Board of Managers - Regular Meeting

This conference will now be recorded.

Great. Okay. So we'll call the meeting to order. The board has called this special meeting to ensure that we can finalize and submit to the planning board detailed written testimony by early September. That will also be the basis for the oral testimony that board vice chair Lou Morsberger will provide during the planning board's September 14th public hearing on the Friendship Heights sector plan draft. That's our action item tonight to finalize our written testimony for September. We have a very tight turnaround, hence the need to have tonight's virtual emergency meeting. I want to convey the board's sincere thank you to our Village Ad Hoc Friendship Hike Sector Plan Committee for its recommendations. The committee has been working tirelessly. Bill Van Horn, Jonathan Halprin, Allison DiGiovanni, The committee's very thoughtful recommendations will be discussed tonight and committee member Allison will be speaking later in this meeting. Also under consideration is all the comments and feedback from residents that have been gathered by village staff. The board has been provided with all of the written testimony and comments submitted to the village office through 4 p.m. this afternoon. We're all in this together. The members of the board of managers of Chevy Chase Village and I believe all of our residents support a revitalized mixed use Friendship Heights that strengthens the commercial district, improves walkability in public space, and importantly also respects the established single family neighborhoods immediately adjoining the plan area. It's important to emphasize that the village wishes to remain an active and constructive partner with Montgomery County Council Montgomery County Planning, the Cherry Chase Land Company, the Village of Friendship Heights, as the sector plan evolves and proceeds. We're stakeholders and we have a voice at the table. It's inevitable that the plan will allow for increased commercial residential density and building heights. Our voice at the table is that we want this to be accompanied by a clear, durable, and forcible transition from the village. I think about this all the time when I'm walking around. What will the edge look like? How can we prepare for the edge with enhanced landscaping and greenery? And how will that buffering edge be written into a new enforceable overlay zone? We've been gathering advice from our zoning council and other land use professionals. I believe that anything overly aggressive proposed at this stage could be counterproductive later when the process proceeds from the planning board to the county council. As you know, we modified our agenda for this evening to include a public hearing. Residents who wish to speak are asked to type their name into the chat and to remain muted until your name is called. I think Shana will be referring. And depending on the number of people who wish to speak, I'll put a two-minute limit on each speaker so that we can have time to conduct the board's business of our written testimony. If you've already submitted a written comment, Um, it's been provided to us and you're encouraged to generally summarize your position so that the board has sufficient time to discuss its position on the various proposals. Um, everyone knows this, but I'm going to remind us all anyway, the village has an important stake in the sector plan, but the final decision on the plan will not be decided by the village board. We're not the deciders. The planning board will review the current draft, make revisions, transmit its recommendations in a revised draft to the County Council who will make a final decision after making its own revisions. But Village residents can continue to lobby the County. We're not working at cross-purposes to that. We urge residents to submit written testimony or sign up to testify before the Planning Board to ensure that your concerns are heard by the Planning Board as they consider the current draft plan recommendations. Before the public hearing, I'll turn the meeting over to our zoning attorney, Michelle Rosenfeld, to provide an overview of the sector plan schedule, highlighting the opportunities for continued public engagement, followed by the public hearing. Michelle, thank you. Your help and time has been invaluable, really. Thank you so much. So I'm turning it over to Michelle right now. You're muted. You're muted.

There we go. Is that better?

Yeah, thanks.

Sorry about that. Before we get into the substance of the recommendations tonight, I wanted to just give a very brief overview of the multiple steps that occur during the sector plan amendment process and then the implementation phases that follow. At this point, we are at the staff draft, and there will be the upcoming public hearings before the planning board. The planning board will hear testimony at those hearings, receive written correspondence, and subsequently schedule its own work sessions where the planning board and staff will discuss the various recommendations and the public testimony that's been presented. And the board will develop its own recommendations. It will accept a number of them. It may well modify a number of them. and then staff will take the board's recommendations and amend the current document and convert that into the planning board draft. And that will go up to the county council for review and consideration. At that point, the county council will conduct its own public hearings and then send the draft to one of its committees for committee review and consideration, which then will send its own recommendations to the council And then the council will have its own work sessions as well. So there will be multiple opportunities for additional public hearings and additional input. There is not an overlay zone at the moment, as we all know. Planning staff has advised us that they will be drafting an overlay zone after the planning board recommendations have been issued. And there will be a public hearing before the planning board on the draft overlay zone. The planning board will hold its work session, and then it will transmit a proposed draft overlay zone to the council with a recommendation that it be introduced. And that will run roughly in parallel with the sector plan process. The overlay zone may not be adopted until shortly after the sector plan, but it will reflect the recommendations in the final plan. as approved by the council. So that process also will have multiple opportunities for public testimony and input, both at the planning board and at the county council level. The next step is a sectional map amendment, which is a very straightforward process where the county council legislatively rezones the properties that are subject to the sector plan and basically plants the new zoning on the properties. And it's really a ministerial type of process. Technically, there's a public hearing opportunity, but it generally is just a reflection of mapping in the zoning maps, the recommendations that come out of the sector plan itself. And then if we could just quickly go to the next page, they're also, and I'm going up now to the development process itself. Once after the sector, after the sectional map amendment is in effect and the zoning is in effect, then there are three subsequent opportunities for public input through the development process itself. There is a sketch plan, which is a very general overview of what a developer may propose. It allows for a public hearing before the planning board, and it just reflects general design, density, circulation, public benefits at a very high level. A sketch plan approval requires a planning board determination that the proposal will substantially conform with the recommendations of the applicable master plan. That is required zoning ordinance finding. So even absent an overlay zone, and I'm not discounting the importance of an overlay zone, but even absent an overlay zone, the sector plan recommendations become essentially binding with respect to this conformity finding. That conformity finding is repeated at preliminary plan, where the boundaries of the property are established, primarily requiring any public dedications for road improvements, that kind of thing. And again, at site plan, where there is a very detailed overview of the applicant's development plan, the site layout, architectural renderings, open space, landscaping, lighting. And again, as site plan, planning board has to find that the project substantially conforms with the recommendations of the applicable master plan and any guidelines approved by the board that implement the applicable plan. So through the sectional map amendment, probably looking a year and a half or so for the full review and implementation process. And then of course the development proposals will come at the, it's entirely depending, dependent on the timing of the property owner actions. So I just wanted to give a sort of start to finish overview of what we're looking at down the road. And that's just a high level summary.

Great. Thank you very much. Probably people know this, but the only property owner or developer we're dealing with on our edge is Chevy Chase Land Company. So that simplifies things a little bit for us because we meet with them. We're meeting with them in September to get a sense of their thoughts about what they'd like to do when the area is rezoned. this stuff to like about what the planning staff has recommended because they recognize the importance of a transition from single family homes to this new sector plan development. So I think that now's the time to start the public hearing. And I've only seen one person sign up. Is that correct, Shana?

Correct, I only see Kathy and John Philbin. If there are others who are interested in being heard during the public hearing, please type your name into the chat.

Okay, so can we start with, are they speaking together? John and Kathy, are you together? Are they unmuted?

Mr. and Mrs. Philbin, I have sent you an unmute request. Please unmute yourselves. I see John P. I unfortunately cannot unmute them, but I have sent an unmute request.

Okay.

Mr. and Mrs. Philbin, are you able to hear us?

I don't see them there.

And while we wait for them to unmute again, a reminder for anyone who would like to speak during the public hearing, please type your name into the chat.

Shana. Shana, can you hear me?

Yes.

Oh, good. You can hear me? Sorry. Okay. Shana, would you mind putting up that slide that we had queued up? Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, you can hear me? Yes. Okay, thank you. First of all, my name is Kathy Philbin, and I live at 5414 Grove Street across from beautiful Western Grove Park. Thank you for giving me a few minutes to speak. First, I want everyone to know that I am for the revitalization of Friendship Heights. And I support development at SACS and the collection site. And I, like everyone else, I'm hoping for a development that can revitalize this community. But I want to address an undercurrent that has loomed in the background since this process began. And it's been bothering me all summer long because this word has been used in my presence. And I have to say, that it's gotten under my skin. The word is NIMBY. The suggestion that our community is simply opposing these heights because they are in our backyard. I'd like you to look at this rendering. This is not my drawing. This is not an alarmist projection. This is what the proposed zoning actually builds out to. prepared by our own urban planner. Look at it. It's not hypothetical. This is not worst case scenario. This is what a developer will legally be allowed to build. 200 foot towers, approximately 20 stories at the collection, 250 feet at Wisconsin Circle, 100 foot building at Saks, right next to our single family neighborhood, right next to Western Grove Park. Looking at that rendering, we can clearly see that our single family neighborhood is completely engulfed by this height and massing of what is being proposed. Challenging heights that overwhelm and engulf a single-family neighborhood is not NIMBY, it's responsible advocacy. Am I a NIMBY because I look at this rendering and say these heights show no compatibility with the scale of our single-family neighborhood? Am I a NIMBY because I look at this rendering and I see no meaningful transition next to a single-family neighborhood? I don't think so. I think it is called looking at the evidence. NIMBY means opposing something out of self-interest with no legitimate planning basis. We have legitimate planning basis. This site is narrow. It abuts a single family neighborhood. The zoning text contains no protective language whatsoever. No shadow studies were commissioned. No light studies. no engineering analysis of how these heights interact on this constrained site. The community overwhelmingly said they did not want buildings at 200 feet. These heights were not validated by any independent analysis. They were simply proposed. This is not an uninformed reaction. This is residents looking at the evidence and drawing a reasonable conclusion. We should not allow this community to be permanently transformed for our lifetime and beyond because we are afraid of a made up word. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. Do we have anyone else who's signed up to?

This is John, I'd like to.

Okay.

Doing this together. Hi, John. How are you? I thank you very much for the chance to speak. When the village asked residents to get informed on this plan, I took the assignment seriously. Probably more seriously than you wanted, judging by the volume of paper I've sent. I'll spare you tonight. It has been an education. The deeper I went, the more I found it concerned me. I know everybody here is working towards the same goal as you expressed. I also know this is a long road with a lot of moving parts and competing interests and that it is hard for any of us to follow. We all want something on the collection and SAC site that helps this neighborhood. And I respect that different people have different avenues and different tools for shaping what gets built. Here's what I want to say. Height is not a separate question from density. On a site this narrow, it is the same question. You cannot build three times the area of the land by spreading out. There isn't enough land. The only way there is is up. So the heights being proposed are not a design choice. They are the arithmetic of the density being authorized. Reduce the density. and the heights come down on their own. And CR3 was a choice, not a requirement. The zoning ordinance has lower CR tiers. The only justification the plan's own table gives for this rezoning is to increase flexibility for future development. That is not an analysis of what this site can carry. Nobody has shown why three is the right number here rather than something lower. And if height follows density, that number is the only lever that matters. And that density permits a developer to build entirely residential in full compliance, no neighborhood retail, no shops or restaurants, no community space, nothing required. We don't have to guess what happens when density is granted and retail is only encouraged. On the GEICO site, a developer has proposed 536 residential units, and 5,000 square feet of retail, two small storefronts. And this plan removes the Chevy Chase neighborhood retail overlay, the one instrument that currently requires ground floor retail at the collection. Remove the requirement, add the density, and the market does what the markets will do. Then there is the shape of this site. along Belmont Avenue, the protection being offered starts less than 10 steps from the property line. And that line is on our side of the wall. 10 steps in, a building can be 45 feet tall. 20 steps in, 75 feet. Along Belmont Buffer Park, less than 10 steps in, you are at 60 feet tall and 95 feet by 20 steps. And step backs, have been proposed at those northern edges by the ad hoc committee, which I credit. But further south from Tiffany's building down to the grocery store parking lot, there are no step backs at all. That is also the stretch where today's zoning does the most work for the village. It holds height at 55 feet at a quarter of the density being proposed. This plan takes it to 200 feet tall. You don't have to take my word for it. Planning staff told the planning board on July 16th that Friendship Heights is a very compact downtown. It has the density, but it only has one block deep before you get to the neighborhood. They said Bethesda has a lot more blocks to start transitioning and that here we have only a tiny fraction of that space. Staff acknowledged the site is unique, then applied the same formula anyway. Now the part I most want this board to hear, and I think Michelle emphasized it a bit ago. In 1998, development rights on this site were granted through the sector plan process. Before they were granted, binding commitments were signed and recorded. Commitments before entitlements. That is a sequence that protected this community then. Anything worked out along the way protects this community only if it ends in something binding, in writing, recorded before the zoning is set. Assurances are not protection and a handshake is not protection along the way. So two requests. First, that the board satisfies itself that it has seen the overlay language it is being asked to rely on in sufficient detail. If it hasn't, that alone is a reason to wait. Second, the board not endorse a height on the record tonight, not because negotiating is wrong, but because an organized community with a documented case is the strongest card this village holds at any table. The moment the village endorses a number, you undermine our ability to- you against the heights and density before the planning board and the county council. We are not in your way. We are your leverage. Please do not give away your leverage before there is something binding in writing. Once these entitlements are granted, they belong to whoever owns the land forever. Thank you.

Thanks for your comments. Okay, we have one more comment and that's by Greg Dixon. Is he online?

Yes, now I am. I really salute the extraordinary work that John and Kathy have done in their analysis of all this. It certainly woke me up to a great extent. I was concerned, but I was not able to really articulate all of it until I read their very, very careful analysis and I'm hoping the board, there's a lot of it, so you have to be persistent to read it all. But I wanted to just briefly mention that all of this is not theoretical discussions of things that could happen in the future. An anecdote from this month is we live at the end of Montgomery Street, the Western end of Montgomery Street. right next to the buffer where the entrance goes or the exit from the village over to the collection goes. The home across the street from us went up for sale a couple of months ago. It's a large home and an inexpensive home. It did not sell. It has not sold. The owners we know very well and we hate to see them out of the village, but told us very explicitly that real estate agents told him that one of the biggest problems giving pause to people who were considering their lovely, lovely home was that they were aware of the potential of the developments in the collection and the sacks area. that real estate agents have had to divulge all of that to potential buyers and that it's pretty easy to find some of these things. And that it really gave several potential buyers pause. They said they just didn't know what they were getting into. So that's one family, but I think anyone else who's, who thinks they might be wanting to sell or do something different with their property may find themselves in the same condition. That's not a theoretical future effect. It is happening right now. Like John and Kathy, we're concerned with both the massing and the lack of a requirement for the retail a portion of the property that we're afraid we'd end up with a large block of apartments and townhouses. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but only that, with no replacement grocery store, few shops or restaurants, and virtually no green space. So we add our voice to that of John and Kathy with our concerns. That's it. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Greg. Okay, so with the public hearing concluded, we go to the next item on the agenda, which is I believe we're going to be talking to Allison DiGiovanni, a member of the Ad Hoc Friendship Heights Sector Committee. and your report.

All right. Good evening. Thank you, Allison. Yes, of course. Thank you for the introduction. Good evening. My name is Allison DiGiovanni. And like Alyssa mentioned, I serve on the ad hoc Friendship Heights Sector Plan Committee together with Bill Van Horn, who is not able to join us tonight as he is away. He's our chair. And Jonathan Halperin, who is here and is our former chair. and we work in conjunction with Michelle Rosenfield and John Marklin as a committee. Thank you for the opportunity to share our work with you tonight. Just a little bit of history. Our committee was formed by this board in October of 2025 to help develop the village's position on the Friendship Heights sector plan. So our task has been to develop recommendations to the board that accurately represent the village's interests. And as part of that effort to liaise with the county the Montgomery planning staff, Montgomery County planning staff, Chevy Chase Land Company, who are the owners of the properties that are proximal to the village and mostly, most directly impacted by this plan. So over the past almost year, we've built our recommendations around several sources. We've collected data from residents that included a village-wide survey. We've collected direct feedback from the residents. So we've had a substantial volume of written letters and emails dating back to November of 2024 That are from 18 households and individuals and all and we've met with on several occasions, the Montgomery county planning staff, the Chevy chase land company. Several land use and zoning consultants and we have, of course, relied upon prior board guidance to the planning department staff and prior communication. And that has informed all of these evolving recommendations that we're making today. Before I hand it over to dive into our recommendations in detail, I just wanted to make a few notes on our approach. A brief word maybe on how we've arrived at the current recommendations. Our height and setback figures along the village edges are grounded in the zoning codes on compatibility standards. Those require heights to step back at a one to one ratio as the buildings rise farther from the property line. To translate that into something that the committee could evaluate our land planner built height and massing models directly from the site's existing topography. So committee members could see and not just read. The practical impact of a given height on the neighborhood before we settled on these recommendations. Where our recommended heights differ from 1 property to the next that reflects real differences between the sites themselves. So. That includes things like great changes existing vegetated buffers each sites distance from transit, all of which factor into our judgment about. Where added heightened density can be absorbed with the least impact on our neighborhood on the retail front. we've had many conversations about zoning overlays including about the current overlay that allows for ground for retail and a grocery store at this location. We spent a lot of time coming to the realization that the current overlay does not mandate retail, nor does the proposed amendment for the SACS site, the collection or to Wisconsin Circle. And the committee has spent a lot of time discussing the premise that forcing retail does not automatically achieve it. And that additional residential development may be necessary to support and incentivize retail development. And in light of those things, zoning requirements for specific amounts of retail do not necessarily ensure outcomes and can possibly limit them so. We factored a lot of that into our recommendations and, finally, several of the protections that we're describing tonight, particularly along belmont avenue and Oliver. will ultimately be carried into a neighborhood early zone that planning staff has said, may only be drafted after the sector plan recommendations are settled so. We want to be transparent that tonight's recommendations are a step in an ongoing process, not a final word, we intend to stay engaged through all these public hearings and make sure that our recommendations. are current and that we are recommendations reflect what you know the current guidance there and what we're recommending tonight is still relevant so. While you're here tonight is not new territory it builds on and refines the position. that this board took in its prior letter to planning staff, and it's been updated to reflect the planning board's working draft and several more months of review on our part. And our role tonight is just to walk you through where things stand and where we believe the village interests lie so that the board has what they need to finalize their formal position. This is intended as an information transfer, so a status update and a set of recommendations on negotiation. And the two goals that have been at the center of what we're presenting the entire time is to properly represent the opinions of the village and preserve what makes our neighborhood distinct and also to support a successful revitalization of Friendship Heights, including the collection and the SAC site and everything that we are all discussing. So we've laid out our current recommendations in detail, including comparing the positions of the board and the county in a format we hope is easy to digest. And with that, I will turn it over to John Marklin to walk through our specific recommendations tonight.

Thank you, Allison. For the record, my name is John Markling. I'm a land planner. I think you met me at the last hearing we had. So I will move to the next slide. So the synopsis. I'm going to go over the heights and flora ratios for each of the parts of the plan. The SACS property, I'll compare existing to planning staff recommendations and village recommendations. I'll do visualizations from Park Street I'll do, and I'll look at the heights at collection property and also do the visualizations there. And then I'll end by looking at different height map comparisons. Next slide. So this, this slide shows Saks property looking west. So you see Wisconsin Avenue in the background, Elmont Avenue, Park Street. Next slide. this this slide shows the recommendation recommendations of the planning department um and what i want to describe the green is what is three far so uh and the brown is the full height so uh planning department is recommended 150 feet at the northern end of the SACS property and 100 feet going north of that. We've also recommended a 3.0 FAR. So a 3.0 FAR will fill up everything in green. Does that make sense? Any questions?

Just to clarify, that's the maxed out. That's the absolute max. That's not necessarily what would be built. It's just the max of what could be built.

Yes. Exactly. Thank you very much, Liz. I want to make that point that this image and the previous image that was referred to earlier in public testimony and the images I'm going to be showing you are, those are the full building envelope inside of which the developer can build. That means that they can get to that height and that density, that shape, but in reality, Most developers, most plans never fulfill that full build-out, that full envelope. All plans I worked on for the county, all the major downtowns have never maxed out their density. As a matter of fact, when they start the next sector plan after 20 years, there's still density on the table because it was never maxed out. The plans usually, you know, they... They're not about maxing out, they're about providing opportunities for the owners and as well as for the people who live there. Next slide. So this is the village's recommendation. So we recommend at 85 feet, multifamily along Wisconsin Avenue and townhouses even sticks of three and four along Belmont Avenue. Next slide. this is the elevation or excuse me elevation but it's an actual existing view up park street uh with belmont avenue uh do you see my cursor is my cursor visible uh yeah oh uh yeah okay tell me where to point though john can you just point them to bell to belmont avenue yeah and then that's the buffer there the 20 20 foot buffer that's today i was taking a couple months a month ago next slide and this is a section that you've seen before that shows the village's recommendation for heights so we recommend village recommends 45 feet at belmont avenue for 75 feet back and then stepping up to 60 after 75 feet and then ultimately to 85 feet. This is an older one. So it says 80, but it's actually 85. So that's what the village has recommended and sent up to the planning department. Next slide. And this is a photo visualization of what that could look like. So we have townhouses in front multifamily in the back multifamily going to 85 feet townhouses to 45 feet and i'm showing the screen here as well as a row of trees because that's important the there's an existing buffer of 20 feet behind the curb to the property line and the village has put a lot of work and effort in creating a screen and i recommend keeping it so i've showed it here and and also augmenting it over time and then encouraging the planning department to go ahead and plant that double row of trees in their 30 feet. So you'd have 50 foot buffer. And also I recommend that any sidewalk that goes in, goes in on SAC's property, not on your property. I think you have that authority.

And part of the thinking in this is that, yes, it's now a two-sided Belmont with potentially, if the developer wants to, townhouses on the other side, that's better than facing the back of an apartment building. It's better for our neighborhood to have a two-sided Belmont with all of their stuff in the back of them. Anyway, that's just my two cents.

That's a very good point. I think, yeah, if you're going to have development, have it facing the streets, you create a real street instead of looking at the back of a store or the back of somebody's back grill and trash cans. Next slide. And this is taken from the planning document that was published at the end of June. It shows the compatibility plane and the zoning ordinance in red. It says zoning ordinance compatibility plane. It starts at the face of the building at 35 feet and goes up at a one-to-one angle until the proposed allowed height. What the planning department has proposed is pushing that back 45 or rather 30 feet and starting at 45 feet. So they're acknowledging the concern about compatibility. So they're pushing that plane backwards in favor of the village. Next step and next slide, excuse me. This is a photo realistic image of what that development could look like. So these are multifamily buildings with townhouse fronts at 45 feet, stepping up at one to one ratio to 100 feet. And we've kept the screen in here. And also I want to make a point out that on the left side of this image along Belmont, where the Belmont Buffer Park starts, the heights would jump to 60 feet. So right past that basketball hoop. Next slide. Now moving on to the collection of property. This is a view north from Western Avenue over Western Grove Park to the right. And that's the old Amazon Fresh building there that's now vacant.

Next slide.

This is a view looking at the same the same place with the superimposed development over existing. And this is just a planning board recommended heights, the 200 feet, 200, 250 feet and 60 feet along Belmont Park. And I want to reiterate, this is the building envelope that a builder in this case to the Chase Land Company can build within. does not mean that it will look like this. Most likely not. As I said, I've never seen a full development envelope built out, which is not realistic. So it's really to give you inside that box, inside those boxes, that's where the development can take place. Next slide. And this slide shows what three FAR will get you. If they were built out to three, a four area ratio, you can go only as high as maybe, I think it's 80, 90 feet, not 200 feet. So I calculated the FAR, if you build it out, instead of three, this full build out, it's closer to 6.5 to seven FAR. And a question we have for the planning department is, why is there such a big discrepancy between the proposed FAR proposed height because you can never get to the heights to proposing what the fa are to proposing typically when you have a far3 in an urban area such as bethesda you have heights closer to 150 120 130 140 150 sometimes 200 But usually, it's much lower than that. So obviously, this additional height is for benefits such as NPDUs or amenities or other public benefits like libraries. And there's a whole list that they mentioned. But we're wondering, that's a lot of amenities. Basically, that's a double the floor area ratio. So that's a question we have. Next slide.

i'm sorry john before we move off of this slide could you also just clarify for the bonus densities permitted for mpdus roughly how many floors would that allow the developer to build on top of the 3.0 that you have represented in green okay um typically um mpdus will get you one floor if you say for example you do uh the um 50 mpdus you get a 22

bump and if there's not enough height which in case there is but there's not enough height then it'd be bumped to maybe um 12 feet typically i've seen the most i've seen is three extra floors which is like 36 feet and that's very that's rare i think the the most recent case i saw is in wheaton i think it's a gateway the gateway center so but in this case you don't need more height because you got all the height you need

But just to clarify for the board and for the community, even if they maximize the MPDU bonus density, they would still be within the max heights that are proposed.

Yes.

Take them over the proposed max heights.

Okay. That's correct. That's correct. No, I mean, I'd be worried if, you know, the brown was maybe one or two floors above. We're right at the green. then you say, okay, they're going to go, they're definitely going to bump up because they have to. But in this case, there's lots of room. Next slide. And this is the village recommended height. So bumping down from 250 to 200 to 170. And then along the, if you see that the green building back there, it's along the buffer park, the Belmont buffer. It's the the village has recommended keeping those heights at 60 feet, not stepping up, at least to half the block. And then stepping up to the, I think it's 200 and then 150, excuse me, 170. Next slide. And then the bird's-eye view looking west, same thing, just different angle. Go ahead, next slide. And this is planning staff recommendation. Again, showing the 200 feet, 250 feet, and then you see how they step up behind the Belmont Buffer Park. All the step ups are there in order to respect that 45 foot angle of repose or compatibility angle. Next slide. Okay, this is a view west on Grove Street. Now I want to clarify this. This is an older image. I chose it because I wanted to show you what a called building will look like today. It's heavily forested, heavily treed, heavily screened. Next slide. And that's what a 200-foot building would look like. It's about 160 feet away from the edge of the park. That's the planning department recommendation. Next slide. And that's the village recommendation, 120 feet. That's 30 feet lower, but it makes a difference. And then finally, the last slide. So that's what it looks like today. And this was actually taken today. So you wouldn't see any of that. As a matter of fact, I had a hard time finding views in the village where I could actually see these properties. You've done a really good job of screening all that development. And it's only going to get better. This tree is going to get larger. I know you have a lot more evergreen trees in there. Granted, when the leaves fall off the trees in the winter, you can see more, but still, it's a very significant buffer. Next slide.

And we'll have a long time to increase our buffer. I mean, this doesn't, even if there were development, it would take a very long time and we can plant a lot of buffering greenery in the meantime.

Yeah, and you're doing a good job, so.

very impressed by the um i've never had seen such a good buffer before it's hard to get hard getting good pictures um okay so these are uh these are images quick yeah quick question uh lou morseberger hi john um a minute ago you said um planning board recommendation of a 150 feet separation i think Was that from the buffer to the first building? I just wanted to make sure I had that straight.

Yeah, it's about 160 feet. If you look at the plan here, both plans, the lower half, they haven't clarified, other than this map, what that distance is, but I calculated it's around the back of the Amazon Fresh building where the loading dock is.

And that would go from...

western grove park starting there count 160 feet to the first structure that's correct and that and that distance would only apply on the lower third of the parcel um yeah well that's that's correct if you look the map um that that that distance is only there so everything else can be right up on the property line you know along the buffer belmont buffer park Thanks sure So these are the height proposals recommendations on the lower left hand side is the planning recommendations and then on the right, or the village recommendations are similar, but the differences are. The village i'm assuming everybody knows what the the planning departments recommendations are we've been talking about a long time. So on the right, the village's recommendations, the differences on the Sachs property, you're asking for basically split the property down the middle at 75 feet, keep it 45 feet tall and then stepping up to 60 and then 85 feet. So as shown in the previous section, you don't have this stair-step plane that the Planning Department recommends or the CR zone compatibility requires. You have something much gentler. Moving down below Park Avenue, you're proposing 60 feet and 60 feet up against Delmont and Buffer Park for that half block and then stepping up to 170, whereas the Planning Department lets you start stepping up after, you know, 30 or 40 feet. And then the difference again, as you have, you're proposing 170 at the Western Grove Park and the planning department is proposing 200 feet.

Next slide.

And again, this is on the left is planning recommendations. On the right, we took a snippet from the Fezzik downtown plan adjacent to the town of Chevy Chase. Bob Watson, And here you can see they're very similar, this is this. Bob Watson, This section of chevy chases wider it's roughly between three and four feet wide where. Bob Watson, Your your strip of land is in the 200 to 300 200 250 foot range or most of the property till lines at South so it's wider in. fesda and they they're proposing 70 feet and 90 feet and 45 feet up against the properties with with the compatibility plane how however because these are separate properties individual properties when you move from the light pink to the darker pink you show you see these numbers of 175 feet 145 feet 90 and 90 90. those properties can can bump right up to those heights. So it's actually more extreme than what's being proposed at the fringe of heights. And it's because the entire property is one owner, one lot. So you have that advantage. And I think that's the last slide. Are there any questions or comments? Does the board have questions for John?

I could jump in with another just to make sure how the compatibility plane is calculated. What determines where the. The, the initial edge of the plane commences, and my reason for asking that is on the July 16th hearing 1 of the planning board members asked why such a generous plane was being proposed, meaning why not? Why not start it, I guess, closer in and make it steeper to allow and, you know, they suggested even taller heights. So what anchors the compatibility plane?

It's part of the CR zone. It's a zone. It's required by the zone. And so you see zoning ordinance compatibility plane in red. That's required by the zones. Whenever you have a CR zone that's Jason to a residential zone property, you must follow this plane and what the play department has has recommended is pushing the plane back. To accommodate the village, and what I think maybe the planning board is is is pushing back on it is pushing that back, I think they're they're saying no just go with the regular.

CR zone compatibility plane. That's my guess. That's what I heard. Because they're interested in, you know, fulfilling the potential of these properties, which is understandable.

So I would say maybe in your testimony that this plane, at the very least, proposed plane, be preserved, not go to the zoning allowed planes.

Right. And the staff spoke to that. They did say that it was an acknowledgement that this is a narrow, a one block area and there needs to be sufficient buffer transition from the single family homes across the street.

John, David Winstead and Michelle, to both of you all, Obviously, the Philbins, I think, did a great job of presenting the concern along the residents of Grove and Buffer Zone. And we got an email from Meredith Wellington, who has created Western Grove Park and has been on the planning board. And she expressed concern to the board this afternoon about any concession or reflected language that would concede to CR3 zoning, that it's in a that the timing of doing that is wrong, that, you know, Chevy Chase Land, who I know pretty well, you know, hasn't really proposed anything that we could define in terms of what their vision for high density apartments is on the Western Avenue side. And so can you all respond a little bit to the timing of conceding heights and conceding buffer distances at this point in time? You know, there's a real, What I'm hearing from the western edge of our community is that if we're going to do anything, we should insist that the treatment of height and stepping is the same on the border of the village. Now, I know that we don't control Chevy Chase land property at Western and Wisconsin. But fundamentally, Meredith's comments to us this afternoon were, you know, she's been on the planning board. She understands what the staff does. She said, there's nobody on this planning board right now that would do anything other than maximizing size of multifamily for the lack of affordable housing in Montgomery County. So just strategically conceding on CR3 and conceding on 150 feet or, you know, instead of 75 foot setback, something less than that. I'm just, Curious, can you guys respond to that? And Michelle, maybe starting with you.

Sure, I'd be happy to. And I fully agree with Ms. Wellington that the board is going to maximize heights and densities. Frankly, it would not surprise me if they come out with recommendations beyond what staff has proposed. There were some comments at the board that certainly raised that concern in my mind. With With respect to making concessions, I would be concerned about not putting forward any position because then when it gets to the council level, we really are starting from ground zero. I think that, and I don't look at them as concessions necessarily. I think I would propose that we put forward the heights and densities that the board believes are compatible and represent appropriate levels of density and height. Because then when we get to the council, we're in a position to say, you know, what the staff proposed, what the board proposed was overreaching in the context of our neighborhood and the as-built environment surrounding these properties. and we put forward a reasonable and defensible position, we're here to say, you should listen to that reasonable position. I think going up there without any formal board position or recommendations leaves us in a vulnerable position when it comes to advocating our interests when we get to the council step.

Well, let me, so on our Western, on the Western Grove, Grove Street buffer zone residences, Why couldn't we err on being even more protective of height and setbacks? In other words, not 150 feet, something less, and setbacks more, realizing that throughout this process, as it goes through the staff, goes through the board, goes to the council, we're going to have to, you know, they're going to be pushing the opposite direction. So why shouldn't we be anything but very aggressive in terms of limiting the height on the commercial side of what hits the village, that is the Chevy Chase land, Western Wisconsin corners?

Sure. I think it's a balancing act. I'm not sure I would use the word aggressive regardless of what ultimate heights and densities you come out with. I think whatever position you put forward, you need to be able to defend in sound land use principles. And that certainly does include the compatibility with the surrounding community. It includes what is actually ultimately feasible on the properties, what makes sense. So whatever justifications you give, I think that it should be a series of recommendations that make sense in the context of what's built around these properties. Right.

And actually, we're getting to the recommendations now, so I just want to remind you that we got a little ahead. We're going to end to the recommendations now. David, now is the time when we go through each one and we can talk about what the recommendations are or should be. Great, thanks.

And so, you know, this is a chart that I think you've seen before, and this includes sort of how some of these recommendations have evolved. The current committee recommendation with respect to the SACS parking lot on the northern end is that we retain, we support the three FAR, and we support the... height 45 feet at belmont with the compatibility plane as proposed by staff and then keep that 45 feet for a depth of 75 feet with it then increasing to 100 on wisconsin this has been a fairly um i'm sorry the committee recommendation is height going up to 85 feet So this has been a pretty consistent recommendation all along. It's not new. And I think the committee has been pretty consistent in that this, in their view, really does reasonably protect the interests along this segment of the property.

Michelle or John, do you want to speak to the difference between the 80 feet in the position that the board took in May versus the 85 feet that the committee is recommending?

Sure. I'm glad to take that. The position is that when you have an 80-foot building or any five-foot building, that's about as high as you can go because of the construction type. It's podium. It's usually stick five over one or six over one and stick built over a concrete podium. To go to 100 feet, you have to use concrete. In the concrete, a building of that height is not financially feasible. Builders will say, and I've heard them say many times, and actually some of the reports in the planning staff appendix state that if you can do a concrete building, it's got to be at least 120 or 130 feet tall before it starts becoming financially viable. So if we support 100 feet, which is not that viable, they could bump it to 120 with MPDUs. Whereas if you keep it at 80 to 85, and you want to do MPDUs and get it to 100, it's not financially viable. So basically, it's sort of a hard ceiling. It's hard to get beyond without spending a lot of money. So that's part of our reasoning. Also, the height, it's better height. I was going to say, Shannon, if you want to go back to the image that showed what the village recommended, the three-dimensional model, there's that section and then there's the model um before that uh right there you see so that yeah yeah the other one the other one that one that's what the that's what the village recommended so those those buildings are 85 feet tall in the back with 45 foot townhouses and that's that's only an far of two that's all that's all that gets and with a far three then there's the provision of transferring density to areas where it's more compatible, which is South collection. So this this what you're seeing here is what the the committee has recommended in the chart. So you can jump back to the chart.

And while we're on while we're on this image, this this also mirrors up at Oliver. So the recommendations are consistent in both locations.

Thank you.

And so we can go through all of these. If the board would like to talk about these as we go through them, we certainly can do that. I leave it to you if you want to talk about this sort of globally or take these in sections.

I have a question, just a simple question. In the planning board's layout, There was one corner, I think, of the SACS property that was 150 feet. And is it the case that we're not recommending an additional step up there that we're talking about the whole SACS property being limited to 85 feet?

Correct. Yes. That is planning board. The other one is the village. And the difference also is we're recommending, the village is recommending a 0.75 open space, 0.75 acre open space, whereas the planning department is recommending a half acre.

So you see the difference if you toggle back and forth, Shana, between the two. See, that's a half acre.

So what the village has recommended is I think is pretty substantial and goes a long way to preserving compatibility and sense of green. Any other questions?

So just to summarize what Michelle and John have just presented are the three basic zoning provisions related to SACS, which are the CR zoning, FAR 3.0, and the building height. Does the board want to go ahead and reach a position on those three points before we move forward, or do you want to keep working through the chart and come back to those three elements?

I don't mind finding out if we're supportive of this.

And just so we're clear, while the chart has more lines than what we've just stipulated, that's because the current zoning compartmentalizes the building into the property into various different zones for the purposes of this discussion we're looking at the property in its totality and that's why we're looking at the three elements of far zoning classification and height so basically this is the um

Same as before, only we're saying 85 feet because the reality of construction. That's the only change in our recommendation, correct?

And the FAR had not been yet proposed when the board issued its May 28 letter. So you have not yet taken a position on the FAR. And I believe your sentiment was generally in support of the CR zoning, but I'd have to see if that was an emphatic statement in your letter.

Okay, well, I'm ready to hear from any board members about their support for this recommendation. I am ready to recommend it, to support it.

Yeah, I guess I would say that if I'm not, and I'm happy to have anybody correct me if I'm wrong about this, but I think this particular part of it is not where the real controversy is. It's the when we get off the Sachs property and we're back into the collection, that's where I'm hearing the most pain and justifiably so.

But Gary, we all received that note from Meredith and she strongly feels that conceding a CR3 or stating that we were in agreement with that is not the way This is not the stage in which you can see that. So I remain concerned about her input, simply because she's the only one, there could be others, but that has the lengthy experience in this process, having served on the planning board.

Michelle, do you share that concern?

You know, as I said, I have a concern about the board not taking a position. I think what that does is signal to the planning board that we're indifferent. I mean, I know we won't say that in our letter, but I think not giving them a recommendation of what we think is reasonable gives them nothing to respond to, even if they respond in a way that we don't agree with. And it, I think, makes it harder for us to later go to the council and say, look, this has been our position. We've been reasonable. We came up with these recommendations for these sound land use justifications. And the board simply overreached. So it's a strategy call. It's a policy call. And I don't have a crystal ball. So I can't tell you which one would play out better in the long run.

So Michelle, generally, given that you've got a lease of the Sachs property that goes for another 20 years or whatever, the Chevy Chase Land has got their arms full trying to get revenues from their commercial developments and are under stress because of vacancies in office and retail. But you don't think that there's a better time that we would have more leverage to, again, get the heights down. I think that what we're certainly hearing on the Grove Street and Parkside is that the heights that we're proposing are just too much, right? They're not set back enough. They're not staged. They would love to see the same on, you know, the Chevy Chase land property as we're seeing with the townhouses. That I think they would be comfortable with. But I just, you know.

I think we should also hear their board members where they are right now. I'm in support at the SAX property for the recommendations of the committee. And David, I hear your questions. Love to hear from other board members about whether we can move on from the SAX part.

This is Saul. I agree with Gary that this part of the plan seems the least controversial. I understand our global objective that's been recommended to us by our professionals is that we adopt reasonable positions that will maximize our ability to have clout at the county council level when this all comes to a head.

in that respect um i'm fine with the sax recommendations and to say that um you know i have concerns i mean i share uh the concerns david is raising and that meredith wellington has also raised and one of the questions goes back to uh when does the overlay discussion take place um and because we have the benefit of a single owner, are there options for side agreements with the land company that kind of whereby they agree to not advocate to max things out even prior to the adoption of the sector plan? I mean, effectively a memorandum of understanding between the village and the land company that takes some of these things off the table. is a little unconventional, but I'd be curious to know, or at least from the conversation we've been having, it sounds unconventional. I'd be curious to hear from Michelle and John if that's something that's done before when you have a single owner such as we have here.

I certainly think that to the extent that Chevy Chase Land is willing to talk to us about what recommendations they would like to see come out of this process, If we can be on the same page and go hand in glove to the council and say, look, the village and Chevy Chase land agree on this approach, I think that would be warmly welcomed at that level. So far, we have not really been privy to much specific information about what kind of FAR or heights they would endorse, but I think that those conversations will be ongoing. And whether it's through a joint letter or an MOU or whatever written mechanism we can agree upon. I think however we can provide a unified front to the council would be very much in our joint interests.

Right. And we have planned meetings with them exactly on that topic. I think that there's probably a way of having... A letter like the last time where we say we are additionally in support of the recommendations before us, but we can't, that we need enforceable transition to the village and that an overlay zone implementation is going to be crucial. So I don't think we give up that. All right. in this testimony. Agreed. Hearing none.

I'm supportive, Alyssa, of going with this limited agreement regarding the Saks parking lot.

Okay, so it seems like that's four, so we should move on to the contentious growth collection situation.

Just to recap, just to make sure everyone is following along, so that is board support for the CR3 zoning classification with the height transition as has been recommended at the ad hoc committee, 45, 60, to a max height of 85. Okay? Okay.

So the thing about the Grove Collection area that is worth restating is that this is the part that's closest to Metro, which is a priority for the planning staff, the planning board, the county council, So I think that it's a tougher road to say that could be townhouses. David, in response to your saying that we should advocate for lower there.

No, Alyssa, I certainly understand that. Your TOD development has put density by metro stations. Very hard to argue that. I think fundamentally what we heard from the Philbins and others is that if we could just be conservative in our opening position on height and maximize setbacks for the commercial development that they're going to be able on their own to argue for, right? I think that would be helpful for the community that feels like, you know, Belmont's getting 45 and we're getting 200 or 175 or whatever. I think it's really the height and the setback that if we can be more protective in what we send back, uh, I think it gives us, it just is a good first step. That's all.

Yeah, no, I know. But recognize that the ad hoc committee recognized that we bought a park there. So we have bought a buffer. There's more of a buffer there than at the end of Belmont. Um, There's Western Grove Park.

There is, except for the residences along the buffer zone in Grove Street, because they are literally right on the parking lot of Chevy Chase Land.

Yeah, and the planning staff has recommended no building. It's pushed back from that edge, and it has to be because of the huge grade change in any case. Anyway, how should we proceed on this? Shana, you've got a view.

I think Michelle wanted to add a couple of points as it relates to height.

Okay. I do have a couple of thoughts. And as we talk about this, could we pull up the image? Let's look at the one that staff has proposed first, the massing and the FAR. So, you know, as John had mentioned, there's a serious discrepancy between the proposed FAR of the three, which is the height that you see in the green, and then the height cap itself is significantly greater. And we had asked staff to explain why they made that recommendation, why there's such a significant disconnect. In John's experience, this is somewhat unusual. There's usually a closer link between the height and the FAR. And so it seems to me that one option we might have would be to say that because there's such a disconnect and we don't know how that sort of empty space would be used, perhaps a floor for MPDUs and some public benefits, it seems to me we might have an opportunity here to reduce that height so that more closely mirrors the FAR. And that's a planning based justification. It ties the height and density more closely than is proposed here. And that, I think that might give us an opportunity to go somewhat lower than we've currently proposed, than the committee has proposed. Okay.

If we basically say that we agree that a FAR 3 is appropriate, does that, in effect, accomplish what we want? Or are we still unsure what the magic is that could cause this to be so? Like they're making it out of styrofoam or something, it would appear. Sure.

Sure. The FAR at three gives you the height at the top of the green line. John, do you have a ballpark of what that height actually is? What that might be?

Yeah, it's 20, 30, 40, 50, 60. I think it's 80 feet.

Okay. And then assuming that there are going to be public benefits that we will want, and those will offer additional density, and MPDUs. If we're at 80 feet, we could go certainly something lower than the 170 that's been proposed by the committee, but still be high enough to accommodate some additional MPDUs and public benefits that we would want to see if the property gets redeveloped. That might be a way to split the baby and still tie it to the land use recommendations proposed by staff.

And if I may add, if you're going to do that, keep in mind that, as I said earlier, anything over between 80 and 120 is unreasonable or rather not financially viable. So you might want to, if you're going to lower the heights, maybe stop around 110, 120. Otherwise, they'll just kick back and say, that's not reasonable because you can't build it. So that's my...

But John, at that point, that That's when you debate it and when you argue, right? It's when the developer comes back and says, look, 85 feet on the east edge of the property at Western is just not economically feasible. Then that's when you negotiate. You don't negotiate.

That's a very good point. You know, I'm just, I'm just giving you parameters to think about. So yeah, if you keep it, keep it 85 feet at the, at the, at the Eastern edge and then say, jump up from there, they'll say, Hey, they might say, yeah, that's reasonable. We will, we'll do 85 feet there. That's thick belt. And then we'll jump to a higher concrete belt as you get closer to WMATA. That's what they did.

Yeah. Nobody's going to, even if it's 85, I mean, I, Michelle, I think that's a, a great compromise to deal with the input we've had. And it doesn't prohibit, you know, a really competent architect like a Shalom Baranis to design a building that has that 85 frontage, 85-foot frontage, but then, you know, by its columns or towers, you know, could reach a height that would, number one, is zonable and permittable, but would allow the economics of the overall development to work. So I like what you're proposing.

So then I think my next question would be, as we did with some of the other properties, we have a relatively low height that extends, in the other cases, 75 feet. That's probably not enough here. But then are we then going to recommend stepping up as we move back, which gives you relief from that massing at this end of the property? But whether or not you... 85 feet for the full depth of this block here may not be reasonable. So I'm just putting that out there as food for thought because we have taken the step up approach, the tiered approach elsewhere in the plan.

I think we'd have to continue with the tiered approach. For one thing, we already have more height than 85 at the intersection of Wisconsin and Western anyway, don't we? What's that current height?

I think the office building is right. The ones that are over Metro and the Chevy Chase Land office building is, I don't know, John, what is that? 150 probably? Yeah, I believe so. I'll have to double check.

We're not asking for a smaller height than we currently have. But I think a stepped up approach sounds good.

Yeah. And I think in terms of, I don't know, arguing why this is reasonable, if you look at at At Belmont, we're basically saying people are going to be looking across the street at 45 feet. And here, the Grove Street is 40 feet higher than the base of these things. So if we made this 85, they too would be looking at 45 feet as close to where they are. So it's kind of a, possibly kind of a half-baked rationale, but there is some logic to it.

Yeah, no, you're right. There is a considerable change in grade there.

So we could either take, you know, the compatibility approach or just say, you know, the 85 feet for, you know, 50, 75, 100 feet, and then it can step up to, you know, 150. I'm making these numbers up. These are not my numbers. But I propose some interim step up before you then get to the other corner where you'll be at current recommendation 250.

Yeah, I assume that where we would have the least sway or least ability to to win would be the metro itself, that corner. And it's also, I guess, in my opinion anyway, would be the one we care least about because it's farthest away from any residential area. So we could be pretty aggressive with the stepping up perhaps and not just do it for 50 feet or whatever it was in the SACS area, we could have more area before we step up.

All right. So other people want to weigh in?

Just pointing out that if we're reducing the height and our rationale is on FAR, we just need to make that clear however we submit that proposal that it's F.A.R. driven. If we just show up with lower heights, it won't be well understood and it'll just be seen as unreasonable.

One one thing that I would like to mention with respect to how far that how deep that 85 feet runs is that this this is the part of the property, the whole linear properties that has the the widest buffer because there will be that undeveloped piece next to Grove Park, and it's also the piece that doesn't directly abut single-family homes. So just when you're weighing how much depth you might want to consider, I just put those two pieces out there as food for thought.

Yeah, so maybe it's just the same sliver as the 60 next to it. in this slide that we're looking at, recommendations. So we start with 85 in that little rectangle, and then we step it up in terms of our recommendations. Does that work for everybody?

Yeah, I think that's a good starting point. And I do, Michelle, your comments about the planning staff putting that additional buffer on the west side of Western Grove Park, I thought was very, very positive. Yeah.

So we'll leave it in the laps of Michelle and John to articulate the step up. But we're sticking with 250 to Wisconsin Circle because I don't think we can argue that. That's what they want at Metro. And that's the tent pole.

Is there an interim step up height that you want John and I to consider?

Well, I guess 130, 170, 250, right? Something like that.

Yeah, I think it's more so just to kind of follow that step up pattern as is established for the SACS property.

Okay. Any board member disagreeing with this approach? Hearing none, let's continue.

so i just want to be clear because we kind of leapfrogged from the northern section to the most southern section so we need to hit the middle um so essentially from the line that runs um that extends out from Grove Street up, I'm sorry, I'm using the wrong cursor. So basically from this portion at the southern end of the property aligned with Grove Street up to Montgomery Street, we also need the board to solidify its position on the heights in that center section. What's shown on the screen on the right-hand side is the committee's recommendation, 60 feet along the buffer. and then up to 170 at the northernmost section just south of Montgomery Street, going up to the planning staff recommendation of 200 feet along Wisconsin Avenue between Center and Grove.

Yeah. No, I think we stick with the committee's recommendations there. Does anyone have any other thoughts? You want to do that differently?

Well, I'm confused about which of these things.

I'm at the middle here, the 60-60 that is at the bottom.

Yeah, I see that.

We stick with that recommendation.

We're all the way down to 85 here. It seems strange to have 170. No, we're not.

170 is no longer. We're switching that to 85.

From 170 to 85, Gary.

Yeah.

Right. 85 and then stepping up to 130, 170, and then the 250 on the quarter piece.

The only part we're changing is the far southeastern part.

And essentially Grove Street, the end of Grove Street would be abutting the 60, right, the 60-foot section. with appropriate setbacks there. And what is the wall height, John? What's the wall height?

Sorry? At the corner, it's about 24 feet.

So we're really talking about effectively 40 feet, right? Okay, thanks.

Okay, so Gary, did that make sense to you? We're keeping with the committee's recommendations for that mid part that's the Belmont buffer part.

Yeah, I just... And then the... Yeah, I'm just looking along Wisconsin Avenue here, and I just want to make sure that we're talking about the same thing. We're talking about from the north down, we're talking 85 feet, 85, 85, and then doubling that to 170, and then up to 200.

I wonder whether... Yeah, so... because we're getting closer to Metro is thing. One thing too is, um, as you know, the part North of that, all of Saks parking lot and Saks is in Chevy chase village. Once you go past Montgomery street on this, we're no longer in the village. So, um, I think we, we have different leverage for one thing.

Yeah. But we're, we're, uh, um, I guess I haven't heard anybody. I personally don't have a strong feeling about how tall is too tall and that particular, you know, that 170 there, whether that's reasonable or not. And it seems like if you're tapering down from 250, it's hard to argue that that's unreasonably tall. And we are some distance away from the village at that point. So I'm okay with it, I guess.

Yeah, and we have previously supported that recommendation. Okay. So we're clear on the changes? And I haven't heard any other board members.

Just to confirm, in the center section there, south of Montgomery, It stays 60 feet along the buffer and 170 along Wisconsin.

That's the recommendation, yeah.

And then 200 in the lower parcel.

Okay.

Yeah. It's just that 170 area that we're proposing we step up from 85, and then John and Michelle will work out the appropriate stepping up.

Right, across from Grove Park. yeah okay okay i'm okay with this approach for this section very good and then shayna if we're not moving ahead too quickly if you could share the chart where we go next i think we just now have a few miscellaneous additional things to review correct

That's correct. So I just wanted to make sure that the board is still solidified on your position regarding the existing perimeter wall along the SACS property, not to add additional pedestrian access points and to maintain the existing access at Montgomery Street as the sole entry along these properties. Just want to make sure that we're maintaining that position.

I certainly wouldn't want to maintain that, yeah.

Okay. The street setbacks along Belmont and Oliver, the 30-foot setback, I think we pretty well covered that and I didn't hear any board objection to that position. As was noted, the open space adjacent to the That's probably basically on the south end of the Saks property. The planning staff has recommended.

Half an acre of green space.

Half an acre. The. Oh, and actually, no, I'm sorry. The committee is recommending point seven five acres open space in addition to 10 percent open space requirement.

And it's a minimum of 0.75.

Yes, our committee, our ad hoc committee. Correct, correct. Yeah, I think we're supportive of that recommendation.

I am. A minimum 10% open space requirement.

Okay. Okay, go on, sorry.

No, no, no, you can go ahead.

Just that the testimony would also include the... you know, the caveats about an enforceable overlay zone. Yes. That protects our edge.

Yeah. And Alyssa, they were supposed to send that. Shana, weren't they supposed to send that in writing to us before the hearing in September?

I'm sorry, send what piece to us in writing?

The overlay zone, the text of the overlay zone. No? No.

They had always indicated that that would come along later once the planning board has reached its final position on the sector plan. Michelle, do you want to speak to that?

No, that has been their consistent position. And I think that's pretty consistent with the way it's been handled in other sector plans. I don't think it's an anomaly for purposes of this plan.

Do we know what we wanted to say when we finally do get it?

It depends what they adopt. Yeah, what we wanted to say, we're going to be reacting to the planning board recommendations, recommendations with respect to height, FAR, open space, public benefits. There's a whole array of things that would be addressed or could be addressed in the overlay zone. And so right now, it's sort of, you know, we're speculating to a very large degree. I think I think it makes sense to see what the planning board recommends and then react to that.

Right. But they should know in every single one of our written testimonies that we have this caveat that we will always be pushing for enforceable overlay zone that protects the edge of our single family neighborhood.

That's right. That we don't intend to rely just on sector plan recommendations, that we need an enforceable overlay zone that imposes those regulatory standards on any new development.

Yeah.

Yeah, absolutely.

So we'll be including language like that when we submit our written comments. Thank you.

Next point I want to just make sure we solidify is that the board does not support a pedestrian connection to Western Grove Park. but recommends that the parks department improve wayfinding signage to reinforce the public's access to the parks.

Okay.

Shane, let me just ask one question on that. The entrance now is on Western. I'm wondering if park and planning actually puts that new buffer zone that Michelle talked about or showed in the plan, whether there could be some steps along the sidewalk on Western that would allow entrance, you know, from the West versus having to go, you know, I wouldn't think that that necessarily would be create access problems, but I'm fine with the current entrance, but that might be something somebody comes up with. Do you understand what I'm saying? That instead of just having it on Grove, you could have the entrance being sort of, from the Chevy Chase land property in that same corner on Western than it is now. But that's for another time.

Yeah, I think at this point, we want to respond just to the current proposal as opposed to putting another recommendation on the table. But Michelle, John, do you have any thoughts about that? I know the community is very vulnerable.

Yeah, I'm fine with that. I think that's the, yeah.

Okay, got it. The next point we should give some discussion to is that the planning staff has recommended removal of the existing retail overlay zone. Michelle, do you wanna just speak to the current overlay zones content?

Sure. You know, there's been an impression that the current overlay zones requires some minimum amount of retail or commercial, and it does not. What it does is allow for certain types of uses. It imposes some maximum floor area for uses. For example, a grocery store cannot exceed 25,000 square feet without specific approval from the planning board. So it addresses those uses in a way that it was anticipated would help facilitate or make it easier for those kinds of uses to develop. It does not require any retail or commercial. So removing the overlay zone does not have an effect on mandating what could be required there. It's neutral on that. To the extent that there is a requirement for a grocery store that was negotiated as part of a settlement agreement that's a contractual obligation not a zoning obligation so from my perspective removing the overlay zone has zero impact on on this issue just to clarify chevy chase village was not a party right right correct correct okay with that being said

And it's believing that there's a desire for truly mixed use as opposed to just residential. Is there a common practice now to ensure that there's retail along the residential developments there?

There is not. In fact, the planning board for some time now has made it a policy to not require any minimum amount of residential or retail or commercial. Because as you may have seen in areas of the county, you will have a high-rise building, residential or commercial, with ground floor retail, pretty significant numbers of storefronts, but with a number of them vacant. And I think the board decided that trying to compel what the market would demand or anticipate what the market would demand was not leading to some of the best outcomes. Michelle Magyar- As built outcomes so for us to suggest a minimum requirement would really we'd be swimming uphill on that. Michelle Magyar- upstream.

James Forrest, Norcal PTACC, I agree with Michelle.

Michelle Magyar- Right, although you know aspirationally we definitely want nice mixed use vibrant retail.

I mean, I think that the planning boards are planning staffs approaches that if you have good urban design with lively streets well designed and you have a certain amount of residential units new units that will bring that will encourage the retail you're looking for. Instead of. Okay.

Okay, and then getting into the non-property specific recommendations that are within the working draft, the first being public parking to support new development. It has been noted that the Montgomery County government does not have land within the Friendship Heights sector plan area, which puts it in a unique position compared to other sector plan areas. And so there is no space where they can create a public parking garage. There has been an aspirational statement in regard to incentivizing developers to put in ample parking for their development and for entering into public-private partnerships with the county to integrate public parking into those built facilities. But there is nothing within the sector plan that would mandate any specific ratio tied to development density or units etc there are overarching zoning requirements that deal with parking although because this is within a half mile of metro it's my understanding that those things do not apply so the question for the board is do you support the staff recommendations as the committee has recommended or do you want to be more specific on the parking mandates and requirements this was highlighted as a big concern and issue for residents. And maybe John and or Michelle can speak to whether or not the over, the proposed overlay zone could include requirements related to parking. Setting aside whether or not there would be planning board interest and acceptance to that, is there, is that a appropriate mechanism for which to require certain parking thresholds.

The overlay zone could address this in at least two ways. The first would be to change the parking standards for these properties. The overlay zone is basically a zoning text amendment, so you can use that to modify the existing zoning standards. The other would be to identify it as a public amenity that of course would result in additional density, likely within even the height caps that we're currently recommending. And in that respect, it would give the developer the incentive to provide that as a public benefit and incorporate it as part of a new development.

Is that part of the staff? the draft recommendations, or is that?

Right. Their recommendation, I believe right now, is to incentivize publicly available parking as a benefit. Right. Okay. Public benefit. Yeah. So that's something I think we should support. Okay. They did not address it as part of an overlay zone, but we certainly should raise that as well.

Okay.

That would provide essentially kind of built-in suspenders.

Mm-hmm. It seems like... If I understood correctly, we'd probably prefer the overlay zone side of it because it doesn't automatically cause more density and they can always say no. So it seems like why not go with that to start with.

Right.

Okay, sounds good. I assume there's board consensus for that position.

I haven't heard any.

I agree. Yes, agree.

Okay. Next item is the establishment of dedicated bus lanes for BRT on Wisconsin Avenue, taking one of the current travel lanes in each direction and converting it to a dedicated lane for BRT.

And Shana, that was part of their recommendations, right? I understand-

and the committee has recommended not taking a position for now except to raise concerns about impacts traffic flow and note that this would impact our residents in the first block of Oliver Street off of Wisconsin Avenue who are only able to enter their block from Wisconsin Avenue. It's the only block in the village that is essentially limited in access only from the one direction.

I think that's a good position.

Needs further study position. All right.

Exactly.

All right. Okay. The board supports the committee's recommendation. And then the next item is the planning staff recommendation to eliminate Wisconsin Circle to be replaced with a new through street that would begin at a point to the west of the buildings on the collection property coming out at essentially the point where Wisconsin Circle does today at Willard, the intersection at Willard Avenue.

And the committee recommendation is take no position yet because we don't know.

Take no position to accentuate concerns about the impacts to traffic flow along Western Avenue further east at this point.

I think that that, Shana, that was the only concern that I thought we had was moving that circle and what it would do in terms of the light sequence backing traffic east on Western and blocking Kirkside and other streets. You know, one suggestion we might have is I know you've contracted with the traffic group. Maybe when that is actually proposed or an option is proposed, they could look at it and determine the adverse effect it would have.

Sure, our residents have also expressed concern that allowing, and I've brought back up on the page, section that we're talking about where the new street would come in, some of our residents have expressed concern that also bringing this street closer to the village or farther to the east would also bring that traffic closer to village homes with resulting emissions and noise impacts as a result of that. So that's something that the board could raise in its letter that are concerns together with the traffic flow impacts along Western Avenue.

Yeah, fair enough.

Brad, agreement on that, guys? Agreed.

Yes. Okay.

And that is it. There is a note on the comparative chart from the committee that they have not really looked at the proposals for the Geico property because they have been hyper focused under the board's mandate to look at these properties that are immediately adjacent to the village's single family homes. But certainly if the board wants the committee to begin to look at Geico properties they stand ready to to do that understanding that there are two separate tracks working right now there's a development that is moving forward through the planning process under the existing sector plan which is separate and apart from the sector plan recommendations that are being recommended for what will be the new sector plan so some of this is working at kind of parallel tracks and unfortunate timing, but so as not to conflate the two things, this would be for the committee, if the board would like the committee to look at specifically the sector plan recommendations, not the current development applications.

I don't see the need. I think we've really taxed our committee and we have enough on our plate with the stuff that's adjacent to the village, but I'd love to hear if other people want the committee to be looking at it.

I agree with that. I know that the E&E committee was very interested in this subject just because some of the things happening there might have green problems. And so it might be that we would want to

another committee together of some sort but uh i don't unless they are eager to do it i don't think we should further burden the current ad hoc committee the friendship heights uh village council or any of the neighborhood associations produce summaries or status reports that that we have access to and that might help must stay apprised at what's going on there in case pieces of it are irrelevant.

Sure. I've been in consistent contact with my counterpart over at the Village of Friendship Heights, and he's generally expressed that his community is hyper-focused on the current development and has been less vocal about the proposals for the sector plan related to GEICO. But I'll continue to stay in contact with them to see if they articulate a formal position or testimony related to the sector plan. changes proposed for the property. OK, so it sounds like there was not an interest in assigning more work for the overworked committee. Yes, I'm sure Mr. Halperin and Mr. Giovanni are breathing a sigh of relief. OK, Michelle, I will turn it over to you if you and I'm happy to tag team this with you. I want to just do kind of a general summary of what the board has decided this evening.

Sure. And honestly, it would help if we could pull up that overview of the heights, the one that shows the, there you go. Perfect. And so, you know, we're looking at maintaining the current recommendations on the northern end along Oliver and Belmont with those heights and the setbacks that were recommended last time by the committee. And then when we go down to the collection, we're going to maintain a recommendation of a 60 foot height. And we're gonna carry that not just at the frontage, but we're gonna carry it over basically to mid block on both the Northern and Southern pieces of that property. We're going to continue to maintain the 170 and 200 height recommendations fronting on Wisconsin. When we go down, I'm going to start at the two Wisconsin circle. We're going to stick with the 250-foot height limit there. And when we go over to the portion of the property fronting on Grove, we're going to start at 85 feet. And then we're going to step up as we move across that. The suggested heights were 130, 170, and then 250, so that we have a gradient going up to the 250. a minimum of 0.75 acres of open space in addition to the 10% open space requirement that we have that we emphasize that we are looking to a overlay zone to impose these requirements as from a regulatory perspective, not just as master plan recommendations that we would like to see in the overlay zone additionally. some minimum parking standards above and beyond what's otherwise required in this transit area. And also note concerns with relocating Wisconsin Circle that moving it closer to the neighborhood is going to move nuisance concerns such as noise and emissions and that generally closer to the neighborhood and also that generally we would like to have more analysis of the traffic impacts of that proposal. And take no position specific to the bus lanes, but note that we think that that requires further study with respect to long-term traffic impacts. Shana, I think I got them all, but I suspect you may have one or two that I left out.

Yes, just a couple of things. I want to note that the board supports the CR zoning for SACS at an FAR of 3.0 and also supports the 3.0 FAR for the selection property. We didn't, it wasn't verbalized, but I just want to make sure that, I believe it was 5.0 for two Wisconsin circles. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay. And I just, I don't know that the board really focused in on that as much, but is there any board objection to 5.0 FAR specific for two Wisconsin circle for that southwestern most corner of that buildable area?

Can I just ask, John, how does that compare with Wisconsin and Bethesda, like the Marriott building? Is that similar height?

Yeah, it's similar. The density and the height are similar, but I can confirm. That's fine.

Yeah, I think that that one had been mapped at 300. I don't know what the built conditions are.

Yeah.

Okay. And the only other thing that I had was... that the board supports removal of the existing overlay zone.

Right.

Thank you.

Okay. I think that summarizes it.

Great summary. Thank you.

Mr. Leonard, we will pass it back over to you.

If I can just ask one question. The planning board website shows a walking tour of Friendship Heights on the 18th next week and just wanted to confirm that the village is engaged in that walking tour in some fashion with a nice long walk along Belmont to point out the issues we're talking about here.

We're not allowed to point out issues in that walking tour. We're not allowed to speak. We're allowed to walk.

Yes.

Yeah. Yeah.

I do plan to attend that walking tour, and anyone who knows me knows I'm not shy about speaking up and trying to direct attention to things to the extent that I'll certainly be allowed to do so. But we've also publicized the walking tour in our weekly blast emails to our residents in hopes that we can have interested residents attend that as well.

Yeah.

Any other questions for Michelle or John?

No. What's the next part of the agenda?

Sorry about that.

Yeah. We know who likes to do this.

Come in, Gary. I do move to adjourn the meeting.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All right. Thank you very much, everybody.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Bye. Good night. Bye-bye.