Did I miss something? I don't believe the council ever intended to vote yesterday.

Plan opponents are using scare tactics to suggest that the Konterra project would "set a bad precedent." Once the County Council approves the sector plan, all maximum heights are final. Konterra is not seeking a change to final figures; they are seeking to have the final figure set at a different number than is currently proposed. I'm surprised Councilmember Elrich doesn't acknowledge this distinction.

The Town has posted the following update on the straw vote which will be held on March 6th Time is short so if you have any have concerns please write to each County Council member immediately You can get more info on Konterra in the Patch article posted in this issue.

If you want a more information about concerns with the Sector Plan check out www.savekensington.com

"The Montgomery County Council will continue the Kensington Sector Plan discussion and take straw votes on Tuesday, March 6th at 9:50am at the County Council Office Building

100 Maryland Avenue, Rockville, MD 20850 – Council Hearing Room."

Here are the facts as I see them.
1. The developers like Mr. Dreyfuss and Mr. Alfandre who sit on the Planning Board saw no need for 75 feet in reference to the Konterra property. They unanimously voted against it. Mr. Dreyfuss suggested that all Konterra needed to do was put one level of parking underground in order to achieve their desired density. If they want to be good citizens of Kensington going forward, why don't they do that?
2. The other issue surfaced by the Planning Board was that of streetscape. They pointed out that in order to meet the design guidelines, Konterra should provide retail space on the first level and live up to the promises of a vibrant Kensington with shopping and restaurants for residents. The Town Revitalization Committee (Mr. Bartram, that would be you and your friends), seems willing to settle for a "clock tower" and a "water feature." What other trinkets will Mr. Gould offer the backwards natives?

I know we're just working from a "massing drawing," and not an actual plan, but wouldn't sinking the entire project one floor down result in the western side of the building actually being the second floor of the building? I thought people supported ground-level retail, activated at that side of the building. How can you have successful retail that is one level below that ground and one floor above the parking levels? Are you sure Mr. Dreyfuss and Alfandre are developers, because that seems to be a critical oversight spotted by a non-developer.

So, the retail would be a facade? Good one.

If Plan opponents succeed in their efforts to get the County to require ground-level retail, how will the County ensure that business in those locations succeed? Do those opponents prefer ground-level boarded-up stores over residences? Are plywood-covered windows your vision of Kensington? I would prefer the flexible first-floor layout described by the Planning Board head. If the market calls for residential, go residential. But, build that floor so that if a market for retail develops, it can be converted to retail.

Konterra is just wrong, in my opinion, but what I find astounding is the Town’s obsession with this issue given all their resolutions and the resulting acrimony within the Town. I think many residents are more concerned about traffic and parking. Where is all the energy to solve these problems? Why aren’t we talking about funding these improvements as a condition for development when we have the strongest political leverage? Do we need to wait until things are even more intolerable? I haven’t seen anything in the Plan that shows a site for municipal parking or funding in the budget for even modest road improvements? These are projects that will cost tens of millions of dollars. With our patch work of individual property owners, I don’t think we can expect the attention that other areas will get like the single owner/developers at Chevy Chase Lake and White Flint.

I think It is time to wise up and ask the County Council to address these problems before the Sector Plan is approved. If development is conditional on the infrastructure improvements, you can be sure the developers and property owners will be lobbying hard for the funding. Once the Sector Plan is approved, the County Council will move on and forget us Let’s stop the negotiating with Konterra and start negotiating with the County Council. Write to each and every council member if you are concerned.... and do it now !

MocoLoco - I'm not sure what you mean by "the market calls for residential." One of the primary goals of the KSP was to make Kensington walkable and vibrant for those who live in Kensington and the surrounding neighborhoods. It was to create a situation where residents didn't have to drive to Bethesda or Silver Spring in order to shop, dine etc. More residential without retail flies in the face of that.

Mocoloco,

Now Let me see if I have this straight.

!) Bulldoze places like Hardware City

2) So someone can build rental apartments with no retail on the ground

3) Suffer burden of added residents,...lower tax revenue, school, traffic, parking problems

4) In the hope to attract retail in the future to our Town that now has no commercial parking, gridlocked streets and over crowded schools etc. )

I suppose whenever this cycle is complete we can all hope for retail like Hardware City,?

If we need the advice of a professional, it would be for psychoanalysis? Can you concede the slightest possibility that we are being sold out to development interests and property owners? As for trust, I don't trust Rollin Stanley and I don't like Rollin Stanley esp since he has no compunction about changing my quality of life. Rollin Stanley should be fired ...at least it would be a good start to keep him out of Kensington.

MocoLoco, I have professional experience to say otherwise.
To answer your questions:

1. "Trust" is not the issue; currently commercial property development is residential, specifically apartments. This is so for two reasons: 1) The ability to borrow money to build is almost non-existant, 2) Apartments can be built because the transfer of rental developments are appraised differently for tax purposes than other types of commercial development, and therefore profitable.
2. & 3. Square-foot pricing is not driving the bus right now. Lenders are requiring 40% and more cash down, and they determine the risk. Also, developers won't spend money on retail when there is more (and quicker) money in residential. Until there is more liquidity in the market, we are not going to see much of anything.

The space that exists is like waterfront property; there is only a limited amount of it. If someone builds a residential building, and it is successful, it would be financially irresponsible to remodel it, and inconceivable to raze it. This is why we have zoning and land-use planning in the first place- to plan our community.

The problem with developing all residential is that it: a) destroys the town, b) residences are highly demanding of public services, that, despite the increased tax base, are a net negative for the county, c) overwhelms an already insufficient traffic system which has little chance of being funded in the next 5-7 years.

Stowe--what is your prediction: For a building that is mapped at CRT 2.0 C1.0 R1.5 H60, does a builder today build only residential, to a maximum density of 1.5, or does he add commercial so he gets maximum density of 2.0?

Unfortunately, I think for most developers the decision is going to be up to their lenders. Demand for housing down county is more reliable, and thus less risky, than retail, especially in this weak economy. Since the mapping allows residential buildout to 1.5FAR, commercial would only be added if the additional .5FAR allowed the developer to build out enough additional residential to offset the greater risk associated with the commercial market. The returns are more complicated, but the idea is the same. That's not to say that commercial would fail; all it means is that commercial is less profitable. Brinksmanship is par for the course with developers, so unless we audit their books, we're never going to know where the tipping point is. For me the bottom line is that Kensingtonians don't want residential buildout without retail/commercial, but that is exactly what Rollin really has in mind. You invested in Kensington too, but like the rest of us residents, you have no seat at the decision-making table. That is not the case in most well planned towns. All res. buildout will eventually put a ceiling on our property values, and as for refittable ground floors- pie in the sky. We'll have a new sector plan before that happens anywhere.

If you look at Wheaton, the first development out of the gate under the CR zone is to convert an office building to residential. The developer stated they do not need retail on the first floor although they are looking at some type of commercial space (offices?) in order to get their extra 0.5 FAR. According to MNCPPC, they can get the extra 0.5 FAR if they build the commercial space and if it is not rented for 3 years, they can convert that space to residential also. The CR zone, as currently written, does not appear to be a true "mixed-use" zone, it appears to be a "hope for mixed-use" zone. The developer's and the market will decide.

Ugh. Three years of vacant ground-level space? I no longer care about whether buidlings are 60' or 75' at their highest. I care whether plan opponents succeed in convincing the county council to change the plan in a way that will give us vacant, boarded-up space as street-scape.

Big Egg, Your right on point, Kensington is a product of a jumble of small individual properties with separate owners. Doesn't this speak to the need for zoning that better defines and delivers community needs ? Clearly we need to understand the dynamics of what the free market can and, more importantly, what the free market cannot be expected to do. I think Chevy Chase Lake and White Flint are unique in that there is a single property owner and developer. We don't have that and so zoning and plan review/oversight would seem like the only tools we have. If not , then who, is ensuring this comes together and our near term and long term problems are addressed? I won't put my trust in promises, wishful thinking, politicians or a political planning process.

Big Egg, I was referring to the scores of small towns near urban centers which have developed very well under strict zoning. I think you would be very surprised at the level of specificity required by such plans. As Fred Boyd pointed out, there simply isn't a lot of square footage in Kensington, even at maximum buildout. What he didn't tell you is that because of that, Kensington developments that are not assembled are likely to be marginal- nothing beyond the basic requirements. The buildings will likely be Marriott Courtyard-like designs.

By the way, can you support your statement that assemblage is "pie in the sky" with facts? I can support my contention that it is commonplace.

Your statements also seem to lack a logical structure. You have jumped from a proposition Rollin made while defending his plan, to the assurance that any commercial development in Kensington will inevitably result in boarded-up windows; an utter fallacy. As I explained, the fact that residential is more profitable to build has very little, if any, bearing on the viability of commercial; it only speaks to comparative profitability, not viability. The SP is predicated on this economy talk about short-sighted.

I would hope that you are speaking from a position of knowledge when making such sweeping and vitriolic statements; you certainly are not speaking from kindness. Persons such as yourself only exacerbate the polarization of an issue in which we all have a common goal.

Big Egg,

I'm sorry you feel that way. If you want to fault me for what I write or how I write that's fine but I know we all want to make Kensington the best it can be.

The fallacies big egg, the fallacies. An ad hominem in the second sentence, wow. Your idealization of the free market leads me to believe that you don't know how it was suppose to work, or the context of it's creation. You seem unwilling to acknowledge that there are competing public policy principles in land use. Your contributions have not added to this discussion, but denigrated it. To review:

1). Asserted Mr. Dreyfuss and Mr. Alfondre, of the Planning Board, don't know the difference between above grade and below grade. (whereas you caught a fatal flaw overlooked by everyone)
2) Made a joke of jivan17's polite reference to the facts. (you don't seem to care about facts)
3) Stated I am both far-fetched and short-sighted. (making you...?)
4) Stated you don't care about building heights, but rather want to prevent improvements to the SP. (ie., you're ok with Marc=Metro)
5) Argued Steve is a hypocrite for caring about how our town develops (a deductive determination, which is not your strong suit)

Making personal attacks while obscuring your own identity is a special kind of cowardice. Shall we conclude these statements are a merely the temper tantrum they appear to be, or will you come out from hiding and show some courage in your convictions? If not, which is almost a certainty, I suggest you refrain fom sticking your obfuscated finger in the eyes of people having serious discussions. Your statments are inappropriate, impolite, immaterial, and uninformed.

Darin, I think you are right on both counts. Assemblage is complicated, and takes time. My hope regarding the Village Center is that the creation of value, and hence profit, through assemblage will make those difficulties worthwhile. The location is, in my opinion, ideal, given what we have to work with. I wish the plan encouraged retail to a greater degree in this location.

I also agree that retail is not only viable, but would likely be very successful, which is why I see no problem with mandating retail on the first floor. Retail/commercial the raison d'etre for the SP and the addition of residential; it seems crazy to preemptively undermine its importance the way Rollin did.

As a matter of practice, developers are going to pursue greater latitude, with respect to regulations, than is proposed, regardless of what is proposed. It's a business, and I think the villainification of developers is largely a reaction to the fact that their work can intrude into a very personal sphere of our lives, altering it permanently. In its original meaning, "homestead" defined, in large part, this sphere, although I wish I knew of a better word to define it.

Big Egg, you have used the phrase "boarded-up windows" several times now to refer to the result of mandating first floor retail. If you really find "vacant ground level space" to be inevitable, you should be a staunch opponent of the KSP. After all, the Plan was originally created and sold to the residents as a way to add vibrancy and walkability to Kensington and obviate the need to drive to Bethesda or Silver Spring in order to have a stroll, shop and have a meal. If you truly believe that the only economically viable development is apartments, then the Plan isn't for you. Further, when you speak of economic viability, you're only talking about the developers. For the county, and thus for us taxpayers, apartments are revenue-negative because of the services required by apartment dwellers.

Darin, you speak of projects that are "raring to go" once the Plan is approved. If that's the case, then why all the hand-wringing about making a few common sense demands of Konterra?

Finally, on a related subject which I believe we must discuss, it behooves everyone to become familiar with exactly what a charrette process is. We must press for one that is fully professionalized and transparent, not one that is managed by the Town Revitalization Committee in order to ensure that all constituencies are fairly represented.

I don't think you're reading the comments very carefully if you think that's what I said. And, your snide comments about the town revitalization committee have no purpose here. We do the best job we can, and if you're so concerned about transparency, then you should focus on the plan critics (ASK, Kensington Committee, Save Kensington, etc.), who haven't held an open/public meeting to date, but instead have some amorphous process for deciding what positions it decides to press for. Why do plan critics have to keep reconstituting themselves?

I was a member of ASK, and am a member of the Revitalization Committee, and I believe there is more overlap than either "side" is really knows. Unfortunately, the history of this debate sets the current tone. When I ran for Town Council, discussions of the SP had to do with a candidate's position alone, without regard for qualifications, and even with that, candidates were characterized as either "for" or "against"; moderate views were eschewed. Anyone wishing to redress the failings of the SP was met with (often vitriolic) condemnation by all but one member of the Town government. Similarly, but in my opinion less forcefully, those wanting to take more time with the SP considered proponents to be obtuse or corrupt. In my opinion, this polarization has lessened to a degree, but greater toleration of opposing views is something that would benefit us all.

What Diana, Miche, and I proposed to the Revitalization Committee was a binding charrette, run according to the rules of the National Charrette Institute. Miche Booz has a proven record as an award-winning architect, specifically with preservation and adaptive reuse projects, and is certified by the NCI to run charrettes. Obviously the Town Council could not stand as judges, but unbiased judges with the requisite expertise could be found, or better yet, a referendum on the charrette could be held. Unfortunately, I do not believe Konterra is ernest about wanting to improve the town.

Stowe thanks for enlightening us about Miche's qualifications. Clearly, an NCI-style charrette is what is called for. Darin, nothing snide. Just that the Revitalization Committee represents one point of view and that's not how charrettes work. They are intended be impartial and inclusive and reflect a spectrum of community viewpoints. If you haven't already, I suggest you visit the NCI website and see what it's all about. Konterra has deep pockets, they can afford the rigor necessary to get buy-in across the community. By the way, here's your quote from Friday, March 2 verbatim, "we are not hearing about projects that are raring to go once the sector plan is approved. " How did I mis-quote you? What are these projects and why, in heaven's name, are we so worried about what Konterra wants if we have a line-up of other projects? Are these developers in fact, waiting to see if pressure from Konterra causes us to break the rules the first chance we get? Are they waiting to see if Caleb Gould's scare tactics work so that they can behave similarly?

Darin, I did misread your comment now that you've explained it. I'm glad to hear you are backing a robust charrette process. The only word I would add to that is "professional." This isn't for the do-it-yourselfers. And again, with Konterra paying, we can afford to have the best, most skilled impartial mediation to help us manage something so important to the future of Kensington.

The County Council has adopted language that I think can result in a very successful project. Now the question is whether or not we can come together around a truly representative, professionally executed process. The challenge is to structure this process so that it is unbiased yet representative.