Big GDS news

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
"Blight in the neighborhood"? Please. Perhaps Greedy Developer $chool and its developer partners are not willing or able to live within the zoning regs and the comprehensive plan, insisting instead on a PUD that busts both and is based on some hypothetical transfer of density from its campus parcel, which they never plan to use for anything other than a school. (This hypothetical density transfer is the key that explains why the Team of Aces and developer partners in the shadows are using the school as the front purchaser for the Wisconsin property. Once all zoning approvals are obtained, the school is free to sell out to them because the necessity of having a single property owner with a unified development scheme goes away.)

If the GD$ front group can't develop them under current zoning and the comprehensive plan, they should sell the Wisconsin Ave parcels. Some other developer will be perfectly happy to build as a matter of right under existing zoning. GD$ is trying to stuff a two-fer down the neighborhood's throat: a school that is more than 100% bigger AND a development that violates existing zoning in multiple ways. And don't forget that if GD$ gets the PUD it wants, then that will become the base line and precedent for other projects to demand PUDs and special exceptions and soon zoning and the comprehensive plan are history in Tenleytown.

On what do you base this statement? None of the Safeway proposals were Matter of Right and the parcels fronting Wisconsin Avenue are much more challenging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Blight in the neighborhood"? Please. Perhaps Greedy Developer $chool and its developer partners are not willing or able to live within the zoning regs and the comprehensive plan, insisting instead on a PUD that busts both and is based on some hypothetical transfer of density from its campus parcel, which they never plan to use for anything other than a school. (This hypothetical density transfer is the key that explains why the Team of Aces and developer partners in the shadows are using the school as the front purchaser for the Wisconsin property. Once all zoning approvals are obtained, the school is free to sell out to them because the necessity of having a single property owner with a unified development scheme goes away.)

If the GD$ front group can't develop them under current zoning and the comprehensive plan, they should sell the Wisconsin Ave parcels. Some other developer will be perfectly happy to build as a matter of right under existing zoning. GD$ is trying to stuff a two-fer down the neighborhood's throat: a school that is more than 100% bigger AND a development that violates existing zoning in multiple ways. And don't forget that if GD$ gets the PUD it wants, then that will become the base line and precedent for other projects to demand PUDs and special exceptions and soon zoning and the comprehensive plan are history in Tenleytown.

On what do you base this statement? None of the Safeway proposals were Matter of Right and the parcels fronting Wisconsin Avenue are much more challenging.

The Harrison, with 49 condominium units and 25 parking spaces was matter of right, and Cityline only required a minor special exception, mostly to change the mix of parking with more spaces for the residents and fewer spaces for retail parking based on the configuration of the existing garage. Both were consistent with the comprehensive plan.

The value of land is based on the development rights. If GDS paid more than the fair value of the land, it isn't the role of the Zoning Commission to grant them additional development rights to make up for their mistake.

[Anonymous]

And if they paid more, why do you think they would sell it for less? Any follow on developer would need to recoup those dollars.

[Anonymous]

Neither the Harrison nor City Line are the Safeway or Martens parcels. Apples to apples, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Blight in the neighborhood"? Please. Perhaps Greedy Developer $chool and its developer partners are not willing or able to live within the zoning regs and the comprehensive plan, insisting instead on a PUD that busts both and is based on some hypothetical transfer of density from its campus parcel, which they never plan to use for anything other than a school. (This hypothetical density transfer is the key that explains why the Team of Aces and developer partners in the shadows are using the school as the front purchaser for the Wisconsin property. Once all zoning approvals are obtained, the school is free to sell out to them because the necessity of having a single property owner with a unified development scheme goes away.)

If the GD$ front group can't develop them under current zoning and the comprehensive plan, they should sell the Wisconsin Ave parcels. Some other developer will be perfectly happy to build as a matter of right under existing zoning. GD$ is trying to stuff a two-fer down the neighborhood's throat: a school that is more than 100% bigger AND a development that violates existing zoning in multiple ways. And don't forget that if GD$ gets the PUD it wants, then that will become the base line and precedent for other projects to demand PUDs and special exceptions and soon zoning and the comprehensive plan are history in Tenleytown.

On what do you base this statement? None of the Safeway proposals were Matter of Right and the parcels fronting Wisconsin Avenue are much more challenging.

How are they more challenging? They face a major arterial, with all of the retail front exposure that brings. These parcels are far more valuable from a retail standpoint than frontage on a side street. It's just a case of GDS, greedy developer syndrome.

[Anonymous]

Safeway's property has bifurcated zoning, and Martens has challenging topography.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I do wonder if GDS is trying to cram too much into its adjacent sites. For example, because it is trying to monetize the Wisconsin Ave. property, instead of putting a school building there and a playing field on the Safeway site, GDS is having to put a playing field for small children four stories up in the air. Anyone who walks this part of Wisconsin Ave from north of the GDS site to Fort Reno knows that it's one of the windiest spots in the area, and buildings tend to magnify the wind effects. I hope that someone at GDS has studied the impact of having a very elevated playing field at that location with two tall thin buildings across the street. It's not going to be a very pleasant place for kids' games. Perhaps good advice to members of the school community is to "hold onto your hats!"

Ha! People will want to avoid using umbrellas up there. Otherwise, we may see a few Mary Poppins GDS moms floating about the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Safeway's property has bifurcated zoning, and Martens has challenging topography.

Is it more challenging to build semi-detached houses on the low-density residential portion of the Safeway property than on other properties in the area? And why is it unusually difficult to build a 50 foot tall mixed use building where the store is located?

The Martens' topography allows the developer to measure the height of the building 50 feet on Wisconsin Avenue and have an additional floor on 42nd Street with easier access to the top level of underground parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Is it more challenging to build semi-detached houses on the low-density residential portion of the Safeway property than on other properties in the area? And why is it unusually difficult to build a 50 foot tall mixed use building where the store is located?

The Martens' topography allows the developer to measure the height of the building 50 feet on Wisconsin Avenue and have an additional floor on 42nd Street with easier access to the top level of underground parking.

The topography makes successful retail nearly impossible and a 42nd Street retail front is not optimal based on Wisconsin Avenue foot traffic. That is probably part of why GDS wants the staircase, to provide easier access to retail from Wisconsin Avenue.

On the Safeway part, I suppose if the goal was semi-detached houses for the parking lot, then it wouldn't be a challenge, but to date, no one has proposed that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And if they paid more, why do you think they would sell it for less? Any follow on developer would need to recoup those dollars.

Speculators can win big -- sometimes they lose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And if they paid more, why do you think they would sell it for less? Any follow on developer would need to recoup those dollars.

Moreover, it would demonstrate that the vaunted Team of Aces was more like the Team of As_es.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if they paid more, why do you think they would sell it for less? Any follow on developer would need to recoup those dollars.

Moreover, it would demonstrate that the vaunted Team of Aces was more like the Team of As_es.

[Anonymous]

If they made a bad decision on the price they paid, they might have to take a loss. That's the market.

Anonymous wrote:And if they paid more, why do you think they would sell it for less? Any follow on developer would need to recoup those dollars.

[Anonymous]

The bifurcated zoning is a red herring. It's easy to change. Just ask GDS, which needs relief to put its school on all of its current property and most of the Safeway lot. Martens has challenging topography, but maybe that means it's just not a good site for intense development.

Anonymous wrote:Safeway's property has bifurcated zoning, and Martens has challenging topography.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if they paid more, why do you think they would sell it for less? Any follow on developer would need to recoup those dollars.

Moreover, it would demonstrate that the vaunted Team of Aces was more like the Team of As_es.

And the machers more like the muckers.