Big GDS news

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Smarter than Mr. Payola, the crony consultants and the Team of Aces? No way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, they're getting a map amendment, an acceptable action in a PUD. The lawyers and the architect aren't breaking rules, they just know them better than you.

Oh, and C-2-B is still "medium density development." i.e. consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[Anonymous]

I see suddenly our simple local folks have become experts on zoning, eager to defend the team of aces and the developers who took over GDS.

So are you one of Ward 3 Vision's paid staff or some 20-something GGW loser typing in your underwear in your shelving unit in NoMa? You should ask your bosses for better digs. You might like a little green space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yes, they're getting a map amendment, an acceptable action in a PUD. The lawyers and the architect aren't breaking rules, they just know them better than you.

Oh, and C-2-B is still "medium density development." i.e. consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Since the comprehensive plan calls for low or moderate density development, and C-2-B, without the additional height and density associated with a PUD, is medium density development, you have just demonstrated that what they are requesting is clearly NOT consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

But there is more. GDS is asking for additional height and density. GDS would like to build a high-density mixed use building 80 feet in height with the developed space being over 6.7 times the land area (over three times the density associated with moderate density residential and over twice the density associated with low-density commercial development). Moderate density residential is characterized by row houses and low-rise apartment buildings, and low-density commercial is comprised primarily of one- to three-story commercial buildings. High density residential is where “high-rise (8 stories or more) apartment buildings are the predominant use.” The height and density that GDS is requesting falls into the high density category and is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation.

I assume that the land use attorneys and Goulston & Storrs know the regulations, but they seem to have chosen to define something new, an “equivalent FAR,” which might confuse people who might think that they are reading a description and looking at tabulations that actually reflect the DC zoning regulations.

[Anonymous]

Didn't the last developers who tried to build on the maartens site also propose 8 stories? What was their angle?

[Anonymous]

I have no idea where your numbers are coming from. I can't figure out how you're getting there. I mean, even your numbers for commercial/multifamily are flipped, commercial is always lower density than residential.

You keep telling yourself it's not medium density. The map amendment and the density are acceptable under PUD rules. And if it isn't, then neither is Tenley Hill, with its 4.5 land/development ratio.

You keep acting like the only part of the comprehensive plan is just the zoning map, when it states very explicitly that there's more to it than that.

It's within the letter and the spirit of the comprehensive plan. And it's still denser than what could be built matter of right. Plus benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I mean, even your numbers for commercial/multifamily are flipped, commercial is always lower density than residential.

I mean, zone districts always allow denser residential than commercial, I think unless it's downtown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I see suddenly our simple local folks have become experts on zoning, eager to defend the team of aces and the developers who took over GDS.

It's almost as if the project has more than one supporter. Possibly even with different backgrounds!

Just kidding, clearly it's a bunch of paid operatives in some Indian call center running a massive astroturf operation against the only forum where you'll learn the REAL zoning rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I have no idea where your numbers are coming from. I can't figure out how you're getting there. I mean, even your numbers for commercial/multifamily are flipped, commercial is always lower density than residential.

I mean, zone districts always allow denser residential than commercial, I think unless it's downtown.

On page 15 of the application, the attorneys wrote: “the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan locates the Mixed Use Parcel in the Moderate Density Residential and Low Density Commercial categories.”

Perhaps, instead of the Comprehensive Plan categories, you are thinking about zoning limits in mixed use zones, such as C-2-A, the zoning for the mixed use parcel. The regulations give a maximum total density and a maximum non-residential density. The amount allowed for non-residential use is generally less than the total amount allowed.

[Anonymous]

The Washington Post ever can cover this controversy? I don't think so. An alumni letter written by half dozen people gets high visibility but hundreds of neighbors get ignored. Talk about a fix

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Washington Post ever can cover this controversy? I don't think so. An alumni letter written by half dozen people gets high visibility but hundreds of neighbors get ignored. Talk about a fix

A senior local editor of the Post served until recently on the executive committee of GDS' board. The most recent Post article I can remember was a fawning piece that lauded the insiders who put together the GDS real estate transactions as the "team of aces."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Washington Post ever can cover this controversy?

Perhaps it's not a controversy at all. Did you see the LTE in the Current? Sounds like everyone I know: frustrated that a generally good plan is being nitpicked, while the ANC grandstands and ignores constituents requests for better amenities.

[Anonymous]

Sums it up perfectly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Washington Post ever can cover this controversy?

Perhaps it's not a controversy at all. Did you see the LTE in the Current? Sounds like everyone I know: frustrated that a generally good plan is being nitpicked, while the ANC grandstands and ignores constituents requests for better amenities.

I found that LTE confusing. Why is a young couple that just moved from downtown to a house they bought a couple blocks from Bloomingdales and Lord & Taylor writing the Current to complain about fast food and retail in general in Tenleytown, and saying that if we just allow taller buildings on the GDS property, that would be a reasonable exchange to revitalize the area?

[Anonymous]

Because it makes common sense- add more people to the neighborhood and there are built in customers for the merchants.


And it is creepy you know where they live.