Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Private & Independent Schools
Reply to "Big GDS news"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [/quote] 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. [b]Oh, and C-2-B is still "medium density development." i.e. consistent with the comprehensive plan. [/b] Don't hate the player, hate the game. [/quote] 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. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics