Novel Bethesda continues to sidestep
community engagement with new plan
Montgomery County's unusual land-use authority, the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission, has another potential scandal on its hands. Commissioners purchased two properties in 2020, 7800 and 7810 Wisconsin Avenue for $9.6 million. At the time, they told the public that the land would become an extension of Veterans Park. However, last week, the commission said that the park will not be built after all, because it could not acquire the Reddz Trading building and an adjacent 4-story condo building on Woodmont Avenue. Instead, a significant part of the land will now be buildable space for the Novel Bethesda apartment tower at 7820 Wisconsin Avenue.
 |
| What was promised in 2021 |
 |
| What was promised to taxpayers by Montgomery County officials in 2021, when they purchased $9.6 million in property |
What was shown by the developer of Novel Bethesda in 2021 as a large green space, is shown on new renderings as a comparatively narrow strip, and is hardscape rather than green space. The Novel Bethesda itself is now shown as having a larger footprint, instead. Despite the new proposed configuration of the project, the renderings are appearing at meetings of the Bethesda Design Advisory Panel (last week) and at the Development Review Committee (tomorrow, December 6, 2022), but no public meeting was held for nearby residential property owners beforehand.
 |
| What may actually happen instead, if the new proposal is approved by Montgomery County |
Adjacent property owners in the Fairmont Plaza condos at 4801 Fairmont Avenue say they have received no notice of the altered plans from the Novel Bethesda developer, have not been offered a new meeting with the developer, and were not informed of the DAP or DRC meetings. No pre-submission public meeting was held, despite new plans. The developer's plan to have all of the garage, loading dock and trash collection functions of the building face residents at Fairmont Plaza was not well received by residents in 2021, and remains the case in the new renderings as well.
The M-NCPPC commissioners who approved the $9.6 million land purchase in 2021 were forced to resign by the Montgomery County Council earlier this fall over other controversies.
Several questions remain to be answered:
1. Will the developer of Novel Bethesda, which is reportedly in discussions to purchase 7800/7810 Wisconsin from the M-NCPPC, have to compensate Montgomery County taxpayers for the properties at the full, current market value? Montgomery County officials have a long record of either selling public land to private developers at below market value, or outright gifting it for free, such as public rights-of-way.
2. Why did M-NCPPC commissioners approve the sale without finding out if the other two property owners would sell first? This was basic due diligence when making such an expensive land purchase. Instead, a reckless decision was made with Other People's Money. This purchase decision process should be folded into the large number of scandals from the past planning commissioners that remain to be investigated.
3. Now that the land on 7800/7810 is available, why isn't the Novel Bethesda being reconfigured so that the loudly-promised extension of Veterans Park can be successfully realized on the Fairmont Avenue side of the Novel Bethesda site (they own the EagleBank and 7-Eleven properties), and the massive 31-story building itself be relocated onto all of 7800/7810 Wisconsin, and utility functions of the building placed on Norfolk Avenue?
4. Why is Novel Bethesda expressing great concern about its project's impact and compatibility with the Marriott International headquarters to the Design Advisory Panel, and none about the Fairmont Plaza? The Marriott HQ is not a residential building, and relatively few employees are working on-site. With the continued working-from-home phenomenon, many residents of Fairmont Plaza will have 24-hour impacts from the Novel Bethesda.
29 comments:
Developers have a lot of power. Another question. Why won't the neighbors mobilize and protest against this? Bethesda folk are quick to mobilize against the radical and racist BLM. They are happy to come decked out in their Lululemon gear and yoga mat. Nothing but virtue signaling. Instead, protest something that really matters. Bethesda folks love their bike trails that are ruining our roadways. They love parks and green space? Ok, put up or shut up. They should protest on Vets Park and in front of Park and Planning. Enough said.
Your headline implies that the land will be given for free to the developer, which is ridiculously false.
5:42: The article explains all the details, which cannot fit in a headline.
So much to unpack here.
The county acquired the property and indicated at the time that it might use the land to swap with another owner to create an appropriate extension to the park. You don’t know that this isn’t exactly what is happening. Perhaps the county is selling the land to fund the purchase of the low density retail buildings on the west and northwest side of the park, and actually expanding the park on contiguous parcel.
I still believe the idea of a park bifurcated by Woodmont Avenue would be a very bad idea.
I have to assume the county will recoup all of the funds spent to buy the land and use it for the betterment of the downtown park system.
Regarding the placement of parking and loading access, Fairmont Avenue clearly is the least busy street. Wisconsin is obviously a non-starter, and the narrow frontage on Woodmont is problematic. Norfolk access would destroy any idea of a gateway greenspace to the Woodmont Triangle. The developer is voluntarily proposing a 35’ wide privately owned public space, and currently proposes to build an outdoor movie screen on the east side of the two story commercial building facing the greenspace. The developer stated that the design of the space is still conceptual.At the DAP meeting, the panel suggested that the cantilevered balcony above the park should be reduced i Perth, but extended the full length of their Norfolk frontage, and add a second row of shade trees, to create an shady pedestrian allee leading from Wisconsin to the Woodmont Triangle. Eventually when the site of the two story building is redeveloped (with up to a 225’ tall building), this allee could be extended to Norfolk as a true gateway to the Triangle.
I think the biggest issues about the proposed design are the absence of the required step backs above the base on three of their street frontages, and the future tower separation between the proposed building and any future tower on the reaming corner. The facade facing Fairmont is very brutal, with very little done to mitigate the 28 story tall flat glass curtain wall. Only a 10’ setback is proposed adjacent to the exiting four story office building, create a very narrow future tower separation. Not cool.
Obviously the ideal solution would be to have the developer acquire the entire block and create a singular building with appropriate privately owned public space to create the gateway. Let’s wait and see how the county proceeds to enhance Veteran’s Park in a more thoughtful way. Assembling parcels of land is often a messy and speculative process.
Black lives don't "really matter," but this rendering of one nonexistent pocket park changing to a rendering of another nonexistent pocket park is worth "mobilizing!"
Hopefully the county sold the land - would be great if the private owner has to maintain it in perpetuity rather than taxpayers.
Seems like a lot of the "Downtown Bethesda Plan" has gone out the window, with little public engagement. Veterans Park expansion is dead if this proposal is approved. And your other post about the Norfolk streetery will cancel the Norfolk "shared street".
It was disappointing to hear a Bethesda Design Board member say "the problem with parks is that they aren't used'. That opinion doesn't represent residents well.
This may be great architecture, but the human scale on the street level wasn't considered. The Fairmont Ave side has no setback and won't be a great pedestrian experience.
Fyi: Marriott and 8001 Woodmont have their parking garage and loading entrances on Woodmont.
@5:30 AM What was your first question??
And in this one comment, JAC has crystallized for all his negativity and intolerance. It’s always been there to see, but this one pulls together so many threads.
Convert the parking lot behind the current Citibank block and turn that into a park....was discussed over the past few years but seems like a viable alternative.
Another democrat money scheme at taxpayer expense
Literally in the exact same day you have one post saying that Montgomery County is very hostile to businesses, while now complaining here that the County is too friendly to businesses and developers without enough public input. The cognitive dissonance is truly amazing.
10:25: There's quite a difference between "friendly" and corruption. If taxpayers end up on the losing end of this recklessly-made land purchase, that will be scandalous. There's also much more to business than residential real estate development, but you'd have a hard time knowing that listening to the County Council. The only reason developers are treated so well compared to other business segments is that they contribute so much money to the County Council.
It was odd parks and planning never announced publicly that the Veteran's Park extension was dead. Kind of slipped it in during the latest meeting on this project. We need eyes on the land deal to see if the county is getting a fair deal on selling those properties to the developer. Everything about this development is counter to the Bethesda Plan: the scale, the pedestrian experience, it adds more private space- not public, the design gives a cold office building vibe, etc
Are you suggesting that new development does not contribute to the wellbeing and health of downtown Bethesda? Of course developers are doing all they can to ensure the success of their projects. I would imagine its a fiduciary responsibility to their company and to their investors.
I happen to believe that all this developmental growth has improved the city. The county has created a very specific set of planning documents to shape and direct this growth for the benefit of all residents and employers. Planning is always a fluid process, and I contend that the idea of a bifurcated Vetrerans Park was flawed from its inception. Perhaps the county has realized this, and is now working to create appropriate greenspaces in an area that makes more sense.
It's their world, we just live in it.
PS: Nice apologia for the builders, @10:56.
The Design Advisory Panel had a public meeting on Nov. 30, with a presentation by the developer. The video of the meeting is available: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnWD8jAfPZ4
The presentation was initially about the design of the new proposed project, but the panel members also asked about what happened to the plans for expanding Veterans Park. The short answer is that the owners of the two properties on Woodmont Ave. did not want to sell. So, the developer created a new design that includes a plaza along the eastern portion of Norfolk. The panel members and the developer agreed that if the Woodmont properties become available some day, the plaza could be extended westward.
2:48: I think the $9.6 million question is, why in the world would the Planning Board buy the 2 lots *before* finding out if the other 2 were also available for sale?
Obviously 7801 and 7809 Woodmont weren't available at the time. They have remained unavailable so M-NCPPC has decided to sell their properties rather than continue to wait. What about the above are you trying to twist into "corruption?"
11:15: You wouldn't buy half if you knew you couldn't acquire the rest. The Reddz/condo explanation given by Planning suggests they never did intend to sell to M-NCPPC, but that commissioners did not pursue that question until *after* buying the first half. This is not normal in real estate, so we need to know why this happened. And we need to ensure that the now-publicly-owned properties are not sold to the developer for less than $9.6 million.
Conversely, if one argues the park extension was so critical that we needed to make a panic, reckless land purchase, one would now have to explain why this "critical" park extension wouldn't now be realized on the Fairmont side, now that Novel Bethesda has the land on the Norfolk/Wisconsin corner available for the building footprint.
Seems as though every major item for the Woodmont Triangle trumpeted in the "Downtown Bethesda Plan" have, quietly, turned out to be "not feasible". In the business world, feasibility analysis would have revealed that before proposing it.
Even worse - we're turning over additional potential public park space over to developers to become private outdoor dining space.
" Obviously 7801 and 7809 Woodmont weren't available at the time. They have remained unavailable so M-NCPPC has decided to sell their properties rather than continue to wait. What about the above are you trying to twist into "corruption?" "
The only obvious thing about your comment is that you have obviously never run a successful business - who in the world would buy half of the area without securing the entire tract?
Montgomery County, that's who. You bet there's corruption here, but you seem good with that.
11:58: And the same happened with what passed for amenities in the Westbard sector plan - new school site, big park, Willets Branch greenway, shuttle to Metro, Westbard Transit Center, etc all excised by the County Council or dropped later on. What a coincidence!
Robert Dyer @ 11:41 AM said:
You wouldn't buy half if you knew you couldn't acquire the rest.
@ 12:46 PM said:
[W]ho in the world would buy half of the area without securing the entire tract?
Very rarely are all the properties on "entire tract" available all at once. You assemble the properties one by one, to keep others from buying them, then wait for the remaining properties to become available.
Real Estate Development 101.
You can see this happening right now on the block between Old Georgetown Road, St. Elmo Avenue and Fairmont Avenue.
"who in the world would buy half of the area without securing the entire tract?"
You and Robert know literally nothing about assembling property or how the real world works. This isn't a sim city game so maybe learn a bit about what you're talking about before typing next time. Just because you don't have foresight doesn't mean developers don't. It can take decades of incremental purchases to assemble full blocks.
8:14/8:52: Montgomery County isn't a developer. There's no long game to play here, as evidenced by the fact that the County is immediately talking about selling the land to the Novel developer. So we have to investigate how this unorthodox purchase decision came about, and then ensure taxpayers are made whole for the $9.6 million.
This is the dumbest fake argument ever. The county tried to assemble enough land for a park. They were unable to do so and subsequently decided to resell the partially accumulated asset. The end. Innuendo and conspiracies are dumb - if you are curious or concerned about the details of the sale agreement then ask someone.
Robert Dyer @ 10:43 AM said:
There's no long game to play here, as evidenced by the fact that the County is immediately talking about selling the land to the Novel developer.
The purchase was reported in March 2020. It is now December 2022. 2 years and 9 months later is not "immediately".
Robert Dyer @ 10:43 AM said:
[W]e have to...ensure taxpayers are made whole for the $9.6 million.
Why do you believe that the sale of those properties to the developer will not return that amount to the County treasury?
12:00/11:44: The purchase was made in 2021, not 2020. But that's largely irrelevant. What's relevant is why they would have purchased part of the site before knowing if they could obtain the rest. They learned that only recently, and now suddenly are talking about selling it to the developer.
Why do I question whether we'll get all the money back? Because the County has a track record of selling public land to developers for less than the true value, and even for free sometimes. For example, they sold a parcel of Little Falls Stream Valley Park for only $500,000. They routinely give away rights-of-way to developers for free, by declaring no further need for them. When the County has a track record like this, the public is justified in wanting to monitor this sale.
Robert Dyer @ 3:59 AM:
What was the actual acreage of that parcel of Little Falls Stream Valley Park which was sold for the right-of-way for Willet Bridge Road in the Little Falls Place townhouse complex? You say that "they sold [it] for only $500,000" but I estimate that the total area (80 feet long by about 30 feet wide) is only about 1/20 of an acre. Context is everything.
Post a Comment