Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would love to see a grocery store like Magruders on Wisconsin, with floors above for GDS faculty and staff housing. By ensuring that the housing goes to GDS workers, you cut down on traffic (pleasing the neighbors) and the school could hopefully woo top notch teachers and administrators who might be wary of relocating to an expensive city. Magruders has smaller stores and fills a grocery need in the neighborhood.

Macgruders isn't the regional quality store it once was and I doubt that many GDS faculty would want to live in Tenleytown, but the basic premise of your suggestion is sound. It is too bad Safeway forced a no-grocery store covenant. I am not sure the difference between GDS faculty living above a grocery store or AU Law students and young professionals who would travel by metro and car/bike share. Seems the same to me.

Anonymous wrote:I would love to see a grocery store like Magruders on Wisconsin, with floors above for GDS faculty and staff housing. By ensuring that the housing goes to GDS workers, you cut down on traffic (pleasing the neighbors) and the school could hopefully woo top notch teachers and administrators who might be wary of relocating to an expensive city. Magruders has smaller stores and fills a grocery need in the neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:I would love to see a grocery store like Magruders on Wisconsin, with floors above for GDS faculty and staff housing. By ensuring that the housing goes to GDS workers, you cut down on traffic (pleasing the neighbors) and the school could hopefully woo top notch teachers and administrators who might be wary of relocating to an expensive city. Magruders has smaller stores and fills a grocery need in the neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So your argument here is that 43rd/Ellicott/Davenport/Chesapeake will become harder to navigate because of all of the new cut-through traffic yet 42nd Street, which you presumably want to use, won't be viable anymore. Selfish much? You want to ensure there is no new traffic in your little area while professing to be upset about not using 42nd Street, someone else's little area.

And, to add, your little area already has all sorts of no turn restrictions during rush hour, so no one but you and your neighbors are legally using those streets right now anyhow.

You really are a selfish priss.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it'd be great if GDS kept the two campuses separate and used Safeway and Martens to add facilities to the HS. Initially, that could mean athletic facilities (track, playing fields). Longer-term, the school would have room to grow.
Personally, I saw the fact that the MS was separate from the HS as a selling point, but I can see the counter-argument for combining MS/HS facilities and leaving the LS on MacArthur. That would give each school more room.

And they'll do that with what money? I'm not privy to the financials of GDS, but I'm reasonably confident that some portion of the school building expenditures will be supported by revenue from the commercial development. Blocking GDS from a combined plan involving commercial space is likely to lead them to abandon the plan, and sell the property to a pure commercial developer, perhaps with some limited restrictions to ensure it doesn't interfere with the current HS.

Anonymous wrote:I think it'd be great if GDS kept the two campuses separate and used Safeway and Martens to add facilities to the HS. Initially, that could mean athletic facilities (track, playing fields). Longer-term, the school would have room to grow.
Personally, I saw the fact that the MS was separate from the HS as a selling point, but I can see the counter-argument for combining MS/HS facilities and leaving the LS on MacArthur. That would give each school more room.

Anonymous wrote:

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: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.