Friday, December 04, 2015

Planning Board sticks with 75' for Whole Foods, LF Library sites in Westbard sector plan

Does this look like an
urban area to you? The
very suburban site of the
Little Falls Library
Despite community dissatisfaction over the idea of a 75' apartment building towering over barely-3-story townhomes and single-story churches, the Montgomery County Planning Board confirmed its initial decision last month to recommend just such a development for the site of the Little Falls Library in a worksession yesterday. It also recommended 75' for properties directly adjacent to single-family homes in Kenwood, but tied that height to requirements that the two properties - which include the Kenwood Station shopping center - be assembled into one parcel, and provide "community open space."

In regard to the library plan, Lynn Battle, representing the Westwood Mews and Westbard Mews townhome communities, said, "This site is directly across from all of our townhomes. This was suddenly raised. We are very strenuously against that. It certainly has to be a step up [to 75' from a lower height facing the townhomes]."

Westbard Sector Plan Project Manager John Marcolin said there would indeed be a step up from the Westbard Avenue side of the potential building, as required by the CRT zone's compatibility provision. The center of the building would likely be 75', stepping down from there, Marcolin said.

Battle noted that the idea of a 75' building there was never even mentioned during a year-long public engagement period. "Most of the public that thought they were being given an opportunity to comment," Battle said, were not allowed to comment on this proposal, brought up long after the September 24 public hearing.

Planning Board Chair Casey Anderson acknowledged that the Montgomery County Department of General Services' decision to make the 11th-hour height request was not the way things should be done. “I don’t think that was frankly very helpful,” Anderson said. But he was in favor of 75' nonetheless, saying the Board had heard “considerable public support for affordable housing” in the Westbard area.

In reality, relatively few speakers advocated for extensive affordable housing, few of those were residents, and even fewer actually live adjacent to any of the properties targeted for redevelopment. How many speakers asked for a 75' building on the low-rise library site? Exactly zero. In fact, a huge crowd turned out to vehemently protest any idea of replacing or moving the venerable Little Falls Library this past April. At that meeting, DGS representative Greg Ossont made no mention of redeveloping the site. Of course, he understandably used careful legal language to do so.

What's really going on at the library site?

To get a sense, consider the facts we do know, rather than the unknowns to come. Marcolin revealed new language to apply to the site in the draft sector plan. That language states that redevelopment of the library site "must involve a public-private partnership." Stop right there. That's exactly what I predicted in my last article. County elected officials will be able to select a favored development firm from the many who donate to their campaigns, and deliver this prize property on a silver platter.

But it's affordable housing, to help the downtrodden, they'd say.

Wrong. Just check the language. Only a maximum of 25% of the units will have to be affordable or workforce housing. Never mind that placing a lot of affordable housing far away from Metro and near no County services for low-income residents, and with no public recreational facilities, would be just plain irresponsible. But this isn't going to be an affordable housing project.

Rather, it will be luxury apartments or condos, and fill up classrooms and nearby roads, for private developer profit. And this is more than 100 additional units beyond what the public had to consider at the time they testified on September 24. In a building that will tower over the suburban residential uses around it. You can step down all you want, but 75' is still a wall, and still blocks the sky, even if it is x-number of yards past the 35' edge.

On the Whole Foods site, where adjacent neighborhoods have suggested townhomes be placed if redevelopment occurs, the height will also be 75'. A representative for the landowner said, "we are not looking to redevelop our site and do townhouses. This site needs to retain CRT zoning. We just wanted to specify that these requirements would be based on assemblage only." "If there’s no assembly, there’s no 75’.," Anderson reminded her.

The situation with the Capital Properties site around the Park Bethesda remains unclear. Yesterday's debate centered around how the height should relate to the width and placement of the new connector road between Westbard and River Road. Commissioner Norman Dreyfuss suggested that the height be 35' at Crown Street, and then bump up to 75' at the new road, and finally to 110' on the other side of the road. That road should be placed as close to the existing Park Bethesda building as feasible, Dreyfuss said.

Planning Director Gwen Wright agreed that the road would be a "good line of demarcation" to relate heights to. But, she added, a 75' building towering right over a narrow connector road would not be good planning. Ultimately, Wright said, "This is really in many ways a site plan issue. There will have to be a lot of engineering work to figure out where that road" will meet Westbard.

While the Board will not place a townhome zone on the Manor Care property on Ridgefield Road, it did deliberate over how to discourage commerical uses there even with a CRT zone. Echoing what community representatives had said at a previous worksession, Commissioner Amy Presley said, "We had said no commercial, we didn’t think it was appropriate for commercial. I want to make sure that if that’s what we said," that the language reflects that in the plan.

Wright argued the plan should make emphasize "residential as the predominant use for this parcel," and that “commercial uses are strongly discouraged on this site. Period.” Michael Berfield, representing landowner Equity One, which owns the Manor Care site, assured commissioners that they do not intend to locate retail on that site. Berfield said the Board's previous vote to give Equity One 90' on the Westwood Center II site across Ridgefield reduced the need to have retail on the Manor Care site.

One positive note on yesterday's worksession - planning staff finally brought up the issue of gas stations, which I and others have been emphasizing for over a year, and up until now, has not been reflected in the draft plan recommendations. Anderson made clear he is not concerned about gas stations existing in the Bethesda area (does he drive an electric car?). He claimed several times during the discussion that "the market" would provide gas stations as needed.

Of course, we know this is hogwash. There's a market for competitive gas stations in downtown Bethesda. They're all vanishing anyway. Yeah, there's a market. But it's nowhere near as profitable as redeveloping your gas station as a luxury condo. That's why - duh - it's the responsibility of the Planning Board and County Council to ensure that all gas stations don't get zoned such that they become worth more than the gas station business currently operating.

Anderson truly comes across as if he couldn't care less if you have to drive to Gaithersburg to fill up your tank. But I give Marcolin credit for bringing the issue up, clearly stating the case for concern, and reminding the Board that, in regard to strengthening language to preserve gas stations via the master plan, "That’s up to you."

The end result of the discussion was that we won't be getting any protection for the gas stations in "Westbard".

And small businesses currently operating in the Westwood Shopping Center and Westwood II?

The news wasn't much better for them, either.

When the topic of how to preserve those popular mom-and-pop shops and services came up, it was concluded that the language in the vision statement of the sector plan was sufficient. Norman Knopf, an attorney who often represents neighborhoods in land-use decisions, deemed that language "pie in the sky," as it is self-implementing, not a requirement to preserve local retail.

Berfield argued that a mix of larger retailers is needed to support the smaller ones, saying they might coexist on different floors of the same retail center when the site redevelops.

Anderson suggested Knopf consider the issue, and submit sample language to the Board for consideration by its December 17 worksession, when it is expected to vote on the plan.

Photo via Google Maps

45 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm so looking forward to this development! I live in Westbard and it is going to add so many great amenities, improve the look of our area, and so much more! Looks so nice.

Anonymous said...

@7:51 AM = Mr Sarcasm or resident instigator. You choose.

Anonymous said...

Or the developer's PR firm. Yes, they post here.

Anonymous said...

I like living in a suburban neighborhood (Westbard condo) where it's quiet. I don't understand why the Planning Board held all those meetings to hear what the neighborhood envisions for the future of Westbard (where the suburban quality of the neighborhood was championed) when they wanted to completely urbanize the area all along. I suppose they must profit somehow - financial, perhaps, from the developers? I predict that Westbard will become a mini Tysons, without the Metro and the jobs. We'll have so many cars pouring into and out from these high-rise residences and shops that the roads will be gridlocked. The planners and developers are clearly my enemy because they are plundering my neighborhood for their own financial gain. Shame on them.

Anonymous said...

How ironic that John Marcolin (planning head) lives at 4802 Mercury Dr Rockville, MD 20853-3129, in a quite suburban neighborhood. His home property backs up the a suburban Catholic Church. I wonder how he would feel if the Church sold the property and a developer wanted to put up three 150' buildings adjacent to his property?

Anonymous said...

How would you validate that claim?

Anonymous said...

Is Westbard going to 150'? That's outrageous next to SFH!

Anonymous said...

I agree. As a resident here also I am very much for this. So much better than the old crap we have now.

Anonymous said...

Oh I have a perfect solution! All of the historic buildings should go to Westbard! Charm, low heights, character - everything they say they want!

Anonymous said...

It's funny to see 75" and "towering" in the same sentence.

Anonymous said...

That's part their job. Control the message, stamp out any opposition.
Westbard is a challenge for them. It's a very vocal MAJORITY against the plan.
The PR firm is doing their best astro turf campaign, but there's simply no base of support among residents for the plan.

Anonymous said...

10:00 AM: Validate? Check him out on WhitePages. Look at the map.

Anonymous said...

What's a "quite" neighborhood?

Anonymous said...

So are you a PR firm for the NIMBY residents?

Anonymous said...

This is going to be such an improvement. Don't know why residents don't want it.

Anonymous said...

Vocal majority of nearby residents. Minority of the rest of the county and those who would like to become a resident of Westbard.

Anonymous said...

Dyer says tysons is so great so yeah that would seem see is all for Westbard becoming a mini tysons.

Not quite the same heights though. 75' is nothing compared to what tysons has. Let's go more towards tysons though, dyer says that's better than MoCo.

Anonymous said...

Validate the claim that an Equity One PR person posts in the comments here.

Anonymous said...

1:24 PM The PR folks wouldn't be doing their job if they weren't posting here. Divide and conquer is the best strategy.
Dyer has the only clear eyed analysis of the plan (he's not funded by EYA). Of course they're commenting here.

Anonymous said...

Build a ten lane highway to the airport through Westbard.

Anonymous said...

I wonder what the self-proclaimed "residents of the area" have been smoking when they claim to look forward to this. What? - years of construction, blocked roads, loss of two supermarkets, perhaps the library, fast food, gas stations, etc. Supermarket? Potomac? Gas, the low priced station in Spring Valley? An Egg Muffin - pay to park in Friendship Heights or head for the Pike. I live several miles away from Westbard, but do all my food shopping there, get gas, beer, bagels,coffee, plants, dry cleaning, toys and books. I for one am not looking forward to yet another "towne centre" with difficult parking, perhaps not free, where every semblance of place has been re-placed by bland chains vying to pay the inflated rents. You can be sure the locally owned shops will not be there -- but , hey, if the Gap or its ilk is your ideal, welcome aboard.

Anonymous said...

@6:17 I have mixed feelings about the development, but I think any developer is going to ensure there's a grocery store there. It's a major draw to get people to come there, as would be other services like a dry cleaners and liquor store.

As for paid parking, I find that unlikely. The places that do have paid parking (Rockville Town Center and Pike and Rose) are close to a Metro and do it to prevent commuters from parking there. No one's going to Westbard to park all day and commute from there. (Now if the Purple Line is extended to there, I'll change my tune).

I do think parking will get more difficult when they go to a garage. More walking and time involved. If they do it like the Giant on Arlington Road, that can work out, but I'm not sure they'll be able to configure it that way.

Robert Dyer said...

12:48: The difference is that Tysons has tons of high-wage jobs clustered there, direct highway access, and Metro stations. Westbard has none of those.

Anonymous said...

Pike and Rose parking is awesome - free first two hours. Movie validates more too.

Anonymous said...

I agree. This is going to be a huge improvement. Leaps better than what's there now.

Anonymous said...

Yet tysons is still a clusterf*k of traffic, poor design, shoehorned walk ability, office vacancies, etc.

Anonymous said...

So you don't live there and that's you opinion. Fair enough. But there's no denying that the urban core is going to keep growing and growing. Imagine how Bethesda looked years ago as a suburb of DC.

Anonymous said...

A lot of people like newer more attractive buildings, walk ability, town centers, Gap, national chains

A few years of constructions is a small price to pay for progress

Anonymous said...

That's a good point dyer. We should just turn river into a highway. It's so busy anyway.

Anonymous said...

This is going to improve Westbard tons. The commercial spaces there now are dumpy and old.

Anonymous said...

Why does the "urban core" have to keep growing? Who's asking for it? And who are these millennials that are clamoring for urbanization? They wait longer to move out, marry. Then have a kid/s and want a neighborhood and houses and a dog and a park and easy amenities.
Things have to change to avoid becoming stagnant and outdated, no issues there. But who decides the WHAT? Maybe they're wrong. As "they" transform Montgomery Mall to mirror the failed White Flint, one has to wonder.

Anonymous said...

The only reason millennials live at home is because they can't afford to live anywhere else.

Anonymous said...

Well wouldn't demand dictate the what for the developers? Supply and demand insinuates the developers wouldn't do it without demand.

Anonymous said...

Westbard is a typical suburban neighborhood. The "rest of the county" isn't following this as closely or have anything at stake.. The folks living around westbard are and they're against the plan. Very vocal about their opposition.
The Westbard development/EYA PR team needs new talking points!

Anonymous said...

"Well wouldn't demand dictate the what for the developers?"

You'd think so, but the reality is that developers will get their kickbacks or fees or whatever, and they won't be around when it fails.

It's a manufactured demand to spur "growth."

Anonymous said...

So you are thinking this supply will sit empty because the demand isn't there? Why would the developers do that again? What kickbacks and fees? Appreciate the clarification. Thanks.

George Hayduke said...

Agree with the gas station issue, hopefully that will be addressed, or Dyer is right and all of Bethesda will be driving up to Rockville for gas. Also we have to be careful of EYA, if not all of Montgomery County will be nothing but $1,000,000 townhouses with one of 3 different floor plans. But on the bright side, every resident would have a roof deck and elevator.

Anonymous said...

Not so much that the supply will sit empty, more that once built, the developers are done.
The Bethesda re-development was millennials, millennials, millennials. What they want, how they want to live. But by the time all is said and done, it's not a millennial-friendly place. Where are the target group living? Why in the older affordable apartments on Bradley and Battery.
What about managing the growing divide between the rich who can afford to live in revitalized areas and those too poor to stay?
Let's take a 10 part re-vitalization plan, pull out half the ideas and then wonder why the project isn't working out. Senseless. It's like their brains are as empty as a Greenhill property.
Don't even get me started on the taking of a good idea, over-building and then wondering why all the office space sits empty.

Anonymous said...

Actually none of the developers say they are building for millennials. They freely admit their target audience is empty nesters and the like. Hence the luxury apartments and condos.

Not saying it's ideal, but apparently the demand is there.

Anonymous said...

Where is the demand coming from? If the market is over-saturated so you can't build office space-what's left to build? Ah...
Just feels like it's being drummed into us that this is what everyone wants.

Anonymous said...

It kinda feels that way but then the luxury condos and apartments sell/lease up pretty quick and they are building more. So seems like the demand is still there.

Anonymous said...

But if the surrounding community doesn't thrive, they'll be gone. Studies show that people will walk 2 blocks to consider something "convenient." Longer for special things, but on a day-to-day basis it's 2 blocks. Within those 2 blocks are usually quick-stop amenities - local market, pizza place, bar,etc. Basically businesses that can't afford the commercial rents in this area. Then there's the "core areas" with the shops, restaurants, entertainment that brings in those that don't live "downtown."

Pike and Rose seems to get it, Bethesda seems too dis-jointed.

weski said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
weski said...

So glad we spent days & hours to be completely disregarded by the planning staff regarding the height and density issues at Westbard. They seem to think it should be an urbanized area - however there is no mass transit and the traffic is already terrible in this overall area, from River Road to Mass Ave, Goldsboro to the Clara Barton. So let's add more density rather than renovating and updating. Yes, the Westbard Shopping Center needs to be massively redone, but driving underground when "popping in" for milk or dry cleaning is a pain. So is going to the hinterlands for gas. The sudden "public-private" 75 foot development on the Little Falls Library is the last straw, though. With all the approved new housing, there doesn't need to be more at that location. This is a beloved PUBLIC space that needs to remain a public space. Clearly, the Planning Board listens more to deep pocketed developers than to ALL the locals who turned out at the meeting and just want a spiffy new Giant, NOT a Pike & Rose with its painful parking. (sure wish there was an easy way to edit comments, RD)

Anonymous said...

You realize though that these are things you desire as a resident of someone else's property?