A required public meeting has been scheduled for the planned redevelopment of two Wisconsin Avenue properties around the Montgomery Farm Women's Cooperative Market, a historic property. Sketch plans proposed for 7126 and 7140 Wisconsin Avenue and 4705 Miller Avenue will be discussed at the meeting, which will be held on Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 7:30 PM in the Cafeteria at Bethesda-Chevy Chase High School at 4301 East-West Highway.
 |
Want to put residents back in charge of planning, growth
and development in Montgomery County? Elect the only
candidate with a long track record of fighting developers
on behalf of residents (and whose opponents have all
received THOUSANDS of dollars from developer sugar daddies).
CLICK HERE to find out more about Robert Dyer
Change your vote - Change the County! |
The meeting will also include a plan to redevelop the public parking lots behind the east side of Wisconsin as mostly a seven-story apartment building and townhomes, with
thin green parkland strips in back facing the Town of Chevy Chase. Not what the County Council and Planning Board vowed would be large, green parks - told you so! Turns out they lied again. Betrayed by the County Council!
29 comments:
"...with thin green parkland strips in back facing the Town of Chevy Chase. Not what the County Council and Planning Board vowed would be large, green parks - told you so! Turns out they lied again. Betrayed by the County Council!"
The proposal focused specifically on the parking lots. More than half of the two parking lots adjacent to the Farm Women's Market will be converted to parkland. What was the larger area that claim was "vowed"? Anything larger than that would require purchase and demolition of existing properties.
Also, how will the new parkland not be "green"?
Actually, about 2/3 of the existing paved parking lots would become landscaped parkland and paved walkways.
The thin green park you refer to varies from about 70’ wide on the south end to about 158’ on the north end, where is matches thewith of the underutilized, adjacent Elm Street Park that is adjacent to the proposed CCT extension from Bethesda to Silver Spring. This park is wider they the proposed 6-7 story buildings on the west side of the building, that step in height from 2 to 5 to 7 stories to create low scale building massing, to buffer the park and the Town of Chevy Chaseform the tower proposed on Wisconsin, south of the FWM. The new tower massing that is proposed also has a stepped building massing that implies with the design guidelines.
This is an excellent idea for the area around the FWM wait preserves and rennovated the historic building, adds appropriate a-dative reuses to give the FWM a new viable operation ( a food hall), creates a very large southern expansion of Elm Street Park, and best of all, replaces all 300 parking spaces below grade at ZERO cost to the county or the Town of Chevey Chase (our neighbor). The houses on the east side of this new park would have a great new park across from their front yards, instead of the current nasty parking lots.
Yes, a larger park would be better, but the cost to bury the parking and build the park on top would be an enormous expense for the county.
Have you all reviewed the very nice massing models? If looks like a very nicely sorted concept and would be a great asset to the city and neighboring town. We should jump on this offer before they come to their senses and change their mind.
I think somebody needs to look at the renderings again - they do not show "more than half" of the lots as green space. Two narrow green strips behind new housing development, and the one directly behind the market widens out a bit at the edge. In contrast, the Council and Planning Board had promised large green parks. Interestingly, they did not require that in the final sector plan, despite stating it verbally to residents, and their obsequious friends in the local media. #Oops
@4:12 -- I think somebody needs to look at the renderings again
I agree. And that somebody would be you, Mr. Dyer. The renderings show lots and lots of green space where there is presently acres of asphalt.
Rendering 1
Rendering 2
Rendering 3
@3:07PM and @5:12PM: See Page 137 of the Bethesda Downtown Plan, which the County Council approved. It shows Lot 10 and Lot 24 -- in their entireties -- as parks, not townhouses. EYA is trying to build townhouses on parkland.
No one should worry about whether the new building will have parking for retail customers. EYA will build an underground lot -- and probably offer validation for people dining or shopping in their development -- if the county does not operate a lot under the development. This is merely a clever trick by EYA to try to grab some more land for its project, effectively getting taxpayers to foot the bill for a parking garage that it is going to build anyway.
Fortunately, the council has seen through this ploy. Hans Riemer has already come out against the EYA plan, making this one of the few issues on which Riemer and Dyer agree. EYA's proposal is only good for EYA.
And @3:07: Your math makes no sense. You state that the parks would get half the parking lot land, and then you say the county would have to acquire land if it wanted a bigger park. It would not have to acquire land. It just has to refrain from giving land away.
"EYA is trying to build townhouses on parkland."
Wrong. It has not been designated as such. It is currently parking lots.
5:12: As 8:01 correctly points out, the EYA plan is not the bill of goods that was sold to East Bethesda and the Town of Chevy Chase. And the County entity already owns the lots. It was humorous to see Hans Riemer forced to respond hours later to my early morning expose that gave the facts on the betrayal. First time I've ever seen a Councilmember quoted with a response to a public meeting about a sketch plan the next morning. He knew he'd been busted, and had to do damage control.
Bottom line - the Council lied to us, and pocketed the developer money. In fact, all four of my opponents in the Council At-Large race have taken thousands of dollars each from developers. Have the voters learned from the last four years? We'll find out in November.
10:12: How do you credibly explain that you've spent your entire Saturday reposting comments on my website and thinking about me, without admitting you are either paid to do this, or are a psychotic nutjob stalker?
@8:05pm: See Page 137 of the master plan, where the lots are marked as park land. See also the promises of the Council President and other Council Members.
8:01/4:13 — I have reviewed the pages you refer to in the Master Plan. Those sketches are just that — sketches. They are not construction drawings and they are not meant to be interpreted literally!! The Plan calls for enhanced park space in the general area of where the parking lots exist now, and that’s what we’re getting.
At the meeting EYA statedthe 63% of the currently paved imprevious parking lots and paved area around the FWM would become green space or paved walkways. So not quite 2/3. This of course includes the paved areas around the FWM, so yes more that 1/3 of the two existing county parking lots would have buildings.
Still a good deal to me, as they would pay for the 300 underground spaces and park improvements. 60’ to 158’ wide is not what I would consider a narrow park by the way.
"See Page 137 of the master plan, where the lots are marked as park land."
That means they were proposed to become park land, in that one specific proposal. Currently it is a parking lot.
That does not mean that "EYA is building on park land". They proposing to build on what is now a parking lot. That land is not "park land" now any more than it is a "freeway right-of-way".
"At the meeting EYA stated the 63% of the currently paved imp[er]vious parking lots and paved area around the FWM would become green space or paved walkways. So not quite 2/3."
Well, Dyer is still claiming that it's not even half. The difference between 63% and 66.7% is trivial.
Yes of course the sector plan suggested 100% of the existing parking lots could be parks. But to do this will require undergrounding of the existing 300 parking spaces. Any new development for EYA, be it apartments, office or retail, will need to provide required additional parking for those new uses, in accordance with their review process.
If someone is willing to build a 300 space parking deck under the existing parking lots, and build a park on the top, then indeed we don’t need EYA, or gift them any land. But since the county or Town of Chevy Chase don’t seem to want to pony up the $20,000,000.00 or so to build both, then I contend this is a good deal, with multiple benefits.
We get a better buffer, with a 2-4-7 story stepping building adjacent to the admittedly reduce area, and a more appropriate edge for the new parkland. Without this plan, EYA can legally build a175’ tall tower adjacent to the county lots (or future park). Not such a good relationship.
EYA proposes to place all 300 spaces to replace the parking lots, and their additional required parking, under their buildings. The benefit is that we get a dedicated park that can support large tree growth, not just a few feet of soil over a deck.
If the county could ever find the money to underground the parking using only the two parking lots, a large part of the lots would be dedicated to a ramp, elevator and stairs to get to and from the underground deck, and eat up a portion of the available space for a park. EYA’s plan uses parking ramps under their proposed buildings, to maximize the amount of park space.
Lastly, EYA is now proposing to work with the developer of Union Market in DC to refurbish and repurpose the existing FWM into a first class food hall. Although this is more about the FWM piece, and not the parking lot parks, but another developer might not be as creative, and the FWM might remain as a slummy flea market. We get the chance here to have a quality renovation and a desirable adaptive reuse of a neglected but historically protected building. It will creat a great eastern terminus to the Bethesda Row area, and help draw folks passing on Wisconsin into the district.
I really think this is a great concept offered by a developer with a great track record of producing high quality projects that are appropriately scaled to the neighborhood, and add much value to the city. Not just a money making scheme, but real place making opportunity.
Furthermore, perhaps we now have a chance to negotiate for improvements in the adjacent Elm Street Park, have EYA constructi the ramp for the New CCT connection under Wisconsin, and maybe even some enhancements to the park beyond what is currently shown in EYA’s plans. Maybe a dedicated dog park, an ice skating rink that doubles as a fountain in the summer, with an adjacent pavilion to serve hot chocolate in the winter and ice cream in the summer. Now is the time to negotiate with EYA to get a great set of park related improvements in exchange for their use of part of those nasty parking lots.
@9:30AM: It just astounds me that people in this county are so willing to give away public land to private developers. EYA knows how many spaces it will need to service its development. It will pay to build that many spaces. Montgomery County should get out of the parking lot business and let the private sector fill the need.
Lot 24/Lot 10 is one of the largest tracts of county-owned land that does not have a structure on it. It is in an area that is starved for green space.
The partnership with the Union Market developers is irrelevant to the park land discussion. It's not an exclusive relationship between Union Market and EYA, and if the Union Market developers really like the location and the space, they will partner with anyone. We do not need EYA to save downtown Bethesda or the Farmers Market.
I get opening bargaining with a maximilist position, but EYA's opening proposal is so one sided that it looks like bad faith.
@9:42AM: EYA would not be using part of the parking lots. It would get ownership of part of the parking lots. Let's be clear about what this is: an attempted land grab by EYA.
Although I don't necessarily agree with all of 11:43's comment, it is nice to see disagreement with the proposal presented in a comment that readers with a a reading level higher than third-grade can appreciate, and free of idiotic innuendo and ad hominems.
11:43 AM I still believe the 300 existing county spaces are necessary to support existing nearby office and retail buildings. Those lots are heavily used during the day by nearby businesses. Any new development that EYA creates should provide parking at the appropriate ratio IN ADDITION to the replacement of the existing 300 spaces underground. EYA's offer to provide this parking, below grade and fully under their buildings, in exchange for the use (and ownership) of a portion of the existing parking lots is what is at issue. Their offer also includes the creation of park improvements in the portion of the parking lots that they don't build upon.
You might disagree that any scenario that allows buildings in the existing parking lot to be a land grab. But I suggest that this swap is fair and beneficial to all stakeholders, and perhaps our best shot at adding greenspace without a net loss of parking in this area. I don't think a municipal bond to bury 300 spaces and build a park at grade is likely or even wise. I don't think the elimination of the 300 spaces and the creation of a park is a good idea either.
I also don't think a simple green lawn on those lots is enough, and suggest now is the time to negotiate to get more park improvements from EYA.
I doubt we'll ever see substantive green space set aside in downtown Bethesda.
Westbard is much more suburban and family oriented and that redevelopment didn't provide any new parks or other green space. Why would our downtown?
If you want more green space, change the planning board.
@12:57PM: Some of those parking spaces exist to support the existing development on the land where the EYA development is going. That is a 1-for-1 swap, and EYA is more than welcome to build the parking it needs to support its development.
Otherwise, I say let the private sector meet the demand. During the week, I have little trouble finding parking in the short-term spaces in Lot 10/Lot 24, and the Waverly and Cheltenham garages, both of which are close, are underutilized on weekends. Cheltenham Garage is underutilized on weekdays.
Also, using the step down as a factor in support of EYA's proposal is slightly misleading. As I read the renderings, the 175-foot building is going into the space that EYA already owns, and EYA is getting a density bonus for preserving the market, which it has to do anyway because the market is protected. The 175-foot building is happening regardless of what happens to the parking lots. The question is whether we would prefer two-, four-, and seven-story buildings on the parking lot or whether we want open space.
For reference, the county paid $8.25 million for 0.4 acres at Bethesda and Woodmont last year. The land EYA wants the county to provide is well over an acre. Using the same cost per acre, the land EYA wants would be worth more than $20 million. Even if you take EYA's price per space for an underground lot, you arrive at only $9.3 million.
300 spaces x $50,000 per space is $15,000,000.00. The Lot 31 deck, which is much larger, and therefore likely more cost effective per space was $70,000,000.00 bid out about eight years ago. That would bring the cost of the deck to $21,000,000.00. Since this would be a second level of EYA’s proposed deck near Wisconson, the price could be a bit less, but certainly not $9.3M.
The cost for park improvements, paved walkways, lighting and landscaping is easily about $5,000,000.00. So EYA would need to spend about $20M to $26M to get the right to build low scale townhomes and stepping 2-4-7 story mid rise buildings on a portion of the existing parking lots.
By the way, just because planners and resident advocates drew a few green squares on an aerial map during the planning workshops does not make parks happen. Real parking decks and real parks cost money. As I wrote before, municipal bonds could pay for both, but seem like an unlikely possibility. Perhaps Dyer could donate some of his unused campaign financing funds if he is so inclined.
EYA only owns the very small commercial buildings that front on Wisconsin, both of which barely need any parking. I suspect that most of the daytime parking demand comes from the very large neighboring office buildings and ground floor retail, for their employees and visitors, which rely on those spaces.
With the new south entrance for the Bethesda Metro, and the new Purple Line, the parking load should be reduced somewhat, but most residents at the Town of Chevy Chase seemed adamant that the 300 spaces should not be reduced, and seemed to fear overflow parking in their neighborhood.
"the Town of Chevy Chase seemed adamant that the 300 spaces should not be reduced, and seemed to fear overflow parking in their neighborhood."
So it's the good citizens of the Town of Chevy Chase who are standing in the way of more park land.
But that doesn't fit Dyer's narrative.
9:33: My narrative is the false narrative stated by the Council and Planning Board while approving the Bethesda Downtown Plan, in which they promised large, green parks on these parking lots. Both reiterated this lie again recently, when dismissing the need for green space on other development sites in town.
If you have personal battles with one or more individuals in Chevy Chase, that's for you to sort out.
"If you have personal battles with one or more individuals in Chevy Chase, that's for you to sort out."
Dyer wants to see five-finger death-punches and bodyslamming through coffee tables!
@9:13PM: EYA said $31,000. We should hold them to that. But your comment illustrates perfectly why the county should stay very far away from EYA's proposal. These types of trades involve things that are difficult to value when they are still sketches, and EYA's control over the construction leaves a lot of opportunities for shifting costs around to come up with a number.
@4:23AM: We don't have to guess what the council meant when it promised large, green lots. Hans Riemer already said the proposal is not what they had in mind.
The residents of Chevy Chase already have parking restrictions in their neighborhood and their own police department to enforce those restrictions.
"Not what the County Council and Planning Board vowed would be large, green parks - told you so! Turns out they lied again."
Actually it's exactly what they proposed in the sector plan. Turns out Dyer lied again.
It would be great to actually see a debate with the Council at large candidates so we could compare and contrast policies.
>> Dyer wants to see five-finger death-punches and bodyslamming through coffee tables!
I'd bet on Dyer, out for revenge.
Post a Comment