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