MEMORANDUM BACKGROUND. lcouncilmembers should bring their copy of the Plan to the meeting.i. AGENDA ITEM #l0a November 28, 2017.

Transcription

1 AGENDA ITEM #l0a November 28, 2017 Worksession MEMORANDUM November 22, 2017 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: County Council ~ Marlene Michaelson, Senior Legislative Analyst Grosvenor-Strathmore Metro Area Minor Master Plan This memorandum presents the recommendations of the Planning, Housing, and Economic Development (PHED) Committee regarding the Grosvenor-Strathmore Metro Area Minor Master Plan. A separate memorandum from Glenn Orlin addresses the transportation and school issues in the Plan. This memorandum addresses all other Master Plan issues. Attached on 1-5 is a DRAFT resolution that includes the PHED Committee recommended changes. lcouncilmembers should bring their copy of the Plan to the meeting.i BACKGROUND The 11 7-acre Grosvenor-Strathmore Metro Area Minor Master Plan planning area is located along the Metrorail Red Line, just north of Interstate 495 and east of Rockville Pike. Other than the Music Center at Strathmore, the predominant land use is residential and the character is suburban. The goal of the Minor Master Plan is to allow the last 15-acre parcel to take optimum advantage of its location at a Metro Station, while also fitting with the context and established character of the existing community. The 15-acre parcel includes the Metro Garage, a surface parking lot, bus loop, Kiss-and-Ride, a stormwater management pond, and a small grove of trees. The surface parking lot provides an opportunity for new development, with parking spaces to be provided in a new parking facility or as an addition to the existing garage. The Plan Vision is for the area to remain primarily residential, with a diversity of housing types. The Plan recommends a new civic green, public art, improved connections to Strathmore Hall, and mixeduse zoning that will allow for retail uses. The Plan has two land use and zoning goals: Establish a primarily residential, walkable, mixed-use development at the Metro station.

2 Maintain the residential character of the area. The following chart provides an estimate of the potential development in the Minor Master Plan area, based on the recommended zoning. The Plan Estimates column reflects Planning Department staff assumptions about possible development detailed in the notes below the chart. GROSVENOR DEVELOPMENT (A) (C) Total Allowed (B) Addition to Existing (B+C) by Existing Existing Development Allowed Total allowed by Zonine Development by the Plan Plan Commercial (sf) -8,600* 8, ,776** 167,376 Cultural ( sf) 173,246*** 173,246 Residential Dwelling Units 1,849 1,304 1,397**** 2,701 * 3 parcels that were formerly part of the WMA TA site were designated PD-25 zones, did not explicitly mention commercial. North Bethesda/Garrett Park Master Plan called for a daycare and limited neighborhood serving retail on these sites. 8,600 sq. ft. of commercial have been built since the 1992 Plan. **The amount of commercial square feet is based on the assumption that 0.25 FAR will be dedicated to commercial uses, and the remaining 2.75 FAR will be dedicated to residential development. Planning Staff expect a lower buildout of commercial development, closer to 40,000 sq. ft. ***Strathmore Music Center ****Residential Dwelling Units based on the assumption that 2.75 FAR will be dedicated to residential uses. This is the maximum allowed Residential in the Zone. The number of dwelling units is based on and assumes 1,250 square feet per dwelling unit. MODERATELY PRICED DWELLING UNITS Committee Recommendation: Support 15 percent MPDUs in the Grosvenor-Strathmore Metro Area Minor Master Plan planning area, but allow the benefits and public benefit points provided in the Rock Spring and White Flint 2 Plans. Add text approved by the Council for those planning areas to the Grosvenor-Strathmore Plan. On page 22, the Minor Master Plan discusses the Metro site and includes the following recommendation: Provide 15 percent MPDUs on the Metro site. The recommended increase in MPDUs is not listed as a potential public benefit and is not discussed elsewhere in the Plan. It appears that the Planning Board intended to allow public benefit points for increased percentage of MPDUs in White Flint 2, but not in Grosvenor-Strathmore. The Committee believes there should be a consistent approach to addressing MPDUs in the three North Bethesda Plans (Rock Spring, White Flint 2, and Grosvenor-Strathmore). In the White Flint 2 Plan, the Council agreed to a change to the section on Public Benefits, which prioritizes increased affordable housing on sites that do not provide schools or significant athletic fields. The Committee 2

3 recommends using the following language in Grosvenor-Strathmore as well, but indicating that a school site may not be feasible in this small planning area. The following public benefit categories are priorities for this Plan area: Dedication of land for needed school sites is the highest priority public amenity for development and redevelopment in North Bethesda, but may not be feasible in the Grosvenor-Strathmore Metro Area Minor Master Plan planning area. Providing fifteen (15) percent Moderately Priced Dwelling Units (MPDUs) is the highest priority public amenity for new residential development, unless the property is required to dedicate land for a school or athletic fields that can be used by MCPS and approximate the size of a local park. Other than school sites, major public facilities include, but are not limited to, land for parks and school athletic fields, a library, recreation center, County service center, public transportation or utility upgrade. Major public facilities provide public services at a convenient location where increased density creates a greater need for civic uses and greater demands on public infrastructure. LAND USE, ZONING AND URBAN DESIGN Committee Recommendation: Support the zoning recommended by the Planning Board with one change. The Committee recommends that the height on the portion of Area 3 on page 23 that is to the west of Area 1 have its height increased from 40 to 300 feet to allow a taller building to be placed as close to Rockville Pike as possible, which could potentially allow the use of air rights above the tracks. The density on this site (and overall density allowed by the Plan) should not increase. The Committee-recommended zoning change is shown as a new area 4 on a map attached on 6. Otherwise, the Committee supports the land use and urban design recommendations in the Minor Master Plan and its vision for a new residential community directly on top of Metro. The Committee believes that the Planning Department and Board have done everything possible to minimize impact on residents east of the Metro Station and ensure additional amenities for existing and new residents. Land Use and Zoning are addressed on pages of the Plan, and the Urban Design and Design Guidelines are on pages Because they are so interrelated, they are addressed together here, followed by a summary of testimony. A map of the proposed zoning is shown on page 23. The Plan confirms the R-60 zoning on the portion of the Plan north of Tuckerman Lane, which includes the Music Center at Strathmore and residential community to its north. It confirms the R-30 zoning east of Tuckerman Lane and converts the RT-12.5 and PD25 to comparable zones not eliminated in the Zoning Ordinance rewrite. These zoning changes are consisten~ with existing development. The only significant change is on the Metro property where the existing R-60 and PD25 zones are converted to the Commercial/Residential (CR) zone. The zoning shown on the map on page 23 for Area 2 (CR-7.25, C -0.25, R-7.25, H-180) and on the southern portion of Area 3 (CR-0.5, C-0.25, R-0.5, H-40) is consistent with existing development. Area 1, the location of the existing parking for Metro, is the proposed site for most new development. The Plan recommends CR-3.0, C-0.5, R-2.75, H-300, but only allows the highest heights on specific 3

4 locations identified on page 41 of the Plan. Much of the height of Area 1 is limited to 160 feet, but the area closest to the existing 4-story apartments is limited to 85 feet, with specific recommendations for setback and building location. The Urban Design and Design Guidelines chapter is unusually detailed for a plan of this size, and design guidelines, which are generally in a separate document the Council does not approve, are included. This is appropriate for this location to ensure that the Plan's recommendations are implemented. The goals in this section are as follows: Enhance pedestrian and bike connections to the area's key destinations to reduce reliance on cars to access these amenities. Create visually distinct "Gateways" into the Plan area. Create public spaces of the right size and character for the Plan area. Locate buildings to frame streets and open space. Ensure that the buildings along streets and open spaces provide a safe and attractive environment for pedestrians. Complement the public open spaces at the Metro site with a range of private open spaces and amenities. Ensure that the existing buildings surrounding the Metro site will not be adversely affected by the new development. Create a human-scale architecture with active ground floors, fa9ade articulation, and appropriate transition between public and private spaces. Create building massing that limits shadows on the public realm, allows sky views, and also improves the quality of the indoor environment. Signature buildings should create an identity for the Plan area. Leverage the presence of Strathmore Hall as a unique asset adjacent to the Metro site. Use short-term improvements and temporary uses for recreation, retail and entertainment events, and to test the viability of long-term, permanent installations. There are several illustrations throughout this chapter that display the innovative designs they hope to encourage. Most significant are the building placement diagram on page 38 and the step back proposed along Tuckerman on page 41. As the Planning Department explained to the Committee, the step back recommendations ensure that properties that are 4 stories will face new development that is also 4 stories for a depth of 40 feet, and then gradually increase to a maximum of 85 feet in the transition zone. The Minor Master Plan also seeks to leverage the presence of Strathmore by integrating public art throughout the Metro site and holding performances at the Civic Green and Metro entrance plaza. Testimony: During the Council's public hearing, most speakers endorsed the Plan's recommendations, with many focusing on the new civic space and other public/recreational spaces, the Plan's recommendations related to public art and performances, and the addition of some retail uses. There was support for the Plan's ability to provide additional affordable housing, reduce energy consumption (on a per capita basis), provide additional affordable housing, and create a walkable community. The written testimony submitted after the hearing was split more evenly between those who supported and opposed the Plan. In addition to the supportive comments summarized above, the Council heard from numerous residents in the Strathmore Park, Stoneybrook, and Parkside communities opposing the heights and densities proposed for the Metro site. Among their many concerns are the likelihood that 4

5 the density will be concentrated on the site so that the developed areas will be a 6.0 FAR, that the heights are not compatible with existing development to the east (much of which are 3 and 4 story townhomes and garden apartments), the additional traffic that will make it difficult to enter or leave the area, the impact on the environment of additional traffic and development, that the civic green is not large enough, and public safety concerns of dealing with a fire in a 300 foot high building. SUSTAINABILITY Committee Recommendation: Support the Plan as submitted. Pages present the Sustainability recommendations in the Plan. This section of the Plan focuses on the following goals: Preserve, enhance and extend the natural resources throughout the Plan area (page 60); Reduce and slow untreated stormwater runoff to improve water quality in surrounding streams and creeks (page 62); Sequester carbon and reduce urban heat island (page 63); and Promote energy conservation and efficiency (page 63). For each of these goals, the Plan lists recommendations to achieve the goals. Since the primary area for redevelopment is a large impervious area with outdated approaches to treating stormwater management, redevelopment could improve water quality. At the same time, the Plan does preserve the existing green areas, including the nearly ten-acre forest conservation area. Maximizing density near transit and improving bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure helps reduce vehicle miles traveled, the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Committee Recommendation: Support the Plan as submitted. Pages present the Plan's recommendations for Parks and Open Space. The Plan indicates that area residents "benefit from an abundance of private and public green space." Within a quarter-mile of the Plan area, there is significant open space with connections to the nearby Rock Creek and Bethesda Trolley Trails. Within the Plan area there are trails in a wooded area between Montrose A venue and Tuckerman Lane, and the large lawn at Strathmore provides open space, a path, and a sculpture garden. Despite these resources, the Plan area lacks recreational amenities and spaces such as ballfields, civic greens, plazas, pocket parks, and connections to trail systems. Due to the limited size of the planning area, the Plan recommends some unconventional approaches to meeting these needs. For example, it recommends public recreational space atop the existing WMA TA garage or garage expansion. In addition, it recommends: developing a central Civic Green Urban Park of 1.25 acres at the Metro site locating a dog park or other active recreation amenity for the community at the open space between the northern edge of the existing Metro garage and Tuckerman Lane preserving and improving access to mature wooded areas and the Rock Creek Stream Valley Park promoting the use of privately-owned open space 5

6 creating a two-mile "Fitness Loop". COMMUNITY FACILITIES Committee Recommendation: Add a description of recreation facilities that serve this planning area. Pages present the Community Facilities recommendations in the Plan. School issues are addressed in a separate memorandum from Glenn Orlin. Page 74 discusses Public Safety and Library recommendations, but does not address recreation centers, which are addressed in all master plans. Staff has asked the Planning Department to prepare an insert addressing this issue to be added to the Plan and they have suggested the following insertion: The 2010 White Flint Sector Plan recommended a future recreation center at Wall Local Park/Kennedy Shriver Aquatic Center. This site would permit the co-location of the existing Aquatic Center, including an expansion, and an urban park. The Montgomery County Department of Recreation recommends that the Wall Park community center serve all of North Bethesda, including the Grosvenor-Strathmore Metro Area Minor Master Plan area. The Committee supports this portion of the Plan with the addition presented above. IMPLEMENTATION Committee Recommendation: Amend the public benefits section to reflect the Council's decisions on school sites and Moderately Priced Dwelling Units. Pages present the Plan's Implementation recommendations. Page 81 lists the priority public benefits to be provided by new development. It includes Public Open Space, Exceptional Design, Connectivity, and Sustainable Development. The Committee recommends that the Grosvenor Strathmore Metro Area Minor Master Plan have the same language regarding schools and Moderately Priced Dwelling Units as the Rock Spring and White Flint 2 Plans, and that this section of the Plan be amended accordingly. f:\michaelson\lplan\lmstrpln\l grosvenor-strathmore\171128ap.doc 6

7 1 2 Resolution No.: Introduced: Adopted: 3 COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND 4 SITTING AS THE DISTRICT COUNCIL FOR THAT PORTION 5 OF THE MARYLAND-WASHINGTON REGIONAL DISTRICT 6 WITHIN MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND By: County Council SUBJECT: Approval of July 2017 Grosvenor-Strathmore Metro Area Minor Master Plan On September 7, 2017, the Montgomery County Planning Board transmitted to the County Executive 16 and the County Council the July 2017 Planning Board Draft Grosvenor-Strathmore Metro Area 1 7 Minor Master Plan The July 2017 Planning Board Draft Grosvenor-Strathmore Metro Area Minor Master Plan contains 20 the text and supporting maps for an amendment to portions of the approved and adopted 1992 North 21 Bethesda/Garrett Park Master Plan. It also amends The General Plan (On Wedges and Corridors) 22 for the Physical Development of the Maryland-Washington Regional District in Montgomery and 23 Prince George's Counties, as amended; the Master Plan of Highways and Transitways, as amended; 24 and the Countywide Bikeways Functional Master Plan, as amended On October 24, 2017, the County Council held a public hearing on the July 2017 Planning Board 27 Draft Grosvenor-Strathmore Metro Area Minor Master Plan. The Minor Master Plan was referred 28 to the Council's Planning, Housing, and Economic Development Committee for review and 29 recommendations On October 24, 2017, the Office of Management and Budget transmitted to the County Council the 32 Executive's Fiscal Impact Statement for the July 2017 Planning Board Draft Grosvenor-Strathmore 3 3 Metro Area Minor Master Plan On November 6, 2017 and November 13, 2017, the Planning, Housing, and Economic Development 36 Committee held worksessions to review the issues raised in connection with the Planning Board 37 Draft Grosvenor-Strathmore Metro Area Minor Master Plan On November 28, 2017, the County Council reviewed the Planning Board Draft Grosvenor- 40 Strathmore Metro Area Minor Master Plan and the recommendations of the Planning, Housing, and 41 Economic Development Committee

8 Page 2 Resolution No.: 44 Action The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland, sitting as the District Council for that portion 4 7 of the Maryland-Washington Regional District in Montgomery County, Maryland, approves the 48 following resolution: The Planning Board Draft Grosvenor-Strathrnore Metro Area Minor Master Plan, dated July 2017, is 51 approved with revisions. County Council revisions to the Planning Board Draft Grosvenor-Strathmore 52 Metro Area Minor Master Plan are identified below. Deletions to the text of the Plan are indicated by 53 [brackets], additions by underscoring. All page references are to the July 2017 Planning Board Draft 54 Grosvenor-Strathmore Metro Area Minor Master Plan Page 2: Delete the first paragraph and revise the second paragraph as follows: [An area master plan, after approval by the County Council and adoption by The Maryland-National 59 Capital Park and Planning Commission, constitutes an amendment to The General Plan (On Wedges 60 and Corridors) for Montgomery County. Each area master plan reflects a vision of future 61 development that responds to the unique character of the local community within the context of a 62 County-wide perspective. Area master plans are intended to convey land use policy for defined 63 geographic areas and should be interpreted together with relevant County-wide functional master 64 plans.] This [Minor Master Plan Amendment] Plan contains text and supporting maps for a [minor] 67 comprehensive amendment to portions of the approved and adopted 1992 North Bethesda/Garrett 68 Park Master Plan, as amended. It also amends The General Plan (On Wedges and Corridors) for the 69 Physical Development of the Maryland-Washington Regional District in Montgomery and Prince 70 George's Counties, as amended; the Master Plan of Highways and Transitways, as amended; and the 71 Countywide Bikeways Functional Master Plan, as amended. Each area master plan reflects a vision 72 of future development that responds to the unique character of the local community within the 73 context of a countywide perspective. Area master plans are intended to convey land use policy for 74 defined geographic areas and should be interpreted together with relevant countywide functional 75 master plans. The minor amendment process provides an opportunity to reassess the Plan area and 76 analyze alternative land use redevelopment, design, and zoning opportunities. The review considers 77 existing development and reevaluates the area's potential within the context of a changing market in 78 the region, the intent and rationale of the 1992 North Bethesda/Garrett Park Master Plan, community 79 input, and impacts to the surrounding land uses and transportation network Page 22: Add a bullet below the first bullet under "Metro site Recommendations" as fouows: Allow a maximum height of 300 feet over the Metrorail tracks directly west of the Metro site Page 22: Amend the last bullet under "Metro site Recommendations" as follows: Provide 15 percent MPDUs on the Metro site as the highest priority public benefit Page 23: Update the map to reflect Council recommended zoning changes. 90

9 Page 3 Resolution No.: 91 Page 49: Revise the text of the "Goal" statement as follows: Goal: Achieve a [45] blended 50 percent Non-Auto Driver Mode Share (NADMS) by 2040 for the 94 Plan area Page 56: Add the roadway classification map to the page after Table Page 74: Add the following sentences at the end of the paragraph as follows: The 2010 White Flint Sector Plan recommended a future recreation center at Wall Local 101 Park/Kennedy Shriver Aquatic Center. This site would permit the co-location of the existing Aquatic 102 Center, including an expansion, and an urban park. The Montgomery County Department of 103 Recreation recommends that the Wall Park community center serve all of North Bethesda, including 104 the Grosvenor-Strathmore Metro Area Minor Master Plan area Page 76: Add a new paragraph after the first paragraph under "Facility Planning in the Walter Johnson 107 Cluster" as follows: Residential development in the Rock Spring, White Flint, White Flint 2, and Grosvenor-Strathmore 110 master and sector plans has the potential to impact school enrollment. Several potential means of 111 adding school capacity are noted in the sections below. In addition, if there is a major development 112 or redevelopment within these planning areas, several sites or combinations of sites may be 113 appropriate for consideration of a public school. Each and every development application should be 114 thoroughly evaluated for a potential school site, notwithstanding any previous development 115 approvals. It is this Plan's direction that the Planning Board will negotiate for maximum dedication 116 of land for a school and that this be the top priority amenity under the review process for projects 11 7 proceeding under these plans. This requirement is the same as requirements in the Rock Spring and 118 White Flint 2 Sector Plans, which are in the same high school cluster; however, it is highly unlikely 119 that a school site will be found on the limited area likely to develop/redevelop in the Grosvenor- 120 Strathmore Metro Area Minor Master Plan area Page 76: Update the figure in the third sentence of the first bullet in the left column of the page as 123 follows: Ashburton Elementary School has an addition planned that will increase its capacity to [881] students Page 76: Update the last sentence of the first bullet in the left column of the page as follows: Therefore, all cluster schools will be at the high end of the range of student enrollment, with 131 capacities ranging from [729] 714 to [881] 777, and no further additions will be considered Page 77: Revise the third sentence of the first bullet under "Middle Schools" as follows: This increase will address projected enrollment through [ ]

10 Page4 Resolution No.: 137 Page 77: Modify the sub-bullet under the third bullet under "Middle Schools" as follows: Construct a new middle school. There [are two] is one future middle school [sites near] site in the 140 vicinity of the Walter Johnson Cluster: the Brickyard Middle School site is in the Winston Churchill 141 Cluster[; and the King Farm Middle School site is in the Richard Montgomery Cluster]. If building 142 anew school at [these locations] this location is not considered feasible, then the purchase of a middle 143 school site could be considered Page 77: Revise the first bullet under "High Schools," as follows: Build an addition at Walter Johnson High School. The high school [currently has] had a capacity 148 in the fall of 2017 of [2,335] 2,330 students. However, l[l]ong-term enrollment projections for 149 the school show enrollment reaching [3,500] 4,010 students by the year [2045] This 150 projected enrollment does not include [ any] all the students that would be generated by the White 151 Flint 2 and Rock Spring plans. [If the high school capacity was increased to 3,500 students or 152 more, it may be possible to accommodate the build-out of the White Flint 2 and Rock Spring 153 plans.] Page 77: Revise the first sentence of the second bullet under "High Schools," as follows: [A second approach being considered to address high school enrollment growth in the Walter 15 8 Johnson Cluster is] The Board of Education has requested funding for the reopening of the former 159 Woodward High School on Old Georgetown Road, located between the Rock Spring and White 160 Flint 2 plan areas Page 77: Delete the bulleted third paragraph under "High Schools" as follows: [Beyond the approaches mentioned above, reassignment of students from the Walter Johnson 165 Cluster to high schools with available capacity, or with the ability to have their capacities 166 increased, could be considered. Currently, most high schools adjacent to the Walter Johnson 167 Cluster are projected to have enrollments above their capacities, and will already be built out to 168 the high end of the desired enrollment size of 2,400 students. The exception to this situation is 169 Rockville High School. Although this school is projected to be fully enrolled in the next six 170 years, with a capacity for 1,570 students it is relatively small by current standards. If an addition 171 could be built at this high school, then reassignment of students to the high school could be 172 considered in the future.] Page 81: Add the following bullets after the first sentence on the page as follows: 176 The following public benefit categories are priorities for this Plan area: Dedication ofland for needed school sites is the highest priority public amenity for development 179 and redevelopment in North Bethesda, but may not be feasible in the Grosvenor-Strathmore 180 Metro planning area. 181 Providing fifteen (15) percent Moderately Priced Dwelling Units (MPDUs) is the highest priority 182 public amenity for new residential development, unless the property is required to dedicate land 183 for a school or athletic fields that can be used by MCPS and approximate the size of a local park.

11 Page 5 Resolution No.: 184 Other than school sites, major public facilities include, but are not limited to, land for parks and 185 school athletic fields, a library, recreation center, County service center, public transportation or 186 utility upgrade. Major public facilities provide public services at a convenient location where 187 increased density creates a greater need for civic uses and greater demands on public 188 infrastructure Page 81: Update the map and table to reflect Council-recommended zoning changes General All illustrations and tables included in the Plan will be revised to reflect the District Council changes to 196 the Planning Board Draft Grosvenor-Strathmore Metro Area Minor Master Plan (July 2017). The text 197. and graphics will be revised as necessary to achieve and improve clarity and consistency, to update 198 factual information, and to convey the actions of the District Council. Graphics and tables will be revised 199 and renumbered, where necessary, to be consistent with the text and titles This is a correct copy of Council action Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council r~~\ ~

12 :,_,.., _,,~ /I I -. (!) 1/4 Mile Grosvenor Lane LEGEND [:JR60 c:j R30 [:JR20 - TMD OCR CR 3.0, C-.5, R-2.7S, H-300'* CR 7.25, C-.25, R-7.2S, H-180' CR.S, C-.25, R-.5, H-40' CR.S, C-.25, R-.5, H-300' * Heights greater than 160' only permitted in key locations. See height diagrams for more details. Structures sharing the same base will be considered as one Signature Building or Tower