Big GDS news

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I checked out the Ward3Vision website.... They seem reasonable and have a good vision for the Ward.

So does this mean you like Mom, apple, and baseball or that you really believe that a part of Janney Elementary School's campus should have been devoted to luxury condos instead of educational facilities? W3V's rhetoric is uncontroversial (Tenleytown residents value urban living, want better retail, walk, bike, and take Metro frequently, etc. ) -- it's W3V's stance on specific projects (f*ck the neighborhood; developer's always right) that has produced the kind of animus you see here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I checked out the Ward3Vision website.... They seem reasonable and have a good vision for the Ward.

So does this mean you like Mom, apple, and baseball or that you really believe that a part of Janney Elementary School's campus should have been devoted to luxury condos instead of educational facilities? W3V's rhetoric is uncontroversial (Tenleytown residents value urban living, want better retail, walk, bike, and take Metro frequently, etc. ) -- it's W3V's stance on specific projects (f*ck the neighborhood; developer's always right) that has produced the kind of animus you see here.

or W3V's boast on a public list serv about its experience in "fighting neighbors."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone seeking a PUD would have done the leaseback if Safeway wanted it. It takes a couple years to get a project through the process and, unless he's planning to replace it, an abandoned grocery store is the last thing an applicant wants on-site during that process.

Does GDS actually have the $$ to rebuild its L/MS campus in Tenleytown at this point? Haven't seen any major gifts announced.

Have public hearings been schedule on this yet? I'm ok with the GDS campus plan but want to see their development scaled back to comply with the zoning law and the comp plan.

[Anonymous]

Given the choice between an empty lot and a dilapidated grocery store and some new retail and more residents, I will opt for the latter. The last thing I would want to see is another 10 protracted neighborhood fight where the area remains vacant. So yes, I will choose for more density if that is the trade off. The car traffic cited is already there is is more impacted by residents of Maryland commuting into DC than it is by more development on Wisconsin Avenue.

The bigger concern is Metro. If it is a functioning system, that will help the back-ups cited on Wisconsin Avenue more than anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given the choice between an empty lot and a dilapidated grocery store and some new retail and more residents, I will opt for the latter. The last thing I would want to see is another 10 protracted neighborhood fight where the area remains vacant. So yes, I will choose for more density if that is the trade off. The car traffic cited is already there is is more impacted by residents of Maryland commuting into DC than it is by more development on Wisconsin Avenue.

The bigger concern is Metro. If it is a functioning system, that will help the back-ups cited on Wisconsin Avenue more than anything else.

Just as long as it doesn't turn into another Cathedral Commons. That has turned out to be one dark, ugly, disappointing project.

[Anonymous]

People in multimillion dollar homes with big, empty yards complaining about condos being built atop a public library. Classic.

If you're so concerned about poor school facilities, donate your property to DCPS. That way we don't have to keep cramming kids into Janney and Murch.

[Anonymous]

Also Cathedral Commons is great. Baffling that in a neighborhood like that, it was so hard to get basics. And now it has great restaurants, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
or W3V's boast on a public list serv about its experience in "fighting neighbors."

Pics or it didn't happen. Didn't you say it was a reply-all last time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So, their strategy seems to be to mislead someone who doesn't know the zoning code or who isn't reading closely.

You mean the Zoning Commission? Perhaps because all the ladies on the commission are distracted by GDS's crack team of Casanovas. Because that's who they have to mislead.

The zoning map in the submission clearly shows how they want to transfer density that could be built tomorrow, from the Safeway site and GDS's existing school, to the parcel across Wisconsin, away from some houses. Yes, that does mean a taller building height. But that height was good enough for Tenley Hill!

I've been through another Planned Unit Development process. They're part of the zoning code. They allow for this kind of transfer. If it were illegal, GDS would not be proposing it.

I guess the test will be at the Zoning Commission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also Cathedral Commons is great. Baffling that in a neighborhood like that, it was so hard to get basics. And now it has great restaurants, too.

No interesting mom and pop independent restaurants, unfortunately. All corporate chains, but that seems to be standard in these "vibrant mixed use town center" concepts. And the architecture (if you can call plans purchased off the internet 'architecture') is ugly as shit. The quality looks like something that a developer would put up in a transitional area, not in one of the hottest real estate markets in Northwest DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, their strategy seems to be to mislead someone who doesn't know the zoning code or who isn't reading closely.

You mean the Zoning Commission? Perhaps because all the ladies on the commission are distracted by GDS's crack team of Casanovas. Because that's who they have to mislead.

The zoning map in the submission clearly shows how they want to transfer density that could be built tomorrow, from the Safeway site and GDS's existing school, to the parcel across Wisconsin, away from some houses. Yes, that does mean a taller building height. But that height was good enough for Tenley Hill!

I've been through another Planned Unit Development process. They're part of the zoning code. They allow for this kind of transfer. If it were illegal, GDS would not be proposing it.

I guess the test will be at the Zoning Commission.

That's, er, an academic argument. GDS does not want to develop its campus for commercial or residential use. It is spending millions of dollars to use nearly every square inch to add two and three story school buildings. So it's a bit much for GDS to claim it should be able to transfer the hypothetical zoning height limit of its campus to add greater height than what is allowed to another property. Zoning codes and comprehensive plans exist for a reason, and creating higher height exceptions based on a transfer of hypothetical development rights defeats their purpose. And what do you think GDS or a future buyer would do if GDS ever moved its campus? Well, seek to build higher on the Safeway site of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People in multimillion dollar homes with big, empty yards complaining about condos being built atop a public library. Classic.

If you're so concerned about poor school facilities, donate your property to DCPS. That way we don't have to keep cramming kids into Janney and Murch.

Thank God that DC wasn't able to complete a giveaway of space at the library AND a portion of the Janney playground so that a crony developer could build a condo tower. It also baffled me why that was necessary, other than that a favored crony saw a chance to get below market property from the city. There's plenty of developable land in Tenleytown without using public land to do so. Why, for example, has the Dominos pizza shack sat atop a surface parking lot all of these years? Or CVS continues to operate in the non-ADA compliant old Hechingers building.

[Anonymous]

The Northwest Current reports that even the Ward 3 Vision knob polishers on the ANC scoffed at GDS' proposed public "amenities" to justify additional height and density on the Wisconsin Avenue parcels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So, it is not fuzzy Ward 3 Vision math, but developers’ lawyer math.

The height of the building on Wisconsin Avenue definitely is taller than what is allowed by right. The matter of right limit for height along Wisconsin Avenue is 50 feet, and GDS is asking for a height of 80 feet. That is 60 percent higher than what can be built by right on the avenue.

The tabulation in the architectural drawings on page A02 doesn’t compare the proposed development “with the standards and requirements that would apply to a matter-of-right development under the zone district classification of the site at the time the application is filed” as they are supposed to, but instead compares their proposed development with the standards and requirements that would apply with the much higher zoning that they are requesting. So, their strategy seems to be to mislead someone who doesn't know the zoning code or who isn't reading closely.

You mean the Zoning Commission? Perhaps because all the ladies on the commission are distracted by GDS's crack team of Casanovas. Because that's who they have to mislead.

The zoning map in the submission clearly shows how they want to transfer density that could be built tomorrow, from the Safeway site and GDS's existing school, to the parcel across Wisconsin, away from some houses. Yes, that does mean a taller building height. But that height was good enough for Tenley Hill!

I've been through another Planned Unit Development process. They're part of the zoning code. They allow for this kind of transfer. If it were illegal, GDS would not be proposing it.

I guess the test will be at the Zoning Commission.

The height of Tenley Hill is 65 feet. GDS is asking for a height of 80 feet in the mixed use project. So if 65 feet is good enough for Tenley Hill, perhaps it is also good enough for the GDS project.

As to the transfer of density between the two sites for a PUD, there is no excess density on the school parcel to transfer to the mixed use parcel. If the calculation in the application is repeated using the actual zoning regulations for PUDs, the requested density of the school parcel is actually higher than allowed for a non-residential use for a PUD on that site.

Seems like GDS has some success in its strategy of trying to mislead the public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's plenty of developable land in Tenleytown without using public land to do so. Why, for example, has the Dominos pizza shack sat atop a surface parking lot all of these years?

Scrolls back through thread. Has sensible chuckle.