --> 00:09:29,040
any public dedications for road road
improvements that kind of thing. And

117
00:09:26,800 --> 00:09:33,839
again at site plan where there is a very
detailed overview

118
00:09:31,360 --> 00:09:39,440
of the applicant's development plan, the
site layout, architectural renderings,

119
00:09:36,399 --> 00:09:45,279
open space, landscaping, lighting and
again a site planing board has to find

120
00:09:42,720 --> 00:09:49,120
that the project substantially conforms
with the recommendations of the

121
00:09:46,720 --> 00:09:54,880
applicable master plan and any
guidelines approved by the board that

122
00:09:51,040 --> 00:10:02,000
implement the applicable plan.
So through the um

123
00:09:58,800 --> 00:10:08,640
through the um sectional map amendment,
we're probably looking a year and a half

124
00:10:04,560 --> 00:10:14,160
or so um for the full review and
implementation process and then of

125
00:10:10,720 --> 00:10:19,279
course the development uh proposals will
come at the it's entirely depending

126
00:10:17,360 --> 00:10:24,640
dependent on the timing of the property
owner actions. So I just wanted to give

127
00:10:22,480 --> 00:10:30,160
a sort of start to finish overview of
what we're looking at down the road and

128
00:10:27,360 --> 00:10:35,680
that's just a highle summary.
>> Great. Thank you very much. Um probably

129
00:10:32,800 --> 00:10:42,079
people know this but the only
um property owner developer we're

130
00:10:38,880 --> 00:10:47,120
dealing with on our edge is Chvy Chase
Land Company. So that um simplifies

131
00:10:45,120 --> 00:10:50,480
things a little bit for us because you
know we meet with them. We're meeting

132
00:10:48,399 --> 00:10:57,680
that with them in September to get a
sense of um their thoughts about

133
00:10:55,440 --> 00:11:03,040
what they'd like to do when the area is
reszoned. Um and this there's stuff to

134
00:11:01,279 --> 00:11:07,920
like about what the planning staff has
recommended because they recognize the

135
00:11:05,040 --> 00:11:14,399
importance of a transition from single
family homes to

136
00:11:10,399 --> 00:11:20,720
uh this new sector plan development. So,
I think that now's the time to start the

137
00:11:17,279 --> 00:11:26,640
public hearing. And I have only seen one
person sign up. Is that correct, Shaina?

138
00:11:24,240 --> 00:11:30,240
» Correct. I only see Kathy and John
Filin. If there are others who are

139
00:11:28,560 --> 00:11:33,279
interested in being heard during the
public hearing, please type your name

140
00:11:31,680 --> 00:11:37,680
into the chat.
>> Okay. So,

141
00:11:35,440 --> 00:11:42,440
uh can we start with are they speaking
together? John and Kathy, are you

142
00:11:39,440 --> 00:11:42,440
together?

143
00:11:45,360 --> 00:11:52,440
Are they unmuted?
>> Mr. and Mrs. Philin, I have sent you an

144
00:11:48,720 --> 00:11:52,440
unmute request.

145
00:11:53,920 --> 00:11:59,880
» You can please unmute yourselves.
>> I see John P.

146
00:12:03,519 --> 00:12:10,040
» I I unfortunately cannot unmute them,
but I have sent an unmute request.

147
00:12:15,040 --> 00:12:18,040
Okay,

148
00:12:18,399 --> 00:12:24,920
» Mr. and Mrs. Filin, are you able to hear
us?

149
00:12:21,120 --> 00:12:24,920
» I don't see them there.

150
00:12:29,360 --> 00:12:34,079
» And while we wait for them to unmute,
again, a reminder for anyone who would

151
00:12:32,399 --> 00:12:40,800
like to speak during the public hearing,
please type your name into the chat.

152
00:12:38,160 --> 00:12:40,800
Shane

153
00:12:41,200 --> 00:12:46,639
Shaina, can you hear me?
>> Yes, I can.

154
00:12:44,240 --> 00:12:51,120
» Oh, good. You can hear me? Sorry.
>> Sorry.

155
00:12:48,639 --> 00:12:57,639
» Okay, Shaya, would you mind putting up
that slide that we had queued up?

156
00:12:53,760 --> 00:12:57,639
Perfect. Thank you.

157
00:12:58,560 --> 00:13:05,040
» Thank you. Okay, you can hear me?
>> Yes.

158
00:13:02,000 --> 00:13:12,560
» Okay. Thank you. First of all, um my
name is Kathy Philin and I live at 5414

159
00:13:09,519 --> 00:13:19,200
Grove Street across from beautiful
Western Grove Park. Thank you for giving

160
00:13:16,079 --> 00:13:25,040
me a few minutes to speak.
First, I want everyone to know that I am

161
00:13:22,560 --> 00:13:31,279
for the revitalization of Friendship
Heights and I support development at

162
00:13:28,240 --> 00:13:37,519
Sachs in the collection site. And I,
like everyone else, I'm hoping for a

163
00:13:34,240 --> 00:13:42,880
development that can revitalize this
community.

164
00:13:39,760 --> 00:13:47,839
But I want to address an undercurrent
that has loomed in the background since

165
00:13:45,279 --> 00:13:54,320
this process began. And it's been
bothering me all summer long because

166
00:13:50,880 --> 00:14:00,880
this word has been used in my presence.
And I have to say that it's gotten under

167
00:13:57,120 --> 00:14:06,959
my skin. The word is nimi.
The suggestion that our community is

168
00:14:04,000 --> 00:14:14,480
simply opposing these heights because
they are in our backyard.

169
00:14:10,320 --> 00:14:20,000
I'd like you to look at this rendering.
This is not my drawing. This is not an

170
00:14:17,600 --> 00:14:26,560
alarmist projection.
This is what the proposed zoning

171
00:14:22,800 --> 00:14:32,880
actually builds out to prepared by our
own urban planner. Look at it. It's not

172
00:14:31,040 --> 00:14:40,320
hypothetical.
This is not worst case scenario.

173
00:14:35,920 --> 00:14:45,920
This is what a developer will legally be
allowed to build. 200 foot towers,

174
00:14:43,920 --> 00:14:53,920
approximately 20 stories at the
collection, 250 ft at Wisconsin Circle,

175
00:14:50,800 --> 00:15:00,000
100 foot building at Sachs, right next
to our single family neighborhood, right

176
00:14:56,480 --> 00:15:06,880
next to Western Grove Park.
Looking at that rendering, we can

177
00:15:03,519 --> 00:15:15,519
clearly see that our single family
neighborhood is completely engulfed by

178
00:15:11,440 --> 00:15:21,120
this height and massing of what is being
proposed.

179
00:15:17,519 --> 00:15:28,480
Challenging heights that overwhelm and
engulf a single family neighborhood is

180
00:15:24,079 --> 00:15:35,120
not nimi. It's responsible advocacy.
Am I a nimi because I look at this

181
00:15:31,600 --> 00:15:40,800
rendering and say these heights show no
compatibility with the scale of our

182
00:15:37,600 --> 00:15:47,519
single family neighborhood? Am I a nimi
because I look at this rendering and I

183
00:15:43,680 --> 00:15:53,120
see no meaningful transition next to a
single family neighborhood? I don't

184
00:15:49,759 --> 00:15:58,160
think so. I think it is called looking
at the evidence.

185
00:15:55,440 --> 00:16:03,759
Nimi means opposing something out of
self-interest with no legitimate

186
00:16:00,399 --> 00:16:10,480
planning basis. We have legitimate
planning basis. This site is narrow. It

187
00:16:07,600 --> 00:16:17,040
abuts a single family neighborhood. The
zoning text contains no protective

188
00:16:13,839 --> 00:16:23,120
language whatsoever. No shadow studies
were commissioned, no light studies, no

189
00:16:20,480 --> 00:16:31,279
engineering analysis of how these
heights interact on this constrained

190
00:16:26,639 --> 00:16:38,399
site. The community overwhelmingly said
they did not want buildings at 200 ft.

191
00:16:34,720 --> 00:16:44,000
These heights were not validated by any
independent analysis. They were simply

192
00:16:41,920 --> 00:16:51,680
proposed.
This is not an uninformed reaction. This

193
00:16:48,480 --> 00:16:59,360
is residents looking at the evidence and
drawing a reasonable conclusion.

194
00:16:55,519 --> 00:17:07,039
We should not allow this community to be
permanently transformed for our lifetime

195
00:17:02,959 --> 00:17:12,480
and beyond because we are afraid of a
made up word. Thank you.

196
00:17:12,640 --> 00:17:18,880
Thank you for your comments.
Do we have anyone else who's um signed

197
00:17:17,439 --> 00:17:23,120
up to
>> This is John. I'd like to

198
00:17:20,880 --> 00:17:25,919
» Okay,
>> doing this together here. So, good

199
00:17:25,360 --> 00:17:29,760
evening.
>> Hi, John.

200
00:17:27,760 --> 00:17:34,080
» How are you? I thank you very much for
the chance to speak. When the village

201
00:17:32,320 --> 00:17:39,760
asked residents to get informed on this
plan, I took it took the assignment

202
00:17:37,039 --> 00:17:44,799
seriously, probably more seriously than
you wanted, judging by the volume of

203
00:17:41,360 --> 00:17:49,840
paper I've sent. I'll spare you tonight.
It has been an education. The deeper I

204
00:17:47,120 --> 00:17:55,039
went, the more I found that concern me.
I know everybody here is working towards

205
00:17:51,760 --> 00:18:00,960
the same goal as you expressed. I also
know this is a long road with a lot of

206
00:17:57,760 --> 00:18:06,400
moving parts and competing interests and
that it is hard for any of us to follow.

207
00:18:04,240 --> 00:18:10,480
We all want something on the collection
and SAC site that helps this

208
00:18:08,240 --> 00:18:14,480
neighborhood and I respect that
different people have different avenues

209
00:18:12,480 --> 00:18:20,160
and different tools for shaping what
gets built. Here's what I want to say.

210
00:18:17,840 --> 00:18:26,080
Height is not a separate question from
density. On a site this narrow, it is

211
00:18:23,440 --> 00:18:32,160
the same question. You cannot build
three times the area of the land by

212
00:18:28,080 --> 00:18:38,080
spreading out. There isn't enough land.
The only way there is is up. So the

213
00:18:35,840 --> 00:18:44,080
heights being proposed are not a design
choice. They are the arithmetic.

214
00:18:41,520 --> 00:18:50,880
They're the arithmetic of the density
being authorized. Reduce the density and

215
00:18:47,280 --> 00:18:56,160
the heights come down on their own.
and CR3

216
00:18:52,960 --> 00:19:02,400
was a choice, not a requirement. The
zoning ordinance has lower CR tiers. The

217
00:18:59,840 --> 00:19:06,480
only justification the plan's own table
gives for this reasonzoning is to

218
00:19:04,799 --> 00:19:12,559
increase flexibility for future
development. That is not an analysis of

219
00:19:09,679 --> 00:19:18,240
what this site can carry. Nobody has
shown why three is the right number here

220
00:19:15,840 --> 00:19:23,679
rather than something lower. And if
height follows density, that number is

221
00:19:20,559 --> 00:19:28,880
the only lever that matters. And that
density permits a developer to build

222
00:19:25,840 --> 00:19:34,720
entirely residential in full compliance.
No neighborhood retail, no shops or

223
00:19:31,440 --> 00:19:38,320
restaurants, no community space, nothing
required.

224
00:19:36,240 --> 00:19:43,120
We don't have to guess what happens when
density is granted and retail is only

225
00:19:40,559 --> 00:19:50,160
encouraged. On the GEICO site, a
developer has proposed 536 residential

226
00:19:46,000 --> 00:19:55,280
units and 5,000 square feet of retail,
two small storefronts. And this plan

227
00:19:53,200 --> 00:19:59,919
removes the Chvy Chase neighborhood
retail overlay, the one instrument that

228
00:19:57,919 --> 00:20:05,520
currently requires ground floor retail
at the collection. Remove the

229
00:20:02,320 --> 00:20:12,160
requirement, add the density, and the
market does what the markets will do.

230
00:20:09,840 --> 00:20:16,559
Then there is the shape of this site
along Belmont Avenue. The protection

231
00:20:14,240 --> 00:20:23,200
being offered starts less than 10 steps
from the property line. And that line is

232
00:20:19,280 --> 00:20:31,280
on our side of the wall. 10 steps in, a
building can be 45 ft tall. 20 steps in,

233
00:20:27,360 --> 00:20:40,559
75 ft. Along Belmont Buffer Park, less
than 10 steps in, you are at 60 feet

234
00:20:34,640 --> 00:20:45,760
tall. and 95 ft by 20 steps.
And stepbacks have been proposed at

235
00:20:43,840 --> 00:20:50,960
those northern edges by the ad hoc
committee, which I credit.

236
00:20:48,159 --> 00:20:55,840
But further south, from Tiffany's
building down to the grocery store

237
00:20:52,640 --> 00:21:01,520
parking lot, there are no step backs at
all. That is also the stretch where

238
00:20:59,200 --> 00:21:09,280
today's zoning does the most work for
the village. It holds height at 55 ft at

239
00:21:06,480 --> 00:21:14,960
a quarter of the density being proposed.
This plan takes it to 200 feet tall. You

240
00:21:13,280 --> 00:21:20,240
don't have to take my word for it.
Planning staff told the planning board

241
00:21:16,880 --> 00:21:27,200
on July 16th that Friendship Heights is
a very compact downtown. It has the

242
00:21:23,520 --> 00:21:33,360
density, but it only has one block deep
before you get to the neighborhood. They

243
00:21:30,159 --> 00:21:40,559
said Bethesda has a lot more blocks to
start transitioning and that here we

244
00:21:36,640 --> 00:21:48,480
have only a tiny fraction of that space.
Staff acknowledged the site is unique

245
00:21:43,440 --> 00:21:54,880
then applied the same formula. Anyway,
now the part I most want this board to

246
00:21:50,799 --> 00:22:00,240
hear and I think Michelle emphasized it
a bit ago. In 1998, development rights

247
00:21:58,559 --> 00:22:06,000
on this site were granted through the
sector plan process. Before they were

248
00:22:03,120 --> 00:22:11,200
granted, binding commitments were signed
and recorded. Commitments before

249
00:22:08,720 --> 00:22:15,480
entitlements. That is a sequence that
protected this community. them.

250
00:22:17,679 --> 00:22:26,960
Anything worked out along the way
protects this community only if it ends

251
00:22:23,280 --> 00:22:33,200
in something binding in writing recorded
before the zoning is set. Assurances are

252
00:22:30,080 --> 00:22:39,360
not protection and a handshake is not
protection along the way. So, two

253
00:22:35,520 --> 00:22:45,280
requests. first that the board satisfies
itself that it has seen the overlay lang

254
00:22:42,159 --> 00:22:51,280
language it is being asked to rely on in
sufficient detail. If it hasn't, that

255
00:22:47,919 --> 00:22:56,000
alone is a reason to wait. Second, the
board not endorse a height on the record

256
00:22:53,600 --> 00:23:01,679
tonight. Not because negotiating is
wrong, but because an organized

257
00:22:58,400 --> 00:23:06,559
community with a documented case is the
strongest card this village holds at any

258
00:23:03,919 --> 00:23:11,760
table. The moment the village endorses a
number, you undermine our ability to

259
00:23:08,960 --> 00:23:15,840
argue against the heights and density
before the planning board and the county

260
00:23:14,320 --> 00:23:19,840
council.
We are not in your way. We are your

261
00:23:18,559 --> 00:23:24,559
leverage.
>> Please do not give away your leverage

262
00:23:22,480 --> 00:23:29,360
before there is something binding in
writing. Once these entitlements are

263
00:23:26,799 --> 00:23:35,200
granted, they belong to whoever owns
that land forever. Thank you, Listen.

264
00:23:33,600 --> 00:23:39,960
Thanks for your comments. Okay, we have
one more comment and that's by Greg

265
00:23:36,960 --> 00:23:39,960
Dixon.

266
00:23:45,919 --> 00:23:53,080
» Is he online?
>> Uh yes, now I am.

267
00:23:50,080 --> 00:23:53,080
» Okay.

268
00:23:53,520 --> 00:24:01,600
» I really salute the
uh extraordinary work that uh John and

269
00:23:58,799 --> 00:24:05,840
Kathy have done in their analysis of all
this. It certainly woke me up to a great

270
00:24:04,240 --> 00:24:12,240
extent.
Uh I was already I was concerned but I

271
00:24:09,120 --> 00:24:18,799
was not able to really articulate all of
it until I read their very very careful

272
00:24:15,120 --> 00:24:24,240
analysis and I'm hoping the board uh
there's a lot of it. So you have to be

273
00:24:21,120 --> 00:24:29,200
persistent to read it all. But I wanted
to just briefly mention,

274
00:24:27,520 --> 00:24:33,919
you know, that all this is not
theoretical

275
00:24:30,960 --> 00:24:41,200
uh uh discussions of things that could
happen in the future. Uh uh an anecdote

276
00:24:37,520 --> 00:24:46,320
from this month uh is we live at the end
of Montgomery Street, the western end of

277
00:24:44,159 --> 00:24:52,640
Montgomery Street, ne right next to the
buffer where the entrance goes uh the or

278
00:24:50,559 --> 00:24:58,640
the exit from the village over to the
collection uh goes and uh the home

279
00:24:56,240 --> 00:25:06,000
across the street from us went up for
sale a couple of months ago. Uh it's a

280
00:25:01,919 --> 00:25:13,440
large home and and an expensive home. Uh
uh it it did not sell. It has not sold.

281
00:25:10,240 --> 00:25:20,320
And the owners we know very well and we
hate to see them uh out of the village,

282
00:25:16,799 --> 00:25:26,080
but told us very explicitly that uh real
estate agents told them that one of the

283
00:25:22,640 --> 00:25:32,559
biggest problems uh giving pause to
people who were considering their lovely

284
00:25:28,640 --> 00:25:40,000
lovely home was that they were aware of
the potential of the developments

285
00:25:35,840 --> 00:25:46,400
uh in in the collection and the sachs.
area. Uh that that real estate agents

286
00:25:43,200 --> 00:25:52,640
have had to divulge all of that uh to
potential buyers and that it's pretty

287
00:25:49,600 --> 00:25:58,640
easy to find some of these things
>> and and that uh

288
00:25:56,000 --> 00:26:02,880
and that it really gave it several
potential buyers pause. They said they

289
00:26:01,279 --> 00:26:08,000
they just didn't know what they were
getting into. So,

290
00:26:05,840 --> 00:26:16,799
that's one family, but I think anyone
else who's who who thinks they might be

291
00:26:11,840 --> 00:26:21,200
uh uh wanting to uh sell or do something
different with their property uh may

292
00:26:19,520 --> 00:26:28,880
find themselves in the same condition.
That's not a theoretical future uh

293
00:26:25,120 --> 00:26:35,279
effect. It is it is happening uh right
now. Like John and Kathy, we're

294
00:26:31,440 --> 00:26:43,679
concerned with both the massing and uh
and the lack of a requirement for the

295
00:26:38,000 --> 00:26:49,520
retail uh uh uh portion of the property
that we we're we're afraid we'd end up

296
00:26:46,159 --> 00:26:54,159
with a a large block of apartments and
town houses. Uh there's nothing wrong

297
00:26:51,919 --> 00:27:02,159
with that in and of itself, but only
that with no with no replacement grocery

298
00:26:57,600 --> 00:27:10,559
store, uh few shops or or restaurants
and uh and and virtually no green space

299
00:27:05,520 --> 00:27:17,120
and uh so we add our voice to that of uh
John and Kathy u uh with our concerns.

300
00:27:15,360 --> 00:27:24,400
Uh that's it. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Greg. Um, okay.

301
00:27:20,640 --> 00:27:28,559
So, with the public hearing concluded,
we go to the next item on the agenda,

302
00:27:26,720 --> 00:27:33,039
which is,
um, I believe we're going to be talking

303
00:27:30,159 --> 00:27:39,760
to Allison Giovani, a member of the ad
hoc friendship heights sector committee

304
00:27:36,640 --> 00:27:42,640
and your report.
>> All right. Good evening. My

305
00:27:41,679 --> 00:27:47,120
» Thank you, Alison.
>> Yes, of course. Thank you for the

306
00:27:44,640 --> 00:27:50,159
introduction. Um,
good evening. My name is Alison D.

307
00:27:48,640 --> 00:27:54,080
Giovani.
Um, and like Alyssa mentioned, I serve

308
00:27:51,840 --> 00:27:59,360
on the ad hoc friendship heights sector
plan committee together with Bill Van

309
00:27:56,960 --> 00:28:03,919
Horn, who is um, not able to join us
tonight as he is away. He's our chair,

310
00:28:01,520 --> 00:28:08,080
and Jonathan Halpern, who is here and is
our former chair, and we work in

311
00:28:05,919 --> 00:28:13,120
conjunction with Michelle Rosenfield and
John Mark as a committee. Thank you for

312
00:28:10,720 --> 00:28:17,200
the opportunity to share um, our work
with you tonight. Just a little bit of

313
00:28:14,880 --> 00:28:22,080
history. Our committee was formed by
this board in October of 2025 to help

314
00:28:19,760 --> 00:28:26,960
develop the village's position on the
Friendship Heights sector plan. So our

315
00:28:24,080 --> 00:28:31,279
task has been to develop recommendations
to the board that accurately represent

316
00:28:29,600 --> 00:28:35,600
um the village's interests and as part
of that effort to liaz with the county

317
00:28:33,679 --> 00:28:39,840
the Montgomery planning staff Montgomery
County planning staff Chev Land Company

318
00:28:38,480 --> 00:28:44,399
who are the owners of the properties
that are proximal to the village and

319
00:28:41,360 --> 00:28:49,200
mostly most directly um impacted by this
plan. So over the past almost year we've

320
00:28:47,600 --> 00:28:53,919
built our recommendations around several
sources. We've collected data from

321
00:28:51,440 --> 00:28:58,399
residents that included a villagewide
survey. Um, we've collected direct

322
00:28:56,000 --> 00:29:02,000
feedback from the residents. So, we've
had a substantial volume of written

323
00:28:59,840 --> 00:29:07,200
letters and emails dating back to
November of 2024

324
00:29:04,080 --> 00:29:12,799
um that are from 18 households and
individuals and all. And we've met with

325
00:29:10,960 --> 00:29:17,279
on several occasions the Montgomery
County Planning Staff, the Chvy Chase

326
00:29:14,480 --> 00:29:21,600
Land Company, um several land use and
zoning consultants. And we have of

327
00:29:19,120 --> 00:29:26,000
course relied upon prior board guidance
to the planning department staff and

328
00:29:23,520 --> 00:29:30,480
prior communication and that has
informed all of these evolving

329
00:29:28,080 --> 00:29:34,720
recommendations that we're making today.
Before I hand it over to dive into our

330
00:29:32,960 --> 00:29:40,880
recommendations in detail, I just wanted
to make a few notes on our approach. Um

331
00:29:38,399 --> 00:29:45,919
a brief word maybe on how we've arrived
at the current recommendations.

332
00:29:43,360 --> 00:29:50,720
Um, our height and setback figures along
the village edges are grounded in the

333
00:29:47,760 --> 00:29:56,399
zoning codes compatibility standards.
Those require heights to step back at a

334
00:29:52,799 --> 00:30:00,320
1:1 ratio as the buildings rise farther
from the property line. Um to translate

335
00:29:58,880 --> 00:30:04,720
that into something that the committee
could evaluate, our land planner built

336
00:30:02,159 --> 00:30:08,559
height and massing models directly from
the site's existing topography so

337
00:30:06,720 --> 00:30:12,640
committee members could see and not just
read the practical impact of a given

338
00:30:11,200 --> 00:30:17,919
height on the neighborhood before we
settled on these recommendations.

339
00:30:15,039 --> 00:30:20,960
Um where our recommended heights differ
from one property to the next, that

340
00:30:19,440 --> 00:30:25,120
reflects real differences between the
sites themselves. So that includes

341
00:30:23,360 --> 00:30:29,200
things like grade changes, existing
vegetated buffers, each site's distance

342
00:30:27,360 --> 00:30:32,960
from transit, all of which factor into
our judgment about where added height

343
00:30:31,360 --> 00:30:37,919
and density can be absorbed with the
least impact on our neighborhood. On the

344
00:30:35,440 --> 00:30:42,000
retail front, um we've had many
conversations about zoning overlays,

345
00:30:39,600 --> 00:30:47,200
including about the current overlay that
allows for ground floor retail and a

346
00:30:44,080 --> 00:30:49,919
grocery store at this location. Um, we
spent a lot of time coming to the

347
00:30:48,640 --> 00:30:54,240
realization that the current overlay
does not mandate retail, nor does the

348
00:30:51,919 --> 00:30:59,440
proposed amendment for the SAK site for
collection or to Wisconsin Circle. And

349
00:30:56,880 --> 00:31:03,039
the committee has spent a lot of time
discussing the premise that forcing

350
00:31:00,960 --> 00:31:07,679
retail does not automatically achieve
it. Um, and that additional residential

351
00:31:05,679 --> 00:31:13,679
development may be necessary to support
and incentivize retail development.

352
00:31:10,399 --> 00:31:18,000
Um, and in light of those things, the
zoning requirements for specific amounts

353
00:31:15,520 --> 00:31:21,520
of retail do not necessarily ensure
outcomes and can possibly limit them.

354
00:31:20,000 --> 00:31:24,960
So,
we factored a lot of that into our

355
00:31:23,360 --> 00:31:28,480
recommendations.
And finally, uh, several of the

356
00:31:27,279 --> 00:31:32,559
protections that we're describing
tonight, particularly along Belmont

357
00:31:29,919 --> 00:31:38,240
Avenue and Oliver, will ultimately be
carried into a neighborhood overly zone

358
00:31:34,960 --> 00:31:41,760
that planning staff has said may only be
drafted after the sector plan

359
00:31:39,760 --> 00:31:45,120
recommendations are settled. So, we want
to be transparent that tonight's

360
00:31:43,120 --> 00:31:50,799
recommendations are a step in an ongoing
process, not a final word. We intend to

361
00:31:47,840 --> 00:31:53,600
stay engaged through all these public
hearings and make sure that our

362
00:31:52,080 --> 00:31:58,799
recommendations
um are current and that we our

363
00:31:57,279 --> 00:32:01,679
recommendations reflect what you know
the current guidance there and what

364
00:32:00,159 --> 00:32:05,200
we're recommending tonight is still
relevant. So what you're here tonight is

365
00:32:03,600 --> 00:32:08,799
not new territory. It builds on and
refineses the position that this board

366
00:32:07,200 --> 00:32:12,559
took in its prior letter to planning
staff and it's been updated to reflect

367
00:32:10,480 --> 00:32:16,320
the planning board's working draft and
several more months of review on our

368
00:32:14,399 --> 00:32:19,360
part. And our role tonight is just to
walk you through where things stand and

369
00:32:17,919 --> 00:32:24,320
where we believe the village interests
lie so that the board has what they need

370
00:32:21,600 --> 00:32:28,240
to finalize their formal position. This
is intended as an information transfer.

371
00:32:26,320 --> 00:32:33,120
So a status update and a set of
recommendations negotiation. And the two

372
00:32:31,519 --> 00:32:37,840
goals that have been at the center of
what we're presenting the entire time is

373
00:32:34,880 --> 00:32:42,640
to properly represent the opinions of
the village and preserve what makes our

374
00:32:40,240 --> 00:32:46,399
um neighborhood distinct and also to
support a successful revitalization of

375
00:32:44,640 --> 00:32:49,760
Friendship Heights um including the
collection and the sack site and

376
00:32:47,760 --> 00:32:52,480
everything that we are all discussing.
So we've laid out our current

377
00:32:50,799 --> 00:32:57,200
recommendations in detail including
comparing the positions of the um board

378
00:32:54,880 --> 00:33:02,159
and the county in a format we hope is
easy to digest. And um with that I will

379
00:33:00,000 --> 00:33:06,240
turn it over to John Marklin to walk
through our specific recommendations

380
00:33:04,080 --> 00:33:10,720
tonight.
>> Thank you Allison. For the record my

381
00:33:08,720 --> 00:33:17,360
name is John Markle on land planner. I
think you met me the last hearing

382
00:33:13,919 --> 00:33:22,080
we had. So I will move to the next
slide. So the synopsis I'm going to u

383
00:33:20,080 --> 00:33:27,279
I'm going to go over the heights
employer ratios for each of the parts of

384
00:33:25,600 --> 00:33:31,279
the plan. the Saxs property. I'll
compare existing to planning staff

385
00:33:30,080 --> 00:33:37,679
recommendations and village
recommendations. I'll do visualizations

386
00:33:34,399 --> 00:33:41,120
uh from Park Street. I'll do and I'll
look at the heights at collection

387
00:33:38,960 --> 00:33:47,039
property and also do visualizations
there. And then I'll end by looking at

388
00:33:44,159 --> 00:33:50,279
different height map comparisons.
Next slide.

389
00:33:50,320 --> 00:33:58,159
So this this slide shows uh the Sax
property looking west. So you see

390
00:33:56,320 --> 00:34:04,600
Wisconsin Avenue in the background,
Elmont Avenue, Park Street.

391
00:34:01,360 --> 00:34:04,600
Next slide.

392
00:34:05,919 --> 00:34:13,280
This this slide shows the recommend
recommendations of the planning

393
00:34:10,399 --> 00:34:21,760
department. Um
and what I want to describe the green is

394
00:34:16,960 --> 00:34:26,879
what is three F. So uh and the brown is
the full height. So uh planning

395
00:34:24,560 --> 00:34:34,159
departments recommended 150 ft at the
northern end of the sax property and 100

396
00:34:30,240 --> 00:34:42,240
ft um going north of that. Uh they've
also recommended 3.0 F. So 3.0 F will

397
00:34:38,560 --> 00:34:47,359
fill up everything in grade.
Does that make sense? Any questions?

398
00:34:45,119 --> 00:34:52,079
» Just to clarify, that's the maxed out.
That's the absolute max.

399
00:34:50,159 --> 00:34:54,720
» That's not necessarily what would be
built. It's just the max of what could

400
00:34:53,760 --> 00:34:58,160
be built.
>> Yes.

401
00:34:56,879 --> 00:35:02,240
» Thank you very much, Liz. I want to make
make that point that this image and the

402
00:35:00,560 --> 00:35:07,119
previous image that was referred to
earlier in in public testimony and

403
00:35:05,119 --> 00:35:13,599
images I'm going to be showing you are
those are those are the full building

404
00:35:10,079 --> 00:35:20,160
envelope inside of which the developer
can build. uh that means that they can

405
00:35:16,880 --> 00:35:27,520
get to that uh height and that that
density that shape but in reality most

406
00:35:24,240 --> 00:35:33,520
developers most plans never fulfill that
full build out that full envelope. Um

407
00:35:31,119 --> 00:35:38,480
all the plans I worked on for the county
all the major downtowns have never maxed

408
00:35:36,720 --> 00:35:42,320
out their density. As a matter of fact,
when they start the next sector plan

409
00:35:40,240 --> 00:35:46,400
after 20 years, there's still density on
the table because they would never maxed

410
00:35:44,000 --> 00:35:51,599
out. The plans usually, you know, they
they they're not about maxing out.

411
00:35:49,200 --> 00:35:59,680
They're about providing opportunities
for uh the owners and as well as as for

412
00:35:54,960 --> 00:36:05,359
the people who live there. Next slide.
So, this is the um the village's

413
00:36:02,160 --> 00:36:09,680
recommendation. So we recommend at 85 ft
multif family along Wisconsin Avenue and

414
00:36:07,599 --> 00:36:16,520
town houses eating sticks of three and
four along Belmont Avenue.

415
00:36:13,280 --> 00:36:16,520
Next slide.

416
00:36:19,280 --> 00:36:27,680
Uh this is the elevation excuse me
elevation but it's a actual existing

417
00:36:24,400 --> 00:36:33,599
view up Park Street uh with Belmont
Avenue. Uh he do you see my cursor?

418
00:36:32,000 --> 00:36:36,800
Is my cursor visible?
>> Uh, yeah.

419
00:36:34,400 --> 00:36:37,680
» Oh. Uh, no.
>> Yeah.

420
00:36:37,280 --> 00:36:41,280
» Okay.
>> Tell me where to point though, John.

421
00:36:39,599 --> 00:36:45,839
» Could you just point to to Bel to
Belmont Avenue?

422
00:36:43,040 --> 00:36:50,640
» Yeah. And then that's the buffer there,
the 20 20 foot buffer. That's today.

423
00:36:48,960 --> 00:36:56,720
That was taken a couple months about a
month ago. Next slide.

424
00:36:54,480 --> 00:37:01,680
And this is a section that you've seen
before that shows the village's

425
00:36:58,720 --> 00:37:07,520
recommendation for heights. So we
recommend those recommends 45 feet

426
00:37:05,119 --> 00:37:15,520
at Belmont Avenue
for 75 ft back and then stepping up to

427
00:37:10,400 --> 00:37:20,880
60 after 75 ft and ultimately to 85 ft.
Um this is an older one so it says 80

428
00:37:18,480 --> 00:37:25,200
but it's actually 85.
So that's what the village has has

429
00:37:22,720 --> 00:37:29,320
recommended and sent up to the planning
department. Next slide.

430
00:37:30,560 --> 00:37:38,640
And this is a a photo visualization of
what that could look like. So we have

431
00:37:35,839 --> 00:37:45,119
town houses in front and multif family
in the back. Multif family going to 85

432
00:37:41,440 --> 00:37:50,160
ft, town houses to 45 ft. And I'm
showing the screen here as well as a row

433
00:37:47,760 --> 00:37:56,160
of trees because that's important. the
there's an existing buffer of 20 feet

434
00:37:53,440 --> 00:37:59,680
behind the curb to the property line and
the village has put a lot of work and

435
00:37:57,760 --> 00:38:05,280
effort into creating a screen and I
recommend keeping it. So I've showed it

436
00:38:02,240 --> 00:38:09,440
here um and and also augmenting it over
time and then encouraging the planning

437
00:38:08,000 --> 00:38:14,960
department to go ahead and plant that
double row of trees in their 30 feet. So

438
00:38:11,599 --> 00:38:22,079
you'd have 50 foot buffer. And also I
recommend that any part any uh sidewalk

439
00:38:18,560 --> 00:38:26,720
that goes in goes in on Sachs property,
not on your property.

440
00:38:24,560 --> 00:38:30,640
» I think you have that you have that um
authority

441
00:38:27,680 --> 00:38:35,920
» and and part of the thinking in this is
that yes, it's now a two-sided Belmont

442
00:38:33,359 --> 00:38:42,079
with potentially if the developer wants
to town houses on the other side. That's

443
00:38:39,599 --> 00:38:47,680
better than facing the back of an
apartment building. It's better for our

444
00:38:44,800 --> 00:38:51,599
neighborhood to have a two-sided Belmont
with all of their stuff in the back of

445
00:38:50,000 --> 00:38:55,599
them.
Anyway, that's just my two cents.

446
00:38:54,000 --> 00:38:57,760
» That's a very good point. I think yeah,
if you're going to have development,

447
00:38:56,480 --> 00:39:01,440
have it facing the street so you create
a real street instead of looking at

448
00:38:59,680 --> 00:39:08,920
some, you know, the back of a store or
back of a somebody's back grill and

449
00:39:03,839 --> 00:39:08,920
trash cans. Uh, next slide.

450
00:39:11,040 --> 00:39:17,760
And this is from taken from the planning
uh planning document uh that was

451
00:39:15,200 --> 00:39:21,920
published in the end of June. Um it
shows the compatibility plane and the

452
00:39:20,000 --> 00:39:27,680
zoning ordinance in red. It says zoning
ordinance compatibility plane. It starts

453
00:39:24,240 --> 00:39:35,119
at the u face of the building at 35 ft
and goes up at a one one angle uh until

454
00:39:31,920 --> 00:39:41,599
the proposed the the allowed height. the
planning department has proposed is

455
00:39:36,720 --> 00:39:46,640
pushing that back 45 or rather 30 feet
and starting at 45 feet. So they're

456
00:39:44,320 --> 00:39:52,240
they're acknowledging the concern about
compatibility. So they're pushing that

457
00:39:48,240 --> 00:39:55,240
plane backwards uh in favor of the
village.

458
00:39:55,440 --> 00:40:04,960
Next step and next slide, excuse me.
So this is a photo realalistic u image

459
00:40:03,040 --> 00:40:12,720
of what that development could look
like. So these are multif family uh

460
00:40:08,480 --> 00:40:22,000
buildings with townhouse fronts at 45 ft
stepping um up at 1:1 ratio to 100 ft.

461
00:40:18,720 --> 00:40:26,960
And we've kept the screen in here. Um,
and also I want to make point out that

462
00:40:23,839 --> 00:40:30,800
uh on the on the left side of this image
along Belmont where the Belmont Buffer

463
00:40:28,800 --> 00:40:37,640
Park starts, the heights would jump to
60 ft. So right past that basketball

464
00:40:34,640 --> 00:40:37,640
hoop.

465
00:40:37,920 --> 00:40:44,640
Next slide.
Now moving on to the collection

466
00:40:42,640 --> 00:40:51,280
property. This is a view north from
Western Avenue uh over uh uh Western

467
00:40:48,720 --> 00:40:58,079
Grove Park to the right. And that's the
old um uh Amazon Fresh uh building there

468
00:40:55,440 --> 00:41:01,240
that's now vacant.
Next slide.

469
00:41:01,599 --> 00:41:10,000
This is uh a view looking at the same
the same place

470
00:41:06,240 --> 00:41:15,119
with the superimposed development over
existing and this is this a planning

471
00:41:11,839 --> 00:41:21,760
board recommended heights. So 200 feet,
200 um 250 feet and 60 feet along

472
00:41:18,880 --> 00:41:29,520
Belmont Buffer Park. And I want to re
reiterate this is the building envelope

473
00:41:26,480 --> 00:41:34,960
that a builder in this case Chase Land
Company can build within. Does not mean

474
00:41:32,560 --> 00:41:41,040
that it will look like this. Most likely
not. As I said, I've never seen a full

475
00:41:37,760 --> 00:41:46,720
development envelope built out. Just not
realistic. So it's really to give you

476
00:41:43,280 --> 00:41:50,319
like inside that box inside those boxes
that's where the development can take

477
00:41:48,000 --> 00:41:53,560
place.
Next slide.

478
00:41:54,640 --> 00:42:05,760
And this slide shows what three F will
get you. So uh if they were build build

479
00:42:01,839 --> 00:42:13,760
out to three a four area ratio you can
go only as high as maybe this is I think

480
00:42:08,319 --> 00:42:18,560
it's 80 90 ft. um not 200 feet. So the
calculated the F if you build it out

481
00:42:15,680 --> 00:42:24,480
instead of three this full buildout it's
closer to 6.5 to 7 F. And a question we

482
00:42:22,560 --> 00:42:30,720
have for the planning department is why
is there such a big discrepancy between

483
00:42:28,000 --> 00:42:35,200
the proposed F and proposed height
because you can never get to the heights

484
00:42:32,800 --> 00:42:39,520
they're proposing what the F they're
proposing. Typically, when you have a F

485
00:42:37,839 --> 00:42:47,280
of three in an urban area such as
Bethesda, you have heights closer to

486
00:42:42,319 --> 00:42:52,960
150, 120, 130, 14,50, sometimes 200, but
usually it's much lower than that. So,

487
00:42:50,240 --> 00:42:59,280
obviously, uh this additional height is
for benefits such as MPDUs,

488
00:42:56,079 --> 00:43:03,839
um or amenities or other public benefits
like libraries. There's a whole list

489
00:43:01,040 --> 00:43:06,880
that they mentioned, but we're wondering
uh that's a lot that's a lot of

490
00:43:05,359 --> 00:43:14,319
amenities. That's basically that's a
double the the floor area ratio. So

491
00:43:10,160 --> 00:43:18,640
that's that's a question we have.
Next slide. And I'm sorry, John, before

492
00:43:16,880 --> 00:43:23,680
we move off of this slide, could you
also just clarify for the bonus density

493
00:43:21,440 --> 00:43:30,240
permitted for MPDUs?
Roughly how many floors would that allow

494
00:43:26,480 --> 00:43:37,599
the developer to build on top of the 3.0
that you have represented in green? Oh,

495
00:43:32,960 --> 00:43:43,520
» okay. Um typically um uh MPDUs will get
you one floor. If you get same example,

496
00:43:39,680 --> 00:43:49,760
you do uh the um 50% MPDUs, you get a
22% bump. And if there's not enough

497
00:43:47,520 --> 00:43:54,960
height, which in case there is, but if
there's not enough height, then they' be

498
00:43:52,079 --> 00:44:00,319
bumped to maybe um 12 feet typically.
I've seen the most I've seen is three

499
00:43:57,839 --> 00:44:04,560
extra floors, which is like 36 feet. And
that's very that's rare. I think the the

500
00:44:02,240 --> 00:44:09,599
the most recent case I saw was in
Wheaten. I think it's a gateway the

501
00:44:06,640 --> 00:44:12,880
gateway center. So, but in this case,
you don't need more height because you

502
00:44:10,800 --> 00:44:18,079
got all all the height you need.
>> So, just to clarify for the board and

503
00:44:14,480 --> 00:44:24,160
for the community, even if they maximize
the MPDU bonus density,

504
00:44:21,280 --> 00:44:26,880
» they would still be within the max
heights that are proposed.

505
00:44:26,400 --> 00:44:31,520
» Yes.
>> Not take them over the proposed max

506
00:44:29,920 --> 00:44:36,240
heights. Okay.
That's correct. That's correct. No, I'd

507
00:44:34,079 --> 00:44:41,599
be I'd be worried if you know the the
brown was maybe one or two floors above

508
00:44:39,040 --> 00:44:45,440
or right at the green, then you say,
"Okay, they're going to go they're

509
00:44:43,599 --> 00:44:52,079
definitely going to the bump up because
they have to." But in this case, there's

510
00:44:47,280 --> 00:44:58,160
lots of room. Next slide.
And this is the the village recommended

511
00:44:54,079 --> 00:45:03,119
height. So bumping down from 250 to 200
to 170. And then along the if you see

512
00:45:01,920 --> 00:45:09,280
about the green building back there,
it's along the buffer park uh the

513
00:45:05,440 --> 00:45:14,000
Belmont buffer. It's the the villages
recommended keeping those heights at 60

514
00:45:11,760 --> 00:45:17,920
feet, not stepping up at least to half
the block

515
00:45:16,160 --> 00:45:25,319
and then stepping up to the I think it's
200 and then 150, excuse me, 170. Next

516
00:45:22,319 --> 00:45:25,319
slide.

517
00:45:25,680 --> 00:45:34,760
And this is a bird's eye view looking
west. Same thing. Uh just different

518
00:45:29,839 --> 00:45:34,760
angle. Go ahead. Next slide.

519
00:45:36,400 --> 00:45:44,720
And this is planning staff
recommendation again uh showing the 200

520
00:45:41,599 --> 00:45:52,400
ft and 250 ft. And then you see how they
step up behind the Belmont buffer park.

521
00:45:49,280 --> 00:46:00,720
Uh this all the stepups are there are in
order to respect that 45 foot uh angle

522
00:45:56,319 --> 00:46:04,040
of repose or ang compatibility angle.
Next slide.

523
00:46:04,400 --> 00:46:11,359
Okay. This is a view west on Gro Street.
Now I want to um clarif clarify this.

524
00:46:09,280 --> 00:46:16,400
This is an older image. I chose it
because I wanted to show you what um

525
00:46:14,079 --> 00:46:25,880
what what a tall building will look like
today. it heavily forested, heavily

526
00:46:19,440 --> 00:46:25,880
treed, heavily screened. Um, next slide.

527
00:46:27,359 --> 00:46:33,839
And that's what a 200 foot building
would look like. Um, it's about 160 ft

528
00:46:32,000 --> 00:46:37,520
away from the edge of the park. That's
that's the the planning department

529
00:46:35,680 --> 00:46:40,760
recommendation.
Next slide.

530
00:46:42,240 --> 00:46:47,440
And that's the uh the village
recommendation, 170 ft. It's 30 ft

531
00:46:45,839 --> 00:46:51,760
lower, but it makes a difference. Uh,
and then finally, the last slide.

532
00:46:50,240 --> 00:46:56,960
So, that's what it looks like today. And
this was actually taken today. So, you

533
00:46:54,800 --> 00:47:01,520
can't you wouldn't see any of that. As a
matter of fact, I had a hard time

534
00:46:58,560 --> 00:47:06,880
finding views uh in the village where I
could actually see these properties. Um,

535
00:47:05,040 --> 00:47:15,040
it's you've done a really good job of
screening uh uh all that development and

536
00:47:11,920 --> 00:47:19,440
it's only going to get more um only
going to get better. Uh this tree is

537
00:47:16,720 --> 00:47:24,960
going to get larger. Um you can I know
you have a lot more evergreen trees in

538
00:47:21,760 --> 00:47:29,200
there. Um granite when the leaves fall
off the trees in the winter you can see

539
00:47:26,720 --> 00:47:33,119
more but still um it's a very
significant buffer.

540
00:47:31,280 --> 00:47:40,240
Uh, next slide.
>> And we'll have a a long time to increase

541
00:47:36,319 --> 00:47:45,839
our buffer. I mean, this this doesn't
even if there were development, it would

542
00:47:42,880 --> 00:47:50,720
take a very long time and we can plant a
lot of buffering. Yes. Greenery in the

543
00:47:48,880 --> 00:47:55,040
meantime.
>> Yeah. And you you're doing a good job.

544
00:47:52,400 --> 00:47:58,960
So, I'm very impressed by the um I've
never had seen such a good buffer

545
00:47:56,720 --> 00:48:05,760
before. It's hard to get hard to get
good pictures. Um, okay. So, these are

546
00:48:02,880 --> 00:48:10,240
» these are images. Somebody wants
>> quick Yeah, quick question. Uh, Lou

547
00:48:07,359 --> 00:48:14,160
Morsburgger. Hi, John. Um, a minute ago
you said um planning board

548
00:48:11,839 --> 00:48:19,200
recommendation of aund
50 ft separation, I think.

549
00:48:16,720 --> 00:48:21,839
» Was that from the buffer to the first
building? I just wanted to make sure I

550
00:48:20,800 --> 00:48:27,280
had that straight.
>> Um, yeah, it's about 160 feet. If you

551
00:48:24,880 --> 00:48:34,720
look at the plan here, um on both plans,
the lower lower half, um they haven't

552
00:48:31,119 --> 00:48:39,119
clarified other than this map, uh what
that distance is, but I calculate it's

553
00:48:36,640 --> 00:48:42,319
around the back of the um Amazon Fresh
building where the loading dock is. And

554
00:48:41,760 --> 00:48:49,440
so
>> and that would go from um

555
00:48:45,920 --> 00:48:54,240
Western Grove Park starting there, count
160 ft to the first structure.

556
00:48:52,240 --> 00:49:00,480
» That's correct. And that and that
distance would only apply on the lower

557
00:48:56,880 --> 00:49:06,880
third of the parcel.
>> Um yeah. Well, that's that's correct. If

558
00:49:03,440 --> 00:49:10,720
you look at the map, um that that that
distance is only there. So everything

559
00:49:09,119 --> 00:49:15,760
else can be right up on the property
line, you know, along the the buffer

560
00:49:13,599 --> 00:49:22,079
» Belmont Buffer Park. Thanks.
>> Um Sure. So uh these are the uh height

561
00:49:19,280 --> 00:49:27,440
proposals recommendations. On the lower
uh on the left hand side is the planning

562
00:49:24,800 --> 00:49:32,960
recommendations and then on the right
are the the village recommendations. Uh

563
00:49:30,160 --> 00:49:38,800
they're similar but the differences are
uh the village uh I assume everybody

564
00:49:35,839 --> 00:49:42,319
knows what the the planning department's
recommendations are. We've been talking

565
00:49:40,000 --> 00:49:47,359
about them for a long time. So on the
right is the village's recommendations.

566
00:49:44,559 --> 00:49:50,640
The difference is uh on the Saxs
property you're you're asking for

567
00:49:48,960 --> 00:49:56,400
basically split the property down the
middle at 75 feet keep it 45 feet tall

568
00:49:53,839 --> 00:50:03,280
and then stepping up to 60 and then 85
ft. So uh as as shown in the previous

569
00:50:00,079 --> 00:50:08,720
section uh you don't have this stairst
step um plane that the that the planning

570
00:50:06,559 --> 00:50:13,359
department recommends or the CR zone
compatibility requires. you have

571
00:50:10,720 --> 00:50:19,119
something much gentler. Uh moving down
below um Park Avenue, you're proposing

572
00:50:16,400 --> 00:50:25,440
60 feet and 60 feet up against Belmont
Buffer Park for that half block and then

573
00:50:22,480 --> 00:50:32,400
stepping up to 170. Whereas the planning
department lets you start stepping up

574
00:50:27,839 --> 00:50:37,599
after you know uh 30 or 40 ft. And then
the difference again is you have your

575
00:50:33,839 --> 00:50:41,359
proposing 170 at the Western Grove Park
and the planning department is proposing

576
00:50:39,200 --> 00:50:44,920
200 ft.
Uh next slide

577
00:50:45,599 --> 00:50:52,160
and again this is on the left is
planning recommendations. On the right,

578
00:50:49,599 --> 00:50:57,839
we took a snippet from the FZA downtown
plan adjacent to the town of Chvy Chase.

579
00:50:55,760 --> 00:51:04,720
Um, and here you can see they're very
it's similar. Um, this is this um this

580
00:51:02,160 --> 00:51:10,640
section of Chvy Chase is wider. It's
roughly between three and 400 ft wide

581
00:51:06,960 --> 00:51:16,880
where your your strip of land is in the
200 to 300 200 250 foot um range for

582
00:51:14,880 --> 00:51:22,960
most of the property till it widens out
to south. So it's wider in Bethesda and

583
00:51:20,720 --> 00:51:28,400
they they're proposing 70 feet and 90
feet and 45 feet up against the

584
00:51:25,359 --> 00:51:33,119
properties with with the compatibility
um plane. How however because these are

585
00:51:31,520 --> 00:51:38,000
separate properties individual
properties when you move from the light

586
00:51:35,280 --> 00:51:44,720
pink to the darker pink you show you see
these numbers of 175 ft 145 ft 90 and

587
00:51:42,079 --> 00:51:49,920
909 90 those properties can can bump
right up to those heights. So, it's

588
00:51:47,359 --> 00:51:55,839
actually more extreme than what's being
proposed at at the Friendship Heights.

589
00:51:53,119 --> 00:52:01,440
And it's because the entire property is
is is one owner, one lot. So, you have

590
00:51:59,280 --> 00:52:08,559
that advantage.
Um, and I think that's the last slide.

591
00:52:05,040 --> 00:52:16,559
Uh, are there any questions or comments?
>> Does the board have questions for John?

592
00:52:12,400 --> 00:52:22,000
» I could jump in with another uh just to
make sure how the compatibility plane is

593
00:52:18,880 --> 00:52:27,280
calculated. What determines where the
the the initial edge of the plane

594
00:52:25,040 --> 00:52:33,920
commences? And my reason for asking that
is on the uh July 16th hearing, one of

595
00:52:31,040 --> 00:52:37,599
the planning board members asked why
such a generous plane was being

596
00:52:36,079 --> 00:52:43,839
proposed.
Meaning, why not why not start it,

597
00:52:41,200 --> 00:52:49,760
» I guess, closer in and make it steeper
to allow and you know, they suggested

598
00:52:46,800 --> 00:52:54,720
even taller heights. So, what what
anchors the compatibility plane?

599
00:52:52,800 --> 00:53:00,240
» It's it's part of the CR zone. It's a
zone. It's required by the zone. And so,

600
00:52:57,760 --> 00:53:04,559
you see a zoning ordinance compatibility
plane in red. That's required by the

601
00:53:02,720 --> 00:53:10,640
zones. Whenever you have a CR zone
that's adjacent to a residentially zone

602
00:53:07,440 --> 00:53:15,520
property, you must follow this plane.
And what the planning department has has

603
00:53:12,960 --> 00:53:20,319
recommended is pushing the plane back to
accommodate the village. And what I

604
00:53:17,280 --> 00:53:25,359
think maybe the uh planning board is is
is um pushing back on is pushing that

605
00:53:23,440 --> 00:53:31,520
back. I think they're they're saying no,
just go with the regular uh CR zone

606
00:53:28,480 --> 00:53:35,520
compatibility plane. Um that's my guess.
That's that's what I heard because

607
00:53:34,000 --> 00:53:40,880
they're interested in, you know,
fulfilling the development potential of

608
00:53:38,160 --> 00:53:47,200
these properties. um which is
understandable. Uh so I would say maybe

609
00:53:44,559 --> 00:53:53,440
in your testimony that that this this
plane at at the very least proposed

610
00:53:49,920 --> 00:53:59,119
plane um be preserved and not go to the
to the uh the zoning allowed plane.

611
00:53:57,359 --> 00:54:05,920
» Right. And the staff spoke to that. They
did say that it was an acknowledgement

612
00:54:01,599 --> 00:54:14,400
that this is a a narrow a oneb block
area and there needs to be sufficient

613
00:54:10,559 --> 00:54:18,440
um buffer transition from the single
family homes across the street.

614
00:54:20,319 --> 00:54:29,599
John uh David Winstead and and Michelle
to both of you all there obviously the

615
00:54:26,559 --> 00:54:34,400
the filibans I think did a great job of
presenting the concern along the

616
00:54:31,200 --> 00:54:39,280
residents of Grove and and Buffer Zone.
Um, and we got a got an email from

617
00:54:36,800 --> 00:54:44,240
Meredith Wellington, who has, you know,
created Western Grove Park and has been

618
00:54:41,599 --> 00:54:49,040
on the planning board. And she expressed
concern to the board this afternoon

619
00:54:46,079 --> 00:54:56,240
about any concession or reflected
language that would concede CR3 zoning

620
00:54:53,359 --> 00:55:02,160
that it's in a that the timing of doing
that is wrong. that, you know, Chvy

621
00:54:59,839 --> 00:55:05,839
Chase Land, who I've known pretty well,
you know, hasn't really proposed

622
00:55:03,839 --> 00:55:11,280
anything that we could define in terms
of what their vision for highdensity

623
00:55:08,800 --> 00:55:17,440
apartments is on the Western Avenue
side. And so, can you all respond a

624
00:55:14,480 --> 00:55:23,200
little bit to the timing of conceding
heights and conceding buffer distances

625
00:55:20,960 --> 00:55:28,640
at this point in time? You know, there's
a real what I'm hearing from the western

626
00:55:25,839 --> 00:55:33,040
edge of our community is is that if
we're going to do anything, we should

627
00:55:30,240 --> 00:55:37,920
insist that the treatment of height and
stepping is the same on the border of

628
00:55:36,160 --> 00:55:44,079
the village. Now, I know that we don't
control Chvy Chase land property at

629
00:55:40,559 --> 00:55:50,480
Western in Wisconsin. Uh but um
fundamentally I was uh Meredith's

630
00:55:47,520 --> 00:55:54,960
comments to us this afternoon were you
know she's been on the planning board.

631
00:55:52,400 --> 00:56:00,000
She understands what the staff does. She
said there's nobody on this planning

632
00:55:57,680 --> 00:56:05,520
board right now that would do anything
other than maximizing size of

633
00:56:02,960 --> 00:56:09,920
multifamily for the lack of affordable
housing in Montgomery County. So just

634
00:56:07,920 --> 00:56:17,440
strategically
conceding on CR3 and conceding on 150 ft

635
00:56:14,000 --> 00:56:21,760
or you know instead of 75 ft setback
something less than that. I'm I'm just

636
00:56:19,920 --> 00:56:28,559
curious. Can you guys respond to that?
And Michelle maybe starting with you.

637
00:56:24,960 --> 00:56:34,640
» Sure I'd be happy to. And I I fully
agree with Miss Wellington that um the

638
00:56:31,839 --> 00:56:39,920
board is going to maximize heights and
densities. Um, frankly, it would not

639
00:56:37,680 --> 00:56:44,480
surprise me if they come out with
recommendations beyond what staff has

640
00:56:42,079 --> 00:56:49,680
proposed. I there was uh there were some
comments at the board that certainly

641
00:56:46,079 --> 00:56:56,799
raised that concern in my mind. Um, with
with respect to making uh concessions,

642
00:56:53,920 --> 00:57:03,119
um, I I would be concerned about not
putting forward any position because

643
00:57:00,319 --> 00:57:10,079
then when it gets to the council level,
we really are starting uh from ground

644
00:57:05,760 --> 00:57:15,280
zero. Um, I I think that and and I don't
look at look at them as concessions

645
00:57:12,319 --> 00:57:22,079
necessarily. I think I would propose
that we put forward the uh heights and

646
00:57:18,640 --> 00:57:28,160
densities that the board believes are
compatible and represent appropriate

647
00:57:25,440 --> 00:57:34,160
levels of density and height because
then when we get to the council, we're

648
00:57:31,280 --> 00:57:40,319
in a position to say, you know, what the
staff proposed, what the board proposed

649
00:57:36,559 --> 00:57:44,079
was overreaching in the context of our
neighborhood and the asbuilt

650
00:57:42,400 --> 00:57:47,839
environment. surrounding these
properties and we put forward a

651
00:57:46,160 --> 00:57:53,760
reasonable and defensible position.
We're here to say you should you should

652
00:57:50,400 --> 00:57:58,960
listen to that reasonable position. I I
think going up there without any formal

653
00:57:55,760 --> 00:58:04,880
board position or recommendations leaves
us in a vulnerable um position when it

654
00:58:02,720 --> 00:58:12,000
comes to advocating our interests when
we get to the council step. Well, let me

655
00:58:07,760 --> 00:58:19,280
so on our western on the western grove
grove street buffer zone residences,

656
00:58:14,720 --> 00:58:26,000
right? Why couldn't we air on being even
more protective of height and setbacks?

657
00:58:23,280 --> 00:58:31,839
In other words, not 150 ft, something
less uh and setbacks more. realizing

658
00:58:29,200 --> 00:58:35,760
that throughout this process as it goes
through the staff, goes through the

659
00:58:33,280 --> 00:58:39,760
board, goes to the council, we're going
to have to, you know, they're going to

660
00:58:37,520 --> 00:58:46,000
be pushing the opposite direction. So,
why why shouldn't we be anything but

661
00:58:42,640 --> 00:58:53,040
very aggressive in terms of limiting the
height um on the commercial side of what

662
00:58:50,799 --> 00:58:59,200
hits the village, that is the Chvy Chase
land, western Wisconsin corners.

663
00:58:56,720 --> 00:59:03,359
» Sure. I I think it's a it's a balancing
act. Um I you know I I'm not sure I

664
00:59:01,599 --> 00:59:07,520
would use the word aggressive regardless
of what what ultimate heights and

665
00:59:05,440 --> 00:59:12,640
densities you come out with. I think
whatever position you put forward, you

666
00:59:09,839 --> 00:59:18,799
need to be able to defend in sound land
use principles. Um and that certainly

667
00:59:14,960 --> 00:59:23,599
does include uh the compatibility with
the surrounding community. It includes

668
00:59:21,040 --> 00:59:31,520
what is actually ultimately feasible on
the properties. Uh what makes sense. So

669
00:59:27,200 --> 00:59:36,079
whatever justifications you give, um I I
I think that it should be a series of

670
00:59:34,240 --> 00:59:40,000
recommendations that make sense in the
context of of what's built around these

671
00:59:39,200 --> 00:59:43,680
properties,
>> right? And and actually we're getting to

672
00:59:41,680 --> 00:59:49,359
the recommendations now. So I just want
to remind you that we got a little

673
00:59:46,559 --> 00:59:53,359
ahead. That's we're going to end to the
end to the recommendations now.

674
00:59:51,520 --> 00:59:56,359
» Sure.
Um,

675
00:59:58,640 --> 01:00:03,680
» okay,
>> David, now is the time when we go

676
01:00:01,200 --> 01:00:06,720
through each one and we can talk about
what the recommendations are or should

677
01:00:06,000 --> 01:00:11,040
be.
>> Great. Thanks.

678
01:00:08,960 --> 01:00:16,400
» And so, uh, you know, this is a chart
that I think you've you've seen before

679
01:00:13,920 --> 01:00:22,960
and this includes sort of how how some
of these recommendations have evolved.

680
01:00:19,599 --> 01:00:30,240
The current um committee recommendation
with respect to uh the Sachs uh parking

681
01:00:27,280 --> 01:00:40,319
lot on the northern end is that we
retain uh we support the three F and uh

682
01:00:35,440 --> 01:00:49,200
we support the um height of 45 ft at
Belmont with the uh compatibility plane

683
01:00:45,200 --> 01:00:56,720
as proposed by staff and then keep that
45 ft for a depth of 75 ft with it then

684
01:00:53,760 --> 01:01:01,839
increasing to 100 on Wisconsin. This has
been a fairly um

685
01:01:00,400 --> 01:01:06,799
I'm sorry the committee recommendation
is height going up to 85 ft. So this has

686
01:01:04,960 --> 01:01:12,319
been a pretty consistent recommendation
all along. It's not new. Um, and I think

687
01:01:10,240 --> 01:01:18,240
the committee has been pretty consistent
in that this in their view really does

688
01:01:15,920 --> 01:01:24,160
reasonably protect the interests along
this this segment of the property.

689
01:01:22,400 --> 01:01:28,720
» And Sh or John, do you want to speak to
the difference between the 80 ft that in

690
01:01:26,960 --> 01:01:34,559
the position that the board took in May
versus the 85 ft that the committee is

691
01:01:32,160 --> 01:01:43,440
is recommending?
>> Sure. Um, I I'd be glad to take that. Uh

692
01:01:39,760 --> 01:01:47,119
the the position is that um when you
have an 80 foot building or 85 foot

693
01:01:45,280 --> 01:01:50,880
building that's about as high as you can
go because of the construction type.

694
01:01:48,559 --> 01:01:55,839
It's it's podium. It's usually stick
five over one or six over one is stick

695
01:01:53,119 --> 01:02:00,480
built over a concrete podium. To go to
go to 100 feet you have to use concrete

696
01:01:58,079 --> 01:02:06,480
in the in the concrete a building of
that height is not financially feasible.

697
01:02:04,400 --> 01:02:11,200
uh builders will say and I've heard them
say many times and actually there some

698
01:02:08,400 --> 01:02:17,119
of the reports in the um in the planning
staff uh appendix state that you want if

699
01:02:15,440 --> 01:02:23,040
you can do a concrete building it's got
to be at least 120 or 130 ft tall before

700
01:02:20,480 --> 01:02:29,359
it starts becoming financially viable.
So if we supported 100 ft um which is

701
01:02:26,960 --> 01:02:34,480
not thatable they could bump it to 120
with MPDUs

702
01:02:31,440 --> 01:02:38,319
uh whereas if you keep it at 80 to 85 uh
and they want to do MPD use and get it

703
01:02:36,319 --> 01:02:43,359
to 100 it's not financially viable. So
basically it's a sort of a hard hard

704
01:02:40,720 --> 01:02:48,400
ceiling. It's hard to get beyond without
spending a lot of money. So that's

705
01:02:46,400 --> 01:02:54,240
that's part of our reasoning. Also the
heights it's better height. Um, I was

706
01:02:51,440 --> 01:02:58,640
going to say, uh, uh, Shannon, if you
want to go back to the image that showed

707
01:02:56,079 --> 01:03:03,880
what the village recommended, the
threedimensional model.

708
01:03:00,880 --> 01:03:03,880
Uh,

709
01:03:09,040 --> 01:03:19,039
keep going. The
there's that section and then there's

710
01:03:13,760 --> 01:03:24,720
the model um before that. Uh,
right there you see. So that yeah the

711
01:03:22,240 --> 01:03:28,240
the other one the other one that one
that's what the that's what the village

712
01:03:26,319 --> 01:03:33,839
recommended. So those those buildings
are 85 ft tall in the back with 45 foot

713
01:03:30,799 --> 01:03:38,960
town houses and that's that's only an F
of two. That's all that's all that gets

714
01:03:36,319 --> 01:03:43,599
and with F3
then there's the provision of

715
01:03:40,640 --> 01:03:49,520
transferring density to areas where it's
more compatible which is south down on

716
01:03:45,760 --> 01:03:55,440
collection. So this this what you're
seeing here is what the um the committee

717
01:03:53,200 --> 01:03:58,720
has recommended in the chart. So you can
jump back to the chart now.

718
01:03:56,799 --> 01:04:04,319
» And while we're on while we're on this
image, this this also mirrors up at

719
01:04:00,960 --> 01:04:09,160
Oliver. Um so the the recommendations
are are consistent in both locations.

720
01:04:11,039 --> 01:04:19,119
» Thank you.
And so we can go through all of these if

721
01:04:16,720 --> 01:04:24,799
the board would like to talk about these
as we go through them. Um we certainly

722
01:04:21,920 --> 01:04:30,559
can do that. Uh I leave it to you if you
want to talk about this sort of globally

723
01:04:27,359 --> 01:04:38,079
or or take these uh in sections.
>> I I I have a a question just a a simple

724
01:04:34,240 --> 01:04:43,920
question. Um, in the planning board's
um, layout, I there was one corner, I

725
01:04:41,440 --> 01:04:52,319
think, of the of the Sachs property that
was 150 ft. Um, and and is it the case

726
01:04:49,280 --> 01:04:56,799
that we're not recommending an
additional step up there that that we're

727
01:04:54,319 --> 01:05:03,920
talking about the whole Sachs the whole
Sachs property being limited to 85 ft.

728
01:05:00,880 --> 01:05:08,480
» Correct. And yes,
>> that that is planning board. The other

729
01:05:05,680 --> 01:05:12,799
one is is uh the village. And the
difference also is we're recommending

730
01:05:10,480 --> 01:05:17,119
the village is recommending a 75 open
space 75 acre open space whereas the

731
01:05:15,599 --> 01:05:21,280
planning department is recommending half
acre. So you see the difference if you

732
01:05:19,359 --> 01:05:26,799
if you toggle back and forth sha between
the two.

733
01:05:23,920 --> 01:05:31,520
See that's that's a half acre. So it it
it you know what the what the village

734
01:05:29,839 --> 01:05:34,640
has recommended is I think is pretty
substantial and goes a long way to

735
01:05:33,119 --> 01:05:39,240
preserving
compatibility and sense of green.

736
01:05:45,359 --> 01:05:48,839
» Any other questions?

737
01:05:50,720 --> 01:06:01,760
So just to to summarize what Michelle
and John have just presented are the

738
01:05:56,799 --> 01:06:08,000
three um basic zoning provisions related
to Sachs which are the CR zoning

739
01:06:05,520 --> 01:06:13,839
F of 3.0
and the building heights. Does the board

740
01:06:11,039 --> 01:06:17,920
want to go ahead and reach a position on
those three points before we move

741
01:06:15,760 --> 01:06:24,799
forward or do you want to keep working
through the chart and come back to those

742
01:06:22,000 --> 01:06:29,599
three elements?
>> Uh, I don't mind

743
01:06:27,200 --> 01:06:34,319
finding out if we're supportive of this.
And just so we're clear, while the chart

744
01:06:31,440 --> 01:06:39,760
has more lines than what we've just
stipulated, that's because the current

745
01:06:36,640 --> 01:06:44,480
zoning compartmentalizes the building
into v the property into various

746
01:06:41,839 --> 01:06:49,359
different zones. For the purposes of
this discussion, we're looking at the

747
01:06:46,799 --> 01:06:53,920
property in its totality.
And that's why we're looking at the

748
01:06:51,119 --> 01:06:58,280
three elements of F, zoning,
classification, and height.

749
01:06:58,640 --> 01:07:03,640
So basically this is the um

750
01:07:04,240 --> 01:07:11,359
same as before only we're saying 85 ft
because the reality of construction

751
01:07:09,920 --> 01:07:16,240
that's the only change in our
recommendation. Correct.

752
01:07:12,640 --> 01:07:21,520
» And the F had not been yet proposed when
the board issued its May 28 letter. So

753
01:07:18,480 --> 01:07:26,720
you have not yet taken a position on the
F. Um, and

754
01:07:24,480 --> 01:07:31,280
I believe you your sentiment was
generally in support of the CR zoning,

755
01:07:29,200 --> 01:07:36,119
but I'd have to see if that was an
emphatic statement in your letter.

756
01:07:36,160 --> 01:07:44,000
Okay. Well, I'm ready to hear from any
board members about um

757
01:07:41,359 --> 01:07:47,680
their support for this
recommendation.

758
01:07:45,599 --> 01:07:54,000
I am ready to recommend it to support
it.

759
01:07:49,200 --> 01:07:58,799
Yeah, I I I guess I would say that uh um
if I'm not and and I'm happy to have

760
01:07:56,400 --> 01:08:03,280
anybody um correct me if I'm wrong about
this, but I think this particular part

761
01:08:01,280 --> 01:08:09,760
of it is not where the real controversy
is. Um it's it's the um when we get off

762
01:08:08,000 --> 01:08:13,680
the Sachs property and we're back into
the collection, that's that's where

763
01:08:11,119 --> 01:08:20,480
we've I'm I'm hearing the most pain and
and uh and justifiably so.

764
01:08:18,080 --> 01:08:27,520
But Gary, I
you we all received that note from

765
01:08:23,040 --> 01:08:32,880
Meredith. Um and you know, she strongly
uh feels that conceding a CR3 or stating

766
01:08:31,279 --> 01:08:37,359
a con, you know, that we were in
agreement with that is not the way this

767
01:08:35,199 --> 01:08:44,000
is not the stage in which you concede
that. I so I remain concerned about her

768
01:08:40,960 --> 01:08:49,920
input u simply because she's the only
one I want to and there could be others

769
01:08:46,960 --> 01:08:55,640
but that has lengthy experience in this
process having served on the planning

770
01:08:52,640 --> 01:08:55,640
board.

771
01:08:55,679 --> 01:09:04,880
» Michelle, do you share that concern?
>> You know, as I said, I I have a concern

772
01:09:02,239 --> 01:09:10,000
about the uh board not taking a
position. I think it's I think what that

773
01:09:08,080 --> 01:09:15,359
does is signal to the planning board
that we're indifferent. I mean, I'm I

774
01:09:13,120 --> 01:09:20,480
know we won't say that in our letter,
but I think not giving them a

775
01:09:18,319 --> 01:09:26,719
recommendation of what we think is
reasonable, gives them nothing to to

776
01:09:24,159 --> 01:09:31,120
respond to, even if they respond in a
way that we don't agree with. And it, I

777
01:09:29,199 --> 01:09:35,120
think, makes it harder for us to later
go to the council and say, "Look, this

778
01:09:33,279 --> 01:09:39,839
has been our this has been our position.
we've been reasonable. We came up with

779
01:09:37,279 --> 01:09:46,159
these recommendations for these sound
land use justifications

780
01:09:42,480 --> 01:09:52,159
and uh the board simply overreached. So,
um it's it's a it's a strategy call.

781
01:09:49,440 --> 01:09:56,480
It's a policy call and you know I don't
have a crystal ball so I can't tell you

782
01:09:54,480 --> 01:10:02,960
which one which one would play out
better in the long run.

783
01:09:59,520 --> 01:10:07,360
So Michelle, um, generally given that,
you know, you've got a lease of the Saxs

784
01:10:05,199 --> 01:10:12,239
property that goes for another 20 years
or whatever, the Chvy Chase land has got

785
01:10:10,080 --> 01:10:16,800
their arms full trying to get revenues
from their commercial developments

786
01:10:14,719 --> 01:10:22,000
um, and are under stress because of
vacancies and office and retail. Uh but

787
01:10:19,600 --> 01:10:26,320
you you don't think that there's a
better time that we would have more

788
01:10:24,159 --> 01:10:30,960
leverage to,
you know, to again get the heights down?

789
01:10:29,360 --> 01:10:36,640
I think that what we're certainly
hearing on the Grove Street and Park

790
01:10:34,480 --> 01:10:41,120
side is that the heights that are we're
proposing are just too too much, right?

791
01:10:39,120 --> 01:10:46,880
They're not sent back enough.
>> They're not staged. They would love to

792
01:10:42,719 --> 01:10:51,040
see the same on, you know, the the the
Chvy Chase land property as we're seeing

793
01:10:48,640 --> 01:10:56,640
with the town houses that that I think
they would be u comfortable with. But I

794
01:10:54,400 --> 01:11:01,040
I just,
you know,

795
01:10:59,040 --> 01:11:05,520
» I think we should also hear other board
members where they are right now. I'm in

796
01:11:02,960 --> 01:11:11,199
support at the Sachs property for the
recommendations of the committee and

797
01:11:08,640 --> 01:11:15,199
David, I hear your questions. love to
hear from other board members about

798
01:11:13,280 --> 01:11:20,320
whether we can move on from the sachs
part.

799
01:11:16,400 --> 01:11:27,040
» U this is Saul. I I agree with Gary that
this part of the plan seems the least

800
01:11:23,600 --> 01:11:34,000
controversial. I understand our global
objective that's been recommended to us

801
01:11:29,760 --> 01:11:40,400
by our our professionals is that we u
adopt reasonable positions that will

802
01:11:36,800 --> 01:11:46,560
maximize our ability to have clout um at
the county council level uh when this

803
01:11:43,440 --> 01:11:52,440
all comes to a head. And in that
respect, um I'm fine with the Sachs

804
01:11:49,440 --> 01:11:52,440
recommendations

805
01:11:54,239 --> 01:12:02,480
and to say that um you know I I have
concerns. I mean I share uh the concerns

806
01:12:00,320 --> 01:12:10,239
David is raising and that Meredith
Wellington has also raised. And one of

807
01:12:05,520 --> 01:12:16,000
the questions goes back to uh when does
the overlay discussion take place? Um,

808
01:12:14,320 --> 01:12:22,640
and
because we have the benefit of a single

809
01:12:18,400 --> 01:12:31,120
owner, are there options for
side agreements with the land company

810
01:12:25,679 --> 01:12:37,600
that kind of whereby they agree to not
advocate to max things out uh even prior

811
01:12:35,520 --> 01:12:40,719
to the adoption of the sector plan. I
mean, effectively a memorandum of

812
01:12:39,199 --> 01:12:46,320
understanding between the village and
the land company that takes some of

813
01:12:42,560 --> 01:12:49,679
these things off the table. And that is,
you know, a little unconventional, but

814
01:12:48,000 --> 01:12:53,120
I'd be curious to know, or at least from
the conversation we've been having, it

815
01:12:51,280 --> 01:12:58,239
sounds unconventional. I'd be curious to
hear from uh Michelle and John if that's

816
01:12:56,719 --> 01:13:01,280
something that's done before when you
have a single owner such as we have

817
01:12:59,920 --> 01:13:07,199
here.
I certainly think that to the extent

818
01:13:03,040 --> 01:13:12,800
that uh Chvy Chase Lan is willing to uh
talk to us about what recommendations

819
01:13:10,800 --> 01:13:17,440
they would like to see come out of this
process. If we can be on the same page

820
01:13:15,199 --> 01:13:22,719
and go handinand glove to the council
and say look the village and Chvy Chase

821
01:13:19,920 --> 01:13:30,080
land agree on this approach I think that
would be warmly welcomed. um at that

822
01:13:25,440 --> 01:13:37,600
level. the uh so far we have not really
been privy to much specific information

823
01:13:34,320 --> 01:13:43,280
about what kind of F or heights they
would they would endorse but I think

824
01:13:40,560 --> 01:13:50,640
that those conversations will be ongoing
and whether whether it's through a a

825
01:13:46,239 --> 01:13:56,480
joint letter or anou or whatever uh
written mechanism we we can agree upon I

826
01:13:54,159 --> 01:14:01,520
think however we can provide a unified
front to the council would be would be

827
01:13:58,640 --> 01:14:06,159
very much in our in our joint interests.
>> Right. And and we're have we have

828
01:14:03,440 --> 01:14:10,239
planned meetings with them exactly on
that topic. Mhm.

829
01:14:07,679 --> 01:14:16,560
» Um I think that there's probably a way
of having

830
01:14:13,120 --> 01:14:23,199
the letter like the last time um where
we say we are conditionally

831
01:14:20,400 --> 01:14:28,080
support of the recommendations before
us.

832
01:14:24,880 --> 01:14:34,320
um but we can't
that we need um enforcable transition to

833
01:14:31,840 --> 01:14:38,159
the village and that that an overlay
zone

834
01:14:36,159 --> 01:14:41,920
implementation is going to be crucial.
So I don't think we give up that

835
01:14:41,280 --> 01:14:48,120
» right
>> in this testimony.

836
01:14:45,120 --> 01:14:48,120
» Agreed.

837
01:14:49,920 --> 01:14:56,679
Um
members in here

838
01:14:59,280 --> 01:15:08,560
» hearing none
>> I'm supportive Alyssa of going with um

839
01:15:06,480 --> 01:15:11,800
this limited agreement regarding the sex
parking lot.

840
01:15:12,080 --> 01:15:20,960
» Okay. So seems like that's four. So we
should move on to the

841
01:15:17,520 --> 01:15:24,960
contentious grove collection situation.
>> Just to recap, just to make sure

842
01:15:22,719 --> 01:15:32,480
everyone is following along. So that is
board support for the CR3

843
01:15:30,400 --> 01:15:38,560
zoning classification
with the height transition as has been

844
01:15:35,040 --> 01:15:45,000
re recommended by the ad hoc committee
45 60 to a max height of 85.

845
01:15:46,880 --> 01:15:52,560
Okay.
Okay.

846
01:15:50,000 --> 01:15:58,080
» So, the thing about the Grove collection
area that

847
01:15:55,040 --> 01:16:05,199
is worth restating is that this is the
part that's closest to Metro,

848
01:16:02,560 --> 01:16:13,440
which is a priority
for the planning staff, the planning

849
01:16:08,800 --> 01:16:18,560
board, the county council, the
So I I think that

850
01:16:16,400 --> 01:16:22,040
» it's a tougher road to say that should
be town houses,

851
01:16:22,800 --> 01:16:32,000
» David, in response to your saying that
we should advocate for lower there.

852
01:16:29,920 --> 01:16:38,880
No, Alyssa, I certainly understand that
you know we're your TOD development has

853
01:16:35,760 --> 01:16:43,920
you know put density by metro stations
and so it's uh very hard to argue that I

854
01:16:41,840 --> 01:16:49,199
think fundamentally what we heard from
the Philins and others is that if if we

855
01:16:46,320 --> 01:16:55,440
could just be conservative in our
opening position on height and maximize

856
01:16:52,719 --> 01:17:00,000
setbacks for the commercial development
that they're going to be able on their

857
01:16:56,880 --> 01:17:05,920
own to argue for right. I think that
would be helpful for the community that

858
01:17:02,239 --> 01:17:10,640
feels like, you know, Belmont's getting
45 and we're getting 200 or 175 or

859
01:17:08,560 --> 01:17:17,600
whatever. I I think it's really the
height and the setback that if we can be

860
01:17:13,280 --> 01:17:22,560
more protective in what we send back, uh
I think it gives us it it just is a good

861
01:17:20,960 --> 01:17:26,320
first step. That's all.
>> Yeah. No, I know.

862
01:17:24,239 --> 01:17:33,600
recognized that the ad hoc committee
recognized that we bought a park there.

863
01:17:30,080 --> 01:17:41,520
So, we have bought a buffer. There's
more of a buffer there than at the end

864
01:17:37,199 --> 01:17:45,600
of Belmont. Um, this Western Grove Park
>> there is except for except for the

865
01:17:43,760 --> 01:17:51,679
residences along the buffer zone in
Grove Street, you know, because they are

866
01:17:48,159 --> 01:17:57,040
literally right on the parking lot of of
Chvy Chase land.

867
01:17:54,000 --> 01:18:03,120
Yeah. And the planning staff has
recommended no building.

868
01:17:59,920 --> 01:18:09,280
It's pushed back from that um edge and
and it has to be because of the

869
01:18:05,920 --> 01:18:15,920
um the grade the huge grade change in
any case. Um anyway, how how should we

870
01:18:12,400 --> 01:18:19,440
proceed on this? Shaina, you got a view.
>> I think Michelle wanted to add a couple

871
01:18:17,520 --> 01:18:23,600
of points as it relates to height.
>> Okay. I I've I I do have a couple of

872
01:18:21,679 --> 01:18:30,560
thoughts and and as we talk about this,
could we pull up the um the image

873
01:18:28,400 --> 01:18:37,840
uh let's let's look at the one that
staff has proposed first,

874
01:18:33,840 --> 01:18:44,480
the massing and the f.
So uh you know as as John had mentioned

875
01:18:41,679 --> 01:18:50,400
there's a serious discrepancy between
the proposed F of the three which is the

876
01:18:48,000 --> 01:18:57,760
height that you see in the green and
then the the height cap itself is

877
01:18:54,159 --> 01:19:02,880
significantly greater. Um and we had
asked staff to explain why why they made

878
01:19:00,960 --> 01:19:08,320
that recommendation why there's such a a
significant disconnect. In John's

879
01:19:05,120 --> 01:19:15,199
experience, this is somewhat unusual.
There's usually a closer link between

880
01:19:11,840 --> 01:19:21,199
the height and the F. And so it seems to
me that one option we might have would

881
01:19:18,159 --> 01:19:26,880
be to say that because there is such a
disconnect and we don't know

882
01:19:24,080 --> 01:19:33,120
how that sort of empty space would be
used, perhaps a floor for MPDUs and and

883
01:19:30,320 --> 01:19:37,440
uh some public benefits. It seems to me
we might have an opportunity here to

884
01:19:35,120 --> 01:19:44,640
reduce that height so that it more
closely mirrors the F and that's that's

885
01:19:41,440 --> 01:19:51,199
a a planning based justification. it
ties the height and density more closely

886
01:19:48,480 --> 01:19:58,400
than is proposed here. And that I think
that might give us an opportunity to

887
01:19:55,040 --> 01:20:03,040
go uh go somewhat lower than than we've
currently proposed than the committee

888
01:20:00,560 --> 01:20:06,960
has proposed.
>> Okay.

889
01:20:04,159 --> 01:20:16,000
that
>> I if we um basically say that that we

890
01:20:11,199 --> 01:20:24,480
agree that uh a uh F of three is
appropriate, does that in effect um

891
01:20:21,520 --> 01:20:28,400
accomplish what we want or or is it or
are we still unsure what the magic is

892
01:20:26,080 --> 01:20:32,080
that that could cause this to be so, you
know, look like they're making it out of

893
01:20:30,159 --> 01:20:35,760
styrofoam or something? It would have it
would appear.

894
01:20:32,480 --> 01:20:41,120
» Sure. Sure. The F at three gives you the
height at the at the top of the green

895
01:20:38,560 --> 01:20:47,120
line. Do you have a ballpark of what
that height actually is?

896
01:20:44,880 --> 01:20:52,080
What that might be?
>> Yeah, it's 20, 30, 40, 50, 60. I think

897
01:20:50,239 --> 01:20:57,280
it's 80 feet.
>> Okay. And then assuming that there are

898
01:20:54,640 --> 01:21:04,800
going to be public benefits that we will
want and those will uh offer additional

899
01:21:01,679 --> 01:21:10,080
density and MPDUs.
you know, if we're at 80 feet, we we

900
01:21:07,120 --> 01:21:16,080
could go certainly something lower than
the 170 uh that's been proposed by the

901
01:21:13,360 --> 01:21:22,080
committee, but still be high enough to
accommodate some additional MPDUs and

902
01:21:19,600 --> 01:21:26,400
public benefits that we would want to
see if the property gets redeveloped.

903
01:21:24,800 --> 01:21:31,120
That might be a way to split the baby
and still tie it to the land use

904
01:21:28,159 --> 01:21:34,640
recommendations proposed by staff. And
if I may add, if you're going to do

905
01:21:32,400 --> 01:21:43,840
that, keep in mind that as I said
earlier, uh anything over between 80 and

906
01:21:40,159 --> 01:21:48,400
120 is unreasonable or or rather not
financially viable. So you might want to

907
01:21:47,120 --> 01:21:53,840
if you're going to lower the heights,
maybe stop around 110, 120.

908
01:21:52,400 --> 01:21:58,480
Otherwise, it just kick back and say
that's not reasonable because you can't

909
01:21:55,120 --> 01:22:04,000
build it. So that's my um
>> but but John at that point that that's

910
01:22:01,040 --> 01:22:10,880
when you debate it and when you argue
right it's when when the developer comes

911
01:22:06,400 --> 01:22:17,120
back and says look 80 85 ft uh on the on
the east edge of of the property at

912
01:22:14,400 --> 01:22:22,880
Western is just not economically
feasible then that's when you negotiate.

913
01:22:20,000 --> 01:22:27,120
Don't that's a very good point. You
know, I'm just I'm just giving you

914
01:22:24,719 --> 01:22:32,719
parameters to think about. So, yeah, you
be if you keep it keep it 85 feet at the

915
01:22:29,440 --> 01:22:36,239
at the at the eastern edge. Uh and then
say jump up from there. They'll say,

916
01:22:34,159 --> 01:22:40,560
"Hey, they might say, "Yeah, that's
reasonable. We we'll do 85 feet there,

917
01:22:38,639 --> 01:22:44,000
that stick built, and then we'll jump to
a higher concrete fil as you get closer

918
01:22:42,320 --> 01:22:48,719
to Amada." That's what they do.
>> Nobody obviously.

919
01:22:46,000 --> 01:22:53,199
» Yeah. Nobody's gonna even if it's 85. I
mean, I Michelle, I think that's a a

920
01:22:51,199 --> 01:22:59,120
great compromise to deal with the input
we've had. Uh and it doesn't prohibit,

921
01:22:56,960 --> 01:23:02,639
you know, a really competent architect
like a Shalom Baronis or to design a

922
01:23:01,679 --> 01:23:07,679
building
>> that has that 85 frontage, 85 foot

923
01:23:05,360 --> 01:23:13,360
frontage, but then, you know, by its
columns or towers, uh, you know, could

924
01:23:10,560 --> 01:23:17,520
re reach a height that would number one
is zonable and permittable, but would

925
01:23:15,600 --> 01:23:22,080
allow the economics of the overall
development to work. So, I I like what

926
01:23:19,920 --> 01:23:26,639
you're proposing.
So then I think my next question would

927
01:23:24,000 --> 01:23:32,880
be as we did with um some of the other
properties, we have a height that uh a

928
01:23:30,080 --> 01:23:37,679
relatively low height that extends in
the other cases 75 ft. That's probably

929
01:23:35,520 --> 01:23:45,199
not enough here. But then are we then
going to recommend stepping up as we as

930
01:23:41,600 --> 01:23:51,360
we move back? Um which which gives you
relief from that massing at this end of

931
01:23:48,159 --> 01:23:59,600
the property. Um, but I whether or not
you 85 ft for the full depth of this uh

932
01:23:55,840 --> 01:24:03,440
block here may may not be reasonable. So
I'm just putting that out there as food

933
01:24:01,040 --> 01:24:08,000
for thought because we have taken the
step up approach, the tiered approach.

934
01:24:07,360 --> 01:24:10,239
Yeah.
>> Elsewhere in the plan.

935
01:24:09,040 --> 01:24:15,679
» I think we'd have to continue with the
tiered approach. For one thing, we

936
01:24:12,560 --> 01:24:21,440
already have more height than 85 at the
intersection of Wisconsin and Western

937
01:24:18,800 --> 01:24:24,639
anyway, don't we?
What's that current height?

938
01:24:22,880 --> 01:24:30,480
» I think the office building is right.
The ones that are over metro and the

939
01:24:27,360 --> 01:24:33,440
Chevy Chase land office building is I
don't know, John, what is that? 150

940
01:24:32,639 --> 01:24:36,080
probably.
>> Yeah, I believe so. I'll have to double

941
01:24:34,960 --> 01:24:39,600
check, but
>> So, we're not asking for a smaller

942
01:24:37,520 --> 01:24:46,320
height than we currently have, but I
think a stepped up approach sounds good.

943
01:24:42,080 --> 01:24:51,440
» Yeah. And and I I I think in in terms of
um I don't know, arguing why this is

944
01:24:48,960 --> 01:24:56,719
reasonable. If if you look at at at
Belmont, um we're we're basically saying

945
01:24:55,199 --> 01:25:07,520
uh people are going to be looking across
the street at uh at 45 ft. Um and um

946
01:25:02,960 --> 01:25:13,199
here the the Grove Street is is 40t
higher than than the base of of these

947
01:25:10,159 --> 01:25:20,400
things. So So if we made this 85, they
too would be looking at 45 ft um um you

948
01:25:16,639 --> 01:25:27,040
know as as uh close to to where they
are. So it's it's kind of a possibly

949
01:25:24,400 --> 01:25:32,880
kind of a halfbaked rationale, but but
there is some some uh some logic to it.

950
01:25:30,960 --> 01:25:37,360
» Yeah. No, you're right. There is a um
considerable change in grade there.

951
01:25:36,400 --> 01:25:42,719
So,
>> so we could either take uh you know the

952
01:25:39,440 --> 01:25:52,960
compatibility approach or just say you
know the 85 ft for you know 750 75 100

953
01:25:48,000 --> 01:25:58,800
ft and then it can step up to you know
150. I'm making these numbers up. These

954
01:25:54,880 --> 01:26:03,760
are not my numbers. Um, but I propose
some interim step up before you then get

955
01:26:01,280 --> 01:26:12,719
to the other corner where where you'll
be at at current recommendation uh 250.

956
01:26:08,159 --> 01:26:20,800
Yeah, I I I assume that that that uh
where we would have the least um sway or

957
01:26:16,800 --> 01:26:30,560
or least ability to um
to um win would be the metro itself. Um

958
01:26:26,239 --> 01:26:33,920
the that corner. Um, and and it's also,
I guess,

959
01:26:32,320 --> 01:26:40,239
in my opinion anyway, would be the one
we care least about because it's it's

960
01:26:36,000 --> 01:26:46,400
farthest away from any u any um
residential area. Um, so we we we could

961
01:26:44,960 --> 01:26:53,199
be pretty aggressive with the stepping
up perhaps and and you know, not not

962
01:26:49,199 --> 01:26:57,679
just do it for 50 ft or whatever it was
in in the in the Sachs area. we could

963
01:26:55,520 --> 01:27:04,239
could have have
>> um

964
01:27:00,159 --> 01:27:08,159
more area before we step up. Um
>> all right. So other people want to weigh

965
01:27:05,760 --> 01:27:13,600
in. We got
>> just just pointing out that um if we're

966
01:27:11,440 --> 01:27:19,600
reducing the height and our rationale is
on F. We just need to make that clear

967
01:27:17,280 --> 01:27:25,520
however we
submit that proposal that it's F driven.

968
01:27:23,280 --> 01:27:30,880
If we just show up with lower heights,
it won't be well understood and it'll

969
01:27:28,000 --> 01:27:35,440
just be seen as unreasonable.
One one thing that I would like to

970
01:27:32,480 --> 01:27:42,960
mention with respect to how far that how
deep that 85 ft runs is that this this

971
01:27:38,800 --> 01:27:49,840
is the part of the um property the the
whole linear properties that has the the

972
01:27:46,480 --> 01:27:55,520
widest buffer um because there will be
that undeveloped piece next to Grove

973
01:27:53,440 --> 01:28:01,840
Park and it's also the piece that
doesn't directly abut um single family

974
01:27:59,040 --> 01:28:06,719
homes. So just when you're when you're
weighing how

975
01:28:04,000 --> 01:28:11,520
» how how much depth you might want to
consider, I I just put those two pieces

976
01:28:10,000 --> 01:28:17,920
out there as food for thought.
>> Yeah. So maybe it's just the same sliver

977
01:28:14,080 --> 01:28:24,239
as the 60 next to it in this slide that
we're looking at recommendations. So we

978
01:28:20,560 --> 01:28:28,480
start with 85 in that little rectangle
and then we step it up

979
01:28:26,800 --> 01:28:32,480
» in terms of our recommendations. Does
that work for everybody?

980
01:28:30,800 --> 01:28:38,159
» Yeah, I think that's a good starting
point. And I do, Michelle, your comments

981
01:28:35,199 --> 01:28:43,920
about the planning staff putting that
additional buffer on the west side of

982
01:28:40,719 --> 01:28:49,920
Grove of Western Grove Park I thought
was very very positive.

983
01:28:47,040 --> 01:28:55,440
» Yeah. So, so we'll leave it in the laps
of Michelle and John to uh articulate

984
01:28:53,120 --> 01:29:02,239
the step up that but but we're sticking
with 250 at to Wisconsin Circle because

985
01:29:00,080 --> 01:29:08,000
I don't think we can argue that that's
that's what's going to

986
01:29:05,360 --> 01:29:12,239
that's what they want at Metro and
that's the 10.

987
01:29:09,840 --> 01:29:18,120
» Is there an interim step up height that
you want John and I to consider?

988
01:29:15,120 --> 01:29:18,120
Uh

989
01:29:18,560 --> 01:29:24,320
well I guess 130 170 250 right something
like that.

990
01:29:22,800 --> 01:29:31,520
» Yeah I think it's more so just to kind
of follow that step up pattern

991
01:29:27,920 --> 01:29:35,199
» as is established for the um sax
property.

992
01:29:32,560 --> 01:29:40,159
» Okay.
>> Uh any board member disagreeing with

993
01:29:37,360 --> 01:29:44,400
this approach
hearing? None. Let's continue. So, I

994
01:29:43,040 --> 01:29:49,040
just want to be clear because we kind of
leapfrogged from the northern section to

995
01:29:46,880 --> 01:29:54,800
the most southern section. So, we need
to hit the middle. Um, so essentially

996
01:29:51,600 --> 01:30:00,400
from the line that runs um that extends
out from Grove Street up Oh, I'm sorry,

997
01:29:57,920 --> 01:30:04,320
I'm using the wrong cursor. Um, so
basically from this portion at the

998
01:30:02,480 --> 01:30:09,840
southern end of the property aligned
with Grove Street up to Montgomery

999
01:30:07,199 --> 01:30:15,679
Street, we also need the board to
solidify its position on the heights in

1000
01:30:12,960 --> 01:30:19,840
that center section. What's shown on the
screen on the right hand side is the

1001
01:30:17,280 --> 01:30:26,719
committee's recommendation. 60 ft along
the buffer and then um up to 170 at the

1002
01:30:24,239 --> 01:30:32,800
northernmost section just south of
McGomery Street. uh going up to the

1003
01:30:30,159 --> 01:30:39,199
planning staff recommendation of 200
feet along Wisconsin Avenue between

1004
01:30:35,760 --> 01:30:42,560
Center and Grove. Yeah. No, I I'm I
think we stick with the committee's

1005
01:30:40,480 --> 01:30:50,040
recommendations there. Does anyone have
any uh other thoughts? You want to do

1006
01:30:46,880 --> 01:30:50,040
that differently?

1007
01:30:50,080 --> 01:30:56,639
Well, are we? Yeah.
So, so we're I'm I'm confused about

1008
01:30:55,520 --> 01:31:00,639
which of these things
>> I think I'm at the middle here.

1009
01:30:58,719 --> 01:31:06,159
» The 6060 that
>> is is Yeah, I see that. I'm just I'm

1010
01:31:04,159 --> 01:31:08,400
just um
>> we stick with that recommendation. The

1011
01:31:08,000 --> 01:31:14,320
only
>> We're all the way down to 85 here. It

1012
01:31:11,280 --> 01:31:17,679
seems strange to have 170. Um
>> No, we're not.

1013
01:31:15,120 --> 01:31:20,960
» No, 170 is no longer. We're switching
that to 85

1014
01:31:18,960 --> 01:31:24,159
» from 170 to 85, Gary.
>> Yeah.

1015
01:31:21,280 --> 01:31:26,400
» Right. 85 and then stepping up to 130
170 and then the 250 on the quarter

1016
01:31:26,080 --> 01:31:30,719
piece.
>> The only part we're changing is the the

1017
01:31:29,040 --> 01:31:33,040
far
southeastern

1018
01:31:32,239 --> 01:31:39,679
part
>> and and essentially Grove Street, the

1019
01:31:36,239 --> 01:31:45,199
end of Grove Street would be
a budding the 60, right? The 60 foot

1020
01:31:42,719 --> 01:31:50,880
section, you know, with appropriate
setbacks there. And what is the wall

1021
01:31:47,600 --> 01:31:52,880
height, John? What's the wall height?
>> At the height,

1022
01:31:52,320 --> 01:31:56,080
» sorry.
>> At the at the corner, it's about 24

1023
01:31:54,560 --> 01:32:00,800
feet, but as as it goes toward
>> So, we're really we're really talking

1024
01:31:57,920 --> 01:32:03,840
about effectively 40 feet, right? Set
back.

1025
01:32:01,440 --> 01:32:08,560
» Okay. Thanks.
>> Okay. So, Gary, did that make sense to

1026
01:32:05,520 --> 01:32:15,280
you? We're keeping with the committee's
um recommendations for that mid part,

1027
01:32:11,920 --> 01:32:20,239
the that's the Belmont buffer part.
>> Yeah. I just uh

1028
01:32:17,120 --> 01:32:24,000
» and then along west
>> I'm just looking I'm just

1029
01:32:22,400 --> 01:32:27,199
» I'm just looking along Wisconsin Avenue
here and I just want to make sure that

1030
01:32:25,040 --> 01:32:32,800
that we're that we're talking about the
same thing. We're talking about from the

1031
01:32:28,960 --> 01:32:39,679
north down we're talking 85 ft 85 85 and
then doubling that to 170 um and then um

1032
01:32:37,280 --> 01:32:45,280
then up to 200. I wonder whether
>> Yeah. So, because we're getting closer

1033
01:32:42,000 --> 01:32:50,800
to Metro is thing one. Thing two is um
as you know, the part north of that, all

1034
01:32:47,679 --> 01:32:56,080
of Saks parking lot and Sachs is in Chvy
Chase Village. Once you go past

1035
01:32:53,760 --> 01:33:02,560
Montgomery Street on this, we're no
longer in the village. So, um I think we

1036
01:33:00,880 --> 01:33:06,719
we have different leverage for one
thing.

1037
01:33:03,440 --> 01:33:09,719
» Yeah. But we're we're
um

1038
01:33:13,040 --> 01:33:24,080
I guess I I I haven't heard anybody
um I I personally don't have um a strong

1039
01:33:21,440 --> 01:33:28,080
feeling about how tall is too tall at
that particular, you know, that 170

1040
01:33:26,080 --> 01:33:35,360
there, whether that's that's reasonable
or not. And it it seems like if you're

1041
01:33:30,400 --> 01:33:41,600
tapering down from 250, it's um
it's hard to argue that that's um

1042
01:33:38,000 --> 01:33:48,159
unreasonably tall. Um and uh and we are
some distance away from um the village

1043
01:33:45,679 --> 01:33:51,440
at that point. So So I'm I'm okay with
it, I guess.

1044
01:33:49,520 --> 01:33:57,480
» Yeah. And we have previously supported
that recommendation.

1045
01:33:54,480 --> 01:33:57,480
» Okay.

1046
01:33:57,920 --> 01:34:05,920
So, we're clear on the changes and I
haven't heard any other

1047
01:34:03,760 --> 01:34:10,159
board members.
>> Just to confirm, in the center section

1048
01:34:08,400 --> 01:34:15,600
there
south of Montgomery, it stays 60 ft

1049
01:34:13,600 --> 01:34:19,280
along the buffer and 170 along
Wisconsin.

1050
01:34:17,360 --> 01:34:23,280
» That's the recommendation. Yeah.
>> And then 200 and in the lower parcel.

1051
01:34:22,239 --> 01:34:27,440
» Okay.
>> Yeah.

1052
01:34:24,960 --> 01:34:35,440
It's just that 170 area that we're
proposing we step up

1053
01:34:31,120 --> 01:34:41,760
from 85 and then John and Michelle will
work out the appropriate stepping up.

1054
01:34:39,600 --> 01:34:43,760
» Right across from Grove Park.
>> Yeah.

1055
01:34:42,239 --> 01:34:46,320
» Yeah.
>> Okay.

1056
01:34:44,159 --> 01:34:51,400
» I'm okay. I'm okay with this approach
for this section.

1057
01:34:48,080 --> 01:34:51,400
» Very good.

1058
01:34:52,080 --> 01:34:59,120
And then Shaina,
if we're not moving ahead too quickly,

1059
01:34:56,719 --> 01:35:03,440
if you could share the chart where we go
next.

1060
01:35:01,679 --> 01:35:08,719
I think we just now have a few
miscellaneous additional things to

1061
01:35:06,880 --> 01:35:12,800
review. Correct.
>> That's correct. So, I just wanted to

1062
01:35:10,320 --> 01:35:19,520
make sure that the board um is still
solidified on your position regarding

1063
01:35:15,840 --> 01:35:25,520
the um existing perimeter wall along the
Sachs property, not to add additional

1064
01:35:22,800 --> 01:35:32,400
pedestrian access points and to uh
maintain the existing access at McGomery

1065
01:35:28,800 --> 01:35:35,920
Street as the sole entry along these
properties. Just want to make sure that

1066
01:35:33,679 --> 01:35:39,360
we're maintaining that position.
>> I certainly I certainly wouldn't want to

1067
01:35:37,840 --> 01:35:45,120
maintain that. Yeah.
Okay. Um,

1068
01:35:42,639 --> 01:35:48,639
the street setbacks along Belmont and
Oliver, the 30-foot setback, I think we

1069
01:35:47,120 --> 01:35:54,239
pretty well covered that and I didn't
hear any board objection to that

1070
01:35:50,719 --> 01:35:57,960
position. As was noted, the open space,
let me go to

1071
01:35:58,000 --> 01:36:10,560
bear with me. the open space adjacent to
um the Sax property or basically on the

1072
01:36:07,920 --> 01:36:16,719
south end of the Sachs property. The
planning staff has recommended

1073
01:36:14,480 --> 01:36:23,639
um
>> half an acre of green space

1074
01:36:18,560 --> 01:36:23,639
» half an acre. the um

1075
01:36:25,280 --> 01:36:36,080
and actually no hang sorry the committee
is recommending 75 acres open space in

1076
01:36:31,679 --> 01:36:41,520
addition to 10% open space requirement
>> that's a minimum of 75

1077
01:36:39,360 --> 01:36:43,920
» yes our committee our ad hoc committee
>> correct correct

1078
01:36:42,320 --> 01:36:46,159
» yeah I think we're supportive of that
recommendation

1079
01:36:45,119 --> 01:36:51,280
» with I am
>> 10% open space require a minimum 10%

1080
01:36:48,560 --> 01:36:54,719
open space requirement
Okay.

1081
01:36:52,960 --> 01:37:00,119
» And um
>> Okay, go on. Sorry.

1082
01:36:56,080 --> 01:37:00,119
» No, no, no. You can go ahead.

1083
01:37:00,560 --> 01:37:11,119
» Just that uh the testimony would also
include the um you know the caveats

1084
01:37:07,360 --> 01:37:15,199
about an enforcable overlay zone.
>> Yes.

1085
01:37:11,840 --> 01:37:19,600
» That protects our edge.
>> Yeah. And and Alyssa, they were supposed

1086
01:37:17,520 --> 01:37:25,840
to send that Shaya, weren't they
supposed to send that in writing to us

1087
01:37:21,600 --> 01:37:28,000
before the the hearing in in September?
>> I'm sorry. Send what piece to us in

1088
01:37:27,520 --> 01:37:31,360
writing?
>> The overlay zone. The text to the

1089
01:37:30,000 --> 01:37:36,000
overlay zone? No.
>> No. They had always indicated that that

1090
01:37:33,840 --> 01:37:42,400
would uh come along later once the
planning board has reached its final

1091
01:37:39,280 --> 01:37:45,760
position on the sector plan. Um
Michelle, do you want to speak to that?

1092
01:37:44,480 --> 01:37:49,679
Well, that that has been their
consistent position and I think that's

1093
01:37:47,520 --> 01:37:54,239
pretty consistent with way the way it's
been handled in other sector plans. I

1094
01:37:52,080 --> 01:37:58,800
don't think it's an anomaly for for
purposes of this plan.

1095
01:37:56,800 --> 01:38:04,480
» Do we know what we want we know what we
wanted to say when we finally do get it?

1096
01:38:02,639 --> 01:38:08,639
» It depends what they adopt.
>> It's going to depend. Yeah. What we

1097
01:38:06,639 --> 01:38:12,400
wanted to say. We're we're going to be
reacting to the planning board

1098
01:38:10,239 --> 01:38:16,960
recommendations. recommendations with
respect to height, F, open space, public

1099
01:38:15,119 --> 01:38:22,000
benefits. There's a whole array of
things that that would be addressed or

1100
01:38:19,600 --> 01:38:26,800
could be addressed in the overlay zone.
And so right now it's sort of uh you

1101
01:38:25,199 --> 01:38:32,000
know,
we're we're we're speculating in to a

1102
01:38:29,760 --> 01:38:37,040
very large degree. I think I think it
makes sense to see what the planning

1103
01:38:33,280 --> 01:38:42,159
board recommends and then react to that.
>> Right. But but they should know in every

1104
01:38:39,600 --> 01:38:45,920
single one of our written testimonies
that we have this caveat that we will

1105
01:38:44,719 --> 01:38:53,040
always be
>> pushing for

1106
01:38:48,480 --> 01:38:57,679
enforcable overlay zone that protects
>> the the edge of our single family

1107
01:38:56,800 --> 01:39:00,719
neighborhood.
>> That's right. that that we don't intend

1108
01:38:59,199 --> 01:39:04,560
to rely just on sector plan
recommendations that we need an

1109
01:39:02,080 --> 01:39:08,159
enforceable overlay zone that imposes
those regulatory standards on any new

1110
01:39:07,119 --> 01:39:10,719
development.
>> Yeah.

1111
01:39:08,800 --> 01:39:15,040
» Yeah. Absolutely.
>> So, we'll be including language like

1112
01:39:12,560 --> 01:39:19,199
that when we submit our written
comments. Thank you.

1113
01:39:17,600 --> 01:39:25,280
Next point I want to just make sure we
solidify is that the board does not

1114
01:39:21,920 --> 01:39:32,080
support a pedestrian connection to
Western Grove Park, but recommends that

1115
01:39:28,560 --> 01:39:37,679
the parks department improve wayfinding
signage to reinforce the public's access

1116
01:39:35,520 --> 01:39:42,080
um to the park.
>> Okay,

1117
01:39:39,040 --> 01:39:47,520
» Shaya, let me just ask one question on
that. The the entrance now is on

1118
01:39:44,639 --> 01:39:52,080
Western. I'm wondering if park and
planning actually puts that new buffer

1119
01:39:50,239 --> 01:39:57,360
zone that Michelle talked about or shown
in the plan whether there could be, you

1120
01:39:54,800 --> 01:40:03,199
know, some steps along the sidewalk on
Western that would allow entrance,

1121
01:40:00,719 --> 01:40:09,679
you know, from the west versus having to
go, you know, I I wouldn't think that

1122
01:40:05,760 --> 01:40:16,320
that necessarily would be create access
problems, but I'm fine with a current

1123
01:40:12,320 --> 01:40:20,480
entrance. But uh but that might be
something somebody comes up with. Do you

1124
01:40:18,480 --> 01:40:26,159
understand what I'm saying? That instead
of just having it on Grove, you could

1125
01:40:22,560 --> 01:40:30,880
have the entrance being sort of from the
Chvy Chase land property in that same

1126
01:40:28,320 --> 01:40:34,639
corner on Western
uh than it is now, but that's for

1127
01:40:32,719 --> 01:40:41,760
another time.
Yeah, I think um at this point we want

1128
01:40:38,320 --> 01:40:48,400
to respond just to the current proposal
as opposed to putting a another

1129
01:40:45,440 --> 01:40:51,600
recommendation on the table, but um
Michelle, John, do you have any thoughts

1130
01:40:50,480 --> 01:40:55,679
about that?
>> I know

1131
01:40:53,440 --> 01:41:00,880
I'm Yeah, I'm fine with that. I think
that's the Yeah.

1132
01:40:57,280 --> 01:41:05,840
» Okay, got it. Um the next point we
should give some discussion to is that

1133
01:41:03,280 --> 01:41:11,040
the planning staff has recommended
removal of the existing uh retail

1134
01:41:09,280 --> 01:41:17,440
overlay zone. Michelle, do you want to
just speak to the current overlay zones

1135
01:41:15,199 --> 01:41:23,360
um content?
>> Sure. You know, there's there's been um

1136
01:41:20,560 --> 01:41:30,639
an impression that the current overlay
zone requires some minimum amount of

1137
01:41:27,440 --> 01:41:36,880
retail or commercial and it does not.
What it does is allow for certain types

1138
01:41:33,280 --> 01:41:42,080
of uses. It imposes some maximum uh
floor area for uses. For example, a

1139
01:41:39,440 --> 01:41:49,360
grocery store cannot exceed 25,000
square feet without uh specific approval

1140
01:41:44,880 --> 01:41:54,080
from the planning board. So it addresses
uh those uses in a way that it was

1141
01:41:51,600 --> 01:42:02,320
anticipated would help facilitate or
make it easier for for those kinds of

1142
01:41:56,560 --> 01:42:10,159
uses to develop. It does not require any
retail or commercial. So removing the

1143
01:42:05,280 --> 01:42:16,480
overlay zone does not have an effect on
mandating what what could be required

1144
01:42:12,960 --> 01:42:20,400
there. it just it's it's neutral on that
to the extent that there is a

1145
01:42:17,840 --> 01:42:24,480
requirement uh for a grocery store that
was negotiated as part of a settlement

1146
01:42:22,560 --> 01:42:30,239
agreement that's a contractual
obligation not a zoning obligation. So

1147
01:42:27,600 --> 01:42:36,639
from my perspective removing the overlay
zone has zero impact on on this issue.

1148
01:42:34,480 --> 01:42:39,119
Just to clarify, Chvy Chase Village was
not a party,

1149
01:42:37,679 --> 01:42:40,639
» right?
>> Friendship Heights,

1150
01:42:40,239 --> 01:42:47,119
» right?
>> Correct. Correct.

1151
01:42:43,520 --> 01:42:52,560
» Okay. So, with that being said, and is
believing that there's a desire for

1152
01:42:49,840 --> 01:42:57,520
truly mixed use as opposed to just
residential,

1153
01:42:54,080 --> 01:43:03,119
um, is there a
common practice now to ensure that

1154
01:42:59,600 --> 01:43:06,159
there's retail along the residential
developments there?

1155
01:43:04,320 --> 01:43:11,440
» There there is not. In fact, the
planning board for some time now has

1156
01:43:08,239 --> 01:43:18,159
made it a policy to not require any
minimum amount of residential or retail

1157
01:43:14,239 --> 01:43:22,080
or commercial. Um because as as you may
have seen in areas of the county, you

1158
01:43:20,480 --> 01:43:27,280
will have a high-rise building,
residential or commercial, with groundf

1159
01:43:25,119 --> 01:43:32,400
flooror retail, pretty significant
numbers of storefronts, but with a

1160
01:43:29,840 --> 01:43:37,679
number of them vacant. And I think the
board decided that trying to compel what

1161
01:43:35,520 --> 01:43:43,840
the market would demand or anticipate
what the market would demand was was not

1162
01:43:40,480 --> 01:43:51,360
leading to some of the best um asbuilt
outcomes. So uh for us to suggest a

1163
01:43:48,080 --> 01:43:57,119
minimum requirement would really uh we
we'd be swimming uphill on that

1164
01:43:54,480 --> 01:44:00,960
upstream.
>> I I agree with Michelle.

1165
01:43:59,119 --> 01:44:07,600
» Right. Although, you know,
aspirationally, we definitely want nice

1166
01:44:03,440 --> 01:44:12,400
mixeduse, vibrant retail.
>> If I may add, I think that the planning

1167
01:44:10,000 --> 01:44:17,440
board's or planning staff's approach is
that if you have good urban design with

1168
01:44:14,960 --> 01:44:21,920
lively streets, well-designed, and you
have a certain amount of residential

1169
01:44:19,600 --> 01:44:24,560
units, new units, that will bring that
will encourage the retail you're looking

1170
01:44:23,440 --> 01:44:27,920
for.
>> Yeah.

1171
01:44:24,880 --> 01:44:34,880
» Instead of any
>> Okay. Okay. And then getting into the um

1172
01:44:32,159 --> 01:44:39,840
nonpropy specific recommendations that
are within the working draft. Um the

1173
01:44:36,880 --> 01:44:45,679
first being um public parking to support
new development. It has been noted that

1174
01:44:42,080 --> 01:44:51,600
the McGomery County um government does
not have land within the Friendship

1175
01:44:48,800 --> 01:44:56,000
Heights sector plan area which um puts
it in a unique position compared to

1176
01:44:53,440 --> 01:45:02,320
other sector plan areas. And so there is
no space where they can create a public

1177
01:44:59,440 --> 01:45:07,119
parking garage. There has been an
aspirational

1178
01:45:03,920 --> 01:45:12,960
um statement in regard to um
incentivizing

1179
01:45:08,960 --> 01:45:17,920
developers to put in um ample parking
for their development and for entering

1180
01:45:15,440 --> 01:45:23,760
into public private partnerships with
the county to integrate public parking

1181
01:45:20,400 --> 01:45:30,480
into those built facilities. But um
there is nothing within the sector plan

1182
01:45:27,440 --> 01:45:37,600
that would mandate any specific ratio
tied to development density or units

1183
01:45:34,239 --> 01:45:41,840
etc. There are overarching um zoning
requirements that deal with parking.

1184
01:45:39,119 --> 01:45:46,000
Although because this is within a half
mile of metro, it's my understanding

1185
01:45:43,520 --> 01:45:52,880
that those things do not apply. So the
question for the board is um do you

1186
01:45:49,199 --> 01:45:58,000
support the um uh staff recommendations
as the committee has recommended or do

1187
01:45:55,440 --> 01:46:02,719
you want to be more specific on the
parking mandates and requirements? This

1188
01:46:00,480 --> 01:46:06,199
was highlighted as a big concern and
issue for residents.

1189
01:46:08,320 --> 01:46:17,760
And maybe John andor Michelle can speak
to um whether or not the over the

1190
01:46:13,679 --> 01:46:23,440
proposed overlay zone could include
requirements related to parking. setting

1191
01:46:21,920 --> 01:46:28,639
aside whether or not there would be
planning board um interest and

1192
01:46:26,000 --> 01:46:37,119
acceptance to that. Is is there is that
a an appropriate mechanism through which

1193
01:46:32,159 --> 01:46:41,280
to require certain parking thresholds?
>> The overlay zone could address this in

1194
01:46:38,960 --> 01:46:47,600
at least two ways. The first would be to
change the parking standards for these

1195
01:46:43,600 --> 01:46:51,920
properties. Um it the overlay zone is
basically a zoning text amendment. So

1196
01:46:49,360 --> 01:46:57,040
you can use that to modify the existing
zoning standards. The other would be to

1197
01:46:54,400 --> 01:47:03,840
identify it is it a public amenity. Uh
that of course would result in

1198
01:46:59,600 --> 01:47:08,960
additional um additional density
likely within even the height caps that

1199
01:47:05,840 --> 01:47:14,639
we're we're currently recommending. And
um in that in that respect, it would

1200
01:47:11,119 --> 01:47:20,239
give the a developer the incentive to um
to provide that as a public benefit um

1201
01:47:18,239 --> 01:47:24,159
in and incorporated as part of a new
development.

1202
01:47:21,840 --> 01:47:30,080
» Is that part of the staff the draft
recommendations or is that

1203
01:47:26,880 --> 01:47:34,480
» right? I their recommendation I believe
right now is to incentivize publicly

1204
01:47:32,000 --> 01:47:38,159
available parking as a benefit.
>> Right. Okay.

1205
01:47:35,360 --> 01:47:42,560
» Public benefit. Yeah. So I that's that's
something I think we should support.

1206
01:47:41,040 --> 01:47:45,920
» They did not address it as part of an
overlay zone, but we we certainly should

1207
01:47:44,480 --> 01:47:48,159
raise that as well.
>> Okay.

1208
01:47:46,880 --> 01:47:51,639
» So that would provide essentially kind
of built-in suspenders.

1209
01:47:51,840 --> 01:48:00,560
» It it seems like
if I understood correctly, uh we'd

1210
01:47:56,159 --> 01:48:04,639
probably prefer um the overlay zone side
of it because it doesn't automatically

1211
01:48:02,000 --> 01:48:09,440
cause more density. Um and they can
always say no. So seems like why not why

1212
01:48:07,760 --> 01:48:13,600
not go with that to start with,
>> right?

1213
01:48:10,639 --> 01:48:18,159
» Okay, sounds good. I I assume there's
board consensus for that position.

1214
01:48:15,920 --> 01:48:20,239
» I haven't heard any
>> agree.

1215
01:48:18,880 --> 01:48:28,480
» Yes, agree.
>> Great. Okay. Uh, next item is the um

1216
01:48:25,199 --> 01:48:35,040
establishment of dedicated bus lanes for
BRT on Wisconsin Avenue, taking one of

1217
01:48:32,320 --> 01:48:41,480
the current travel lanes in each
direction and converting it to a

1218
01:48:36,880 --> 01:48:41,480
dedicated lane for BRT.

1219
01:48:43,199 --> 01:48:52,000
» And Shaina, that was part of their
recommendations, right? I understand

1220
01:48:49,760 --> 01:48:56,400
» recommendations and the committee has um
recommended not taking a position for

1221
01:48:54,320 --> 01:49:04,239
now except to raise concerns about
impacts traffic flow and note that this

1222
01:48:59,920 --> 01:49:09,440
would um uh impact our residents in the
first block of Oliver Street off of

1223
01:49:06,320 --> 01:49:14,719
Wisconsin Avenue who are only able to
enter their block from Wisconsin Avenue.

1224
01:49:12,239 --> 01:49:20,239
It's the only block in the village that
is essentially limited in access only

1225
01:49:17,199 --> 01:49:24,560
from the one direction.
>> I think that's a good position.

1226
01:49:22,719 --> 01:49:26,560
» Needs further studied position.
>> Correct.

1227
01:49:25,520 --> 01:49:28,880
» Exactly.
>> All right.

1228
01:49:26,960 --> 01:49:31,440
» Okay. So, um the board supports the
committee's recommend recommendation.

1229
01:49:31,119 --> 01:49:38,159
Yes.
>> And then um the next item is the um

1230
01:49:35,600 --> 01:49:44,960
planning staff recommendation to
eliminate Wisconsin Circle um to be

1231
01:49:41,840 --> 01:49:51,600
replaced with a new through street that
would begin at a point to the west of

1232
01:49:48,719 --> 01:49:56,639
the buildings on the collection property
coming out at um essentially the point

1233
01:49:54,000 --> 01:50:01,239
where Wisconsin Circle does today at
Willard, the intersection at Willard

1234
01:49:58,239 --> 01:50:01,239
Avenue.

1235
01:50:02,560 --> 01:50:07,960
And the committee recommendation is take
no

1236
01:50:08,400 --> 01:50:18,679
» yet because to raise concerns about the
impacts to traffic flow along uh Western

1237
01:50:14,159 --> 01:50:18,679
Avenue further east at this point.

1238
01:50:19,040 --> 01:50:26,000
I think that that Shaina that was the
only concern that I thought we had was

1239
01:50:23,679 --> 01:50:30,560
moving that circle and what it would do
terms of the light sequence backing

1240
01:50:28,000 --> 01:50:37,040
traffic east on Western and blocking
Kirkside and other streets. Um I you

1241
01:50:34,239 --> 01:50:41,440
know one one suggestion we might have is
uh I know you've contracted with the

1242
01:50:39,520 --> 01:50:46,719
traffic group maybe when that is
actually proposed or an option proposed

1243
01:50:44,639 --> 01:50:50,960
they could look at it and determine the
adverse effect it would have.

1244
01:50:48,639 --> 01:50:56,639
» Sure. Our residents have also expressed
concern that allowing uh and I've

1245
01:50:53,840 --> 01:50:59,679
brought back up on the page the um
section that we're talking about where

1246
01:50:57,920 --> 01:51:04,960
the new street would come in. And some
of our residents have expressed concern

1247
01:51:01,840 --> 01:51:11,440
that um also bringing this street closer
to the village or farther um to the east

1248
01:51:08,719 --> 01:51:16,400
would also bring that traffic closer to
village homes with resulting um

1249
01:51:14,000 --> 01:51:22,639
emissions and noise impacts as a result
of that. So, that's something that the

1250
01:51:18,639 --> 01:51:27,760
board could raise in its letter that are
um concerns together with the traffic

1251
01:51:25,679 --> 01:51:32,119
flow impacts
um along Western Avenue.

1252
01:51:32,639 --> 01:51:42,719
» Yeah, fair enough.
>> Um broad agreement on that guys? Agreed.

1253
01:51:40,320 --> 01:51:49,520
» Yes,
>> okay. And that is it. There was a note

1254
01:51:46,320 --> 01:51:56,080
on the um comparative chart from the
committee that they have not really

1255
01:51:52,800 --> 01:52:00,400
looked at the um proposals for the GEICO
property because they have been

1256
01:51:58,400 --> 01:52:04,239
hyperfocused under the board's mandate
to look at these properties that are

1257
01:52:02,320 --> 01:52:08,960
immediately adjacent to the villages
single family homes. But certainly if

1258
01:52:06,560 --> 01:52:14,239
the board uh wants the committee to
begin to look at um the GEICO

1259
01:52:11,679 --> 01:52:17,920
properties, they stand ready to to to do
that. understanding that there are two

1260
01:52:15,920 --> 01:52:21,840
separate tracks working right now.
There's a development that is moving

1261
01:52:19,679 --> 01:52:26,960
forward through the planning process
under the existing sector plan which is

1262
01:52:24,560 --> 01:52:31,199
separate and apart from the sector plan
recommendations that are being

1263
01:52:28,880 --> 01:52:36,480
recommended for what will be the new
sector plan. So some of this is um

1264
01:52:34,480 --> 01:52:42,000
working at kind of parallel tracks and
and unfortunate timing, but so as not to

1265
01:52:39,599 --> 01:52:45,520
conflate the two things, this would be
for the committee um if the board would

1266
01:52:44,159 --> 01:52:48,639
like the committee to look at
specifically the sector plan

1267
01:52:46,800 --> 01:52:53,920
recommendations, not the current
development applications.

1268
01:52:52,000 --> 01:52:57,360
» I don't see the need. I think we've
really taxed our committee and we have

1269
01:52:55,599 --> 01:53:01,520
enough on our plate with the stuff
that's adjacent to the village, but I'd

1270
01:52:59,440 --> 01:53:04,560
love to hear if other people want the
committee to be

1271
01:53:03,679 --> 01:53:12,080
looking at
>> I agree with that. Um I know that um the

1272
01:53:08,000 --> 01:53:18,159
the E&E committee um
uh was very interested in this subject

1273
01:53:15,119 --> 01:53:23,920
uh just because um u some of the things
happening there might might have uh

1274
01:53:21,599 --> 01:53:30,000
» um
green green problems.

1275
01:53:26,320 --> 01:53:34,239
Um, and so
it might be that we would want to put

1276
01:53:32,480 --> 01:53:40,800
another committee together of some sort,
but uh I don't unless they are eager to

1277
01:53:38,080 --> 01:53:44,960
do it, I don't think we should um
further burden the the current ad hoc

1278
01:53:42,800 --> 01:53:49,679
committee.
the Friendship Heights uh Village

1279
01:53:47,760 --> 01:53:54,960
Council or any of the neighborhood
associations produce summaries that or

1280
01:53:52,800 --> 01:54:02,560
status reports that that we have access
to and that might help us stay apprised

1281
01:54:00,320 --> 01:54:06,239
of what's going on there in case pieces
of it are relevant.

1282
01:54:04,080 --> 01:54:10,080
» Sure. I've been in consistent contact
with my counterpart over at the Village

1283
01:54:08,000 --> 01:54:15,360
of Friendship Heights and he's generally
expressed that his community is

1284
01:54:12,639 --> 01:54:22,719
hyperfocused on the current development
and has been less vocal uh about the

1285
01:54:19,199 --> 01:54:26,480
proposals for the sector plan related to
GEICO. But I'll continue to stay in

1286
01:54:25,040 --> 01:54:33,119
contact with them to see if they
articulate a formal um position or

1287
01:54:30,000 --> 01:54:37,960
testimony related to the sector plan
changes proposed for the property.

1288
01:54:39,760 --> 01:54:47,040
» Okay. So, it sounds like there was not
an interest in assigning

1289
01:54:44,560 --> 01:54:53,119
» more work for the overworked committee.
>> Yes. I I I'm sure Mr. Halpern and Mr. De

1290
01:54:49,679 --> 01:54:58,800
Giovani are breathing a sigh of relief.
Okay. Um, Michelle, I will turn it over

1291
01:54:56,080 --> 01:55:03,280
to you if you and I'm happy to tag team
this with you. Want to just do kind of a

1292
01:55:00,560 --> 01:55:07,280
general summary of what the board has
decided this evening.

1293
01:55:05,040 --> 01:55:13,280
» Sure. And honestly, it would help if we
could pull up that overview of the

1294
01:55:09,199 --> 01:55:17,360
heights, the the um
the one that shows the There you go.

1295
01:55:15,920 --> 01:55:22,800
Perfect.
And so, uh, you know, we're looking at

1296
01:55:20,639 --> 01:55:27,199
maintaining the re the current
recommendations on the northern end

1297
01:55:24,639 --> 01:55:32,239
along Oliver and Belmont with those
heights, uh, and the setbacks that were

1298
01:55:29,920 --> 01:55:39,119
recommended last time by the committee.
And then when we go down to uh the

1299
01:55:36,480 --> 01:55:44,159
collection, we're going to maintain a
recommendation of the 60 ft height and

1300
01:55:41,679 --> 01:55:48,639
we're going to carry that not just at
the frontage, but we're going to carry

1301
01:55:45,520 --> 01:55:52,560
it over basically to mid block on both
uh the northern and southern pieces of

1302
01:55:50,560 --> 01:56:01,040
that property. We're going to continue
to maintain the 170 and 200 height

1303
01:55:57,360 --> 01:56:05,199
recommendations fronting on Wisconsin.
When we go down, I'm going to start at

1304
01:56:02,639 --> 01:56:11,520
the two Wisconsin Circle. We're going to
stick with the 250 foot height limit

1305
01:56:08,480 --> 01:56:16,159
there. And when we go over to the
portion of the property fronting on

1306
01:56:13,040 --> 01:56:20,719
Grove, we're going to start at 85 ft.
And then we're going to step up as we

1307
01:56:18,159 --> 01:56:26,960
move across that. Uh the suggested
heights were 130, 170, and then 250 so

1308
01:56:24,320 --> 01:56:30,960
that we have a gradient going up to the
250.

1309
01:56:29,440 --> 01:56:38,719
um
a minimum of 75 acres of open space. uh

1310
01:56:36,080 --> 01:56:44,000
in addition to the 10% open space
requirement

1311
01:56:40,239 --> 01:56:52,159
that uh we have that we emphasize that
we are looking to a um overlay zone to

1312
01:56:49,599 --> 01:56:57,599
impose these requirements as a from a
regulatoratory perspective not just as

1313
01:56:54,880 --> 01:57:02,880
master plan recommendations that we
would like to see in the overlay zone.

1314
01:56:59,760 --> 01:57:08,320
Additionally, uh some minimum parking
standards above and beyond what's

1315
01:57:04,560 --> 01:57:13,199
otherwise required in this transit area
and um

1316
01:57:10,719 --> 01:57:18,880
also note concerns with relocating
Wisconsin Circle that uh moving it

1317
01:57:17,040 --> 01:57:25,440
closer to the neighborhood is going to
move uh nuisance concerns such as noise

1318
01:57:22,639 --> 01:57:31,040
and emissions and that generally closer
to the neighborhood. And also that

1319
01:57:27,360 --> 01:57:38,960
generally we would like to um have more
analysis of the traffic impacts of that

1320
01:57:34,320 --> 01:57:43,920
of that proposal and take no position uh
specific to the bus lanes, but note that

1321
01:57:41,599 --> 01:57:47,440
we think that that requires further
study with respect to long-term traffic

1322
01:57:45,920 --> 01:57:53,599
impacts.
Um Shaina, I think I got them all, but I

1323
01:57:51,360 --> 01:57:57,840
suspect you may have have one or two
that I left out. Yes, just a couple

1324
01:57:56,000 --> 01:58:09,280
things. I want to note that the board
supports the um CR zoning for Sachs at

1325
01:58:03,679 --> 01:58:15,360
an F of 3.0 and also supports the 3.0 F
for the collection property. We didn't

1326
01:58:13,360 --> 01:58:20,960
it wasn't verbalized, but I just want to
make sure that I believe it was 5.0 for

1327
01:58:18,159 --> 01:58:24,080
two Wisconsin circles. Is that correct?
>> That's correct.

1328
01:58:22,080 --> 01:58:29,440
» Okay. And I just I don't know that the
board really focused in on that as much,

1329
01:58:26,639 --> 01:58:36,800
but is there any board objection to 5.0
F specific for two Wisconsin Circle for

1330
01:58:32,800 --> 01:58:40,080
that um southwestern most corner of that
buildable area

1331
01:58:39,360 --> 01:58:44,320
which I believe
>> Let me just

1332
01:58:41,280 --> 01:58:50,400
» Can I just ask John uh how does that
compare with Wisconsin and Bethesda like

1333
01:58:48,480 --> 01:58:55,280
the Marriott building? Is that similar
height?

1334
01:58:51,840 --> 01:59:00,800
Yeah, it's similar. Yeah, the the
density and the heights are similar, but

1335
01:58:58,239 --> 01:59:04,560
I can I can confirm.
>> That's fine.

1336
01:59:02,320 --> 01:59:09,360
» Yeah, I I think that that one had been
mapped at 300.

1337
01:59:06,880 --> 01:59:12,480
I don't know what the built conditions
are.

1338
01:59:10,239 --> 01:59:19,360
» Yeah.
>> Okay. And the only other thing that I

1339
01:59:16,080 --> 01:59:23,280
had was um
uh that the board supports removal of

1340
01:59:21,119 --> 01:59:28,320
the existing overlay zone.
>> Right. Thank you.

1341
01:59:24,719 --> 01:59:31,360
» Okay, I think that summarizes it.
>> Great summary. Thank you,

1342
01:59:29,440 --> 01:59:37,520
» Leonard. We will pass it back over to
you.

1343
01:59:33,840 --> 01:59:44,800
» If I could just ask one question. Um the
planning board website shows a walking

1344
01:59:40,960 --> 01:59:50,080
tour of Friendship Heights on the 18th
next week and just wanted to confirm

1345
01:59:46,400 --> 01:59:55,119
that the village is engaged in that
walking tour in some fashion with a nice

1346
01:59:52,719 --> 01:59:57,840
long walk along Belmont
>> to point out the issues we're talking

1347
01:59:56,880 --> 02:00:01,199
about here.
>> We're not allowed to point out issues in

1348
01:59:59,599 --> 02:00:06,000
that walking tour. We're not allowed to
speak. We're allowed to walk.

1349
02:00:02,800 --> 02:00:11,280
» Yes. So yeah on the tour.
>> Yeah,

1350
02:00:07,360 --> 02:00:16,639
» I do plan to attend uh that walking tour
and um anyone who knows me knows I'm not

1351
02:00:13,679 --> 02:00:20,320
shy about um speaking up and trying to
direct attention to things to the extent

1352
02:00:18,400 --> 02:00:25,119
that I'll certainly be allowed to do so.
But we've also publicized the walking

1353
02:00:22,320 --> 02:00:29,440
tour in our weekly blast emails to our
residents in hopes that we can have um

1354
02:00:27,840 --> 02:00:33,320
interested residents attend that as
well.

1355
02:00:30,320 --> 02:00:33,320
» Yeah.

1356
02:00:34,800 --> 02:00:43,840
Any other questions for Michelle or
John?

1357
02:00:39,840 --> 02:00:49,520
» No. What's the next part of the agenda?
>> Sorry about that.

1358
02:00:47,119 --> 02:00:55,199
» Yeah,
we know who likes to do this.

1359
02:00:53,040 --> 02:01:03,280
» Come in, Gary.
>> I I do move to adjourn the meeting.

1360
02:00:59,599 --> 02:01:04,639
» Second. All in favor? I
>> I

1361
02:01:03,599 --> 02:01:07,280
» I
>> All right. Thank you very much

1362
02:01:05,840 --> 02:01:12,639
everybody.
>> Thank you.

1363
02:01:09,119 --> 02:01:12,639
» Byebye. Good night. Bye-bye.