Big GDS news

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Or, reasonable people think this is generally a good proposal and the people opposing it are the fringe.

My guess is that once GDS lops one or two stories off their towers it will sail through.

That was the giveaway. They need to lower the buildings to be more consistent with zoning and the Comprehensive Plan. Otherwise, the development will continue to have problems and could delay the campus build-out.

Has GDS presented what a matter of right solution would be for the parcels?

[Anonymous]

You mean 40 foot houses and five story buildings in the commercial zones? Can the community choose? Because I choose that.

[Anonymous]

What is the status of the GDS proposal?

Is there any further opportunity for citizens to share their thinking with decision-makers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the status of the GDS proposal?

Is there any further opportunity for citizens to share their thinking with decision-makers?

Testify.

Or start a personal relationship with the chair of the BZA.

[Anonymous]

ZC, Not BZA, will be the decisionmakers. No opportunity for public input there until after they've set a public hearing date for the PUD.

[Anonymous]

Ohhhhhhh, that's the relationship PPs keep hinting at creepily. It didn't even occur to me, since it's completely irrelevant to the case.

I mean I get that people don't know who reviews PUDs. I didn't know about the BZA until I bought a house. But opponents act like they sleep with the comprehensive plan under their pillows, and push on it, and it's a joke.

Too bad the ANC wasted its time on nonsense like this instead of getting some goddamn amenities.

[Anonymous]

I was at the last ANC meeting and there was no discussion of the relationship between the GDS consultant and a BZA member. Four of five commissioners supported a call on GDS to build more than the minimum required affordable housing. The fifth commissioner a longtime member of Ward Three Vision yelled that the commission had gone crazy by asking for more affordable housing and a few larger units.

Anonymous wrote:Ohhhhhhh, that's the relationship PPs keep hinting at creepily. It didn't even occur to me, since it's completely irrelevant to the case.

I mean I get that people don't know who reviews PUDs. I didn't know about the BZA until I bought a house. But opponents act like they sleep with the comprehensive plan under their pillows, and push on it, and it's a joke.

Too bad the ANC wasted its time on nonsense like this instead of getting some goddamn amenities.

[Anonymous]

Hmmm, that is not how I read the conversation, as much as you can call it that. While it is noble to suggest there should be more affordable housing, I don't think you can foist that on GDS once they were pressured to reduce the overall density. Increase the density and tie it to more affordable housing and that might work economically. However, you can lose the density and increase affordable housing without a way of paying for it.

And I think the one commissioner noted was questioning the role of the ANC letter because it wasn't based on any facts, but rather presumptions by the authors. That is why it was withdrawn and not voted upon. Clearly if the Chair and author had the votes, they would have pushed it through. They didn't.

[Anonymous]

We must have been at different meetings because I heard four commissioners say they supported the extra affordable housing but a couple saying that they wanted to try to get the Ward Three Vision commissioner on board so it would be unanimous. Did anybody videotape the meeting like last time GDS was there?

Anonymous wrote:Hmmm, that is not how I read the conversation, as much as you can call it that. While it is noble to suggest there should be more affordable housing, I don't think you can foist that on GDS once they were pressured to reduce the overall density. Increase the density and tie it to more affordable housing and that might work economically. However, you can lose the density and increase affordable housing without a way of paying for it.

And I think the one commissioner noted was questioning the role of the ANC letter because it wasn't based on any facts, but rather presumptions by the authors. That is why it was withdrawn and not voted upon. Clearly if the Chair and author had the votes, they would have pushed it through. They didn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hmmm, that is not how I read the conversation, as much as you can call it that. While it is noble to suggest there should be more affordable housing, I don't think you can foist that on GDS once they were pressured to reduce the overall density. Increase the density and tie it to more affordable housing and that might work economically. However, you can lose the density and increase affordable housing without a way of paying for it.

And I think the one commissioner noted was questioning the role of the ANC letter because it wasn't based on any facts, but rather presumptions by the authors. That is why it was withdrawn and not voted upon. Clearly if the Chair and author had the votes, they would have pushed it through. They didn't.

More affordable housing than the bare minimum required by DC law can and should be one of the "amenities" in the project, in exchange for the extra density and relief from zoning regs that GDS is seeking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We must have been at different meetings because I heard four commissioners say they supported the extra affordable housing but a couple saying that they wanted to try to get the Ward Three Vision commissioner on board so it would be unanimous. Did anybody videotape the meeting like last time GDS was there?

Anonymous wrote:Hmmm, that is not how I read the conversation, as much as you can call it that. While it is noble to suggest there should be more affordable housing, I don't think you can foist that on GDS once they were pressured to reduce the overall density. Increase the density and tie it to more affordable housing and that might work economically. However, you can lose the density and increase affordable housing without a way of paying for it.

And I think the one commissioner noted was questioning the role of the ANC letter because it wasn't based on any facts, but rather presumptions by the authors. That is why it was withdrawn and not voted upon. Clearly if the Chair and author had the votes, they would have pushed it through. They didn't.

The "Ward 3 Vision commissioner" will vote whichever way the developer-applicant wants him to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ohhhhhhh, that's the relationship PPs keep hinting at creepily. It didn't even occur to me, since it's completely irrelevant to the case.

I mean I get that people don't know who reviews PUDs. I didn't know about the BZA until I bought a house. But opponents act like they sleep with the comprehensive plan under their pillows, and push on it, and it's a joke.

Too bad the ANC wasted its time on nonsense like this instead of getting some goddamn amenities.

But not so irrelevant to the crony consultant.

[Anonymous]

But GDS doesn't get more density on the site. The matter of right project on the GDS sites would be shorter, but denser. Have you read the PUD?

What I saw at the meeting was one amenity, which nobody had ever really discussed, and not opponent had ever asked for. the chair get extremely defensive when people questioned his particular number. The times I've come before the ANC, he's seemed reasonable, but maybe this project is getting to him.

Opponents seem to want a smaller building with a higher percentage of affordable units. That could end up being fewer units overall. It doesn't make any sense.

[Anonymous]

I think that was my understanding as well. To get the same density under a matter of right plan would be a much worse streetscape and retail space than the PUD proposal.

[Anonymous]

You're so cute coming in here with facts.