Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The zoning for where the school is now is R-2, which the school could build to a height of 60 feet by right. The Safeway lot is C-2-A, which could be built to 50 feet. The Wisconsin lot is C-2-B, which could be build to 60 feet. What GDS was basically proposing was to shift its rights to build on those lots per zoning rules towards Wisconsin Avenue, so that there would be lower height on the SFH end of the school and more along the urban corridor. Sure - give community input. But recognize that if those plans get rejected someone, whether GDS or a subsequent purchaser, may just exercise its rights and build up to the lot limits on each of the parcels, which is likely to be worse for everyone.

The immediate neighbors seem to not understand that GDS could sell the parcels tomorrow, and someone else will maximize the property by matter of right and it WOULD be worse for everyone involved.

This, exactly. What do people expect to happen if GDS does not develop it?

The Wisconsin property will be lower height and density as a matter of right than what GDS proposes. While the Safeway site could be developed higher than the Safeway, Georgetown Day would be unlikely to do that. First of all, they are wedded to their combined campus concept. They have tried for years to get the Safeway property. Even if GDS reversed course completely and kept the separate campus on MacArthur, the school would be unlikely to want the density of a very developed Safeway site sharing the driveway with the school on what is currently a constrained site just for the high school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The zoning for where the school is now is R-2, which the school could build to a height of 60 feet by right. The Safeway lot is C-2-A, which could be built to 50 feet. The Wisconsin lot is C-2-B, which could be build to 60 feet. What GDS was basically proposing was to shift its rights to build on those lots per zoning rules towards Wisconsin Avenue, so that there would be lower height on the SFH end of the school and more along the urban corridor. Sure - give community input. But recognize that if those plans get rejected someone, whether GDS or a subsequent purchaser, may just exercise its rights and build up to the lot limits on each of the parcels, which is likely to be worse for everyone.

The immediate neighbors seem to not understand that GDS could sell the parcels tomorrow, and someone else will maximize the property by matter of right and it WOULD be worse for everyone involved.

This, exactly. What do people expect to happen if GDS does not develop it?

Is this the smart growth line? That it would be worse if there was mixed-use on the Safeway site?

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

The zoning for where the school is now is R-2, which the school could build to a height of 60 feet by right. The Safeway lot is C-2-A, which could be built to 50 feet. The Wisconsin lot is C-2-B, which could be build to 60 feet. What GDS was basically proposing was to shift its rights to build on those lots per zoning rules towards Wisconsin Avenue, so that there would be lower height on the SFH end of the school and more along the urban corridor. Sure - give community input. But recognize that if those plans get rejected someone, whether GDS or a subsequent purchaser, may just exercise its rights and build up to the lot limits on each of the parcels, which is likely to be worse for everyone.[/quote]


The immediate neighbors seem to not understand that GDS could sell the parcels tomorrow, and someone else will maximize the property by matter of right and it WOULD be worse for everyone involved.[/quote]

R2 is 40 ft and C2B is 50 ft as of right

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Nice try. The project is too dense and too massive and too intense in its proposed usage. It is a unified whole and must stand or fall on that basis. GDS doesn't get to decide that---the city, with input from the community-- does. From start to finish it is a greedy development scheme with all sorts of undisclosed interests swirling around the development team and the school's Board. They MUST keep their school on the Safeway site and their tiny little existing campus. They don't want their school fronting along Wisconsin Avenue. They have bit off way, way more than they can chew on behalf of all their development friends and family.[/quote]

Why isn't current zoning "input from the community" rather than ad hoc decisions?

The zoning for where the school is now is R-2, which the school could build to a height of 60 feet by right. The Safeway lot is C-2-A, which could be built to 50 feet. The Wisconsin lot is C-2-B, which could be build to 60 feet. What GDS was basically proposing was to shift its rights to build on those lots per zoning rules towards Wisconsin Avenue, so that there would be lower height on the SFH end of the school and more along the urban corridor. Sure - give community input. But recognize that if those plans get rejected someone, whether GDS or a subsequent purchaser, may just exercise its rights and build up to the lot limits on each of the parcels, which is likely to be worse for everyone.[/quote]

Anonymous wrote:I live in a single-family home one block from the proposed development site and while am not thrilled at the idea of a year or two of construction, am very excited about the prospect of more retail and development in the immediate neighborhood. Except for traffic at pick up and drop off times, I honestly do not understand the intense resistance I am seeing from some of my neighbors to this project.

I don't mean to be rude or judgemental, and I'm sure I will get some push back for this, but most of those who are resisting the development seem to be older residents who have been in the neighborhood for a long time. Other young families in the immediate vicinity are looking forward to more development in the area, and I'm wondering if there is just a difference in preference over what kind of neighborhood neighbors would like this pocket of Tenleytown/AU Park to be.

We're a youngish family and have young kids. Walkable, safe streets and balanced neighborhood area growth consistent with DC's comprehensive plan are far more important to us than the opportunity to visit yet another trendy taco bar or a Five Guys with a bunch of pseudo-hipster generic-looking flats on top.

Anonymous wrote:Private schools aren't matter-of-right in residential zones -- only public schools are. So, yes, the Zoning Commission (or the BZA if the school decided to separate the campus consolidation from the commercial development) could cap the number of students on campus.

A student and staff cap is standard in a private school special exception order.

Private schools aren't matter-of-right in residential zones -- only public schools are. So, yes, the Zoning Commission (or the BZA if the school decided to separate the campus consolidation from the commercial development) could cap the number of students on campus.

Ok, so let me get this straight:

1) It seems that regardless of the 50 ft or 60 ft or whatever ft structure the parties agree to, GDS will be able to build their ES, MS and HS campuses in the site in some capacity, so the traffic will inevitably be tough at pick up and drop off, right? In other words, can the city prevent them from concentrating their student population in one place so as to avoid the traffic increase? If not, it seems like something the community should work with GDS on to find a reasonable accommodation to ameliorate problems.

2) What is this about making 42nd Street narrow/removing it as a public thorough fare? Are they planning to install a median or something to make drivers slow down during pick up and drop off? Would this mean no parking on 42nd street between Chesapeake? No cars at all? Please elaborate.

I literally live on 42nd Street and am part of the population of families and older adults traveling to and from Janney, St. Columba's and the independent living facility, and despite what has been written previously in this and other related threads, I still don't see why this is Armageddon for the neighborhood, especially in exchange for more retail, restaurants, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Streets are not narrower than other streets in the city - the ones the residents use all of the time in other neighborhoods;

2) No one is entitled to free street parking. It is public space. You or I can and should be able to use it. If they want reserved parking, then their driveway or garage should suffice.

3) DDOT wants 42nd Street to be a regular street. This is a non-starter.

1) Well, most streets closest to the project are designated 'local' and are indeed narrower than roadways deemed "collector" and "arterial" by DDOT. When "local" and 100% residential streets like Ellicott and Chesapeake are suddenly tasked with carrying increased (commuting) traffic loads that are more appropriate for collector streets that is problematic from a safety POV.

A resident of 43rd/Ellicott/Davenport/Chesapeake who is focused on traffic pattern changes is smart and should absolutely intervene in the collusion and shennigans that often surround DDOT traffic studies done ahead of proposed development.

2) right. luckily, you live several blocks away and have a driveway+garage, so you're safe.

3) You seem to be at least moderately prepped in the machinations of traffic engineering If so, you know that DDOT is historically willing and capable of installing enough "traffic calming" obstacles in a small area that render the road useless to travel @ 25 mph, the designated speed. Jutting curbs, bump outs, all-new islands that narrow the lane, pedestrian-activated signals. If the safe speed of a roadway drops from 25 to less than 10 mph, by design, it's no longer a viable travel way -- even if retains its designation as a local street.

DDOT's street classification map: http://ddot.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ddot/publication/attachments/functional_classification_map_0.pdf

Anonymous wrote:1) Streets are not narrower than other streets in the city - the ones the residents use all of the time in other neighborhoods;

2) No one is entitled to free street parking. It is public space. You or I can and should be able to use it. If they want reserved parking, then their driveway or garage should suffice.

3) DDOT wants 42nd Street to be a regular street. This is a non-starter.

1) Well, most streets closest to the project are designated 'local' and are indeed narrower than roadways deemed "collector" and "arterial" by DDOT. When "local" and 100% residential streets like Ellicott and Chesapeake are suddenly tasked with carrying increased (commuting) traffic loads that are more appropriate for collector streets that is problematic from a safety POV.

A resident of 43rd/Ellicott/Davenport/Chesapeake who is focused on traffic pattern changes is smart and should absolutely intervene in the collusion and shennigans that often surround DDOT traffic studies done ahead of proposed development.

2) right. luckily, you live several blocks away and have a driveway+garage, so you're safe.

3) You seem to be at least moderately prepped in the machinations of traffic engineering If so, you know that DDOT is historically willing and capable of installing enough "traffic calming" obstacles in a small area that render the road useless to travel @ 25 mph, the designated speed. Jutting curbs, bump outs, all-new islands that narrow the lane, pedestrian-activated signals. If the safe speed of a roadway drops from 25 to less than 10 mph, by design, it's no longer a viable travel way -- even if retains its designation as a local street.

[quote=Anonymous]extremely reckless cut through drivers from Maryland. [/quote]

When all other arguments fail, "reckless Maryland drivers" is always there to save the day!

Meanwhile, we have on the other hand concerns that closing 42nd street would harm traffic flow. Can't have it both ways . . .

FWIW, it appears the proposed design would have an indoor/underground pickup/dropoff area, accessible from the corner of Wisconsin and Ellicott/42nd street. Like other schools, presumably GDS would put in place a traffic plan that would preclude a bunch of neighborhood cut throughs.

Anonymous wrote:I live in a single-family home one block from the proposed development site and while am not thrilled at the idea of a year or two of construction, am very excited about the prospect of more retail and development in the immediate neighborhood. Except for traffic at pick up and drop off times, I honestly do not understand the intense resistance I am seeing from some of my neighbors to this project.

I don't mean to be rude or judgemental, and I'm sure I will get some push back for this, but most of those who are resisting the development seem to be older residents who have been in the neighborhood for a long time. Other young families in the immediate vicinity are looking forward to more development in the area, and I'm wondering if there is just a difference in preference over what kind of neighborhood neighbors would like this pocket of Tenleytown/AU Park to be.

What I don't understand is who the neighbors are that this harms meaningfully. The ones abutting the school are still abutting a school. The ones abutting Safeway will be abutting a school - that seems better, not worse, if for no other reason than the school is open less than half the year and only from ~7-5. And there are no SF residences (or none at all) on the small block where the Volvo dealership is - it's all restaurants and small shops in townhouse type buildings. Meanwhile, the residences that would go in would almost certainly be banned from on-street parking, as that's always the deal with new apartments.

Is it just fear of the unknown and change?

What 13:57 doesn't of course mention is the HUGE increase in vehicular traffic that the new school building crammed on to a tiny lot will inevitably bring. The AU Park area there is FULL of walkers going to Janney School and Saint Columba's Nursery School as well as many, many elderly residents at the Friendship Terrace independent living complex. The neighborhood already deals with extremely reckless cut through drivers from Maryland. Bringing hundreds more rushing parents dropping their kids off at school or picking them up is a real and present danger to the community. The use is too dense, too intense and a shining example of "dumb" growth and greed.

1) Streets are not narrower than other streets in the city - the ones the residents use all of the time in other neighborhoods;

2) No one is entitled to free street parking. It is public space. You or I can and should be able to use it. If they want reserved parking, then their driveway or garage should suffice.

3) DDOT wants 42nd Street to be a regular street. This is a non-starter.

Anonymous wrote:I live in a single-family home one block from the proposed development site and while am not thrilled at the idea of a year or two of construction, am very excited about the prospect of more retail and development in the immediate neighborhood. Except for traffic at pick up and drop off times, I honestly do not understand the intense resistance I am seeing from some of my neighbors to this project.

I don't mean to be rude or judgemental, and I'm sure I will get some push back for this, but most of those who are resisting the development seem to be older residents who have been in the neighborhood for a long time. Other young families in the immediate vicinity are looking forward to more development in the area, and I'm wondering if there is just a difference in preference over what kind of neighborhood neighbors would like this pocket of Tenleytown/AU Park to be.

My thought is that the people who are most vociferously opposed to many aspects of the plan as proposed dislike the certainty of

1. exponentially increased vehicular traffic down their 25-mph narrow streets.
2. loss of on-street parking (not just for their cars but for visitors. Also, having your driveway blocked 4 nights a week by some schmoe eating at Hot Restaurant XYZ actually sucks. btdt.
3. effectively eliminating 42nd st as a VIABLE street that ppl actually can use 24/7. (yes, i know the pavement would technically still allow for the weight of a car, maybe, under the initial proposal and this pavement would not be 110% blocked to cars. But if it's narrowed to 6 ft. wide, and it has steel flower planters blocking the travel lane because it's morphed into a pedestrian "Plaza" choked with seated students ... there is no more use of the lane as a north-south travel way.)


IMO, as a sort of neighbor who won't be in the shadow of the new construction, #3 is an incredibly valid opposition point. Converting well-used public rights-of-way to essentially private use is bullshit.