Where the original application approved called for 58 condo units and 2800 SF of retail space, a new proposed amendment bumps that up to 82 residential units and 5000 SF of retail. In addition, the amended plans now incorporate relevant aspects of the Bethesda Downtown master plan, such as the shared street vision for Norfolk Avenue. The master plan had not yet been approved when The Claiborne application was. You'll note the Auburn-facing "ladder" facade ornament has been deleted in the revised design.
Many local observers felt the original plan was too small, and that more effort should have been made to assemble a larger site. Those critics will be at least somewhat satisfied with the revised plan, even if they would have liked to see the whole corner and Tia Queta as part of the deal. A public meeting on the plan amendments will be held on Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 7:00 PM at the Bethesda-Chevy Chase Regional Services Center, located at 4805 Edgemoor Lane.
 |
| The blank space at the corner represents properties that were not acquired for the development; the 17-story Gallery Bethesda is shown at rear of the site |
Images via Montgomery County Planning Department
15 comments:
I like the new expanded design better than the original. Too bad they couldn’t assemble the entire block. The idea of a wall mural on the end is a nice idea if well executed. The stepping building massing is nice in that it is not simply a big block on the street. This will be a nice addition to the west end of Norfolk, and along with the other caper proposed on Auburn, will create a nice draw at the far end of the proposed Norfolk woonruf proposed by the sector plan.
6:21am Dyer has loads of Silver Spring development updates, updates on progress at the new brewery, etc. Not one "Google Street View" image among those!
Anything happening outside your window today that you can blog about?
I propose a new local Edward R Murrow award category for local news reporting looking outside a window. "This year's inaugural Rear Window award goes to...Bethesdamagazine.com!" Applause ensues.
Sorry, I meant to type “woonerf”.
"Gaithersburg updates":
"June 28"
LOL
This will be nice. Good to see better retail spaces coming to Woodmont Triangle area. The old landlords around the area just dont seem to be investing much into improvements.
"allowing the density of the project to grow."
The size of the project has grown. The density of the project has, in fact, declined.
12:42 PM is correct. If Dyer had said, "allowing the number of residential units/amount of commercial floor space to increase", that would have been correct.
But density in this case means the number of units or floor space, divided by the area of the site. The residential units and floor space have increased, but the area of the site has increased more, so the density of this project has decreased. Basic arithmetic.
While the density of the blogger has remained the same or increased.
Speaking of large developments — no report on the 2,000,000 square foot development at Grosvenor? Still deleting any and all references to it I see. Classic Saul Alinsky tactic! (Whatever that’s supposed to mean.)
By the way — 1:01 is correct. I assumed, based on your report, that combining the parcels allowed the developer to increase the units per square foot ratio. But it sounds like that’s not what you meant?
I must agree with 1:01 PM. Density is alway based on the area of the site. If they have a larger site, the building could be larger, but in this case, the density is indeed reduced as it is spread over a larger area. Robert you are indeed incorrect if you believe the density is increased.
One could make the argument that the increase in apartments and commercial space increase the density of the neighborhod. But Dyer didn't say that. He said "the density of the project".
He is WRONG once again, for the 118,675th time in his #LifetimeOfMiserableFailure.
3:14: More people and more retail than planned before at the same location is higher density in layman's terms. Do you not realize that whatever future project on the corner there will be built just got smaller? You might say you are "fractally wrong." LOL
"More people and more retail than planned before at the same location is higher density in layman's terms."
Except that it's NOT "the same location". It is a site that has been expanded to include approximately 40% more land than in the previous proposal.
10:20: You just doubled down on stupid. The overall developable land on that block has not changed in size. One got bigger, and the other just got equally smaller. More units, more retail. This is why you are fractally wrong, Saul.
"The overall developable land on that block has not changed in size. One got bigger, and the other just got equally smaller. More units, more retail. This is why you are fractally wrong, Saul."
More units, more retail on one side, though slightly less in proportion to the increase in size...and less room for additional units and retail on the other side when that is eventually redeveloped.
Can't you see how this works?
Dyer has misinterpreted a larger project with a denser project. Yes the project is bigger, and will add more condos, retail and parking. But since the parcel is larger, the overall density is not increasing. In fact the expanded lots have lower buildings than the original lots. Now I don’t know if this new concept proposes to build all of the ALLOWABLE density, compared to the original proposal. That would be the only way to determine if it is indeed more dense. I would assume the developers wish to maximize their use of the allowable density, and I assume the previous plan did so as well.
The fact that this newly added eastern portion has a lower height, seems to imply that the overall density is indeed lower than the originally proposed density. I think Dyer has confused more stuff with more dense stuff.
I still find it offensive when he berates people who disagree with his opinion. Just state that you disagree, and explain why, but don’t call people dumbasses or stupid.
Post a Comment