[0:02] This conference will now be recorded.
There you go.
[0:05] » Great. Okay. So, we'll call the meeting
to order. The board has called this
[0:10] special meeting to ensure that we can
finalize and submit to the planning
[0:14] board detailed written testimony by
early September. That will also be the
[0:18] basis for the oral testimony that vi
board vice chair Lou Morsburgger will
[0:23] provide during the planning board's
September 14th public hearing on the
[0:28] friendship heights sector plan draft.
That's our action item tonight to
[0:32] finalize our written testimony for
September. We have a very tight
[0:36] turnaround, hence the need to have
tonight's virtual emergency meeting. Um,
[0:42] I want to convey the board's sincere
thank you to our village ad hoc
[0:47] friendship hike sector plan committee
for its recommendations. The committee
[0:51] has been working tirelessly. Bill Van
Horn, Jonathan Halprren, Allison D.
[0:56] Giovani
um the committee's very thoughtful
[0:59] recommendations will be discussed
tonight and committee member Allison
[1:03] will be speaking later in this meeting.
Also under consider our consideration is
[1:08] all the comments and feedback from
residents that have been gathered by
[1:11] village staff. The board has been
provided with all of the written
[1:15] testimony and comments submitted to the
village office through 4 p.m. this
[1:19] afternoon.
Um we're all in this together. The
[1:24] members of the board of managers of Chvy
Chase Village and I believe all of our
[1:27] residents support a revitalized mixeduse
Friendship Heights that strengthens the
[1:33] commercial district, improves
walkability and public space, and
[1:37] importantly also respects the
established single family neighborhoods
[1:41] immediately in joining the plan area.
It's important to emphasize that the
[1:46] village wishes to remain an active and
constructive partner with Montgomery
[1:51] County Council, Montgomery County
Planning, the Cherry Chase Land Company,
[1:55] the Village Friendship Heights as the
sector plan evolves and proceeds. We're
[2:00] stakeholders and we have a voice at the
table. Um, it's inevitable that the plan
[2:06] will allow for increased commercial
residential density and building
[2:10] heights. Our voice at the table is that
we want this to be accompanied by a
[2:15] clear, durable, enforcable transition
from the village. I think about this all
[2:20] the time when I'm walking around. What
will the edge look like? How can we
[2:24] prepare for the edge with enhanced
landscaping and greenery? And how will
[2:28] that buffering edge be written into a
new enforcable overlay zone?
[2:34] Um, we've been gathering advice from our
zoning council and other land use
[2:38] professionals. I believe that anything
overly aggressive proposed at this stage
[2:44] could be counterproductive later when
the pro process proceeds from the
[2:49] planning board to the county council.
Um, as you know, we modified our agenda
[2:54] for this evening to include a public
hearing. Residents who wish to speak are
[3:00] asked to type their name into the chat
and to remain muted until your name is
[3:05] called. I think um Shaina will be
referring that and depending on the
[3:10] number of people who wish to speak, I'll
put a two-minute limit on each speaker
[3:14] so that we can have time to conduct the
board's business of our written
[3:18] testimony. If you've already submitted a
written comment, um it's been provided
[3:23] to us and you're encouraged to generally
summarize your position so that the
[3:27] board has sufficient time to discuss its
position on the various proposals.
[3:34] Um, everyone knows this, but I'm going
to remind us all anyway. The village has
[3:39] an important stake in the sector plan,
but the final decision on the plan will
[3:43] not be decided by the village board.
We're not the deciders. The planning
[3:48] board will review the current draft,
make revisions, transmit its
[3:52] recommendations in a revised draft to
the county council, who make a final
[3:56] decision after making its own revisions.
But village residents can continue to
[4:02] lobby the county. We're not working at
cross purposes to that. We urge
[4:07] residents to submit written testimony or
sign up to testify before the planning
[4:12] board to ensure that your concerns are
heard by the planning board as they
[4:16] consider the current draft plan
recommendations.
[4:19] Um before the public hearing, I'll turn
the meeting over to our zoning attorney,
[4:24] Michelle Rosenfeld, to provide an
overview of the sector plan schedule,
[4:29] highlighting the opportunities for
continued public engagement, followed by
[4:33] the public hearing. Um Michelle, thank
you. Your help and time has been
[4:39] invaluable. Really, thank you so much.
So, I'm turning it over to Michelle
[4:42] right now.
[4:51] Uh, you're muted.
[4:57] You're muted.
>> There we go. Is that better?
[5:00] » Yeah. Thank you.
>> Sorry about that. Um before we get into
[5:03] the substance of the recommendations
tonight, I wanted to just give a very
[5:06] brief overview of the multiple steps
that occur during the sector plan
[5:12] amendment process and then the
implementation phases that follow. At
[5:16] this point, we are at the uh staff draft
and there will be the upcoming public
[5:22] hearings before the planning board. The
planning board will hear testimony at
[5:26] that hear at those hearings, receive
written correspondence, and subsequently
[5:31] schedule its own work sessions where the
planning board and staff will discuss
[5:36] the various recommendations and the
public testimony that's been presented.
[5:40] And the board will develop its own
recommendations. It will accept a number
[5:44] of them. It may well modify a number of
them. And then staff will take the
[5:49] board's recommendations and amend the
current document and convert that into
[5:54] the planning board draft. And that will
go up to the county council for review
[5:59] and consideration.
At that point, the county council will
[6:03] conduct its own public hearings and then
send the draft to one of its committees
[6:10] for committee review and consideration,
which then will send its own
[6:14] recommendations to the council. and then
the council will have its own work
[6:18] sessions as well. So there will be
multiple opportunities for additional
[6:23] public hearings and additional input.
There is not an overlay zone at the
[6:29] moment as we all know. Planning staff
has advised us that they will be
[6:33] drafting an overlay zone after the
planning board recommendations have been
[6:38] issued and there will be public a public
hearing before the planning board on the
[6:43] draft overlay zone. The planning board
will hold its work session and then it
[6:47] will transmit a proposed draft overlay
zone to the council with a
[6:52] recommendation that it be introduced and
that will run roughly in parallel with
[6:59] the sector plan process. Uh the overlay
zone may not be adopted until shortly
[7:04] after the sector plan but it will
reflect the recommendations in the final
[7:08] plan as as approved by the council. So
that process also will have multiple
[7:14] opportunities for public testimony and
input both at the planning board and at
[7:19] the county council level. The next step
is a sectional map amendment which is a
[7:25] very straightforward process where the
county council legislatively reszones
[7:31] the properties that are subject to the
sector plan and basically plants the new
[7:36] zoning on the properties. And it's
really a ministerial type of process.
[7:43] Technically, there's public a public
hearing opportunity, but it generally is
[7:48] just a reflection of mapping uh in the
zoning maps the recommendations that
[7:53] come out of the sector plan itself.
And then if we could just quickly go to
[7:58] the next page, um the there also uh and
I'm going up now to the development
[8:05] process itself.
Um once after the sector after the
[8:11] sectional map amendment is in effect and
the zoning is in effect then there are
[8:16] three subsequent opportunities for
public input through the development
[8:21] process itself. There is a sketch plan
which is a very general overview of what
[8:27] a developer may propose. Uh it allows
for a public hearing before the planning
[8:33] board and it just reflects general
design, density, circulation, public
[8:39] benefits at a very high level. A sketch
plan approval requires a planning board
[8:45] determination that the proposal will
substantially conform with the
[8:50] recommendations of the applicable master
plan. That is required zoning ordinance
[8:55] finding. So even absent a an overlay
zone and I'm not discounting the
[9:01] importance of an overlay zone but even
absent an overlay zone the sector plan
[9:07] recommendations become essentially
binding with respect to this conformity
[9:11] finding. That conformity finding is
repeated at preliminary plan where the
[9:16] boundaries of the property are
established primarily um requiring uh
[9:21] any public dedications for road road
improvements that kind of thing. And
[9:26] again at site plan where there is a very
detailed overview
[9:31] of the applicant's development plan, the
site layout, architectural renderings,
[9:36] open space, landscaping, lighting and
again a site planing board has to find
[9:42] that the project substantially conforms
with the recommendations of the
[9:46] applicable master plan and any
guidelines approved by the board that
[9:51] implement the applicable plan.
So through the um
[9:58] through the um sectional map amendment,
we're probably looking a year and a half
[10:04] or so um for the full review and
implementation process and then of
[10:10] course the development uh proposals will
come at the it's entirely depending
[10:17] dependent on the timing of the property
owner actions. So I just wanted to give
[10:22] a sort of start to finish overview of
what we're looking at down the road and
[10:27] that's just a highle summary.
>> Great. Thank you very much. Um probably
[10:32] people know this but the only
um property owner developer we're
[10:38] dealing with on our edge is Chvy Chase
Land Company. So that um simplifies
[10:45] things a little bit for us because you
know we meet with them. We're meeting
[10:48] that with them in September to get a
sense of um their thoughts about
[10:55] what they'd like to do when the area is
reszoned. Um and this there's stuff to
[11:01] like about what the planning staff has
recommended because they recognize the
[11:05] importance of a transition from single
family homes to
[11:10] uh this new sector plan development. So,
I think that now's the time to start the
[11:17] public hearing. And I have only seen one
person sign up. Is that correct, Shaina?
[11:24] » Correct. I only see Kathy and John
Filin. If there are others who are
[11:28] interested in being heard during the
public hearing, please type your name
[11:31] into the chat.
>> Okay. So,
[11:35] uh can we start with are they speaking
together? John and Kathy, are you
[11:39] together?
[11:45] Are they unmuted?
>> Mr. and Mrs. Philin, I have sent you an
[11:48] unmute request.
[11:53] » You can please unmute yourselves.
>> I see John P.
[12:03] » I I unfortunately cannot unmute them,
but I have sent an unmute request.
[12:15] Okay,
[12:18] » Mr. and Mrs. Filin, are you able to hear
us?
[12:21] » I don't see them there.
[12:29] » And while we wait for them to unmute,
again, a reminder for anyone who would
[12:32] like to speak during the public hearing,
please type your name into the chat.
[12:38] Shane
[12:41] Shaina, can you hear me?
>> Yes, I can.
[12:44] » Oh, good. You can hear me? Sorry.
>> Sorry.
[12:48] » Okay, Shaya, would you mind putting up
that slide that we had queued up?
[12:53] Perfect. Thank you.
[12:58] » Thank you. Okay, you can hear me?
>> Yes.
[13:02] » Okay. Thank you. First of all, um my
name is Kathy Philin and I live at 5414
[13:09] Grove Street across from beautiful
Western Grove Park. Thank you for giving
[13:16] me a few minutes to speak.
First, I want everyone to know that I am
[13:22] for the revitalization of Friendship
Heights and I support development at
[13:28] Sachs in the collection site. And I,
like everyone else, I'm hoping for a
[13:34] development that can revitalize this
community.
[13:39] But I want to address an undercurrent
that has loomed in the background since
[13:45] this process began. And it's been
bothering me all summer long because
[13:50] this word has been used in my presence.
And I have to say that it's gotten under
[13:57] my skin. The word is nimi.
The suggestion that our community is
[14:04] simply opposing these heights because
they are in our backyard.
[14:10] I'd like you to look at this rendering.
This is not my drawing. This is not an
[14:17] alarmist projection.
This is what the proposed zoning
[14:22] actually builds out to prepared by our
own urban planner. Look at it. It's not
[14:31] hypothetical.
This is not worst case scenario.
[14:35] This is what a developer will legally be
allowed to build. 200 foot towers,
[14:43] approximately 20 stories at the
collection, 250 ft at Wisconsin Circle,
[14:50] 100 foot building at Sachs, right next
to our single family neighborhood, right
[14:56] next to Western Grove Park.
Looking at that rendering, we can
[15:03] clearly see that our single family
neighborhood is completely engulfed by
[15:11] this height and massing of what is being
proposed.
[15:17] Challenging heights that overwhelm and
engulf a single family neighborhood is
[15:24] not nimi. It's responsible advocacy.
Am I a nimi because I look at this
[15:31] rendering and say these heights show no
compatibility with the scale of our
[15:37] single family neighborhood? Am I a nimi
because I look at this rendering and I
[15:43] see no meaningful transition next to a
single family neighborhood? I don't
[15:49] think so. I think it is called looking
at the evidence.
[15:55] Nimi means opposing something out of
self-interest with no legitimate
[16:00] planning basis. We have legitimate
planning basis. This site is narrow. It
[16:07] abuts a single family neighborhood. The
zoning text contains no protective
[16:13] language whatsoever. No shadow studies
were commissioned, no light studies, no
[16:20] engineering analysis of how these
heights interact on this constrained
[16:26] site. The community overwhelmingly said
they did not want buildings at 200 ft.
[16:34] These heights were not validated by any
independent analysis. They were simply
[16:41] proposed.
This is not an uninformed reaction. This
[16:48] is residents looking at the evidence and
drawing a reasonable conclusion.
[16:55] We should not allow this community to be
permanently transformed for our lifetime
[17:02] and beyond because we are afraid of a
made up word. Thank you.
[17:12] Thank you for your comments.
Do we have anyone else who's um signed
[17:17] up to
>> This is John. I'd like to
[17:20] » Okay,
>> doing this together here. So, good
[17:25] evening.
>> Hi, John.
[17:27] » How are you? I thank you very much for
the chance to speak. When the village
[17:32] asked residents to get informed on this
plan, I took it took the assignment
[17:37] seriously, probably more seriously than
you wanted, judging by the volume of
[17:41] paper I've sent. I'll spare you tonight.
It has been an education. The deeper I
[17:47] went, the more I found that concern me.
I know everybody here is working towards
[17:51] the same goal as you expressed. I also
know this is a long road with a lot of
[17:57] moving parts and competing interests and
that it is hard for any of us to follow.
[18:04] We all want something on the collection
and SAC site that helps this
[18:08] neighborhood and I respect that
different people have different avenues
[18:12] and different tools for shaping what
gets built. Here's what I want to say.
[18:17] Height is not a separate question from
density. On a site this narrow, it is
[18:23] the same question. You cannot build
three times the area of the land by
[18:28] spreading out. There isn't enough land.
The only way there is is up. So the
[18:35] heights being proposed are not a design
choice. They are the arithmetic.
[18:41] They're the arithmetic of the density
being authorized. Reduce the density and
[18:47] the heights come down on their own.
and CR3
[18:52] was a choice, not a requirement. The
zoning ordinance has lower CR tiers. The
[18:59] only justification the plan's own table
gives for this reasonzoning is to
[19:04] increase flexibility for future
development. That is not an analysis of
[19:09] what this site can carry. Nobody has
shown why three is the right number here
[19:15] rather than something lower. And if
height follows density, that number is
[19:20] the only lever that matters. And that
density permits a developer to build
[19:25] entirely residential in full compliance.
No neighborhood retail, no shops or
[19:31] restaurants, no community space, nothing
required.
[19:36] We don't have to guess what happens when
density is granted and retail is only
[19:40] encouraged. On the GEICO site, a
developer has proposed 536 residential
[19:46] units and 5,000 square feet of retail,
two small storefronts. And this plan
[19:53] removes the Chvy Chase neighborhood
retail overlay, the one instrument that
[19:57] currently requires ground floor retail
at the collection. Remove the
[20:02] requirement, add the density, and the
market does what the markets will do.
[20:09] Then there is the shape of this site
along Belmont Avenue. The protection
[20:14] being offered starts less than 10 steps
from the property line. And that line is
[20:19] on our side of the wall. 10 steps in, a
building can be 45 ft tall. 20 steps in,
[20:27] 75 ft. Along Belmont Buffer Park, less
than 10 steps in, you are at 60 feet
[20:34] tall. and 95 ft by 20 steps.
And stepbacks have been proposed at
[20:43] those northern edges by the ad hoc
committee, which I credit.
[20:48] But further south, from Tiffany's
building down to the grocery store
[20:52] parking lot, there are no step backs at
all. That is also the stretch where
[20:59] today's zoning does the most work for
the village. It holds height at 55 ft at
[21:06] a quarter of the density being proposed.
This plan takes it to 200 feet tall. You
[21:13] don't have to take my word for it.
Planning staff told the planning board
[21:16] on July 16th that Friendship Heights is
a very compact downtown. It has the
[21:23] density, but it only has one block deep
before you get to the neighborhood. They
[21:30] said Bethesda has a lot more blocks to
start transitioning and that here we
[21:36] have only a tiny fraction of that space.
Staff acknowledged the site is unique
[21:43] then applied the same formula. Anyway,
now the part I most want this board to
[21:50] hear and I think Michelle emphasized it
a bit ago. In 1998, development rights
[21:58] on this site were granted through the
sector plan process. Before they were
[22:03] granted, binding commitments were signed
and recorded. Commitments before
[22:08] entitlements. That is a sequence that
protected this community. them.
[22:17] Anything worked out along the way
protects this community only if it ends
[22:23] in something binding in writing recorded
before the zoning is set. Assurances are
[22:30] not protection and a handshake is not
protection along the way. So, two
[22:35] requests. first that the board satisfies
itself that it has seen the overlay lang
[22:42] language it is being asked to rely on in
sufficient detail. If it hasn't, that
[22:47] alone is a reason to wait. Second, the
board not endorse a height on the record
[22:53] tonight. Not because negotiating is
wrong, but because an organized
[22:58] community with a documented case is the
strongest card this village holds at any
[23:03] table. The moment the village endorses a
number, you undermine our ability to
[23:08] argue against the heights and density
before the planning board and the county
[23:14] council.
We are not in your way. We are your
[23:18] leverage.
>> Please do not give away your leverage
[23:22] before there is something binding in
writing. Once these entitlements are
[23:26] granted, they belong to whoever owns
that land forever. Thank you, Listen.
[23:33] Thanks for your comments. Okay, we have
one more comment and that's by Greg
[23:36] Dixon.
[23:45] » Is he online?
>> Uh yes, now I am.
[23:50] » Okay.
[23:53] » I really salute the
uh extraordinary work that uh John and
[23:58] Kathy have done in their analysis of all
this. It certainly woke me up to a great
[24:04] extent.
Uh I was already I was concerned but I
[24:09] was not able to really articulate all of
it until I read their very very careful
[24:15] analysis and I'm hoping the board uh
there's a lot of it. So you have to be
[24:21] persistent to read it all. But I wanted
to just briefly mention,
[24:27] you know, that all this is not
theoretical
[24:30] uh uh discussions of things that could
happen in the future. Uh uh an anecdote
[24:37] from this month uh is we live at the end
of Montgomery Street, the western end of
[24:44] Montgomery Street, ne right next to the
buffer where the entrance goes uh the or
[24:50] the exit from the village over to the
collection uh goes and uh the home
[24:56] across the street from us went up for
sale a couple of months ago. Uh it's a
[25:01] large home and and an expensive home. Uh
uh it it did not sell. It has not sold.
[25:10] And the owners we know very well and we
hate to see them uh out of the village,
[25:16] but told us very explicitly that uh real
estate agents told them that one of the
[25:22] biggest problems uh giving pause to
people who were considering their lovely
[25:28] lovely home was that they were aware of
the potential of the developments
[25:35] uh in in the collection and the sachs.
area. Uh that that real estate agents
[25:43] have had to divulge all of that uh to
potential buyers and that it's pretty
[25:49] easy to find some of these things
>> and and that uh
[25:56] and that it really gave it several
potential buyers pause. They said they
[26:01] they just didn't know what they were
getting into. So,
[26:05] that's one family, but I think anyone
else who's who who thinks they might be
[26:11] uh uh wanting to uh sell or do something
different with their property uh may
[26:19] find themselves in the same condition.
That's not a theoretical future uh
[26:25] effect. It is it is happening uh right
now. Like John and Kathy, we're
[26:31] concerned with both the massing and uh
and the lack of a requirement for the
[26:38] retail uh uh uh portion of the property
that we we're we're afraid we'd end up
[26:46] with a a large block of apartments and
town houses. Uh there's nothing wrong
[26:51] with that in and of itself, but only
that with no with no replacement grocery
[26:57] store, uh few shops or or restaurants
and uh and and virtually no green space
[27:05] and uh so we add our voice to that of uh
John and Kathy u uh with our concerns.
[27:15] Uh that's it. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Thank you, Greg. Um, okay.
[27:20] So, with the public hearing concluded,
we go to the next item on the agenda,
[27:26] which is,
um, I believe we're going to be talking
[27:30] to Allison Giovani, a member of the ad
hoc friendship heights sector committee
[27:36] and your report.
>> All right. Good evening. My
[27:41] » Thank you, Alison.
>> Yes, of course. Thank you for the
[27:44] introduction. Um,
good evening. My name is Alison D.
[27:48] Giovani.
Um, and like Alyssa mentioned, I serve
[27:51] on the ad hoc friendship heights sector
plan committee together with Bill Van
[27:56] Horn, who is um, not able to join us
tonight as he is away. He's our chair,
[28:01] and Jonathan Halpern, who is here and is
our former chair, and we work in
[28:05] conjunction with Michelle Rosenfield and
John Mark as a committee. Thank you for
[28:10] the opportunity to share um, our work
with you tonight. Just a little bit of
[28:14] history. Our committee was formed by
this board in October of 2025 to help
[28:19] develop the village's position on the
Friendship Heights sector plan. So our
[28:24] task has been to develop recommendations
to the board that accurately represent
[28:29] um the village's interests and as part
of that effort to liaz with the county
[28:33] the Montgomery planning staff Montgomery
County planning staff Chev Land Company
[28:38] who are the owners of the properties
that are proximal to the village and
[28:41] mostly most directly um impacted by this
plan. So over the past almost year we've
[28:47] built our recommendations around several
sources. We've collected data from
[28:51] residents that included a villagewide
survey. Um, we've collected direct
[28:56] feedback from the residents. So, we've
had a substantial volume of written
[28:59] letters and emails dating back to
November of 2024
[29:04] um that are from 18 households and
individuals and all. And we've met with
[29:10] on several occasions the Montgomery
County Planning Staff, the Chvy Chase
[29:14] Land Company, um several land use and
zoning consultants. And we have of
[29:19] course relied upon prior board guidance
to the planning department staff and
[29:23] prior communication and that has
informed all of these evolving
[29:28] recommendations that we're making today.
Before I hand it over to dive into our
[29:32] recommendations in detail, I just wanted
to make a few notes on our approach. Um
[29:38] a brief word maybe on how we've arrived
at the current recommendations.
[29:43] Um, our height and setback figures along
the village edges are grounded in the
[29:47] zoning codes compatibility standards.
Those require heights to step back at a
[29:52] 1:1 ratio as the buildings rise farther
from the property line. Um to translate
[29:58] that into something that the committee
could evaluate, our land planner built
[30:02] height and massing models directly from
the site's existing topography so
[30:06] committee members could see and not just
read the practical impact of a given
[30:11] height on the neighborhood before we
settled on these recommendations.
[30:15] Um where our recommended heights differ
from one property to the next, that
[30:19] reflects real differences between the
sites themselves. So that includes
[30:23] things like grade changes, existing
vegetated buffers, each site's distance
[30:27] from transit, all of which factor into
our judgment about where added height
[30:31] and density can be absorbed with the
least impact on our neighborhood. On the
[30:35] retail front, um we've had many
conversations about zoning overlays,
[30:39] including about the current overlay that
allows for ground floor retail and a
[30:44] grocery store at this location. Um, we
spent a lot of time coming to the
[30:48] realization that the current overlay
does not mandate retail, nor does the
[30:51] proposed amendment for the SAK site for
collection or to Wisconsin Circle. And
[30:56] the committee has spent a lot of time
discussing the premise that forcing
[31:00] retail does not automatically achieve
it. Um, and that additional residential
[31:05] development may be necessary to support
and incentivize retail development.
[31:10] Um, and in light of those things, the
zoning requirements for specific amounts
[31:15] of retail do not necessarily ensure
outcomes and can possibly limit them.
[31:20] So,
we factored a lot of that into our
[31:23] recommendations.
And finally, uh, several of the
[31:27] protections that we're describing
tonight, particularly along Belmont
[31:29] Avenue and Oliver, will ultimately be
carried into a neighborhood overly zone
[31:34] that planning staff has said may only be
drafted after the sector plan
[31:39] recommendations are settled. So, we want
to be transparent that tonight's
[31:43] recommendations are a step in an ongoing
process, not a final word. We intend to
[31:47] stay engaged through all these public
hearings and make sure that our
[31:52] recommendations
um are current and that we our
[31:57] recommendations reflect what you know
the current guidance there and what
[32:00] we're recommending tonight is still
relevant. So what you're here tonight is
[32:03] not new territory. It builds on and
refineses the position that this board
[32:07] took in its prior letter to planning
staff and it's been updated to reflect
[32:10] the planning board's working draft and
several more months of review on our
[32:14] part. And our role tonight is just to
walk you through where things stand and
[32:17] where we believe the village interests
lie so that the board has what they need
[32:21] to finalize their formal position. This
is intended as an information transfer.
[32:26] So a status update and a set of
recommendations negotiation. And the two
[32:31] goals that have been at the center of
what we're presenting the entire time is
[32:34] to properly represent the opinions of
the village and preserve what makes our
[32:40] um neighborhood distinct and also to
support a successful revitalization of
[32:44] Friendship Heights um including the
collection and the sack site and
[32:47] everything that we are all discussing.
So we've laid out our current
[32:50] recommendations in detail including
comparing the positions of the um board
[32:54] and the county in a format we hope is
easy to digest. And um with that I will
[33:00] turn it over to John Marklin to walk
through our specific recommendations
[33:04] tonight.
>> Thank you Allison. For the record my
[33:08] name is John Markle on land planner. I
think you met me the last hearing
[33:13] we had. So I will move to the next
slide. So the synopsis I'm going to u
[33:20] I'm going to go over the heights
employer ratios for each of the parts of
[33:25] the plan. the Saxs property. I'll
compare existing to planning staff
[33:30] recommendations and village
recommendations. I'll do visualizations
[33:34] uh from Park Street. I'll do and I'll
look at the heights at collection
[33:38] property and also do visualizations
there. And then I'll end by looking at
[33:44] different height map comparisons.
Next slide.
[33:50] So this this slide shows uh the Sax
property looking west. So you see
[33:56] Wisconsin Avenue in the background,
Elmont Avenue, Park Street.
[34:01] Next slide.
[34:05] This this slide shows the recommend
recommendations of the planning
[34:10] department. Um
and what I want to describe the green is
[34:16] what is three F. So uh and the brown is
the full height. So uh planning
[34:24] departments recommended 150 ft at the
northern end of the sax property and 100
[34:30] ft um going north of that. Uh they've
also recommended 3.0 F. So 3.0 F will
[34:38] fill up everything in grade.
Does that make sense? Any questions?
[34:45] » Just to clarify, that's the maxed out.
That's the absolute max.
[34:50] » That's not necessarily what would be
built. It's just the max of what could
[34:53] be built.
>> Yes.
[34:56] » Thank you very much, Liz. I want to make
make that point that this image and the
[35:00] previous image that was referred to
earlier in in public testimony and
[35:05] images I'm going to be showing you are
those are those are the full building
[35:10] envelope inside of which the developer
can build. uh that means that they can
[35:16] get to that uh height and that that
density that shape but in reality most
[35:24] developers most plans never fulfill that
full build out that full envelope. Um
[35:31] all the plans I worked on for the county
all the major downtowns have never maxed
[35:36] out their density. As a matter of fact,
when they start the next sector plan
[35:40] after 20 years, there's still density on
the table because they would never maxed
[35:44] out. The plans usually, you know, they
they they're not about maxing out.
[35:49] They're about providing opportunities
for uh the owners and as well as as for
[35:54] the people who live there. Next slide.
So, this is the um the village's
[36:02] recommendation. So we recommend at 85 ft
multif family along Wisconsin Avenue and
[36:07] town houses eating sticks of three and
four along Belmont Avenue.
[36:13] Next slide.
[36:19] Uh this is the elevation excuse me
elevation but it's a actual existing
[36:24] view up Park Street uh with Belmont
Avenue. Uh he do you see my cursor?
[36:32] Is my cursor visible?
>> Uh, yeah.
[36:34] » Oh. Uh, no.
>> Yeah.
[36:37] » Okay.
>> Tell me where to point though, John.
[36:39] » Could you just point to to Bel to
Belmont Avenue?
[36:43] » Yeah. And then that's the buffer there,
the 20 20 foot buffer. That's today.
[36:48] That was taken a couple months about a
month ago. Next slide.
[36:54] And this is a section that you've seen
before that shows the village's
[36:58] recommendation for heights. So we
recommend those recommends 45 feet
[37:05] at Belmont Avenue
for 75 ft back and then stepping up to
[37:10] 60 after 75 ft and ultimately to 85 ft.
Um this is an older one so it says 80
[37:18] but it's actually 85.
So that's what the village has has
[37:22] recommended and sent up to the planning
department. Next slide.
[37:30] And this is a a photo visualization of
what that could look like. So we have
[37:35] town houses in front and multif family
in the back. Multif family going to 85
[37:41] ft, town houses to 45 ft. And I'm
showing the screen here as well as a row
[37:47] of trees because that's important. the
there's an existing buffer of 20 feet
[37:53] behind the curb to the property line and
the village has put a lot of work and
[37:57] effort into creating a screen and I
recommend keeping it. So I've showed it
[38:02] here um and and also augmenting it over
time and then encouraging the planning
[38:08] department to go ahead and plant that
double row of trees in their 30 feet. So
[38:11] you'd have 50 foot buffer. And also I
recommend that any part any uh sidewalk
[38:18] that goes in goes in on Sachs property,
not on your property.
[38:24] » I think you have that you have that um
authority
[38:27] » and and part of the thinking in this is
that yes, it's now a two-sided Belmont
[38:33] with potentially if the developer wants
to town houses on the other side. That's
[38:39] better than facing the back of an
apartment building. It's better for our
[38:44] neighborhood to have a two-sided Belmont
with all of their stuff in the back of
[38:50] them.
Anyway, that's just my two cents.
[38:54] » That's a very good point. I think yeah,
if you're going to have development,
[38:56] have it facing the street so you create
a real street instead of looking at
[38:59] some, you know, the back of a store or
back of a somebody's back grill and
[39:03] trash cans. Uh, next slide.
[39:11] And this is from taken from the planning
uh planning document uh that was
[39:15] published in the end of June. Um it
shows the compatibility plane and the
[39:20] zoning ordinance in red. It says zoning
ordinance compatibility plane. It starts
[39:24] at the u face of the building at 35 ft
and goes up at a one one angle uh until
[39:31] the proposed the the allowed height. the
planning department has proposed is
[39:36] pushing that back 45 or rather 30 feet
and starting at 45 feet. So they're
[39:44] they're acknowledging the concern about
compatibility. So they're pushing that
[39:48] plane backwards uh in favor of the
village.
[39:55] Next step and next slide, excuse me.
So this is a photo realalistic u image
[40:03] of what that development could look
like. So these are multif family uh
[40:08] buildings with townhouse fronts at 45 ft
stepping um up at 1:1 ratio to 100 ft.
[40:18] And we've kept the screen in here. Um,
and also I want to make point out that
[40:23] uh on the on the left side of this image
along Belmont where the Belmont Buffer
[40:28] Park starts, the heights would jump to
60 ft. So right past that basketball
[40:34] hoop.
[40:37] Next slide.
Now moving on to the collection
[40:42] property. This is a view north from
Western Avenue uh over uh uh Western
[40:48] Grove Park to the right. And that's the
old um uh Amazon Fresh uh building there
[40:55] that's now vacant.
Next slide.
[41:01] This is uh a view looking at the same
the same place
[41:06] with the superimposed development over
existing and this is this a planning
[41:11] board recommended heights. So 200 feet,
200 um 250 feet and 60 feet along
[41:18] Belmont Buffer Park. And I want to re
reiterate this is the building envelope
[41:26] that a builder in this case Chase Land
Company can build within. Does not mean
[41:32] that it will look like this. Most likely
not. As I said, I've never seen a full
[41:37] development envelope built out. Just not
realistic. So it's really to give you
[41:43] like inside that box inside those boxes
that's where the development can take
[41:48] place.
Next slide.
[41:54] And this slide shows what three F will
get you. So uh if they were build build
[42:01] out to three a four area ratio you can
go only as high as maybe this is I think
[42:08] it's 80 90 ft. um not 200 feet. So the
calculated the F if you build it out
[42:15] instead of three this full buildout it's
closer to 6.5 to 7 F. And a question we
[42:22] have for the planning department is why
is there such a big discrepancy between
[42:28] the proposed F and proposed height
because you can never get to the heights
[42:32] they're proposing what the F they're
proposing. Typically, when you have a F
[42:37] of three in an urban area such as
Bethesda, you have heights closer to
[42:42] 150, 120, 130, 14,50, sometimes 200, but
usually it's much lower than that. So,
[42:50] obviously, uh this additional height is
for benefits such as MPDUs,
[42:56] um or amenities or other public benefits
like libraries. There's a whole list
[43:01] that they mentioned, but we're wondering
uh that's a lot that's a lot of
[43:05] amenities. That's basically that's a
double the the floor area ratio. So
[43:10] that's that's a question we have.
Next slide. And I'm sorry, John, before
[43:16] we move off of this slide, could you
also just clarify for the bonus density
[43:21] permitted for MPDUs?
Roughly how many floors would that allow
[43:26] the developer to build on top of the 3.0
that you have represented in green? Oh,
[43:32] » okay. Um typically um uh MPDUs will get
you one floor. If you get same example,
[43:39] you do uh the um 50% MPDUs, you get a
22% bump. And if there's not enough
[43:47] height, which in case there is, but if
there's not enough height, then they' be
[43:52] bumped to maybe um 12 feet typically.
I've seen the most I've seen is three
[43:57] extra floors, which is like 36 feet. And
that's very that's rare. I think the the
[44:02] the most recent case I saw was in
Wheaten. I think it's a gateway the
[44:06] gateway center. So, but in this case,
you don't need more height because you
[44:10] got all all the height you need.
>> So, just to clarify for the board and
[44:14] for the community, even if they maximize
the MPDU bonus density,
[44:21] » they would still be within the max
heights that are proposed.
[44:26] » Yes.
>> Not take them over the proposed max
[44:29] heights. Okay.
That's correct. That's correct. No, I'd
[44:34] be I'd be worried if you know the the
brown was maybe one or two floors above
[44:39] or right at the green, then you say,
"Okay, they're going to go they're
[44:43] definitely going to the bump up because
they have to." But in this case, there's
[44:47] lots of room. Next slide.
And this is the the village recommended
[44:54] height. So bumping down from 250 to 200
to 170. And then along the if you see
[45:01] about the green building back there,
it's along the buffer park uh the
[45:05] Belmont buffer. It's the the villages
recommended keeping those heights at 60
[45:11] feet, not stepping up at least to half
the block
[45:16] and then stepping up to the I think it's
200 and then 150, excuse me, 170. Next
[45:22] slide.
[45:25] And this is a bird's eye view looking
west. Same thing. Uh just different
[45:29] angle. Go ahead. Next slide.
[45:36] And this is planning staff
recommendation again uh showing the 200
[45:41] ft and 250 ft. And then you see how they
step up behind the Belmont buffer park.
[45:49] Uh this all the stepups are there are in
order to respect that 45 foot uh angle
[45:56] of repose or ang compatibility angle.
Next slide.
[46:04] Okay. This is a view west on Gro Street.
Now I want to um clarif clarify this.
[46:09] This is an older image. I chose it
because I wanted to show you what um
[46:14] what what a tall building will look like
today. it heavily forested, heavily
[46:19] treed, heavily screened. Um, next slide.
[46:27] And that's what a 200 foot building
would look like. Um, it's about 160 ft
[46:32] away from the edge of the park. That's
that's the the planning department
[46:35] recommendation.
Next slide.
[46:42] And that's the uh the village
recommendation, 170 ft. It's 30 ft
[46:45] lower, but it makes a difference. Uh,
and then finally, the last slide.
[46:50] So, that's what it looks like today. And
this was actually taken today. So, you
[46:54] can't you wouldn't see any of that. As a
matter of fact, I had a hard time
[46:58] finding views uh in the village where I
could actually see these properties. Um,
[47:05] it's you've done a really good job of
screening uh uh all that development and
[47:11] it's only going to get more um only
going to get better. Uh this tree is
[47:16] going to get larger. Um you can I know
you have a lot more evergreen trees in
[47:21] there. Um granite when the leaves fall
off the trees in the winter you can see
[47:26] more but still um it's a very
significant buffer.
[47:31] Uh, next slide.
>> And we'll have a a long time to increase
[47:36] our buffer. I mean, this this doesn't
even if there were development, it would
[47:42] take a very long time and we can plant a
lot of buffering. Yes. Greenery in the
[47:48] meantime.
>> Yeah. And you you're doing a good job.
[47:52] So, I'm very impressed by the um I've
never had seen such a good buffer
[47:56] before. It's hard to get hard to get
good pictures. Um, okay. So, these are
[48:02] » these are images. Somebody wants
>> quick Yeah, quick question. Uh, Lou
[48:07] Morsburgger. Hi, John. Um, a minute ago
you said um planning board
[48:11] recommendation of aund
50 ft separation, I think.
[48:16] » Was that from the buffer to the first
building? I just wanted to make sure I
[48:20] had that straight.
>> Um, yeah, it's about 160 feet. If you
[48:24] look at the plan here, um on both plans,
the lower lower half, um they haven't
[48:31] clarified other than this map, uh what
that distance is, but I calculate it's
[48:36] around the back of the um Amazon Fresh
building where the loading dock is. And
[48:41] so
>> and that would go from um
[48:45] Western Grove Park starting there, count
160 ft to the first structure.
[48:52] » That's correct. And that and that
distance would only apply on the lower
[48:56] third of the parcel.
>> Um yeah. Well, that's that's correct. If
[49:03] you look at the map, um that that that
distance is only there. So everything
[49:09] else can be right up on the property
line, you know, along the the buffer
[49:13] » Belmont Buffer Park. Thanks.
>> Um Sure. So uh these are the uh height
[49:19] proposals recommendations. On the lower
uh on the left hand side is the planning
[49:24] recommendations and then on the right
are the the village recommendations. Uh
[49:30] they're similar but the differences are
uh the village uh I assume everybody
[49:35] knows what the the planning department's
recommendations are. We've been talking
[49:40] about them for a long time. So on the
right is the village's recommendations.
[49:44] The difference is uh on the Saxs
property you're you're asking for
[49:48] basically split the property down the
middle at 75 feet keep it 45 feet tall
[49:53] and then stepping up to 60 and then 85
ft. So uh as as shown in the previous
[50:00] section uh you don't have this stairst
step um plane that the that the planning
[50:06] department recommends or the CR zone
compatibility requires. you have
[50:10] something much gentler. Uh moving down
below um Park Avenue, you're proposing
[50:16] 60 feet and 60 feet up against Belmont
Buffer Park for that half block and then
[50:22] stepping up to 170. Whereas the planning
department lets you start stepping up
[50:27] after you know uh 30 or 40 ft. And then
the difference again is you have your
[50:33] proposing 170 at the Western Grove Park
and the planning department is proposing
[50:39] 200 ft.
Uh next slide
[50:45] and again this is on the left is
planning recommendations. On the right,
[50:49] we took a snippet from the FZA downtown
plan adjacent to the town of Chvy Chase.
[50:55] Um, and here you can see they're very
it's similar. Um, this is this um this
[51:02] section of Chvy Chase is wider. It's
roughly between three and 400 ft wide
[51:06] where your your strip of land is in the
200 to 300 200 250 foot um range for
[51:14] most of the property till it widens out
to south. So it's wider in Bethesda and
[51:20] they they're proposing 70 feet and 90
feet and 45 feet up against the
[51:25] properties with with the compatibility
um plane. How however because these are
[51:31] separate properties individual
properties when you move from the light
[51:35] pink to the darker pink you show you see
these numbers of 175 ft 145 ft 90 and
[51:42] 909 90 those properties can can bump
right up to those heights. So, it's
[51:47] actually more extreme than what's being
proposed at at the Friendship Heights.
[51:53] And it's because the entire property is
is is one owner, one lot. So, you have
[51:59] that advantage.
Um, and I think that's the last slide.
[52:05] Uh, are there any questions or comments?
>> Does the board have questions for John?
[52:12] » I could jump in with another uh just to
make sure how the compatibility plane is
[52:18] calculated. What determines where the
the the initial edge of the plane
[52:25] commences? And my reason for asking that
is on the uh July 16th hearing, one of
[52:31] the planning board members asked why
such a generous plane was being
[52:36] proposed.
Meaning, why not why not start it,
[52:41] » I guess, closer in and make it steeper
to allow and you know, they suggested
[52:46] even taller heights. So, what what
anchors the compatibility plane?
[52:52] » It's it's part of the CR zone. It's a
zone. It's required by the zone. And so,
[52:57] you see a zoning ordinance compatibility
plane in red. That's required by the
[53:02] zones. Whenever you have a CR zone
that's adjacent to a residentially zone
[53:07] property, you must follow this plane.
And what the planning department has has
[53:12] recommended is pushing the plane back to
accommodate the village. And what I
[53:17] think maybe the uh planning board is is
is um pushing back on is pushing that
[53:23] back. I think they're they're saying no,
just go with the regular uh CR zone
[53:28] compatibility plane. Um that's my guess.
That's that's what I heard because
[53:34] they're interested in, you know,
fulfilling the development potential of
[53:38] these properties. um which is
understandable. Uh so I would say maybe
[53:44] in your testimony that that this this
plane at at the very least proposed
[53:49] plane um be preserved and not go to the
to the uh the zoning allowed plane.
[53:57] » Right. And the staff spoke to that. They
did say that it was an acknowledgement
[54:01] that this is a a narrow a oneb block
area and there needs to be sufficient
[54:10] um buffer transition from the single
family homes across the street.
[54:20] John uh David Winstead and and Michelle
to both of you all there obviously the
[54:26] the filibans I think did a great job of
presenting the concern along the
[54:31] residents of Grove and and Buffer Zone.
Um, and we got a got an email from
[54:36] Meredith Wellington, who has, you know,
created Western Grove Park and has been
[54:41] on the planning board. And she expressed
concern to the board this afternoon
[54:46] about any concession or reflected
language that would concede CR3 zoning
[54:53] that it's in a that the timing of doing
that is wrong. that, you know, Chvy
[54:59] Chase Land, who I've known pretty well,
you know, hasn't really proposed
[55:03] anything that we could define in terms
of what their vision for highdensity
[55:08] apartments is on the Western Avenue
side. And so, can you all respond a
[55:14] little bit to the timing of conceding
heights and conceding buffer distances
[55:20] at this point in time? You know, there's
a real what I'm hearing from the western
[55:25] edge of our community is is that if
we're going to do anything, we should
[55:30] insist that the treatment of height and
stepping is the same on the border of
[55:36] the village. Now, I know that we don't
control Chvy Chase land property at
[55:40] Western in Wisconsin. Uh but um
fundamentally I was uh Meredith's
[55:47] comments to us this afternoon were you
know she's been on the planning board.
[55:52] She understands what the staff does. She
said there's nobody on this planning
[55:57] board right now that would do anything
other than maximizing size of
[56:02] multifamily for the lack of affordable
housing in Montgomery County. So just
[56:07] strategically
conceding on CR3 and conceding on 150 ft
[56:14] or you know instead of 75 ft setback
something less than that. I'm I'm just
[56:19] curious. Can you guys respond to that?
And Michelle maybe starting with you.
[56:24] » Sure I'd be happy to. And I I fully
agree with Miss Wellington that um the
[56:31] board is going to maximize heights and
densities. Um, frankly, it would not
[56:37] surprise me if they come out with
recommendations beyond what staff has
[56:42] proposed. I there was uh there were some
comments at the board that certainly
[56:46] raised that concern in my mind. Um, with
with respect to making uh concessions,
[56:53] um, I I would be concerned about not
putting forward any position because
[57:00] then when it gets to the council level,
we really are starting uh from ground
[57:05] zero. Um, I I think that and and I don't
look at look at them as concessions
[57:12] necessarily. I think I would propose
that we put forward the uh heights and
[57:18] densities that the board believes are
compatible and represent appropriate
[57:25] levels of density and height because
then when we get to the council, we're
[57:31] in a position to say, you know, what the
staff proposed, what the board proposed
[57:36] was overreaching in the context of our
neighborhood and the asbuilt
[57:42] environment. surrounding these
properties and we put forward a
[57:46] reasonable and defensible position.
We're here to say you should you should
[57:50] listen to that reasonable position. I I
think going up there without any formal
[57:55] board position or recommendations leaves
us in a vulnerable um position when it
[58:02] comes to advocating our interests when
we get to the council step. Well, let me
[58:07] so on our western on the western grove
grove street buffer zone residences,
[58:14] right? Why couldn't we air on being even
more protective of height and setbacks?
[58:23] In other words, not 150 ft, something
less uh and setbacks more. realizing
[58:29] that throughout this process as it goes
through the staff, goes through the
[58:33] board, goes to the council, we're going
to have to, you know, they're going to
[58:37] be pushing the opposite direction. So,
why why shouldn't we be anything but
[58:42] very aggressive in terms of limiting the
height um on the commercial side of what
[58:50] hits the village, that is the Chvy Chase
land, western Wisconsin corners.
[58:56] » Sure. I I think it's a it's a balancing
act. Um I you know I I'm not sure I
[59:01] would use the word aggressive regardless
of what what ultimate heights and
[59:05] densities you come out with. I think
whatever position you put forward, you
[59:09] need to be able to defend in sound land
use principles. Um and that certainly
[59:14] does include uh the compatibility with
the surrounding community. It includes
[59:21] what is actually ultimately feasible on
the properties. Uh what makes sense. So
[59:27] whatever justifications you give, um I I
I think that it should be a series of
[59:34] recommendations that make sense in the
context of of what's built around these
[59:39] properties,
>> right? And and actually we're getting to
[59:41] the recommendations now. So I just want
to remind you that we got a little
[59:46] ahead. That's we're going to end to the
end to the recommendations now.
[59:51] » Sure.
Um,
[59:58] » okay,
>> David, now is the time when we go
[1:00:01] through each one and we can talk about
what the recommendations are or should
[1:00:06] be.
>> Great. Thanks.
[1:00:08] » And so, uh, you know, this is a chart
that I think you've you've seen before
[1:00:13] and this includes sort of how how some
of these recommendations have evolved.
[1:00:19] The current um committee recommendation
with respect to uh the Sachs uh parking
[1:00:27] lot on the northern end is that we
retain uh we support the three F and uh
[1:00:35] we support the um height of 45 ft at
Belmont with the uh compatibility plane
[1:00:45] as proposed by staff and then keep that
45 ft for a depth of 75 ft with it then
[1:00:53] increasing to 100 on Wisconsin. This has
been a fairly um
[1:01:00] I'm sorry the committee recommendation
is height going up to 85 ft. So this has
[1:01:04] been a pretty consistent recommendation
all along. It's not new. Um, and I think
[1:01:10] the committee has been pretty consistent
in that this in their view really does
[1:01:15] reasonably protect the interests along
this this segment of the property.
[1:01:22] » And Sh or John, do you want to speak to
the difference between the 80 ft that in
[1:01:26] the position that the board took in May
versus the 85 ft that the committee is
[1:01:32] is recommending?
>> Sure. Um, I I'd be glad to take that. Uh
[1:01:39] the the position is that um when you
have an 80 foot building or 85 foot
[1:01:45] building that's about as high as you can
go because of the construction type.
[1:01:48] It's it's podium. It's usually stick
five over one or six over one is stick
[1:01:53] built over a concrete podium. To go to
go to 100 feet you have to use concrete
[1:01:58] in the in the concrete a building of
that height is not financially feasible.
[1:02:04] uh builders will say and I've heard them
say many times and actually there some
[1:02:08] of the reports in the um in the planning
staff uh appendix state that you want if
[1:02:15] you can do a concrete building it's got
to be at least 120 or 130 ft tall before
[1:02:20] it starts becoming financially viable.
So if we supported 100 ft um which is
[1:02:26] not thatable they could bump it to 120
with MPDUs
[1:02:31] uh whereas if you keep it at 80 to 85 uh
and they want to do MPD use and get it
[1:02:36] to 100 it's not financially viable. So
basically it's a sort of a hard hard
[1:02:40] ceiling. It's hard to get beyond without
spending a lot of money. So that's
[1:02:46] that's part of our reasoning. Also the
heights it's better height. Um, I was
[1:02:51] going to say, uh, uh, Shannon, if you
want to go back to the image that showed
[1:02:56] what the village recommended, the
threedimensional model.
[1:03:00] Uh,
[1:03:09] keep going. The
there's that section and then there's
[1:03:13] the model um before that. Uh,
right there you see. So that yeah the
[1:03:22] the other one the other one that one
that's what the that's what the village
[1:03:26] recommended. So those those buildings
are 85 ft tall in the back with 45 foot
[1:03:30] town houses and that's that's only an F
of two. That's all that's all that gets
[1:03:36] and with F3
then there's the provision of
[1:03:40] transferring density to areas where it's
more compatible which is south down on
[1:03:45] collection. So this this what you're
seeing here is what the um the committee
[1:03:53] has recommended in the chart. So you can
jump back to the chart now.
[1:03:56] » And while we're on while we're on this
image, this this also mirrors up at
[1:04:00] Oliver. Um so the the recommendations
are are consistent in both locations.
[1:04:11] » Thank you.
And so we can go through all of these if
[1:04:16] the board would like to talk about these
as we go through them. Um we certainly
[1:04:21] can do that. Uh I leave it to you if you
want to talk about this sort of globally
[1:04:27] or or take these uh in sections.
>> I I I have a a question just a a simple
[1:04:34] question. Um, in the planning board's
um, layout, I there was one corner, I
[1:04:41] think, of the of the Sachs property that
was 150 ft. Um, and and is it the case
[1:04:49] that we're not recommending an
additional step up there that that we're
[1:04:54] talking about the whole Sachs the whole
Sachs property being limited to 85 ft.
[1:05:00] » Correct. And yes,
>> that that is planning board. The other
[1:05:05] one is is uh the village. And the
difference also is we're recommending
[1:05:10] the village is recommending a 75 open
space 75 acre open space whereas the
[1:05:15] planning department is recommending half
acre. So you see the difference if you
[1:05:19] if you toggle back and forth sha between
the two.
[1:05:23] See that's that's a half acre. So it it
it you know what the what the village
[1:05:29] has recommended is I think is pretty
substantial and goes a long way to
[1:05:33] preserving
compatibility and sense of green.
[1:05:45] » Any other questions?
[1:05:50] So just to to summarize what Michelle
and John have just presented are the
[1:05:56] three um basic zoning provisions related
to Sachs which are the CR zoning
[1:06:05] F of 3.0
and the building heights. Does the board
[1:06:11] want to go ahead and reach a position on
those three points before we move
[1:06:15] forward or do you want to keep working
through the chart and come back to those
[1:06:22] three elements?
>> Uh, I don't mind
[1:06:27] finding out if we're supportive of this.
And just so we're clear, while the chart
[1:06:31] has more lines than what we've just
stipulated, that's because the current
[1:06:36] zoning compartmentalizes the building
into v the property into various
[1:06:41] different zones. For the purposes of
this discussion, we're looking at the
[1:06:46] property in its totality.
And that's why we're looking at the
[1:06:51] three elements of F, zoning,
classification, and height.
[1:06:58] So basically this is the um
[1:07:04] same as before only we're saying 85 ft
because the reality of construction
[1:07:09] that's the only change in our
recommendation. Correct.
[1:07:12] » And the F had not been yet proposed when
the board issued its May 28 letter. So
[1:07:18] you have not yet taken a position on the
F. Um, and
[1:07:24] I believe you your sentiment was
generally in support of the CR zoning,
[1:07:29] but I'd have to see if that was an
emphatic statement in your letter.
[1:07:36] Okay. Well, I'm ready to hear from any
board members about um
[1:07:41] their support for this
recommendation.
[1:07:45] I am ready to recommend it to support
it.
[1:07:49] Yeah, I I I guess I would say that uh um
if I'm not and and I'm happy to have
[1:07:56] anybody um correct me if I'm wrong about
this, but I think this particular part
[1:08:01] of it is not where the real controversy
is. Um it's it's the um when we get off
[1:08:08] the Sachs property and we're back into
the collection, that's that's where
[1:08:11] we've I'm I'm hearing the most pain and
and uh and justifiably so.
[1:08:18] But Gary, I
you we all received that note from
[1:08:23] Meredith. Um and you know, she strongly
uh feels that conceding a CR3 or stating
[1:08:31] a con, you know, that we were in
agreement with that is not the way this
[1:08:35] is not the stage in which you concede
that. I so I remain concerned about her
[1:08:40] input u simply because she's the only
one I want to and there could be others
[1:08:46] but that has lengthy experience in this
process having served on the planning
[1:08:52] board.
[1:08:55] » Michelle, do you share that concern?
>> You know, as I said, I I have a concern
[1:09:02] about the uh board not taking a
position. I think it's I think what that
[1:09:08] does is signal to the planning board
that we're indifferent. I mean, I'm I
[1:09:13] know we won't say that in our letter,
but I think not giving them a
[1:09:18] recommendation of what we think is
reasonable, gives them nothing to to
[1:09:24] respond to, even if they respond in a
way that we don't agree with. And it, I
[1:09:29] think, makes it harder for us to later
go to the council and say, "Look, this
[1:09:33] has been our this has been our position.
we've been reasonable. We came up with
[1:09:37] these recommendations for these sound
land use justifications
[1:09:42] and uh the board simply overreached. So,
um it's it's a it's a strategy call.
[1:09:49] It's a policy call and you know I don't
have a crystal ball so I can't tell you
[1:09:54] which one which one would play out
better in the long run.
[1:09:59] So Michelle, um, generally given that,
you know, you've got a lease of the Saxs
[1:10:05] property that goes for another 20 years
or whatever, the Chvy Chase land has got
[1:10:10] their arms full trying to get revenues
from their commercial developments
[1:10:14] um, and are under stress because of
vacancies and office and retail. Uh but
[1:10:19] you you don't think that there's a
better time that we would have more
[1:10:24] leverage to,
you know, to again get the heights down?
[1:10:29] I think that what we're certainly
hearing on the Grove Street and Park
[1:10:34] side is that the heights that are we're
proposing are just too too much, right?
[1:10:39] They're not sent back enough.
>> They're not staged. They would love to
[1:10:42] see the same on, you know, the the the
Chvy Chase land property as we're seeing
[1:10:48] with the town houses that that I think
they would be u comfortable with. But I
[1:10:54] I just,
you know,
[1:10:59] » I think we should also hear other board
members where they are right now. I'm in
[1:11:02] support at the Sachs property for the
recommendations of the committee and
[1:11:08] David, I hear your questions. love to
hear from other board members about
[1:11:13] whether we can move on from the sachs
part.
[1:11:16] » U this is Saul. I I agree with Gary that
this part of the plan seems the least
[1:11:23] controversial. I understand our global
objective that's been recommended to us
[1:11:29] by our our professionals is that we u
adopt reasonable positions that will
[1:11:36] maximize our ability to have clout um at
the county council level uh when this
[1:11:43] all comes to a head. And in that
respect, um I'm fine with the Sachs
[1:11:49] recommendations
[1:11:54] and to say that um you know I I have
concerns. I mean I share uh the concerns
[1:12:00] David is raising and that Meredith
Wellington has also raised. And one of
[1:12:05] the questions goes back to uh when does
the overlay discussion take place? Um,
[1:12:14] and
because we have the benefit of a single
[1:12:18] owner, are there options for
side agreements with the land company
[1:12:25] that kind of whereby they agree to not
advocate to max things out uh even prior
[1:12:35] to the adoption of the sector plan. I
mean, effectively a memorandum of
[1:12:39] understanding between the village and
the land company that takes some of
[1:12:42] these things off the table. And that is,
you know, a little unconventional, but
[1:12:48] I'd be curious to know, or at least from
the conversation we've been having, it
[1:12:51] sounds unconventional. I'd be curious to
hear from uh Michelle and John if that's
[1:12:56] something that's done before when you
have a single owner such as we have
[1:12:59] here.
I certainly think that to the extent
[1:13:03] that uh Chvy Chase Lan is willing to uh
talk to us about what recommendations
[1:13:10] they would like to see come out of this
process. If we can be on the same page
[1:13:15] and go handinand glove to the council
and say look the village and Chvy Chase
[1:13:19] land agree on this approach I think that
would be warmly welcomed. um at that
[1:13:25] level. the uh so far we have not really
been privy to much specific information
[1:13:34] about what kind of F or heights they
would they would endorse but I think
[1:13:40] that those conversations will be ongoing
and whether whether it's through a a
[1:13:46] joint letter or anou or whatever uh
written mechanism we we can agree upon I
[1:13:54] think however we can provide a unified
front to the council would be would be
[1:13:58] very much in our in our joint interests.
>> Right. And and we're have we have
[1:14:03] planned meetings with them exactly on
that topic. Mhm.
[1:14:07] » Um I think that there's probably a way
of having
[1:14:13] the letter like the last time um where
we say we are conditionally
[1:14:20] support of the recommendations before
us.
[1:14:24] um but we can't
that we need um enforcable transition to
[1:14:31] the village and that that an overlay
zone
[1:14:36] implementation is going to be crucial.
So I don't think we give up that
[1:14:41] » right
>> in this testimony.
[1:14:45] » Agreed.
[1:14:49] Um
members in here
[1:14:59] » hearing none
>> I'm supportive Alyssa of going with um
[1:15:06] this limited agreement regarding the sex
parking lot.
[1:15:12] » Okay. So seems like that's four. So we
should move on to the
[1:15:17] contentious grove collection situation.
>> Just to recap, just to make sure
[1:15:22] everyone is following along. So that is
board support for the CR3
[1:15:30] zoning classification
with the height transition as has been
[1:15:35] re recommended by the ad hoc committee
45 60 to a max height of 85.
[1:15:46] Okay.
Okay.
[1:15:50] » So, the thing about the Grove collection
area that
[1:15:55] is worth restating is that this is the
part that's closest to Metro,
[1:16:02] which is a priority
for the planning staff, the planning
[1:16:08] board, the county council, the
So I I think that
[1:16:16] » it's a tougher road to say that should
be town houses,
[1:16:22] » David, in response to your saying that
we should advocate for lower there.
[1:16:29] No, Alyssa, I certainly understand that
you know we're your TOD development has
[1:16:35] you know put density by metro stations
and so it's uh very hard to argue that I
[1:16:41] think fundamentally what we heard from
the Philins and others is that if if we
[1:16:46] could just be conservative in our
opening position on height and maximize
[1:16:52] setbacks for the commercial development
that they're going to be able on their
[1:16:56] own to argue for right. I think that
would be helpful for the community that
[1:17:02] feels like, you know, Belmont's getting
45 and we're getting 200 or 175 or
[1:17:08] whatever. I I think it's really the
height and the setback that if we can be
[1:17:13] more protective in what we send back, uh
I think it gives us it it just is a good
[1:17:20] first step. That's all.
>> Yeah. No, I know.
[1:17:24] recognized that the ad hoc committee
recognized that we bought a park there.
[1:17:30] So, we have bought a buffer. There's
more of a buffer there than at the end
[1:17:37] of Belmont. Um, this Western Grove Park
>> there is except for except for the
[1:17:43] residences along the buffer zone in
Grove Street, you know, because they are
[1:17:48] literally right on the parking lot of of
Chvy Chase land.
[1:17:54] Yeah. And the planning staff has
recommended no building.
[1:17:59] It's pushed back from that um edge and
and it has to be because of the
[1:18:05] um the grade the huge grade change in
any case. Um anyway, how how should we
[1:18:12] proceed on this? Shaina, you got a view.
>> I think Michelle wanted to add a couple
[1:18:17] of points as it relates to height.
>> Okay. I I've I I do have a couple of
[1:18:21] thoughts and and as we talk about this,
could we pull up the um the image
[1:18:28] uh let's let's look at the one that
staff has proposed first,
[1:18:33] the massing and the f.
So uh you know as as John had mentioned
[1:18:41] there's a serious discrepancy between
the proposed F of the three which is the
[1:18:48] height that you see in the green and
then the the height cap itself is
[1:18:54] significantly greater. Um and we had
asked staff to explain why why they made
[1:19:00] that recommendation why there's such a a
significant disconnect. In John's
[1:19:05] experience, this is somewhat unusual.
There's usually a closer link between
[1:19:11] the height and the F. And so it seems to
me that one option we might have would
[1:19:18] be to say that because there is such a
disconnect and we don't know
[1:19:24] how that sort of empty space would be
used, perhaps a floor for MPDUs and and
[1:19:30] uh some public benefits. It seems to me
we might have an opportunity here to
[1:19:35] reduce that height so that it more
closely mirrors the F and that's that's
[1:19:41] a a planning based justification. it
ties the height and density more closely
[1:19:48] than is proposed here. And that I think
that might give us an opportunity to
[1:19:55] go uh go somewhat lower than than we've
currently proposed than the committee
[1:20:00] has proposed.
>> Okay.
[1:20:04] that
>> I if we um basically say that that we
[1:20:11] agree that uh a uh F of three is
appropriate, does that in effect um
[1:20:21] accomplish what we want or or is it or
are we still unsure what the magic is
[1:20:26] that that could cause this to be so, you
know, look like they're making it out of
[1:20:30] styrofoam or something? It would have it
would appear.
[1:20:32] » Sure. Sure. The F at three gives you the
height at the at the top of the green
[1:20:38] line. Do you have a ballpark of what
that height actually is?
[1:20:44] What that might be?
>> Yeah, it's 20, 30, 40, 50, 60. I think
[1:20:50] it's 80 feet.
>> Okay. And then assuming that there are
[1:20:54] going to be public benefits that we will
want and those will uh offer additional
[1:21:01] density and MPDUs.
you know, if we're at 80 feet, we we
[1:21:07] could go certainly something lower than
the 170 uh that's been proposed by the
[1:21:13] committee, but still be high enough to
accommodate some additional MPDUs and
[1:21:19] public benefits that we would want to
see if the property gets redeveloped.
[1:21:24] That might be a way to split the baby
and still tie it to the land use
[1:21:28] recommendations proposed by staff. And
if I may add, if you're going to do
[1:21:32] that, keep in mind that as I said
earlier, uh anything over between 80 and
[1:21:40] 120 is unreasonable or or rather not
financially viable. So you might want to
[1:21:47] if you're going to lower the heights,
maybe stop around 110, 120.
[1:21:52] Otherwise, it just kick back and say
that's not reasonable because you can't
[1:21:55] build it. So that's my um
>> but but John at that point that that's
[1:22:01] when you debate it and when you argue
right it's when when the developer comes
[1:22:06] back and says look 80 85 ft uh on the on
the east edge of of the property at
[1:22:14] Western is just not economically
feasible then that's when you negotiate.
[1:22:20] Don't that's a very good point. You
know, I'm just I'm just giving you
[1:22:24] parameters to think about. So, yeah, you
be if you keep it keep it 85 feet at the
[1:22:29] at the at the eastern edge. Uh and then
say jump up from there. They'll say,
[1:22:34] "Hey, they might say, "Yeah, that's
reasonable. We we'll do 85 feet there,
[1:22:38] that stick built, and then we'll jump to
a higher concrete fil as you get closer
[1:22:42] to Amada." That's what they do.
>> Nobody obviously.
[1:22:46] » Yeah. Nobody's gonna even if it's 85. I
mean, I Michelle, I think that's a a
[1:22:51] great compromise to deal with the input
we've had. Uh and it doesn't prohibit,
[1:22:56] you know, a really competent architect
like a Shalom Baronis or to design a
[1:23:01] building
>> that has that 85 frontage, 85 foot
[1:23:05] frontage, but then, you know, by its
columns or towers, uh, you know, could
[1:23:10] re reach a height that would number one
is zonable and permittable, but would
[1:23:15] allow the economics of the overall
development to work. So, I I like what
[1:23:19] you're proposing.
So then I think my next question would
[1:23:24] be as we did with um some of the other
properties, we have a height that uh a
[1:23:30] relatively low height that extends in
the other cases 75 ft. That's probably
[1:23:35] not enough here. But then are we then
going to recommend stepping up as we as
[1:23:41] we move back? Um which which gives you
relief from that massing at this end of
[1:23:48] the property. Um, but I whether or not
you 85 ft for the full depth of this uh
[1:23:55] block here may may not be reasonable. So
I'm just putting that out there as food
[1:24:01] for thought because we have taken the
step up approach, the tiered approach.
[1:24:07] Yeah.
>> Elsewhere in the plan.
[1:24:09] » I think we'd have to continue with the
tiered approach. For one thing, we
[1:24:12] already have more height than 85 at the
intersection of Wisconsin and Western
[1:24:18] anyway, don't we?
What's that current height?
[1:24:22] » I think the office building is right.
The ones that are over metro and the
[1:24:27] Chevy Chase land office building is I
don't know, John, what is that? 150
[1:24:32] probably.
>> Yeah, I believe so. I'll have to double
[1:24:34] check, but
>> So, we're not asking for a smaller
[1:24:37] height than we currently have, but I
think a stepped up approach sounds good.
[1:24:42] » Yeah. And and I I I think in in terms of
um I don't know, arguing why this is
[1:24:48] reasonable. If if you look at at at
Belmont, um we're we're basically saying
[1:24:55] uh people are going to be looking across
the street at uh at 45 ft. Um and um
[1:25:02] here the the Grove Street is is 40t
higher than than the base of of these
[1:25:10] things. So So if we made this 85, they
too would be looking at 45 ft um um you
[1:25:16] know as as uh close to to where they
are. So it's it's kind of a possibly
[1:25:24] kind of a halfbaked rationale, but but
there is some some uh some logic to it.
[1:25:30] » Yeah. No, you're right. There is a um
considerable change in grade there.
[1:25:36] So,
>> so we could either take uh you know the
[1:25:39] compatibility approach or just say you
know the 85 ft for you know 750 75 100
[1:25:48] ft and then it can step up to you know
150. I'm making these numbers up. These
[1:25:54] are not my numbers. Um, but I propose
some interim step up before you then get
[1:26:01] to the other corner where where you'll
be at at current recommendation uh 250.
[1:26:08] Yeah, I I I assume that that that uh
where we would have the least um sway or
[1:26:16] or least ability to um
to um win would be the metro itself. Um
[1:26:26] the that corner. Um, and and it's also,
I guess,
[1:26:32] in my opinion anyway, would be the one
we care least about because it's it's
[1:26:36] farthest away from any u any um
residential area. Um, so we we we could
[1:26:44] be pretty aggressive with the stepping
up perhaps and and you know, not not
[1:26:49] just do it for 50 ft or whatever it was
in in the in the Sachs area. we could
[1:26:55] could have have
>> um
[1:27:00] more area before we step up. Um
>> all right. So other people want to weigh
[1:27:05] in. We got
>> just just pointing out that um if we're
[1:27:11] reducing the height and our rationale is
on F. We just need to make that clear
[1:27:17] however we
submit that proposal that it's F driven.
[1:27:23] If we just show up with lower heights,
it won't be well understood and it'll
[1:27:28] just be seen as unreasonable.
One one thing that I would like to
[1:27:32] mention with respect to how far that how
deep that 85 ft runs is that this this
[1:27:38] is the part of the um property the the
whole linear properties that has the the
[1:27:46] widest buffer um because there will be
that undeveloped piece next to Grove
[1:27:53] Park and it's also the piece that
doesn't directly abut um single family
[1:27:59] homes. So just when you're when you're
weighing how
[1:28:04] » how how much depth you might want to
consider, I I just put those two pieces
[1:28:10] out there as food for thought.
>> Yeah. So maybe it's just the same sliver
[1:28:14] as the 60 next to it in this slide that
we're looking at recommendations. So we
[1:28:20] start with 85 in that little rectangle
and then we step it up
[1:28:26] » in terms of our recommendations. Does
that work for everybody?
[1:28:30] » Yeah, I think that's a good starting
point. And I do, Michelle, your comments
[1:28:35] about the planning staff putting that
additional buffer on the west side of
[1:28:40] Grove of Western Grove Park I thought
was very very positive.
[1:28:47] » Yeah. So, so we'll leave it in the laps
of Michelle and John to uh articulate
[1:28:53] the step up that but but we're sticking
with 250 at to Wisconsin Circle because
[1:29:00] I don't think we can argue that that's
that's what's going to
[1:29:05] that's what they want at Metro and
that's the 10.
[1:29:09] » Is there an interim step up height that
you want John and I to consider?
[1:29:15] Uh
[1:29:18] well I guess 130 170 250 right something
like that.
[1:29:22] » Yeah I think it's more so just to kind
of follow that step up pattern
[1:29:27] » as is established for the um sax
property.
[1:29:32] » Okay.
>> Uh any board member disagreeing with
[1:29:37] this approach
hearing? None. Let's continue. So, I
[1:29:43] just want to be clear because we kind of
leapfrogged from the northern section to
[1:29:46] the most southern section. So, we need
to hit the middle. Um, so essentially
[1:29:51] from the line that runs um that extends
out from Grove Street up Oh, I'm sorry,
[1:29:57] I'm using the wrong cursor. Um, so
basically from this portion at the
[1:30:02] southern end of the property aligned
with Grove Street up to Montgomery
[1:30:07] Street, we also need the board to
solidify its position on the heights in
[1:30:12] that center section. What's shown on the
screen on the right hand side is the
[1:30:17] committee's recommendation. 60 ft along
the buffer and then um up to 170 at the
[1:30:24] northernmost section just south of
McGomery Street. uh going up to the
[1:30:30] planning staff recommendation of 200
feet along Wisconsin Avenue between
[1:30:35] Center and Grove. Yeah. No, I I'm I
think we stick with the committee's
[1:30:40] recommendations there. Does anyone have
any uh other thoughts? You want to do
[1:30:46] that differently?
[1:30:50] Well, are we? Yeah.
So, so we're I'm I'm confused about
[1:30:55] which of these things
>> I think I'm at the middle here.
[1:30:58] » The 6060 that
>> is is Yeah, I see that. I'm just I'm
[1:31:04] just um
>> we stick with that recommendation. The
[1:31:08] only
>> We're all the way down to 85 here. It
[1:31:11] seems strange to have 170. Um
>> No, we're not.
[1:31:15] » No, 170 is no longer. We're switching
that to 85
[1:31:18] » from 170 to 85, Gary.
>> Yeah.
[1:31:21] » Right. 85 and then stepping up to 130
170 and then the 250 on the quarter
[1:31:26] piece.
>> The only part we're changing is the the
[1:31:29] far
southeastern
[1:31:32] part
>> and and essentially Grove Street, the
[1:31:36] end of Grove Street would be
a budding the 60, right? The 60 foot
[1:31:42] section, you know, with appropriate
setbacks there. And what is the wall
[1:31:47] height, John? What's the wall height?
>> At the height,
[1:31:52] » sorry.
>> At the at the corner, it's about 24
[1:31:54] feet, but as as it goes toward
>> So, we're really we're really talking
[1:31:57] about effectively 40 feet, right? Set
back.
[1:32:01] » Okay. Thanks.
>> Okay. So, Gary, did that make sense to
[1:32:05] you? We're keeping with the committee's
um recommendations for that mid part,
[1:32:11] the that's the Belmont buffer part.
>> Yeah. I just uh
[1:32:17] » and then along west
>> I'm just looking I'm just
[1:32:22] » I'm just looking along Wisconsin Avenue
here and I just want to make sure that
[1:32:25] that we're that we're talking about the
same thing. We're talking about from the
[1:32:28] north down we're talking 85 ft 85 85 and
then doubling that to 170 um and then um
[1:32:37] then up to 200. I wonder whether
>> Yeah. So, because we're getting closer
[1:32:42] to Metro is thing one. Thing two is um
as you know, the part north of that, all
[1:32:47] of Saks parking lot and Sachs is in Chvy
Chase Village. Once you go past
[1:32:53] Montgomery Street on this, we're no
longer in the village. So, um I think we
[1:33:00] we have different leverage for one
thing.
[1:33:03] » Yeah. But we're we're
um
[1:33:13] I guess I I I haven't heard anybody
um I I personally don't have um a strong
[1:33:21] feeling about how tall is too tall at
that particular, you know, that 170
[1:33:26] there, whether that's that's reasonable
or not. And it it seems like if you're
[1:33:30] tapering down from 250, it's um
it's hard to argue that that's um
[1:33:38] unreasonably tall. Um and uh and we are
some distance away from um the village
[1:33:45] at that point. So So I'm I'm okay with
it, I guess.
[1:33:49] » Yeah. And we have previously supported
that recommendation.
[1:33:54] » Okay.
[1:33:57] So, we're clear on the changes and I
haven't heard any other
[1:34:03] board members.
>> Just to confirm, in the center section
[1:34:08] there
south of Montgomery, it stays 60 ft
[1:34:13] along the buffer and 170 along
Wisconsin.
[1:34:17] » That's the recommendation. Yeah.
>> And then 200 and in the lower parcel.
[1:34:22] » Okay.
>> Yeah.
[1:34:24] It's just that 170 area that we're
proposing we step up
[1:34:31] from 85 and then John and Michelle will
work out the appropriate stepping up.
[1:34:39] » Right across from Grove Park.
>> Yeah.
[1:34:42] » Yeah.
>> Okay.
[1:34:44] » I'm okay. I'm okay with this approach
for this section.
[1:34:48] » Very good.
[1:34:52] And then Shaina,
if we're not moving ahead too quickly,
[1:34:56] if you could share the chart where we go
next.
[1:35:01] I think we just now have a few
miscellaneous additional things to
[1:35:06] review. Correct.
>> That's correct. So, I just wanted to
[1:35:10] make sure that the board um is still
solidified on your position regarding
[1:35:15] the um existing perimeter wall along the
Sachs property, not to add additional
[1:35:22] pedestrian access points and to uh
maintain the existing access at McGomery
[1:35:28] Street as the sole entry along these
properties. Just want to make sure that
[1:35:33] we're maintaining that position.
>> I certainly I certainly wouldn't want to
[1:35:37] maintain that. Yeah.
Okay. Um,
[1:35:42] the street setbacks along Belmont and
Oliver, the 30-foot setback, I think we
[1:35:47] pretty well covered that and I didn't
hear any board objection to that
[1:35:50] position. As was noted, the open space,
let me go to
[1:35:58] bear with me. the open space adjacent to
um the Sax property or basically on the
[1:36:07] south end of the Sachs property. The
planning staff has recommended
[1:36:14] um
>> half an acre of green space
[1:36:18] » half an acre. the um
[1:36:25] and actually no hang sorry the committee
is recommending 75 acres open space in
[1:36:31] addition to 10% open space requirement
>> that's a minimum of 75
[1:36:39] » yes our committee our ad hoc committee
>> correct correct
[1:36:42] » yeah I think we're supportive of that
recommendation
[1:36:45] » with I am
>> 10% open space require a minimum 10%
[1:36:48] open space requirement
Okay.
[1:36:52] » And um
>> Okay, go on. Sorry.
[1:36:56] » No, no, no. You can go ahead.
[1:37:00] » Just that uh the testimony would also
include the um you know the caveats
[1:37:07] about an enforcable overlay zone.
>> Yes.
[1:37:11] » That protects our edge.
>> Yeah. And and Alyssa, they were supposed
[1:37:17] to send that Shaya, weren't they
supposed to send that in writing to us
[1:37:21] before the the hearing in in September?
>> I'm sorry. Send what piece to us in
[1:37:27] writing?
>> The overlay zone. The text to the
[1:37:30] overlay zone? No.
>> No. They had always indicated that that
[1:37:33] would uh come along later once the
planning board has reached its final
[1:37:39] position on the sector plan. Um
Michelle, do you want to speak to that?
[1:37:44] Well, that that has been their
consistent position and I think that's
[1:37:47] pretty consistent with way the way it's
been handled in other sector plans. I
[1:37:52] don't think it's an anomaly for for
purposes of this plan.
[1:37:56] » Do we know what we want we know what we
wanted to say when we finally do get it?
[1:38:02] » It depends what they adopt.
>> It's going to depend. Yeah. What we
[1:38:06] wanted to say. We're we're going to be
reacting to the planning board
[1:38:10] recommendations. recommendations with
respect to height, F, open space, public
[1:38:15] benefits. There's a whole array of
things that that would be addressed or
[1:38:19] could be addressed in the overlay zone.
And so right now it's sort of uh you
[1:38:25] know,
we're we're we're speculating in to a
[1:38:29] very large degree. I think I think it
makes sense to see what the planning
[1:38:33] board recommends and then react to that.
>> Right. But but they should know in every
[1:38:39] single one of our written testimonies
that we have this caveat that we will
[1:38:44] always be
>> pushing for
[1:38:48] enforcable overlay zone that protects
>> the the edge of our single family
[1:38:56] neighborhood.
>> That's right. that that we don't intend
[1:38:59] to rely just on sector plan
recommendations that we need an
[1:39:02] enforceable overlay zone that imposes
those regulatory standards on any new
[1:39:07] development.
>> Yeah.
[1:39:08] » Yeah. Absolutely.
>> So, we'll be including language like
[1:39:12] that when we submit our written
comments. Thank you.
[1:39:17] Next point I want to just make sure we
solidify is that the board does not
[1:39:21] support a pedestrian connection to
Western Grove Park, but recommends that
[1:39:28] the parks department improve wayfinding
signage to reinforce the public's access
[1:39:35] um to the park.
>> Okay,
[1:39:39] » Shaya, let me just ask one question on
that. The the entrance now is on
[1:39:44] Western. I'm wondering if park and
planning actually puts that new buffer
[1:39:50] zone that Michelle talked about or shown
in the plan whether there could be, you
[1:39:54] know, some steps along the sidewalk on
Western that would allow entrance,
[1:40:00] you know, from the west versus having to
go, you know, I I wouldn't think that
[1:40:05] that necessarily would be create access
problems, but I'm fine with a current
[1:40:12] entrance. But uh but that might be
something somebody comes up with. Do you
[1:40:18] understand what I'm saying? That instead
of just having it on Grove, you could
[1:40:22] have the entrance being sort of from the
Chvy Chase land property in that same
[1:40:28] corner on Western
uh than it is now, but that's for
[1:40:32] another time.
Yeah, I think um at this point we want
[1:40:38] to respond just to the current proposal
as opposed to putting a another
[1:40:45] recommendation on the table, but um
Michelle, John, do you have any thoughts
[1:40:50] about that?
>> I know
[1:40:53] I'm Yeah, I'm fine with that. I think
that's the Yeah.
[1:40:57] » Okay, got it. Um the next point we
should give some discussion to is that
[1:41:03] the planning staff has recommended
removal of the existing uh retail
[1:41:09] overlay zone. Michelle, do you want to
just speak to the current overlay zones
[1:41:15] um content?
>> Sure. You know, there's there's been um
[1:41:20] an impression that the current overlay
zone requires some minimum amount of
[1:41:27] retail or commercial and it does not.
What it does is allow for certain types
[1:41:33] of uses. It imposes some maximum uh
floor area for uses. For example, a
[1:41:39] grocery store cannot exceed 25,000
square feet without uh specific approval
[1:41:44] from the planning board. So it addresses
uh those uses in a way that it was
[1:41:51] anticipated would help facilitate or
make it easier for for those kinds of
[1:41:56] uses to develop. It does not require any
retail or commercial. So removing the
[1:42:05] overlay zone does not have an effect on
mandating what what could be required
[1:42:12] there. it just it's it's neutral on that
to the extent that there is a
[1:42:17] requirement uh for a grocery store that
was negotiated as part of a settlement
[1:42:22] agreement that's a contractual
obligation not a zoning obligation. So
[1:42:27] from my perspective removing the overlay
zone has zero impact on on this issue.
[1:42:34] Just to clarify, Chvy Chase Village was
not a party,
[1:42:37] » right?
>> Friendship Heights,
[1:42:40] » right?
>> Correct. Correct.
[1:42:43] » Okay. So, with that being said, and is
believing that there's a desire for
[1:42:49] truly mixed use as opposed to just
residential,
[1:42:54] um, is there a
common practice now to ensure that
[1:42:59] there's retail along the residential
developments there?
[1:43:04] » There there is not. In fact, the
planning board for some time now has
[1:43:08] made it a policy to not require any
minimum amount of residential or retail
[1:43:14] or commercial. Um because as as you may
have seen in areas of the county, you
[1:43:20] will have a high-rise building,
residential or commercial, with groundf
[1:43:25] flooror retail, pretty significant
numbers of storefronts, but with a
[1:43:29] number of them vacant. And I think the
board decided that trying to compel what
[1:43:35] the market would demand or anticipate
what the market would demand was was not
[1:43:40] leading to some of the best um asbuilt
outcomes. So uh for us to suggest a
[1:43:48] minimum requirement would really uh we
we'd be swimming uphill on that
[1:43:54] upstream.
>> I I agree with Michelle.
[1:43:59] » Right. Although, you know,
aspirationally, we definitely want nice
[1:44:03] mixeduse, vibrant retail.
>> If I may add, I think that the planning
[1:44:10] board's or planning staff's approach is
that if you have good urban design with
[1:44:14] lively streets, well-designed, and you
have a certain amount of residential
[1:44:19] units, new units, that will bring that
will encourage the retail you're looking
[1:44:23] for.
>> Yeah.
[1:44:24] » Instead of any
>> Okay. Okay. And then getting into the um
[1:44:32] nonpropy specific recommendations that
are within the working draft. Um the
[1:44:36] first being um public parking to support
new development. It has been noted that
[1:44:42] the McGomery County um government does
not have land within the Friendship
[1:44:48] Heights sector plan area which um puts
it in a unique position compared to
[1:44:53] other sector plan areas. And so there is
no space where they can create a public
[1:44:59] parking garage. There has been an
aspirational
[1:45:03] um statement in regard to um
incentivizing
[1:45:08] developers to put in um ample parking
for their development and for entering
[1:45:15] into public private partnerships with
the county to integrate public parking
[1:45:20] into those built facilities. But um
there is nothing within the sector plan
[1:45:27] that would mandate any specific ratio
tied to development density or units
[1:45:34] etc. There are overarching um zoning
requirements that deal with parking.
[1:45:39] Although because this is within a half
mile of metro, it's my understanding
[1:45:43] that those things do not apply. So the
question for the board is um do you
[1:45:49] support the um uh staff recommendations
as the committee has recommended or do
[1:45:55] you want to be more specific on the
parking mandates and requirements? This
[1:46:00] was highlighted as a big concern and
issue for residents.
[1:46:08] And maybe John andor Michelle can speak
to um whether or not the over the
[1:46:13] proposed overlay zone could include
requirements related to parking. setting
[1:46:21] aside whether or not there would be
planning board um interest and
[1:46:26] acceptance to that. Is is there is that
a an appropriate mechanism through which
[1:46:32] to require certain parking thresholds?
>> The overlay zone could address this in
[1:46:38] at least two ways. The first would be to
change the parking standards for these
[1:46:43] properties. Um it the overlay zone is
basically a zoning text amendment. So
[1:46:49] you can use that to modify the existing
zoning standards. The other would be to
[1:46:54] identify it is it a public amenity. Uh
that of course would result in
[1:46:59] additional um additional density
likely within even the height caps that
[1:47:05] we're we're currently recommending. And
um in that in that respect, it would
[1:47:11] give the a developer the incentive to um
to provide that as a public benefit um
[1:47:18] in and incorporated as part of a new
development.
[1:47:21] » Is that part of the staff the draft
recommendations or is that
[1:47:26] » right? I their recommendation I believe
right now is to incentivize publicly
[1:47:32] available parking as a benefit.
>> Right. Okay.
[1:47:35] » Public benefit. Yeah. So I that's that's
something I think we should support.
[1:47:41] » They did not address it as part of an
overlay zone, but we we certainly should
[1:47:44] raise that as well.
>> Okay.
[1:47:46] » So that would provide essentially kind
of built-in suspenders.
[1:47:51] » It it seems like
if I understood correctly, uh we'd
[1:47:56] probably prefer um the overlay zone side
of it because it doesn't automatically
[1:48:02] cause more density. Um and they can
always say no. So seems like why not why
[1:48:07] not go with that to start with,
>> right?
[1:48:10] » Okay, sounds good. I I assume there's
board consensus for that position.
[1:48:15] » I haven't heard any
>> agree.
[1:48:18] » Yes, agree.
>> Great. Okay. Uh, next item is the um
[1:48:25] establishment of dedicated bus lanes for
BRT on Wisconsin Avenue, taking one of
[1:48:32] the current travel lanes in each
direction and converting it to a
[1:48:36] dedicated lane for BRT.
[1:48:43] » And Shaina, that was part of their
recommendations, right? I understand
[1:48:49] » recommendations and the committee has um
recommended not taking a position for
[1:48:54] now except to raise concerns about
impacts traffic flow and note that this
[1:48:59] would um uh impact our residents in the
first block of Oliver Street off of
[1:49:06] Wisconsin Avenue who are only able to
enter their block from Wisconsin Avenue.
[1:49:12] It's the only block in the village that
is essentially limited in access only
[1:49:17] from the one direction.
>> I think that's a good position.
[1:49:22] » Needs further studied position.
>> Correct.
[1:49:25] » Exactly.
>> All right.
[1:49:26] » Okay. So, um the board supports the
committee's recommend recommendation.
[1:49:31] Yes.
>> And then um the next item is the um
[1:49:35] planning staff recommendation to
eliminate Wisconsin Circle um to be
[1:49:41] replaced with a new through street that
would begin at a point to the west of
[1:49:48] the buildings on the collection property
coming out at um essentially the point
[1:49:54] where Wisconsin Circle does today at
Willard, the intersection at Willard
[1:49:58] Avenue.
[1:50:02] And the committee recommendation is take
no
[1:50:08] » yet because to raise concerns about the
impacts to traffic flow along uh Western
[1:50:14] Avenue further east at this point.
[1:50:19] I think that that Shaina that was the
only concern that I thought we had was
[1:50:23] moving that circle and what it would do
terms of the light sequence backing
[1:50:28] traffic east on Western and blocking
Kirkside and other streets. Um I you
[1:50:34] know one one suggestion we might have is
uh I know you've contracted with the
[1:50:39] traffic group maybe when that is
actually proposed or an option proposed
[1:50:44] they could look at it and determine the
adverse effect it would have.
[1:50:48] » Sure. Our residents have also expressed
concern that allowing uh and I've
[1:50:53] brought back up on the page the um
section that we're talking about where
[1:50:57] the new street would come in. And some
of our residents have expressed concern
[1:51:01] that um also bringing this street closer
to the village or farther um to the east
[1:51:08] would also bring that traffic closer to
village homes with resulting um
[1:51:14] emissions and noise impacts as a result
of that. So, that's something that the
[1:51:18] board could raise in its letter that are
um concerns together with the traffic
[1:51:25] flow impacts
um along Western Avenue.
[1:51:32] » Yeah, fair enough.
>> Um broad agreement on that guys? Agreed.
[1:51:40] » Yes,
>> okay. And that is it. There was a note
[1:51:46] on the um comparative chart from the
committee that they have not really
[1:51:52] looked at the um proposals for the GEICO
property because they have been
[1:51:58] hyperfocused under the board's mandate
to look at these properties that are
[1:52:02] immediately adjacent to the villages
single family homes. But certainly if
[1:52:06] the board uh wants the committee to
begin to look at um the GEICO
[1:52:11] properties, they stand ready to to to do
that. understanding that there are two
[1:52:15] separate tracks working right now.
There's a development that is moving
[1:52:19] forward through the planning process
under the existing sector plan which is
[1:52:24] separate and apart from the sector plan
recommendations that are being
[1:52:28] recommended for what will be the new
sector plan. So some of this is um
[1:52:34] working at kind of parallel tracks and
and unfortunate timing, but so as not to
[1:52:39] conflate the two things, this would be
for the committee um if the board would
[1:52:44] like the committee to look at
specifically the sector plan
[1:52:46] recommendations, not the current
development applications.
[1:52:52] » I don't see the need. I think we've
really taxed our committee and we have
[1:52:55] enough on our plate with the stuff
that's adjacent to the village, but I'd
[1:52:59] love to hear if other people want the
committee to be
[1:53:03] looking at
>> I agree with that. Um I know that um the
[1:53:08] the E&E committee um
uh was very interested in this subject
[1:53:15] uh just because um u some of the things
happening there might might have uh
[1:53:21] » um
green green problems.
[1:53:26] Um, and so
it might be that we would want to put
[1:53:32] another committee together of some sort,
but uh I don't unless they are eager to
[1:53:38] do it, I don't think we should um
further burden the the current ad hoc
[1:53:42] committee.
the Friendship Heights uh Village
[1:53:47] Council or any of the neighborhood
associations produce summaries that or
[1:53:52] status reports that that we have access
to and that might help us stay apprised
[1:54:00] of what's going on there in case pieces
of it are relevant.
[1:54:04] » Sure. I've been in consistent contact
with my counterpart over at the Village
[1:54:08] of Friendship Heights and he's generally
expressed that his community is
[1:54:12] hyperfocused on the current development
and has been less vocal uh about the
[1:54:19] proposals for the sector plan related to
GEICO. But I'll continue to stay in
[1:54:25] contact with them to see if they
articulate a formal um position or
[1:54:30] testimony related to the sector plan
changes proposed for the property.
[1:54:39] » Okay. So, it sounds like there was not
an interest in assigning
[1:54:44] » more work for the overworked committee.
>> Yes. I I I'm sure Mr. Halpern and Mr. De
[1:54:49] Giovani are breathing a sigh of relief.
Okay. Um, Michelle, I will turn it over
[1:54:56] to you if you and I'm happy to tag team
this with you. Want to just do kind of a
[1:55:00] general summary of what the board has
decided this evening.
[1:55:05] » Sure. And honestly, it would help if we
could pull up that overview of the
[1:55:09] heights, the the um
the one that shows the There you go.
[1:55:15] Perfect.
And so, uh, you know, we're looking at
[1:55:20] maintaining the re the current
recommendations on the northern end
[1:55:24] along Oliver and Belmont with those
heights, uh, and the setbacks that were
[1:55:29] recommended last time by the committee.
And then when we go down to uh the
[1:55:36] collection, we're going to maintain a
recommendation of the 60 ft height and
[1:55:41] we're going to carry that not just at
the frontage, but we're going to carry
[1:55:45] it over basically to mid block on both
uh the northern and southern pieces of
[1:55:50] that property. We're going to continue
to maintain the 170 and 200 height
[1:55:57] recommendations fronting on Wisconsin.
When we go down, I'm going to start at
[1:56:02] the two Wisconsin Circle. We're going to
stick with the 250 foot height limit
[1:56:08] there. And when we go over to the
portion of the property fronting on
[1:56:13] Grove, we're going to start at 85 ft.
And then we're going to step up as we
[1:56:18] move across that. Uh the suggested
heights were 130, 170, and then 250 so
[1:56:24] that we have a gradient going up to the
250.
[1:56:29] um
a minimum of 75 acres of open space. uh
[1:56:36] in addition to the 10% open space
requirement
[1:56:40] that uh we have that we emphasize that
we are looking to a um overlay zone to
[1:56:49] impose these requirements as a from a
regulatoratory perspective not just as
[1:56:54] master plan recommendations that we
would like to see in the overlay zone.
[1:56:59] Additionally, uh some minimum parking
standards above and beyond what's
[1:57:04] otherwise required in this transit area
and um
[1:57:10] also note concerns with relocating
Wisconsin Circle that uh moving it
[1:57:17] closer to the neighborhood is going to
move uh nuisance concerns such as noise
[1:57:22] and emissions and that generally closer
to the neighborhood. And also that
[1:57:27] generally we would like to um have more
analysis of the traffic impacts of that
[1:57:34] of that proposal and take no position uh
specific to the bus lanes, but note that
[1:57:41] we think that that requires further
study with respect to long-term traffic
[1:57:45] impacts.
Um Shaina, I think I got them all, but I
[1:57:51] suspect you may have have one or two
that I left out. Yes, just a couple
[1:57:56] things. I want to note that the board
supports the um CR zoning for Sachs at
[1:58:03] an F of 3.0 and also supports the 3.0 F
for the collection property. We didn't
[1:58:13] it wasn't verbalized, but I just want to
make sure that I believe it was 5.0 for
[1:58:18] two Wisconsin circles. Is that correct?
>> That's correct.
[1:58:22] » Okay. And I just I don't know that the
board really focused in on that as much,
[1:58:26] but is there any board objection to 5.0
F specific for two Wisconsin Circle for
[1:58:32] that um southwestern most corner of that
buildable area
[1:58:39] which I believe
>> Let me just
[1:58:41] » Can I just ask John uh how does that
compare with Wisconsin and Bethesda like
[1:58:48] the Marriott building? Is that similar
height?
[1:58:51] Yeah, it's similar. Yeah, the the
density and the heights are similar, but
[1:58:58] I can I can confirm.
>> That's fine.
[1:59:02] » Yeah, I I think that that one had been
mapped at 300.
[1:59:06] I don't know what the built conditions
are.
[1:59:10] » Yeah.
>> Okay. And the only other thing that I
[1:59:16] had was um
uh that the board supports removal of
[1:59:21] the existing overlay zone.
>> Right. Thank you.
[1:59:24] » Okay, I think that summarizes it.
>> Great summary. Thank you,
[1:59:29] » Leonard. We will pass it back over to
you.
[1:59:33] » If I could just ask one question. Um the
planning board website shows a walking
[1:59:40] tour of Friendship Heights on the 18th
next week and just wanted to confirm
[1:59:46] that the village is engaged in that
walking tour in some fashion with a nice
[1:59:52] long walk along Belmont
>> to point out the issues we're talking
[1:59:56] about here.
>> We're not allowed to point out issues in
[1:59:59] that walking tour. We're not allowed to
speak. We're allowed to walk.
[2:00:02] » Yes. So yeah on the tour.
>> Yeah,
[2:00:07] » I do plan to attend uh that walking tour
and um anyone who knows me knows I'm not
[2:00:13] shy about um speaking up and trying to
direct attention to things to the extent
[2:00:18] that I'll certainly be allowed to do so.
But we've also publicized the walking
[2:00:22] tour in our weekly blast emails to our
residents in hopes that we can have um
[2:00:27] interested residents attend that as
well.
[2:00:30] » Yeah.
[2:00:34] Any other questions for Michelle or
John?
[2:00:39] » No. What's the next part of the agenda?
>> Sorry about that.
[2:00:47] » Yeah,
we know who likes to do this.
[2:00:53] » Come in, Gary.
>> I I do move to adjourn the meeting.
[2:00:59] » Second. All in favor? I
>> I
[2:01:03] » I
>> All right. Thank you very much
[2:01:05] everybody.
>> Thank you.
[2:01:09] » Byebye. Good night. Bye-bye.