[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.

Board of Managers' Special Meeting August 11, 2026

Transcript