Whither Woodmont?

By Ira Apfel

Bethesda’s Woodmont Triangle section is slated for redevelopment. Can the small, local businesses—and the area’s character—survive?

Tracy Callahan may sell flowers for a living, but his prized possession isn’t for sale. Callahan, president of Bethesda Florist, owns the property where his store is located at 4934 St. Elmo Ave. in the Woodmont Triangle section of Bethesda. “Not a two-week period goes by that someone makes me an all-cash offer on my building,” says Callahan. “But I’m not leaving.”

Callahan is a popular man these days because Woodmont Triangle—bounded by Wisconsin Avenue to the east, Old Georgetown Road to the south and west and Battery Lane to the north, will soon be the scene of redevelopment on a grand scale. Possibly as early as September, the Montgomery County Council is expected to vote in favor of rezoning the Woodmont Triangle area, kicking off a frenzy of redevelopment. Developers, spurred by seemingly insatiable demand for luxury condos, office space, retail stores and restaurants, have coveted the area for years. Callahan and other landowners in Woodmont Triangle stand to benefit substantially.

Few would deny that Woodmont Triangle needs a facelift. Parts of the area are run-down and much of it feels tired, especially compared to Bethesda South (the Barnes & Noble area), which was redeveloped in the last 10 years and is now vibrant and bustling. The challenge facing planners—and the issue worrying business owners and residents—is whether it’s possible to redevelop Woodmont Triangle without forcing out the scores of small, family businesses that give the area its unique, small-town ambience. Some longtime shopkeepers have already felt the leading edge of the redevelopment storm. Scopin Brothers, an upholstery repair shop that opened in 1924 and is Woodmont Triangle’s oldest store, will close by the end of September. Joe Scopin, 81, a lifelong Woodmont Triangle resident who took over the business from his father, says his relatives wanted to cash in on the property’s value and sold to developers—reportedly for $2.6 million. “I wanted to stay, but my relatives wanted to sell,” says Scopin.

Raising the roof
Robert Callahan, Tracy’s father, opened Bethesda Florist in 1959 at 7816 Old Georgetown Road. Tracy moved the business to its current location in 1982. Neither father nor son could have known that relocating just around the corner would be such a sound business decision. “The only way I would sell is if the developers would build above my store and leave the store where it is,” says Callahan. “This is the one of the busiest streets in the Triangle.”

Many Woodmont Triangle business owners who don’t own the real estate where their businesses are located are less satisfied than Callahan. They say they started losing business shortly after the Barnes & Noble side of Bethesda was redeveloped in the late 1990s. “We lost maybe 5 [percent] to 10 percent of our business,” says Eugene Robinson, owner of Volare restaurant on St. Elmo Avenue for 14 years.

Woodmont Triangle business owners asked the County Council for help, and in 2003 the council asked the Montgomery County Park and Planning Commission to amend the zoning rules for Woodmont Triangle. In December 2004, Park and Planning released a proposal that would make it easier for developers to work in Woodmont Triangle while adhering to the county mandate to create new housing, shops, offices and parking around Metro stops—in this case, the Bethesda and Medical Center stations.

Highlights of the Park and Planning proposal include:

• More high-rise buildings containing housing, office space, ground-floor retail space and underground parking. Buildings would be tallest by the Bethesda Metro and gradually “step down” as they reach the boundaries of Woodmont Triangle.
• A main street. Norfolk Avenue would become the “spine” of Woodmont Triangle. To make the street more pedestrian-friendly, telephone and electricity wires would be buried, while new lighting, trees, benches, outdoor restaurant seating and a bike path would be added.
• More development along Battery Lane. The Battery Lane section of Bethesda, which abuts Woodmont Triangle to the north, would be rezoned to encourage more development. Two new streets would connect Battery Lane to Rugby Avenue.

Developers already have proposed at least 15 building projects pending the amendment’s approval—everything from high-rise condos to hotels. A July 2004 list of proposed concepts in the Woodmont Triangle includes:

• The Four Points by Sheraton hotel at 8400 Wisconsin Ave. This site has several applicants who want to redevelop the property for residential living.
• An unspecified project at 8218 Wisconsin Ave., currently the Bethesda Medical Building.
• A residential project at the site of the American Inn on Wisconsin Avenue.
• Another hotel/residential project a block south of the American Inn.
• A project at Woodmont and Norfolk proposed by Kevin Maloney.
• A residential project at Cordell and Norfolk.
• An unspecified project at 4900 Battery Lane.
• An unspecified project at North Battery Lane diagonally across the street from 4900 Battery.
• Two unspecified projects on Fairmont Avenue between Old Georgetown and Norfolk.
• An unspecified project at Old Georgetown and Fairmont.
• A residential project, Palisades West, behind the Palisades apartment building on Cordell.
• An “arts incubator” space at Rugby and Norfolk.
• A residential building at Norfolk between Del Ray and Cordell.
• Unspecified St. Elmo projects between Old Georgetown and Norfolk.
  

At the center of the Park and Planning proposal are changes to a zoning regulation called the “Optional Method,” which allows developers to build denser and higher buildings in exchange for providing “public amenities,” such as parks. Developers say the regulation, which requires that a property be at least 22,000 square feet to qualify for the Optional Method, has slowed redevelopment of Woodmont Triangle, even though there has been a development master plan in place for some 10 years. That’s because the lots in Woodmont Triangle are small—generally 2,500 to 6,000 square feet—and developers would have to acquire many contiguous properties to reach the 22,000 square foot threshold. “On the other side of Bethesda you had one real estate owner [Federal Realty], but on this side there’s such fractured ownership that it’s going to be hard to accumulate significant amounts of property and qualify for the Optional Method,” says Kevin Maloney, president of Maloney & Associates, a commercial real estate firm, and chairman of the Bethesda-Chevy Chase Chamber of Commerce Woodmont Triangle Committee.

Developers are pleased that the Woodmont Triangle proposal being considered by the council would lower the Optional Method threshold to 18,000 square feet, but they want it lowered even further. In a public comment to an earlier version of the proposal, Greenhill Capital Corp., a real estate developer located in the Woodmont Triangle, wanted the square-footage minimum and height restrictions removed entirely. Over the past 15 years Greenhill has accumulated some 400,000 square feet of property in Woodmont Triangle, according to CEO Leonard Greenberg. Greenhill, which developed the Edgemoor condominiums and other properties around Bethesda, owns most of the block bounded by Cordell and St. Elmo and 20,000 square feet at the corner of Fairmont and Norfolk. Greenhill has proposed a 300,000-square-foot mixed-use project at the former site and a 100,000-square-foot mixed-use project at the latter. “Our goal is to have highly functional, residential-retail projects on both sites,” says Greenberg. “We’d like them to be higher and denser but the county embraces mediocrity.”

Marilyn Clemens, Park and Planning’s lead planner on the Woodmont Triangle proposal, says anything below 18,000 wouldn’t make sense. “In the Optional Method you must set aside 20 percent of the area of your property for public amenities; the smaller the lot size, the less significant the public amenity,” she explains. “Look at Veterans Park (at the corner of Woodmont and Norfolk avenues). That’s a 5,000-square-foot public amenity, including sidewalks. Anything below that is pretty small. With 20 percent of 18,000 square feet, you still have some critical mass.”

Alternative amenities approach
Few residents have complained about the proposal because Woodmont Triangle has so few residents. Even so, nearby neighborhood associations are closely following the redevelopment process. They fear that more development will lead to more vehicles and traffic and a loss of character.

Park and Planning has tried to address their concerns. The East Bethesda Citizens Association (EBCA) wanted Norfolk Avenue to have a greater setback to make it more pedestrian friendly, says Jack Hayes, association president, and Park and Planning incorporated their suggestions. When developers wanted the Optional Method threshold lowered from 22,000 square feet to 12,000, EBCA supported Park and Planning’s 18,000-square-foot compromise. “I’m cautiously optimistic,” says Hayes. “I don’t think the council will try to railroad us. Park and Planning made a valid effort to look at the situation.”

What EBCA and other neighborhood associations really want is to change the way public amenities are handled. Instead of having each developer provide small-scale amenities for their own projects, these groups want developers to make tax-deductible contributions to a Downtown Bethesda Amenity Fund, which, in turn, would finance larger public-space projects. The Amenity Fund is the idea of Carol Trawick, chairman of Bethesda Urban Partnership, which would administer the fund. “Some of the original public amenities that were created by the Optional Method when downtown Bethesda was redeveloped 20 years ago didn’t work, like the skating rink at Metro Center and the ‘hubcap project’” public sculpture next to the skating rink, says Trawick. “Here we are in 2005 and we have an opportunity with the Woodmont Triangle amendment to take what’s best from the urban centers of old and mold it and make it a new downtown Bethesda.” Amenity Fund advocates have a bold wish list, including a park snaking from NIH to Bethesda West, an arts incubator building on Norfolk Avenue and a performance space in Battery Park.

Trawick knows the County Council would have to approve the Amenity Fund and allow Bethesda Urban Partnership to administer it. Park and Planning’s Clemens sounded wary of letting anyone but the county oversee the placement of public amenities. “We can guarantee that the public will get its amenities” through the Optional Method, she says. “We don’t want to let go of that leverage. The Amenity Fund would be for a variety of projects, while we just want to make sure that specific projects are created.” Other concerned citizens are less pleased with the Woodmont Triangle proposal. Bethesda resident Jim Humphrey, who lives near Bethesda West, believes new residents will add more children to already overcrowded schools and more vehicles to clogged roads.

“They’re playing a guessing game in this county,” Humphrey says. “They take a look at the capital improvements program budget for the next four years and base development on a guess of what road improvements will be needed in four years. But that doesn’t mean there will be money for it four years from now even though the project was approved.”

Mier Wolf, who has served on the Town of Chevy Chase City Council for 21 years, fears overcrowding as well. “I realize that there may have been some adjustments made but we’re still concerned that the density proposed for the area is too high,” he says. “If density is too high it’ll change the character of that area and make traffic density too high. The proposal needs a more innovative concept to make the area livelier but stay within human scale.”

Can the character be preserved?
How Woodmont Triangle store owners think about the proposal depends on whether they rent or own their property. Michael Belisle and Elyse Harrison are married and rent spaces in Woodmont Triangle, he as the owner of an architectural firm, she as the owner of Gallery Neptune. Harrison says she is “marginally worried” that her landlord will sell out to developers, but notes that his office is located on the property and doesn’t think he wants to move. Belisle, on other hand, is so bullish on Woodmont Triangle that he is in the process of buying the building from his landlord.

As business owners, Belisle and Harrison see the need for redevelopment. As area residents with a pronounced creative streak, they worry that a gentrified Woodmont Triangle will usher in a parade of national chain stores. “I absolutely love working in Woodmont Triangle,” says Belisle. “Not a whole lot of other communities have the mix we have here.” But Harrison concedes, “If I were a developer I would be patiently trying to add properties and trying to add to the area.”

Harrison likes what she sees in some of the development projects included in the proposal. “Some of them would cut through the middle of the block to create smaller alleyways. That would create more foot traffic and less car traffic. They’d be perfect for small boutiques,” she says.

Ralph Bennett, a professor of architecture at the University of Maryland and a Silver Spring resident, calls the Woodmont Triangle proposal a positive and necessary step. “You can oppose gravity but it won’t do you any good,” says Bennett of those who are against redeveloping Woodmont Triangle. “People will develop property. That’s just the way it is.”

Bennett, a principal in Bennett Frank McCarthy Architects in Takoma Park, says he is not worried about overcrowding in Woodmont Triangle. Bennett performed a study of 25 recent residential development projects in Montgomery County and found that the number of units on average fell by half after the county zoning laws were applied to the proposals. “That’ll likely be true in Woodmont Triangle, too,” he predicts. “By the time you take these development negotiations, the yield reduces dramatically.”

Bennett also says that he believes that not all development in Woodmont Triangle needs to be on a large scale. “The rest of Bethesda has been assembled in large parcels,” he says. “Because of the fragmented ownership in the Woodmont Triangle, you can have smaller buildings that are denser.”

Nobody has a solution about the mom-and-pop businesses that will be displaced or hurt by construction. PR & Partners hair salon permanently closed its doors at Woodmont Corner after development on that site started. Olsson’s Books & Records will close its site at Woodmont Corner by the end of the year and has no plans to relocate. And Jeff Black, whose restaurant is down the block from Woodmont Corner, says construction has hurt lunch business so much that he plans to stop serving lunch until the project finishes.
A business with deep pockets, such as national brand Ben & Jerry’s, which operates a location on Fairmont Avenue, can survive an extended relocation. Many independent businesses lack such resources. “This is a big problem,” concedes Park and Planning’s Clemens.

Many local business owners are optimistic that they won’t be displaced. “I have right of first refusal,” says Jason Tepper, owner of La Miche restaurant. “And the three owners of my properties that I rent aren’t inclined to sell.”

The Woodmont Triangle proposal includes a “transfer density” clause that lets the county transfer the square footage from one building to another site near the development so businesses can temporarily move. “Transfer density” helped preserve some local businesses in the Silver Spring business district while it underwent massive redevelopment, and the county did find a temporary home for Joy of Motion, the dance studio that was displaced during the Woodmont Corner redevelopment. “The mere fact that Park and Planning has spent so much energy on finding these businesses new locations is good sign,” says business-owner Belisle. Jeff Black adds that the county provided parking spaces for the valet service that he started after the municipal parking lot next to his restaurant closed last year for construction.

Legal action an option
There is always the “nuclear option” that redevelopment opponents can use: lawsuits. The Arlington East development in Bethesda West has been held up for years by litigation filed by community activists, including Bethesda resident Humphrey, who dispute the projected height of the development.

Humphrey says it is “way too soon” for legal action. He points out that lawsuits over building development usually aren’t filed until after zoning is approved and developers make specific proposals.

Others are growing more fearful. “I didn’t think there would be legal action, at first, but it’s starting to sound like people are getting concerned,” says Larry Gandal, vice president of of Aldon Management, which owns most of the rental residences along Battery Lane. “Most of the people who are activists I would think would want people to use the Metro and walk. If you don’t have in-fill development you’ll have even more sprawl in Montgomery County.”

Meanwhile, Callahan of Bethesda Florist is in for the long haul. He’s just not so sure about his Woodmont Triangle neighbors. “Most mom-and-pop businesses in Woodmont Triangle will be forced to move within five years,” he says. “The Triangle will be restaurants, nightclubs and national chain stores.”

And when will construction in the Woodmont Triangle end? Assuming the Montgomery County Council approves the zoning amendment this fall, Bennett says there won’t be see any construction for a year or two while developers vie for land and county approval of their projects. “It’ll take a decade for things to be completed,” he says.

Writer Ira Apfel lives in Bethesda with his wife and two daughters.