Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 80 views

    Work Session #14 Planning Board June 9, 2016

    Uploaded by

    Planning Docs
    The document summarizes discussions from Work Session #14 of the Planning Board regarding the Bethesda Overlay Zone. Key topics discussed included the park impact payment, priority sending sites and additional incentives, and the proposed design review panel. For the park impact payment, a methodology was presented for estimating the total cost of acquiring and developing new parks in Bethesda based on low, moderate, and high development cost options. A park impact payment of $25.81 per square foot of bonus density was proposed based on the moderate cost estimate. Potential incentives for priority sending sites were discussed, including removing requirements for a BLT, MPDUs, and park impact payments for density transferred from sending sites. How the design review panel would provide

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Work Session #14 Planning Board June 9, 2016

    Uploaded by

    Planning Docs
    80 views60 pages
    The document summarizes discussions from Work Session #14 of the Planning Board regarding the Bethesda Overlay Zone. Key topics discussed included the park impact payment, priority sending sites and additional incentives, and the proposed design review panel. For the park impact payment, a methodology was presented for estimating the total cost of acquiring and developing new parks in Bethesda based on low, moderate, and high development cost options. A park impact payment of $25.81 per square foot of bonus density was proposed based on the moderate cost estimate. Potential incentives for priority sending sites were discussed, including removing requirements for a BLT, MPDUs, and park impact payments for density transferred from sending sites. How the design review panel would provide

    Original Title

    Untitled

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes discussions from Work Session #14 of the Planning Board regarding the Bethesda Overlay Zone. Key topics discussed included the park impact payment, priority sending sites and additional incentives, and the proposed design review panel. For the park impact payment, a methodology was presented for estimating the total cost of acquiring and developing new parks in Bethesda based on low, moderate, and high development cost options. A park impact payment of $25.81 per square foot of bonus density was proposed based on the moderate cost estimate. Potential incentives for priority sending sites were discussed, including removing requirements for a BLT, MPDUs, and park impact payments for density transferred from sending sites. How the design review panel would provide

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    80 views60 pages

    Work Session #14 Planning Board June 9, 2016

    Uploaded by

    Planning Docs
    The document summarizes discussions from Work Session #14 of the Planning Board regarding the Bethesda Overlay Zone. Key topics discussed included the park impact payment, priority sending sites and additional incentives, and the proposed design review panel. For the park impact payment, a methodology was presented for estimating the total cost of acquiring and developing new parks in Bethesda based on low, moderate, and high development cost options. A park impact payment of $25.81 per square foot of bonus density was proposed based on the moderate cost estimate. Potential incentives for priority sending sites were discussed, including removing requirements for a BLT, MPDUs, and park impact payments for density transferred from sending sites. How the design review panel would provide

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 60

    Work Session #14 Planning Board June 9, 2016

    Agenda
    1. Big Picture Items to Confirm Upfront
    2. Detailed Topics for Conversation
    a) Park Impact Payment
    b) Priority Sending Sites - Additional Incentives (go
    through entire list of incentives and provide
    feedback to Board)
    c) Design Review Panel and Urban Design
    Guidelines

    How it would work (DRP)


    Urban Design Guidelines language in Sector Plan
    (Concepts) vs. Guidelines Document (Detail)

    3. Outstanding Items

    Takeaways Confirm
    1. BOZ requirements (Park Payment, 15% MPDUs,
    Design Review Panel) in or out?
    2. PSS any density assigned comes out of pool
    3. PSS recommend removing Aldon sites in South
    Bethesda as PSS and not including the PLD lots as
    PSS (reduces pool by approximately 600,000SF and
    impacts Farm Womens Market PSS status and
    ability to sell density)

    Bethesda Overlay Zone


    Requirements:

    Park Impact Payment


    15% MPDU Requirement
    Design Review Panel

    Affordable
    Housing
    (MPDUs):

    MPDU square footage does not count against the FAR


    (same as CR zone today)
    No additional height given with MPDUs outside of the HPA
    boundary

    Process:

    Board may approve a project that exceeds the mapped CR


    density
    For the Board to approve a project with additional density
    it must find that no more than a total of 32.4 million SF has
    been approved
    Project receiving additional density must go to permit
    within 24 months of receiving site plan approval

    Park Impact Payment

    Parks Impact Payment


    Park Impact Payment (PIP)
    Parameters

    Fund both Acquisition and Development


    Balance of PIP and general tax base
    Basis of PIP is estimated cost of
    acquisition and development

    Parks Impact Payment


    Parks, Trails and Open Space
    Goals

    Support the Centers with Civic


    gathering spaces
    Provide linkages and signature
    gateways to the major trail
    systems
    Create green neighborhood
    parks.
    Create livable communities and
    appropriate transitions by
    greening and buffering the edges

    Parks Impact Payment


    BDP Parks Summary

    New paradigm of urban parks

    More parks

    PROS 2012
    Vision 2030
    PROS 2017 update (underway)
    Urban Park Functional Master Plan (starting soon)
    6 Existing (4 Expansions) + 13 New = 19 Parks

    More acreage
    10 acres existing + 13 acres proposed = 23 acres
    Expanded range of size, type, and facilities
    Urban recreational parks
    Urban greenways
    Civic greens
    Location central to BDP

    Parks Impact Payment


    Methodology: Estimated Acquisition Cost

    Evaluated to determine most likely park


    creation mechanism
    Dedication via Development Review
    Process
    Direct Acquisition via CIP Funds
    Alternative Tools such as Density Transfer
    or Priority Sending Areas
    Estimated Purchase Price for sites potentially
    needing direct acquisition
    Expressed as a range
    Based on tax assessments, comparable
    real estate sales, and Acquisition Team
    professional judgement

    Parks Impact Payment


    Methodology: Estimated Development Cost

    Development Cost covers:


    Site demolition
    Design
    Construction
    Demolition
    Property Management office
    Based on comparable demolitions
    Design & Construction
    Vision and Park Type proposed in BDP
    Comparable projects identified:
    Internal and external comps
    Simple to more formal & complex urban
    parks
    Expressed as a range
    Low Option
    Moderate Option
    High Option

    10

    Parks Impact Payment


    High Option Development
    looks like
    Campus Martius Park, Detroit:
    $41M/acre

    Banjo Park, Alexandria, VA


    Banjo Park, Alexandria, VA

    Campus Martius Park, Detroit

    11

    Parks Impact Payment


    Model -

    Yards Park, Washington, D.C.

    Banjo Park, Alexandria, VA


    Banjo Park, Alexandria, VA

    Campus Martius Park, Detroit

    12

    Parks Impact Payment


    High Option Development looks likeYards Park, DC: $6.4M/acre

    Yards Park, Washington, D.C.

    13

    Parks Impact Payment


    Model -

    Yards Park, Washington, D.C.

    Yards Park, Washington, D.C.

    14

    Parks Impact Payment

    Yards Park, Washington, D.C.

    15

    Parks Impact Payment


    High Option Development
    looks like
    Canal Park, DC: $8M/acre
    Yards Park, Washington, D.C.

    16

    Parks Impact Payment


    Ice Rink and Tavern
    Canal Park, Washington, D.C.

    Light Box, Tavern, and Splash Feature


    Canal Park, Washington, D.C.

    17

    Parks Impact Payment


    High Option Development looks like

    Cumberland Park, Nashville Tennessee


    18

    Parks Impact Payment

    Cumberland Park, Nashville


    19

    Parks Impact Payment


    High Option Development
    looks like

    Spray Sculpture
    Discovery Green Park, Houston
    Banjo Park, Alexandria, VA

    Climbing Structure/Garage Access Stair


    Discovery Green Park, Houston

    Banjo Park, Alexandria, VA

    20

    Parks Impact Payment


    Moderate Option
    Development looks like:
    Town Center Urban Park,
    Germantown
    $2.7M/acre

    Yards Park, Washington, D.C.

    Banjo Park, Alexandria, VA

    Campus Martius Park, Detroit

    21

    Parks Impact Payment


    Model -

    Germantown Town Center Urban Park

    22

    Parks Impact Payment

    Sherwood Recreation Center, Washington, D.C.

    Madison Park, New York


    23

    Parks Impact Payment

    Madison Park, New York


    Sherwood Recreation Center, Washington, D.C.
    24

    Parks Impact Payment - Moderate

    Sherwood Recreation Center, Washington, D.C.

    Madison Park, New York


    25

    Parks Impact Payment


    Low Option Development
    looks like.

    Yards Park, Washington, D.C.

    Banjo Park, Alexandria, VA

    Campus Martius Park, Detroit

    26

    Parks Impact Payment - Low

    Fitler Square, Philadelphia

    27

    Parks Impact Payment


    Results: Estimated Total Park Costs in BDP

    Low

    Moderate

    High

    Acquisition

    $ 36 M

    $ 64 M

    $ 75 M

    Development

    $ 25 M

    $ 53 M

    $ 90 M

    TOTAL

    $ 61 M

    $117 M

    $165 M

    Propose to use Moderate Estimate for calculating PIP


    Estimated in 2016 dollars (no indexing for inflation over
    20 year plan life)

    28

    Parks Impact Payment


    Calculating PIP

    Parameters
    $117 Million Estimated Cost
    3.4 Million square feet bonus density available in BOZ
    Proposing PIP fund 75% of Moderate Cost Estimate
    Proportion
    PIP Funding

    Moderate
    Cost Estimate
    (millions 2016
    dollars)

    $117

    75%

    PIP Basis

    Available
    BOZ Density
    (millions sf)

    (millions 2016
    dollars)

    $88

    3.4

    Proposed
    PIP Fee
    ($/sf)

    $25.81

    Rationale for selecting proportion PIP funding


    Two factors lessen the potential value of the PIP fee to support
    acquisition & development of parks:
    Not all 3.4 M sf will develop during 20-year life of BDP
    Fixed rate fee (non-inflation adjusted) will lose value over 20 years of
    implementation and erode purchasing power
    29

    Parks Impact Payment


    Relative Costs of Developer Options for Bonus Density ($/sf)

    30

    Priority Sending Sites

    Priority Sending Sites


    Working Draft Incentives:

    Lift the 0.25-mile restriction

    Eliminate the requirement for a


    common sketch plan

    Staff Recommendation for


    additional incentives:

    Remove the BLT requirement for


    priority sending site density

    Eliminate the 15 percent MPDU


    requirement for priority sending
    site density, and leave it at the
    mandatory 12.5 percent

    Remove Park Amenity Payment

    Priority Sending Sites


    additional incentives(not
    recommended):

    Reduce CR benefit points from 150


    to 100.

    Eliminate impact tax and TPAR

    Eliminate or reduce developmentrelated fees/charges

    Do not require that all


    development rights (on PSS) be
    extinguished before approval of
    any plan and that no surface
    parking lot be allowed on a PSS
    site

    Allow receiving site to exceed its


    mapped height when transferred
    from a PSS site

    Design Review Panel

    Design Review Advisory Panel


    Goals

    Achieve the highest quality design for the


    planned and built environment;
    Assist in resolving issues that arise in the
    regulatory process where urban design
    principles are in conflict with other county
    agency regulations by providing a review
    and discussion earlier in the process;
    Prioritize the allocation of the CR Public
    Benefit Points in the Commercial
    Residential Incentive Density
    Implementation Guidelines.

    Design Review Advisory Panel


    How it would
    work

    Semi-autonomous group, similar to the Public Art


    Review Panel, to give design input on projects at
    the Concept Plan and/or Sketch Plan through Site
    Plan stage

    Currently recommended for Optional Method


    projects in the CR zone at Concept Plan, required
    for property owners seeking additional density
    allocation through the BOZ

    Five-person group made up of three architects


    (Director, Senior Urban Designer), one developer,
    and one citizen.

    Meet once a month on an as-needed basis.

    Recommendations by the panel are forwarded to


    staff to assist in the review process, and are to be
    given great weight.

    Design Guidelines Discussion

    Imposing building
    massing and bulk

    Blank ground floor walls


    with poor relationship to
    the sidewalk

    2.6 Urban Design Goals


    2.6.1 Public Space Network
    A.

    Goal:

    Improve access to a variety of quality public spaces throughout Downtown Bethesda and links
    to adjacent areas.

    B.

    Goal:

    Enhance the primary links between Bethesdas established centers of activity and major
    transit nodes. Anchor these links with great urban green spaces.

    2.6.2 Urban Form


    A.

    Goal:

    Accommodate future growth in Downtown Bethesda by targeting building height increases in


    specific areas that support the Plan Vision and Concept Framework.

    B.

    Goal:

    Preserve scale and character of designated areas and ensure compatibility of new
    development with surrounding neighborhoods.

    2.6.3 Placemaking
    A.

    Goal:

    Encourage and accommodate opportunities for creative placemaking to activate Bethesdas


    streets and open spaces.

    2.6 Urban Design Goals


    2.6.1 Public Space Network
    A.

    Goal:

    Improve access to a variety of quality public spaces throughout Downtown Bethesda and links
    to adjacent areas.

    B.

    Goal:

    Enhance the primary links between Bethesdas established centers of activity and major
    transit nodes. Anchor these links with great urban green spaces.

    2.6.2 Urban Form


    A.

    Goal:

    Accommodate future growth in Downtown Bethesda by targeting building height increases in


    specific areas that support the Plan Vision and Concept Framework.

    B.

    Goal:

    Preserve scale and character of designated areas and ensure compatibility of new
    development with surrounding neighborhoods.

    C.

    Goal:

    Create a walkable environment where buildings frame a vibrant public realm and relate to the
    human scale. Limit the impacts of imposing building massing and bulk particularly in the
    design of tall buildings. Instead design buildings with sensitivity for their effect on access to
    sunlight and air, shadows and how they contribute to the character and visual identity of
    Downtown Bethesda.

    2.6.3 Placemaking
    A.

    Goal:

    Encourage and accommodate opportunities for creative placemaking to activate Bethesdas


    streets and open spaces.

    2.6.2 Building Form Recommendations

    2.6.2 Building Form Recommendations

    2.6.2 Building Form Recommendations


    Intent:

    With the increases to allowable


    building heights recommended for
    Downtown Bethesda and the
    flexibility to transfer and allocate
    additional density in the overlay
    zone, building form
    recommendations are critical to
    create clear expectations to guide
    the development review process.
    Tall Buildings should not be
    designed to appear as massive
    walls extruded directly from the
    property lines with subtle variation.
    Instead they should have a clearly
    differentiated base, middle and
    top, with substantial variation in
    the building massing, faade and
    materials to achieve the urban
    design goals of the Sector Plan.

    2.6.2 Building Form Recommendations

    2.6.2 Building Form Recommendations

    2.6.2 Building Form Recommendations

    2.6.2 Building Form Recommendations

    2.6.2 Building Form Recommendations

    2.6.2 Building Form Recommendations

    2.6.2 Building Form Recommendations

    2.6.2 Building Form Recommendations

    2.6.2 Building Form Recommendations

    2.6.2 Building Form Recommendations

    2.6.2 Building Form Recommendations


    + Innovation: Encourage
    innovative building form and
    allow flexibility for design that
    meets the intent of the
    recommendations

    + Variation: Vary
    tower heights, upper
    floor setbacks
    orientation and
    building materials

    Potential Development Wisconsin Avenue

    56

    Potential Development Wisconsin Avenue

    57

    2.6.2 Building Form Recommendations


    Intent:

    With the increases to


    allowable building heights
    recommended for Downtown
    Bethesda and the flexibility to
    transfer and allocate
    additional density in the
    overlay zone, building form
    recommendations are critical
    to create clear expectations to
    guide the development
    review process.
    Buildings should not be
    designed to appear as massive
    walls extruded directly from
    the property lines with subtle
    variation. Instead they should
    have a clearly differentiated
    base, middle and top, with
    substantial variation in the
    building massing, faade and
    materials to achieve the urban
    design goals of the Sector
    Plan.

    + Variation: Vary tower


    heights, setbacks, orientation,
    and building materials

    + Innovation:
    Encourage innovative
    building form and
    allow flexibility for
    design that meets the
    intent of the
    recommendations

    Outstanding Items

    1. Fire Station 6 zoning?


    Board previously recommended a floating zone
    with staff recommended density and height.
    2. Fire Station 6 park recommendation by Chevy Chase
    West Neighborhood?
    Provide language in the Plan similar to the
    Glenbrook Rd. site at Battery Lane Urban Park and
    add an asterisk to the map as potential open
    space.

    Work Session #14 Planning Board June 9, 2016

    You might also like