Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This seems to be Ward3Vision math.

No, it is the math in the documents submitted to the zoning commission, page 12, and Page A02 of the architectural plans.

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 by comparing what they're building not to the actual zoning but to the zoning of their dreams.

"Feolafudging."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This seems to be Ward3Vision math.

No, it is the math in the documents submitted to the zoning commission, page 12, and Page A02 of the architectural plans.

Anonymous wrote:I checked out the Ward3Vision website. I appreciate everyone pumping the group. They seem reasonable and have a good vision for the Ward. I am sure that wasn't the intent of the GDS detractors, but thank you. We need more neighbors like that.

Anonymous wrote:
This is called "Feola fudging", a zoning term named after GDS' real estate lawyer. He was also the attorney for Cathedral Commons and claimed that compliance with DC's affordable housing requirements should also be credited as an "amenity" to justify additional height and density.

Anonymous wrote:
This seems to be Ward3Vision math.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Really? Evidence for that?

Anonymous wrote:While I don't disagree with you, GDS has nothing to do with Safeway going away.

Safeway was selling the property. Safeway also put a clause in the contract that no supermarket could replace it. Whether GDS bought the property or someone else, Safeway was leaving. At least GDS let Safeway stay for a few years.

Anonymous wrote:Really? Evidence for that?

Anonymous wrote:While I don't disagree with you, GDS has nothing to do with Safeway going away.

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I didn't realize that GDS' fudging would actually allow them to build less than the minimum affordable housing required by the current zoning. I hope whoever wrote this mentions it at the next ANC meeting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GDS's development on the three parcels together, including the land transfer, is less dense than the total that could be built by right on all three parcels. Period.

It's a bit taller, but not any taller on the avenue.

Recall that one thing Safeway wanted for its deal was extra height to move the building mass away from the neighbors. I thought that was an OK outcome too, but the design was huuurrrble.

This seems to be Ward3Vision math. The matter of right limit for height along Wisconsin Avenue is 50 feet, and in its application, GDS is asking for a height of 80 feet, 60 percent taller than what can be built by right on the avenue.

The maximum floor area allowed along this portion of Wisconsin Avenue as a matter of right is 2.5 times the land area (3 times the land area with inclusionary zoning), and GDS is asking for a floor area that is 5.96 times the land area, i.e., nearly twice the amount that can be built by right on that site.

In addition, by requesting a change in zoning, the affordable housing requirement will be reduced from 10% of the residential square footage to 8% of the residential square footage, and the half the units will be for households with higher incomes than without the change in zoning. According to its statement, GDS will be providing the minimum amount of affordable housing required for the requested zoning, 8 percent of the gross floor area devoted to residential use, evenly divided between “low-income” households and “moderate-income” households, rather than the current requirement for C-2-A of 10% of the gross floor area devoted to residential use allocated entirely to low-income households. And they claim that providing this amount of affordable housing is an amenity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GDS's development on the three parcels together, including the land transfer, is less dense than the total that could be built by right on all three parcels. Period.

It's a bit taller, but not any taller on the avenue.

Recall that one thing Safeway wanted for its deal was extra height to move the building mass away from the neighbors. I thought that was an OK outcome too, but the design was huuurrrble.

This seems to be Ward3Vision math. The matter of right limit for height along Wisconsin Avenue is 50 feet, and in its application, GDS is asking for a height of 80 feet, 60 percent taller than what can be built by right on the avenue.

The maximum floor area allowed along this portion of Wisconsin Avenue as a matter of right is 2.5 times the land area (3 times the land area with inclusionary zoning), and GDS is asking for a floor area that is 5.96 times the land area, i.e., nearly twice the amount that can be built by right on that site.

In addition, by requesting a change in zoning, the affordable housing requirement will be reduced from 10% of the residential square footage to 8% of the residential square footage, and the half the units will be for households with higher incomes than without the change in zoning. According to its statement, GDS will be providing the minimum amount of affordable housing required for the requested zoning, 8 percent of the gross floor area devoted to residential use, evenly divided between “low-income” households and “moderate-income” households, rather than the current requirement for C-2-A of 10% of the gross floor area devoted to residential use allocated entirely to low-income households. And they claim that providing this amount of affordable housing is an amenity.

Anonymous wrote:While I don't disagree with you, GDS has nothing to do with Safeway going away.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GDS's development on the three parcels together, including the land transfer, is less dense than the total that could be built by right on all three parcels. Period.

It's a bit taller, but not any taller on the avenue.

Recall that one thing Safeway wanted for its deal was extra height to move the building mass away from the neighbors. I thought that was an OK outcome too, but the design was huuurrrble.

This seems to be Ward3Vision math. The matter of right limit for height along Wisconsin Avenue is 50 feet, and in its application, GDS is asking for a height of 80 feet, 60 percent taller than what can be built by right on the avenue.

The maximum floor area allowed along this portion of Wisconsin Avenue as a matter of right is 2.5 times the land area (3 times the land area with inclusionary zoning), and GDS is asking for a floor area that is 5.96 times the land area, i.e., nearly twice the amount that can be built by right on that site.

In addition, by requesting a change in zoning, the affordable housing requirement will be reduced from 10% of the residential square footage to 8% of the residential square footage, and the half the units will be for households with higher incomes than without the change in zoning. According to its statement, GDS will be providing the minimum amount of affordable housing required for the requested zoning, 8 percent of the gross floor area devoted to residential use, evenly divided between “low-income” households and “moderate-income” households, rather than the current requirement for C-2-A of 10% of the gross floor area devoted to residential use allocated entirely to low-income households. And they claim that providing this amount of affordable housing is an amenity.

Anonymous wrote:GDS's development on the three parcels together, including the land transfer, is less dense than the total that could be built by right on all three parcels. Period.

It's a bit taller, but not any taller on the avenue.

Recall that one thing Safeway wanted for its deal was extra height to move the building mass away from the neighbors. I thought that was an OK outcome too, but the design was huuurrrble.