The "quality restaurant" was required by a hearing examiner, with the idea that it would reduce the number of vehicle trips associated with the building. Duball had already requested removal of the required parking for the restaurant over 3 years ago, arguing that the public parking garage on Woodmont Avenue was only steps away.
Now the restaurant itself is on the chopping block, and planning staff are recommending approval of the request. They are suggesting the 3000 SF non-residential space become retail space instead.
According to Matthew Folden of the Planning Department's Area 1 Planning Division, Duball looked at the marketability of this space for a sit-down, white tablecloth restaurant, and concluded it wasn't viable. You could argue that the nearby NIH, medical library and Walter Reed - totaling thousands of employees - would make this a prime lunch spot for customers on foot. But that would be fast casual, as opposed to the higher-price, full-service dining the hearing examiner mandated.
Both Duball and planning staff agree that a retail or service business would be a better fit for the location. Those uses would generate around 8 peak evening vehicle trips, down from an estimated 24 for the "quality restaurant."
The board will take up the request at its meeting this Thursday, October 20. Planning staff are also suggesting that since no community objections about the restaurant being removed have been heard, the board cancel a December 9 public hearing before a hearing examiner, and send the request directly to the District Council (a.k.a. County Council) for final approval.
Ridiculous. We should just have the county develop condos and add it to their long list of other for profit ventures.
ReplyDeleteDyer is just pissed cause he cannot afford any "quality" restaurant unless they pay for him to review it, take a shit ton of pictures, and call all of their food amazing.
ReplyDelete6:49: I've never been paid by any restaurant.
DeleteBethesda will soon a be a food desert as home prices plummet and only convenience stores remain. Twinkies for dinner in dilapidated Bethesda.
ReplyDeleteI think they should keep the restaurant requirement. If you look at the other Duball building in Bethesda, The Lionsgate, you will see that the developers have no clue what they are doing when it comes to retail. The "Retail" of the Lionsgate has two banks, a condo sales office, and a hair salon (that came in after 5 years of the space being vacant).
ReplyDeleteThe ground floor of Lionsgate is such a disappointment compared to the thriving retail complex that was there previously.
ReplyDeleteThe Anonymous poster who thinks the county should keep the restaurant requirement apparently believes in the 'field of dreams' theory of economics -- 'If you build it, they will come.' Keeping the requirement would likely discourage future condo development in Bethesda, which is fine by me. As for the Lionsgate, does it occur to Anonymous that the developers have tried to attract better retail occupants to the space but have failed, perhaps for some of the same reasons that some retail spaces closer to the more popular Bethesda Avenue area remain vacant (for example, the large space opposite Giant on Arlington and the former pet shop location)? I suggest a remedial course in economics to familiarize yourself with the concept of "demand."
ReplyDelete@ 8:10 AM - I suggest that you figure out that the rent is too high.
Delete"The District Council"
ReplyDeleteIf that's a direct copy-and-paste from Duball's press release, shouldn't this be noted?
8:11: There was no press release. I put the quotes because most people aren't familiar with the term and might think it was a separate governmental body.
Delete@ 8:27 AM - Right, no doubt the folks at Duball have no clue about setting rent at levels that will attract demand to fill the space.
ReplyDeleteTalbert's should move here!
ReplyDeleteThis situation has the appearance of a phony game anyway. The county mandates a quality restaurant as a condition for approving the development so the county can look like it is concerned about reducing traffic congestion (and perhaps saving the environment), and the developer accepts the mandate to get approval, knowing it can always go back and get the mandate removed. The county is in on the game, too (wink wink, nod nod). The whole process also creates work for the planning commission staff to do, justifying their existence and the tax revenues that support them. How in the world does the county know that a quality restaurant will be the best use for that space to begin with? The whole process is greased by campaign donations from the developer.
ReplyDelete9:35AM Finally! Someone who speaks the truth. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteThe nice restaurant could have been a good addition to that part of town.
ReplyDelete12:24 IKR! All the people living right there and in the Flats and on that side of town? You'd think they could figure out something. Wouldn't food have a better chance there than retail?
ReplyDelete"Duball had already requested removal of the required parking for the restaurant over 3 years ago, arguing that the public parking garage on Woodmont Avenue was only steps away." While a correct statement, the reduction in the number of public parking spaces in that garage by nearly (or even more than?) HALF due to the revised location of the new police station currently under construction was not in that plan 3 years ago. There is certainly inadequate available parking in that area of Bethesda to accommodate a restaurant, quality retail, or even residents in the existing apartment buildings on Battery and Woodmont for that matter!! And for anyone who wants to chime in and say there is plenty of parking in other "nearby" garages -- no one wants to or will walk 4+ blocks away to park. Incredibly poor planning in Bethesda.
ReplyDelete@ 12:24 and 3:00: From that location you could walk to Bistro Provence or Black's Bar and Kitchen, among other fine dining restaurants on that side of Old Georgetown Road, in 10-15 minutes. And burn off some of those calories.
ReplyDeleteWho are all these people who want to walk? Are they the same ones buying all the condos?
ReplyDelete