Big GDS news

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You mean the Zoning Commission? Perhaps because all the ladies on the commission are distracted by GDS's crack team of Casanovas.

I guess we need to start calling them the Team of Assets.

Most likely, maybe Ward 3 Vision has a whole stable of strapping youths being trained in the ancient art of seduction on their secluded retreat in the Hamptons. I can see the movie now!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The height of Tenley Hill is 65 feet.

Now, talk about academic. The only way that building is 65 feet is because of the city's funky front-side switch rule, dreamed up by those sneaky real estate lawyers.

It's most definitely not 65 feet along Wisconsin Ave. But quite pleasant!

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 <b>non-residential use</b> for a PUD on that site.

So you're saying it's less dense than what could be built there with apartment buildings and houses. Sounds like the big problem is all these houses nearby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The height of Tenley Hill is 65 feet.

Now, talk about academic. The only way that building is 65 feet is because of the city's funky front-side switch rule, dreamed up by those sneaky real estate lawyers.

It's most definitely not 65 feet along Wisconsin Ave. But quite pleasant!

GDS is also measuring its zoning height from the higher side of the lot. According to GDS, the height of the proposed buildings, measured from 42nd Street, is 95 feet 9 inches for the south building and 87 feet 3 inches for the north building (with the zoning height for both being 80 feet), although the GDS zoning submission shows a height of 93 feet at the north end of the north building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

So you're saying it's less dense than what could be built there with apartment buildings and houses. Sounds like the big problem is all these houses nearby.

I am saying that there is no density to be transferred from the school parcel to the mixed use parcel, since the high school and proposed lower school buildings have about 20,00 more square feet of development than would be allowed on those lots with a PUD.

If, instead, GDS was proposing to replace its current high school and Safeway site with a matter of right development, there could be no more than 24 semi-detached single family homes (probably much less after space is allowed for access roads) and an apartment building where the Safeway building and WMATA plant is now located. That apartment building could be about 220,000 square feet and no more than 50 feet in height. A private school is not a matter of right use in that zone.

[Anonymous]

When you add the height "transferred" from the commercial lot that GDS will build the school on to the mixed-use, and add the height of the new school building on the commercial lot, is it the same or less than matter of right for the two lots? I think not.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When you add the height "transferred" from the commercial lot that GDS will build the school on to the mixed-use, and add the height of the new school building on the commercial lot, is it the same or less than matter of right for the two lots? I think not.

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.

Correcting my 2:57 post: The high school and proposed lower school buildings have over 42,000 more square feet of non-residential development than would be allowed on those lots with a PUD. This is more than 16% more than would be allowed with a PUD on that school parcel.

If you consider the residential square footage that is not being used on the school site (about 30,000 square feet, considering that the project is already over 42,000 square feet larger than allowed for a non-residential PUD), and compare that with the excess density that they are requesting for the mixed use site, nearly 155,000 square feet, it is clear that the story they tell in their application doesn’t hold water.

The mixed use site will have well over twice the density (and a substantially more height) than is allowed with a PUD on that site without changing the zoning. The maximum square footage for a PUD in the existing zone is three times the land area. The proposal is for a building with a square footage that is 6.77 times the land area, i.e., well over twice the amount that would be allowed with a PUD.

The request is certainly more than what is allowed for a PUD without changing the zoning, and certainly more intense development than a matter of right project: replacing the GDS high school and Safeway and WMATA sites with fewer than 24 single-family semi-detached houses and a 50-foot tall mixed use building replacing Safeway along with a mixed use building on Wisconsin Avenue that is less than half the size that GDS is proposing.

[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.

^^^ millennial who lives in a condo / apt in someplace like Shaw (or bleh rowhouse in Petworth) who is trying to get kid into Eaton while keeping his street cred in the Craft Beer Zone of DC (basically, the green line)

tip: our yards aren't empty. they're full of kids and kids' crap and our gardens and patios where we sit and drink

[Anonymous]

Northwest current story laying out the details of the issue

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

^^^ millennial who lives in a condo / apt in someplace like Shaw (or bleh rowhouse in Petworth) who is trying to get kid into Eaton while keeping his street cred in the Craft Beer Zone of DC (basically, the green line)

tip: our yards aren't empty. they're full of kids and kids' crap and our gardens and patios where we sit and drink

Based on your confusing writing, we believe you!

[Anonymous]

Some might say that GDS' enhanced presence, which is to be funded by the PUD, is the principal amenity for the community. Without GDS' reputation, what would Tenleytown be known for, other than TV towers and mattress marts?

[Anonymous]

Fast food.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Northwest current story laying out the details of the issue

Thanks for pointing to the Current’s article this week. It was an interesting read. Also interesting that the ANC chair (and I think he is a lawyer) doesn’t seem to have a working knowledge of regulations for planned unit developments.

The Current quotes him as saying: "The law permits explicitly that if the benefits are great enough and the harms are significantly mitigated this is permissible." He seems to view this as a regulation that allows for “pay to play,” provided they claim that they have mitigated some of the harms.

In fact, in order to approve a proposal, the Zoning Commission must find that the proposal is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In this case, GDS is proposing a high-density project on a site which the Comprehensive Plan designates for low or moderate density development. It is inconsistent with the Comprehensive plan.

If the Zoning Commission follows its regulations, they will not schedule a hearing unless the scale of the project is reduced significantly. They won’t begin to evaluate the benefits until they have a proposal with a much lower scale, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, although with heights and densities might exceed that allowed as a matter of right, bringing in the need to evaluate their mitigation measures and benefits.

[Anonymous]

The Zoning Commission will not only schedule the hearing but they will grant what GDS is seeking. It isn't inconsistent with what most reasonable people would think is appropriate on Wisconsin Avenue.

You people who are hankering for a fight on this are completely unreasonable.

[Anonymous]

That's a reasonable summary of the PUD standard, actually. A project does need to be "not inconsistent" with the comprehensive plan, but the plan consists of numerous elements. Do you contend that no project GDS can propose at the height and density it is asking for can be not inconsistent with the plan? If so, to what law and precedent do you cite?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Northwest current story laying out the details of the issue

Thanks for pointing to the Current’s article this week. It was an interesting read. Also interesting that the ANC chair (and I think he is a lawyer) doesn’t seem to have a working knowledge of regulations for planned unit developments.

The Current quotes him as saying: "The law permits explicitly that if the benefits are great enough and the harms are significantly mitigated this is permissible." He seems to view this as a regulation that allows for “pay to play,” provided they claim that they have mitigated some of the harms.

In fact, in order to approve a proposal, the Zoning Commission must find that the proposal is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In this case, GDS is proposing a high-density project on a site which the Comprehensive Plan designates for low or moderate density development. It is inconsistent with the Comprehensive plan.

If the Zoning Commission follows its regulations, they will not schedule a hearing unless the scale of the project is reduced significantly. They won’t begin to evaluate the benefits until they have a proposal with a much lower scale, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, although with heights and densities might exceed that allowed as a matter of right, bringing in the need to evaluate their mitigation measures and benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When you add the height "transferred" from the commercial lot that GDS will build the school on to the mixed-use, and add the height of the new school building on the commercial lot, is it the same or less than matter of right for the two lots? I think not.

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.

Correcting my 2:57 post: The high school and proposed lower school buildings have over 42,000 more square feet of non-residential development than would be allowed on those lots with a PUD. This is more than 16% more than would be allowed with a PUD on that school parcel.

If you consider the residential square footage that is not being used on the school site (about 30,000 square feet, considering that the project is already over 42,000 square feet larger than allowed for a non-residential PUD), and compare that with the excess density that they are requesting for the mixed use site, nearly 155,000 square feet, it is clear that the story they tell in their application doesn’t hold water.

The mixed use site will have well over twice the density (and a substantially more height) than is allowed with a PUD on that site without changing the zoning. The maximum square footage for a PUD in the existing zone is three times the land area. The proposal is for a building with a square footage that is 6.77 times the land area, i.e., well over twice the amount that would be allowed with a PUD.

The request is certainly more than what is allowed for a PUD without changing the zoning, and certainly more intense development than a matter of right project: replacing the GDS high school and Safeway and WMATA sites with fewer than 24 single-family semi-detached houses and a 50-foot tall mixed use building replacing Safeway along with a mixed use building on Wisconsin Avenue that is less than half the size that GDS is proposing.

No, no, we get it. You read a website and stayed at a Holiday Inn last night. You're smarter than the zoning commission, the lawyers and the Virgin Mary.

You've found the real rules, and you'd share them with us, but only you can scry them using a crystal inside a top hat.