ANC 3/4G recently signed a letter of agreement with the owners of the parcel at Connecticut Avenue and Military Road for a new residential development. Nearby neighbors have appealed the issuance of construction permits by DCRA. The Board of Zoning Adjustment will hear the case later in September, but in the meantime, the neighborhood group has shared its BZA filing.
Any zoning lawyers interested in weighing in on the merits of the appeal?
Showing posts with label Development. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Development. Show all posts
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Monday, August 26, 2013
Resolution to Controversy in Chevy Chase?
It appears there may be a light at the end of the tunnel where 5333 Connecticut Avenue is concerned. This proposal has had its share of controversy in upper Ward 3 where new development is often considered a dirty word.
Nearby neighbors have filed appeals with the BZA and other DC authorities over the permits issued in 2012 and 2103 for a highrise building in the last open lot on this main thoroughfare.
The Chevy Chase ANC has taken a different tact. By engaging the property owner, they have arrived at a somewhat decent "Memorandum of Understanding" and are encouraging the appeals by neighbors to be dropped.
Among the good points of the MOU:
- A redesign of the glassy exterior to something more compatible with the existing building stock;
- Additional landscaping;
- Support and potential payment for car sharing and Capital Bikeshare on site;
- A 13 point environmental sustainability program.
The agreement does come with some negatives. Among them:
- The reduction, by 2, of the number of living units;
- The inclusion of a circular driveway on Connecticut Avenue, with two curb cuts;
- The addition of 40 additional parking spaces, over and above the proposal, which was more than was required by zoning.
This is somewhat novel approach taken by the ANC, but ultimately, it is probably more productive than the alternatives. The ANC will discuss this at its meeting on Tuesday, August 27th, see the ANC 3G website for more information.
EDIT
And this statement from the project opponents:
At the encouragement of the Chevy Chase Advisory Neighborhood Commission,
members of 5333 CNC, the commission and the Cafritz development group spent the
summer seeking agreement on changes to the developers’ proposed all-glass
apartment tower, ones that would protect the vibrant Chevy Chase D.C. community
while encouraging growth and development.
At the insistence of the Cafritzes, everybody involved in the effort had to sign
pledges of confidentiality.
The sessions were intended to produce a reasonable compromise between the
residents and the Cafritzes.
Instead, they have resulted in a draft agreement between the Cafritzes and the
ANC that doesn’t address the community’s most important requests for change and
could be damaging to the community’s appeals of the developers’ plans.
The ANC is scheduled to take up the 15-point draft Tuesday, August 27 at 7:30
p.m. The 5333 Connecticut Neighborhood Coalition asks community residents to
turn out for the meeting and judge for themselves.
Last spring, the ANC joined the 5333 CNC in appealing municipal permits that the
developer obtained for the proposed structure and helped to convene negotiations
between the coalition and Cafritz representatives.
Throughout the negotiations, the coalition proposed practical, modest changes
that would not require wholesale redesign. Among them: shifting the mass of the
large Military Road wing of the proposed building forward toward Connecticut and
stepping down the back of the wing to create a buffer between the 10-story
development and the two-to-three story surrounding single-families homes.
As it now appears, ANC commissioners engaged in a separate negotiation with the
Cafritz side about which the 5333 CNC was not told. The resulting agreement
fails to address key issues in the 5333 CNC-Cafritz negotiations, is vague,
unenforceable and makes new concessions to the developer with little in return
for the community.
Below is a brief review of some of the key points included in the draft
Cafritz-ANC agreement that the commission intends to consider.
The draft says the Cafritzes agree to “a major redesign of the building…
including reduction in the glass surface area (and) increase in the amount of
masonry…as depicted in concept drawings that Cafritz provided.”
However, the agreement doesn't call for the Cafritzes to withdraw the current
building permit, which doesn’t reflect any of the changes the draft says the
developers have agreed to make. The current permit is for the original structure
that was widely criticized by the community and the ANC.
The agreement also doesn't call for the Cafritzes to make publicly available a
full set of drawings and plans for a building that reflects the proposed
changes. The developers have been promising to provide the public with revised
plans since the beginning of 2013, but have yet to do so. Absent a full set of
plans and drawings, the community will be left to discuss, and the ANC to vote
on, a proposal with little more than a few potentially inaccurate pictures.
The agreement doesn't require the Cafritzes to hold off on construction until a
new permit that reflects all of the changes to which they say they've agreed has
been approved by the city and reviewed by the commission and the community.
The draft says that the Cafritzes will seek, and the ANC will support, an
application for a circular driveway in front of the Connecticut Avenue façade in
order to “reduce traffic on Kanawha Street and Military Road…”
The city’s Department of Transportation (DDOT) already has rejected a request
for such a driveway as a danger to pedestrians trying to make their way along
Connecticut and an impediment to traffic flow along the avenue. Despite the
developer’s claims, inclusion of such a driveway would not reduce traffic on
Military or Kanawha.
The Cafritzes’ insistence on the driveway appears to be the reason they refuse
to comply with a basic rule of urban design by moving the structure forward so
it fronts on Connecticut and defines the urban corridor. It also appears to be
the reason they won’t agree to the kind of buffer zone between the high-rise and
surrounding single family homes that virtually all well-designed apartment
buildings along Connecticut have.
The driveway is one of the few elements of the Cafritz development in which the
community has an opportunity to make a mutually beneficial trade-off:
neighborhood support for the driveway in return for coupling it with a secondary
entrance/exit to the proposed structure’s underground parking to relieve some,
but not all, of the traffic along Military and Kanawha. Absent this coupling,
ANC support would simply give away a legitimate bargaining chip.
Advocates of the draft agreement suggest that the Cafritzes will prohibit
tenants of the proposed structure from getting residential parking sticker that
would let them save the expense of renting a space in the proposed structure’s
underground garage and parking on the street.
But the agreement itself says only that the Cafritzes “will request” such an
arrangement, which means the provision would be unenforceable.
The draft says the Cafritzes agree “to install additional landscaping,”
including preserving existing tall, mature trees that could serve as an
effective shield against light pollution and protect privacy, especially along
the huge Military Road side of the building.
However after initially saying that seven mature trees located in public space
along Military could be saved, the Cafitzes’ landscape architect sent a memo
reducing that number to three and even then only promising "reasonable best
efforts." None would be saved along Kanawha. The new trees that the landscape
architect proposes to add either would be too small to provide much shielding,
or don’t grow the kind of full, protective canopies portrayed in the concept
drawings.
The draft includes a variety of proposals that appear aimed at allowing the
Cafritzes to claim that their proposed building would be environmentally sound.
However, the developers had already said they’d use “green” technology (although
not meet nationally recognized green LEEDS standards). The only new elements
appear to be mention of adding a Capital Bike Share rack and space for two
Zipcars on the property.
The text of the draft also says the Cafritzes “shall have no obligation” to
include either “if after a reasonable effort” they decide inclusion of one or
both is impractical.
The draft says that the developers agree to “institute traffic controls and
signage, as requested and advised by the DDOT, so that traffic entering and
exiting the building will not use the narrow alley that runs from behind the
Building to Chevy Chase Parkway.”
However, the Cafritzes agreed in early conversations with the ANC and the
coalition to install a so-called “pork chop” traffic control to discourage use
of the alley. The draft appears to weaken, not strengthen, that agreement by
making it contingent on the city’s transportation department requesting the
traffic control. Senior DDOT officials have repeatedly described the alley as
“public infrastructure” that should be put to greater use. As a result, it
seems unlikely that they will “request” any control.
Members of the 5333 CNC appreciate the ANC’s efforts to encourage negotiations
between the community and the Cafritzes. But the secret negotiations between
the ANC and the Cafritzes that have resulted in limited, inadequately defined
and unenforceable promises of change are counterproductive and a disservice to
our community.
Nearby neighbors have filed appeals with the BZA and other DC authorities over the permits issued in 2012 and 2103 for a highrise building in the last open lot on this main thoroughfare.
The Chevy Chase ANC has taken a different tact. By engaging the property owner, they have arrived at a somewhat decent "Memorandum of Understanding" and are encouraging the appeals by neighbors to be dropped.
Among the good points of the MOU:
- A redesign of the glassy exterior to something more compatible with the existing building stock;
- Additional landscaping;
- Support and potential payment for car sharing and Capital Bikeshare on site;
- A 13 point environmental sustainability program.
The agreement does come with some negatives. Among them:
- The reduction, by 2, of the number of living units;
- The inclusion of a circular driveway on Connecticut Avenue, with two curb cuts;
- The addition of 40 additional parking spaces, over and above the proposal, which was more than was required by zoning.
This is somewhat novel approach taken by the ANC, but ultimately, it is probably more productive than the alternatives. The ANC will discuss this at its meeting on Tuesday, August 27th, see the ANC 3G website for more information.
EDIT
And this statement from the project opponents:
At the encouragement of the Chevy Chase Advisory Neighborhood Commission,
members of 5333 CNC, the commission and the Cafritz development group spent the
summer seeking agreement on changes to the developers’ proposed all-glass
apartment tower, ones that would protect the vibrant Chevy Chase D.C. community
while encouraging growth and development.
At the insistence of the Cafritzes, everybody involved in the effort had to sign
pledges of confidentiality.
The sessions were intended to produce a reasonable compromise between the
residents and the Cafritzes.
Instead, they have resulted in a draft agreement between the Cafritzes and the
ANC that doesn’t address the community’s most important requests for change and
could be damaging to the community’s appeals of the developers’ plans.
The ANC is scheduled to take up the 15-point draft Tuesday, August 27 at 7:30
p.m. The 5333 Connecticut Neighborhood Coalition asks community residents to
turn out for the meeting and judge for themselves.
Last spring, the ANC joined the 5333 CNC in appealing municipal permits that the
developer obtained for the proposed structure and helped to convene negotiations
between the coalition and Cafritz representatives.
Throughout the negotiations, the coalition proposed practical, modest changes
that would not require wholesale redesign. Among them: shifting the mass of the
large Military Road wing of the proposed building forward toward Connecticut and
stepping down the back of the wing to create a buffer between the 10-story
development and the two-to-three story surrounding single-families homes.
As it now appears, ANC commissioners engaged in a separate negotiation with the
Cafritz side about which the 5333 CNC was not told. The resulting agreement
fails to address key issues in the 5333 CNC-Cafritz negotiations, is vague,
unenforceable and makes new concessions to the developer with little in return
for the community.
Below is a brief review of some of the key points included in the draft
Cafritz-ANC agreement that the commission intends to consider.
The draft says the Cafritzes agree to “a major redesign of the building…
including reduction in the glass surface area (and) increase in the amount of
masonry…as depicted in concept drawings that Cafritz provided.”
However, the agreement doesn't call for the Cafritzes to withdraw the current
building permit, which doesn’t reflect any of the changes the draft says the
developers have agreed to make. The current permit is for the original structure
that was widely criticized by the community and the ANC.
The agreement also doesn't call for the Cafritzes to make publicly available a
full set of drawings and plans for a building that reflects the proposed
changes. The developers have been promising to provide the public with revised
plans since the beginning of 2013, but have yet to do so. Absent a full set of
plans and drawings, the community will be left to discuss, and the ANC to vote
on, a proposal with little more than a few potentially inaccurate pictures.
The agreement doesn't require the Cafritzes to hold off on construction until a
new permit that reflects all of the changes to which they say they've agreed has
been approved by the city and reviewed by the commission and the community.
The draft says that the Cafritzes will seek, and the ANC will support, an
application for a circular driveway in front of the Connecticut Avenue façade in
order to “reduce traffic on Kanawha Street and Military Road…”
The city’s Department of Transportation (DDOT) already has rejected a request
for such a driveway as a danger to pedestrians trying to make their way along
Connecticut and an impediment to traffic flow along the avenue. Despite the
developer’s claims, inclusion of such a driveway would not reduce traffic on
Military or Kanawha.
The Cafritzes’ insistence on the driveway appears to be the reason they refuse
to comply with a basic rule of urban design by moving the structure forward so
it fronts on Connecticut and defines the urban corridor. It also appears to be
the reason they won’t agree to the kind of buffer zone between the high-rise and
surrounding single family homes that virtually all well-designed apartment
buildings along Connecticut have.
The driveway is one of the few elements of the Cafritz development in which the
community has an opportunity to make a mutually beneficial trade-off:
neighborhood support for the driveway in return for coupling it with a secondary
entrance/exit to the proposed structure’s underground parking to relieve some,
but not all, of the traffic along Military and Kanawha. Absent this coupling,
ANC support would simply give away a legitimate bargaining chip.
Advocates of the draft agreement suggest that the Cafritzes will prohibit
tenants of the proposed structure from getting residential parking sticker that
would let them save the expense of renting a space in the proposed structure’s
underground garage and parking on the street.
But the agreement itself says only that the Cafritzes “will request” such an
arrangement, which means the provision would be unenforceable.
The draft says the Cafritzes agree “to install additional landscaping,”
including preserving existing tall, mature trees that could serve as an
effective shield against light pollution and protect privacy, especially along
the huge Military Road side of the building.
However after initially saying that seven mature trees located in public space
along Military could be saved, the Cafitzes’ landscape architect sent a memo
reducing that number to three and even then only promising "reasonable best
efforts." None would be saved along Kanawha. The new trees that the landscape
architect proposes to add either would be too small to provide much shielding,
or don’t grow the kind of full, protective canopies portrayed in the concept
drawings.
The draft includes a variety of proposals that appear aimed at allowing the
Cafritzes to claim that their proposed building would be environmentally sound.
However, the developers had already said they’d use “green” technology (although
not meet nationally recognized green LEEDS standards). The only new elements
appear to be mention of adding a Capital Bike Share rack and space for two
Zipcars on the property.
The text of the draft also says the Cafritzes “shall have no obligation” to
include either “if after a reasonable effort” they decide inclusion of one or
both is impractical.
The draft says that the developers agree to “institute traffic controls and
signage, as requested and advised by the DDOT, so that traffic entering and
exiting the building will not use the narrow alley that runs from behind the
Building to Chevy Chase Parkway.”
However, the Cafritzes agreed in early conversations with the ANC and the
coalition to install a so-called “pork chop” traffic control to discourage use
of the alley. The draft appears to weaken, not strengthen, that agreement by
making it contingent on the city’s transportation department requesting the
traffic control. Senior DDOT officials have repeatedly described the alley as
“public infrastructure” that should be put to greater use. As a result, it
seems unlikely that they will “request” any control.
Members of the 5333 CNC appreciate the ANC’s efforts to encourage negotiations
between the community and the Cafritzes. But the secret negotiations between
the ANC and the Cafritzes that have resulted in limited, inadequately defined
and unenforceable promises of change are counterproductive and a disservice to
our community.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Not the Steak and Egg????
A dark shadow was cast as a Historic Preservation Office notice flowed to the public regarding a series of raze permits on the 4700 block of Wisconsin Avenue. Not the Steak and Egg!!!! Don't let this quirky 24-hour icon fall to the clutches of development pressue.
Alas, not to worry. According to the Housing Complex the Steak and Egg isn't going anywhere. In fact, it is slated for expansion.
Let's up it doesn't go upscale!
Alas, not to worry. According to the Housing Complex the Steak and Egg isn't going anywhere. In fact, it is slated for expansion.
Let's up it doesn't go upscale!
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Park Van Ness
Greater Greater Washington reports on the BF Saul redevelopment proposal for Van Ness Square. Dubbed Park Van Ness, this mixed-use development would replace the surface parking lot and commercial building which straddles the east side of Connecticut Avenue adjacent to Soapstone Creek.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Zoning Commission Approves Babes
On January 14th, the Zoning Commission unanimously approved the proposal to develope the Babes site in Tenleytown without parking.
In exchange, the neighborhood will receive amenities such as additional car and bike sharing facilities, streetscape improvements and costly undergrounding of utilities.
ANC 3E had previously supported the proposal unanimously.
In exchange, the neighborhood will receive amenities such as additional car and bike sharing facilities, streetscape improvements and costly undergrounding of utilities.
ANC 3E had previously supported the proposal unanimously.
Exciting New Project in Glover Park
Urban Turf covers a new development in Glover Park. As long as the hardware store stays, it's all good!
Tuesday, January 08, 2013
Zoning Rewrite Presentation
The DC Office of Planning will host the Ward 3 forum for the zoning rewrite 6:30pm, Wilson High School, 3950 Chesapeake Street NW.
Much has been written on the Chevy Chase Listserv about a few main proposals:
- to eliminate parking minimums in transit zones
- to allows for corner stores and markets
- to allow renters to live in garden apartments and accessory dwelling units.
You can read more about these proposals on the DC Office of Planning website and blog.
Much has been written on the Chevy Chase Listserv about a few main proposals:
- to eliminate parking minimums in transit zones
- to allows for corner stores and markets
- to allow renters to live in garden apartments and accessory dwelling units.
You can read more about these proposals on the DC Office of Planning website and blog.
Thursday, January 03, 2013
Synopsis of Development in Ward 3
The Ward 3 Vision community group has shared a synopsis of development in the Ward in 2012. Interesting read.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Chevy Chase Development
There has been some chatter on the Chevy Chase Listserv about a development proposal for the large tract of undeveloped land bordered by Connecticut Avenue, Military Road and Kanawha Street. Known now as 5333 Connecticut Avenue, the local residents are attempting to raise concerns with city officials through a petition campaign.
Unlike other development proposals such as Cathedral Commons or The Bond which required Zoning Commission review, this project is being proposed by the developer as a matter of right proposition. In other words, there appears to be little to no opportunity for public input because the proposal complies in every way with current zoning rules.
On the listserv, one resident suggests:
Chevy Chase’s largest development in perhaps a half century is on the verge of
breaking ground without an iota of local input, or even any notice.
Many neighbors think this is just plan unfair. And they’re going door to door
beginning this weekend with what information about the project we've been able
to gather in the days since we first learned of it. They’ll also have petitions
and letters calling on Mary Cheh, our councilmember, Mayor Gray and Nicholas
Majett, the head of the city department that's been handing out municipal
approvals for the project, to help us get our concerns heard and addressed.
So it begs the question, what is appropriate in this case? Even though it is a matter of right development, should there be opportunity for residents to have a recourse? Are there extenuating circumstances that the rest of the public isn't aware of? Is there any irony that many of these same residents probably opposed the historic district proposal, which may have had impact on the scale of the development proposal?
Unlike other development proposals such as Cathedral Commons or The Bond which required Zoning Commission review, this project is being proposed by the developer as a matter of right proposition. In other words, there appears to be little to no opportunity for public input because the proposal complies in every way with current zoning rules.
On the listserv, one resident suggests:
Chevy Chase’s largest development in perhaps a half century is on the verge of
breaking ground without an iota of local input, or even any notice.
Many neighbors think this is just plan unfair. And they’re going door to door
beginning this weekend with what information about the project we've been able
to gather in the days since we first learned of it. They’ll also have petitions
and letters calling on Mary Cheh, our councilmember, Mayor Gray and Nicholas
Majett, the head of the city department that's been handing out municipal
approvals for the project, to help us get our concerns heard and addressed.
So it begs the question, what is appropriate in this case? Even though it is a matter of right development, should there be opportunity for residents to have a recourse? Are there extenuating circumstances that the rest of the public isn't aware of? Is there any irony that many of these same residents probably opposed the historic district proposal, which may have had impact on the scale of the development proposal?
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Cathedral Commons, At Long Last
DC MUD has a small review of the groundbreaking for the new Wisconsin Avenue Giant, or Cathedral Commons in Cleveland Park. Expected completion is 2014, or 15 years after the first proposals hit the community.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Incremental Updates on Babes
As the Babes development proposal ebbs towards the zoning commission later this fall, a Memorandum of Understanding has been posted on the developers website. In sum, the ANC was able to get the developer to agree to undergrounding the utilities on the site and further codifies the development without parking. This seems to be a major win for the community as well as providing sufficient relief to alleviate concerns about resident owned cars parking in adjacent residential areas.
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
Tenley Library: Lost Opportunity
The Coalition for Smarter Growth released a report entitled "Public Land for Public Good". The report (PDF) chronicles many of the achievements afforded out of good use of public resources. Of course, in Ward 3, there is a different tale. From the report:
Tenley Library/Janney Elementary School and Benning Library
Though situated on opposite ends of the District, the Tenley/Friendship and Benning Road libraries both went through contentious redevelopment processes that failed to result in mixed-use libraries or affordable housing. Under the best of circumstances, a mixed-use approach faces many hurdles, but the initial conditions in these cases were even more challenging. In 2004, DCPL closed these branch libraries. It cancelled the construction contracts, and then entertained mixed-use proposals. In addition to the original mistake by DCPL of prematurely closing the libraries, the failure of city agencies to work together, to have a well-structured public process, or to methodically evaluate the alternatives doomed opportunities for mixed-use projects and additional community benefits.
Both neighborhood libraries, along with the Shaw and Anacostia branches, were closed at the end of 2004 in preparation for reconstruction. In 2004, DCPL awarded a $20 million contract to Hess Construction Company to rebuild all four libraries. However, anticipating recommendations from a mayoral task force on D.C. libraries and determining that Hess’s designs would not meet national or task force’s standards, DCPL terminated the contract, having already spent $3 million.79 This was the first complication in what became a protracted redevelopment process for these facilities.
At various times and to varying degrees, city officials considered the concept of redeveloping the Benning and Tenley libraries as mixed-use facilities, pairing the new libraries with residential units, including affordable housing and possibly retail. Because various individuals and groups in both communities expressed strong resistance to these proposals, in the end only single-use libraries were built on the sites, missing opportunities to include new mixed-income housing near a Metro station and save the city millions of dollars.
For Tenleytown, local developer Roadside Development offered an unsolicited proposal in 2005 for a mixed-use library combined with school renovations for the adjacent Janney Elementary School.80 A local community group, Ward 3 Vision, picked up the idea and urged DCPL and DMPED to solicit bids for a mixed-use library combined with accelerated school improvements rather than simply replacing the single-use library. The high value site faces the Tenleytown Metro station and a commercial hub on Wisconsin Avenue. The site was a rare opportunity for affordable housing in this affluent part of the District of Columbia.
Initially, parents representing the school through the Janney School Improvement Team (SIT) supported a public-private partnership that would simultaneously redevelop the library site while expediting renewal of Janney’s outdated facilities. 81 The joint library-school renovation proposal would free-up playground space by removing portable classrooms and a parking lot, through building shared underground parking.82 After releasing an RFP in October 2007, DMPED modified the original RFP in early 2008. The revised request specified that residential units could not be built directly over the library. To accommodate residential units under this restriction, the resulting designs would have decreased outdoor play space.83
This debilitating change appears to have been predicated on a desire to allow the library construction to proceed independent of other elements of the project and prompted the SIT to object to the loss of the play space. Frustration with the process grew with parents worried about the impact on the school and residents weary of waiting for a new, permanent library. Some residents expressed their frustration by protesting the July 2008 news conference announcing the city’s selection of LCOR as the site’s developer.84
The plan continued to lose support from the school community and city officials. Councilmembers Mary Cheh and Kwame Brown sent a letter in late October 2008 expressing their view that the library should be built as a single-use facility separate from any mixed-use plans on the site.85 Due to continued delays and mounting community pressure, the DCPL Board in late 2008 unilaterally declared that it would construct the originally planned single-use facility at the site.86 Deputy Mayor Neil Albert continued to push for dialogue between the city, LCOR, and community groups and indicated that LCOR would be open to amending its plans to respond to resident feedback. For example, in a letter to Councilmembers Cheh and Brown in January 2009, Albert indicated that LCOR was addressing the Janney SIT’s concerns regarding green space, modifying designs so that Janney would see “a net gain of 300 square feet of green space at the school.”87
Eventually, Albert and Mayor Fenty acquiesced to the DCPL’s decision to construct a single-use library. In March 2009, Mayor Fenty announced that the school and library construction would proceed without a housing component, though one could be added in the future.88 This change meant the city would forgo the five million dollars in savings on library construction that the mixed-use deal would have provided.
Despite cancellation of the mixed-use public-private project and the loss of the prepaid ground lease for the school improvements, the administration nonetheless moved capital funds from other schools to be able to do a full modernization and expansion for Janney. This put both construction projects ahead of schedule.
The accelerated pace was originally justified only because the funding stream from the public-private partnership would have freed up city funds for other schools. While Janney had severe crowding and building condition needs, other schools faced significant needs too. With the elimination of the benefits of the funding stream to the city from the joint-development, moving forward with an accelerated free-standing modernization of Janney represented a shift in public funding priorities. The high costs of the Janney modernization and expansion increased inequitable school expenditures and contributed to the disproportionate share of school modernization funds spent in Ward 3 public schools over the last decade.89 The public-private partnership model proposed for this renovation would have offered a more equitable way to meet the needs of the in-demand school while not shifting resources away from less affluent areas.
A new, stand-alone Tenley/Friendship library opened in 2011. DPMED paid for the incorporation of $1 million worth of structural supports to allow housing to be constructed next to and partially above the library in the future, but many doubt such an addition will be feasible or offer much affordability.
Tenley Library/Janney Elementary School and Benning Library
Though situated on opposite ends of the District, the Tenley/Friendship and Benning Road libraries both went through contentious redevelopment processes that failed to result in mixed-use libraries or affordable housing. Under the best of circumstances, a mixed-use approach faces many hurdles, but the initial conditions in these cases were even more challenging. In 2004, DCPL closed these branch libraries. It cancelled the construction contracts, and then entertained mixed-use proposals. In addition to the original mistake by DCPL of prematurely closing the libraries, the failure of city agencies to work together, to have a well-structured public process, or to methodically evaluate the alternatives doomed opportunities for mixed-use projects and additional community benefits.
Both neighborhood libraries, along with the Shaw and Anacostia branches, were closed at the end of 2004 in preparation for reconstruction. In 2004, DCPL awarded a $20 million contract to Hess Construction Company to rebuild all four libraries. However, anticipating recommendations from a mayoral task force on D.C. libraries and determining that Hess’s designs would not meet national or task force’s standards, DCPL terminated the contract, having already spent $3 million.79 This was the first complication in what became a protracted redevelopment process for these facilities.
At various times and to varying degrees, city officials considered the concept of redeveloping the Benning and Tenley libraries as mixed-use facilities, pairing the new libraries with residential units, including affordable housing and possibly retail. Because various individuals and groups in both communities expressed strong resistance to these proposals, in the end only single-use libraries were built on the sites, missing opportunities to include new mixed-income housing near a Metro station and save the city millions of dollars.
For Tenleytown, local developer Roadside Development offered an unsolicited proposal in 2005 for a mixed-use library combined with school renovations for the adjacent Janney Elementary School.80 A local community group, Ward 3 Vision, picked up the idea and urged DCPL and DMPED to solicit bids for a mixed-use library combined with accelerated school improvements rather than simply replacing the single-use library. The high value site faces the Tenleytown Metro station and a commercial hub on Wisconsin Avenue. The site was a rare opportunity for affordable housing in this affluent part of the District of Columbia.
Initially, parents representing the school through the Janney School Improvement Team (SIT) supported a public-private partnership that would simultaneously redevelop the library site while expediting renewal of Janney’s outdated facilities. 81 The joint library-school renovation proposal would free-up playground space by removing portable classrooms and a parking lot, through building shared underground parking.82 After releasing an RFP in October 2007, DMPED modified the original RFP in early 2008. The revised request specified that residential units could not be built directly over the library. To accommodate residential units under this restriction, the resulting designs would have decreased outdoor play space.83
This debilitating change appears to have been predicated on a desire to allow the library construction to proceed independent of other elements of the project and prompted the SIT to object to the loss of the play space. Frustration with the process grew with parents worried about the impact on the school and residents weary of waiting for a new, permanent library. Some residents expressed their frustration by protesting the July 2008 news conference announcing the city’s selection of LCOR as the site’s developer.84
The plan continued to lose support from the school community and city officials. Councilmembers Mary Cheh and Kwame Brown sent a letter in late October 2008 expressing their view that the library should be built as a single-use facility separate from any mixed-use plans on the site.85 Due to continued delays and mounting community pressure, the DCPL Board in late 2008 unilaterally declared that it would construct the originally planned single-use facility at the site.86 Deputy Mayor Neil Albert continued to push for dialogue between the city, LCOR, and community groups and indicated that LCOR would be open to amending its plans to respond to resident feedback. For example, in a letter to Councilmembers Cheh and Brown in January 2009, Albert indicated that LCOR was addressing the Janney SIT’s concerns regarding green space, modifying designs so that Janney would see “a net gain of 300 square feet of green space at the school.”87
Eventually, Albert and Mayor Fenty acquiesced to the DCPL’s decision to construct a single-use library. In March 2009, Mayor Fenty announced that the school and library construction would proceed without a housing component, though one could be added in the future.88 This change meant the city would forgo the five million dollars in savings on library construction that the mixed-use deal would have provided.
Despite cancellation of the mixed-use public-private project and the loss of the prepaid ground lease for the school improvements, the administration nonetheless moved capital funds from other schools to be able to do a full modernization and expansion for Janney. This put both construction projects ahead of schedule.
The accelerated pace was originally justified only because the funding stream from the public-private partnership would have freed up city funds for other schools. While Janney had severe crowding and building condition needs, other schools faced significant needs too. With the elimination of the benefits of the funding stream to the city from the joint-development, moving forward with an accelerated free-standing modernization of Janney represented a shift in public funding priorities. The high costs of the Janney modernization and expansion increased inequitable school expenditures and contributed to the disproportionate share of school modernization funds spent in Ward 3 public schools over the last decade.89 The public-private partnership model proposed for this renovation would have offered a more equitable way to meet the needs of the in-demand school while not shifting resources away from less affluent areas.
A new, stand-alone Tenley/Friendship library opened in 2011. DPMED paid for the incorporation of $1 million worth of structural supports to allow housing to be constructed next to and partially above the library in the future, but many doubt such an addition will be feasible or offer much affordability.
Tuesday, October 02, 2012
Van Mess to Van Ness?
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Construction Starts at Cathedral Commons
After almost 14 years, ground has finally broken on the former Wisconsin Avenue Giant. DC Metro Urban Diary has a good update.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
ANC 3C Update on Wisconsin Avenue Giant
ANC 3C to ratify Giant Construction Management Agreement
At long last, ANC 3C intends to consider and vote on ratifying a negotiated construction management agreement with Giant and Bozzuto Development. We submitted a draft Construction Management Agreement to Giant in June 2011. Serious negotiations began last winter. The four ANC commissioners whose SMDs are contiguous to the development site have been involved in meeting with the parties and exchanging drafts up until this summer when the final format and provisions began to take final shape.
We feel that the agreement is reasonable and provides good protections for the parts of our community that will be most directly affected by the construction. We did not get agreement on everything that we proposed but neither did Giant. I urge you to go to the anc3c.org website to read the CMA that is linked to our September 18 public meeting agenda. Among the provisions in the agreement are:
* establishment of a liaison committee with public meetings and
reports to the ANC
* pre-construction surveys of homes or buildings in the potential
zone of impact as determined by Giant's engineers (those have already been completed)
* regular public notification of upcoming construction activities
throughout the construction period
* ban on construction-related parking on streets or alleys within a
multiple block radius of development (map is attached to CMA document on ANC website)
* ban on construction vehicles driving on local streets rather than
arterial roadways to or from the development site
* Saturday work hours between 8AM-5PM
ANC 3C has asked representatives of Giant and Bozzuto Construction to
attend the ANC to provide a brief update on the construction plans for the next few months. This would not repeat previous presentations to the community, but would rather focus on the planned activities for the next few months. The CMA discussion is scheduled at the top of agenda and we expect this part of the agenda to conclude by 8PM.
The meeting begins at 7:30PM and will be held in the community room of the Second District Police Station. Please note that meeting is on Tuesday this month.
Nancy MacWood
ANC 3C09
At long last, ANC 3C intends to consider and vote on ratifying a negotiated construction management agreement with Giant and Bozzuto Development. We submitted a draft Construction Management Agreement to Giant in June 2011. Serious negotiations began last winter. The four ANC commissioners whose SMDs are contiguous to the development site have been involved in meeting with the parties and exchanging drafts up until this summer when the final format and provisions began to take final shape.
We feel that the agreement is reasonable and provides good protections for the parts of our community that will be most directly affected by the construction. We did not get agreement on everything that we proposed but neither did Giant. I urge you to go to the anc3c.org website to read the CMA that is linked to our September 18 public meeting agenda. Among the provisions in the agreement are:
* establishment of a liaison committee with public meetings and
reports to the ANC
* pre-construction surveys of homes or buildings in the potential
zone of impact as determined by Giant's engineers (those have already been completed)
* regular public notification of upcoming construction activities
throughout the construction period
* ban on construction-related parking on streets or alleys within a
multiple block radius of development (map is attached to CMA document on ANC website)
* ban on construction vehicles driving on local streets rather than
arterial roadways to or from the development site
* Saturday work hours between 8AM-5PM
ANC 3C has asked representatives of Giant and Bozzuto Construction to
attend the ANC to provide a brief update on the construction plans for the next few months. This would not repeat previous presentations to the community, but would rather focus on the planned activities for the next few months. The CMA discussion is scheduled at the top of agenda and we expect this part of the agenda to conclude by 8PM.
The meeting begins at 7:30PM and will be held in the community room of the Second District Police Station. Please note that meeting is on Tuesday this month.
Nancy MacWood
ANC 3C09
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
Babes Debate Continues
The site of the former Babes Billiards in Tenleytown is the hot topic of discussion on the local listserv. While there have been different proposals, the current version features expanded retail and more housing atop and next to the existing structure, which is two very short blocks to the Metro. The most controversial aspect of the proposal is the relief sought through the PUD for parking. Specifically, the developer, Jamal, would like to have no parking included in this proposal. Instead, they have offered the possibility of seeking alternatives at local lots such as at Whole Foods or Best Buy.
Some have suggested that this PUD before the zoning commission is a proxy for the larger discussion on eliminating parking minimums, as proposed by the DC Office of Planning as part of the new zoning process. One commenter has suggested:
we're making it harder to live with a car in DC at the same time
it becomes increasingly difficult to live without a car in DC. And that's a
situation that, increasingly, both old and new residents will experience. We're
continually creating new entitlements to a good (public parking) that is
shrinking rather than growing. Rationing based on price is the logical next step
(already seen at meters) -- not the sort of grandfathering solutions people
anticipated
To wit, the same commenter opined:
I agree that people pay more for the convenience of living near Metro and of
living within walking distance of retail and of public amenities like good
schools, libraries, rec centers, and parks. I think it's reasonable to assume
that such people drive less and own fewer cars than members of their demographic
cohort that don't live near transit. But the vast majority of households
willing and able to pay for the convenience of living in a neighborhood like
ours will own one car, if not two. So let's make sure most of them have a place
to park at home when they're walking or taking Metro. It's not in their
interests for this project to be built without any parking. It's not in our
interest for it to be built without parking.
On the one hand, theories around induced demand suggest that creating more or easier parking simply draws more vehicles to a destination. On the other, is it necessary to have some parking?
Another contributer offers this commentary:
What I don't understand is how ANY new residential building,
regardless of the proximity to a metro, can't have a minimum for required
parking...as if buyers don't have cars? Sure! Some people will walk to metro and
use it to go to work or elsewhere. Sure! Some people can walk here and there ...
But who would allow a NEW building WITHOUT parking? What if the people who
actually wanted to buy a place owned a car! Where do you park if you live
there? Clearly not on the street where all these people are saying there already
is no parking! I admit I don't live exactly right there but I also admit I truly
don't understand how people could think having NO parking for a new building is
acceptable. The area clearly needs developments and full-time residents. The
area clearly needs good development. But people own cars. And people need to
park cars.
The idea, for some local residents, to contemplate that there are individuals and households in the city, and around the world who exist without cars seems unfathomable.
The underlying question here is whether a developer can create a new residential structure that will have minimal, to no impact on the current residents ability to park near their homes. Further, for whatever retail might come in to these spaces, will they be able to attract and retain employees who may also need a car-less form of mobility, saying nothing about the potential customer base.
Certainly in a perfect world, one can envision new retail opportunities with housing atop that are completely viable. After all, there are cities around the world that are walkable and vibrant with little to no vehicular amenity. The question is, will demand be sufficient for renters without cars and will retailers and restauranteurs remain viable in such an environment?
Who is right here, or is that even the right question?
Some have suggested that this PUD before the zoning commission is a proxy for the larger discussion on eliminating parking minimums, as proposed by the DC Office of Planning as part of the new zoning process. One commenter has suggested:
we're making it harder to live with a car in DC at the same time
it becomes increasingly difficult to live without a car in DC. And that's a
situation that, increasingly, both old and new residents will experience. We're
continually creating new entitlements to a good (public parking) that is
shrinking rather than growing. Rationing based on price is the logical next step
(already seen at meters) -- not the sort of grandfathering solutions people
anticipated
To wit, the same commenter opined:
I agree that people pay more for the convenience of living near Metro and of
living within walking distance of retail and of public amenities like good
schools, libraries, rec centers, and parks. I think it's reasonable to assume
that such people drive less and own fewer cars than members of their demographic
cohort that don't live near transit. But the vast majority of households
willing and able to pay for the convenience of living in a neighborhood like
ours will own one car, if not two. So let's make sure most of them have a place
to park at home when they're walking or taking Metro. It's not in their
interests for this project to be built without any parking. It's not in our
interest for it to be built without parking.
On the one hand, theories around induced demand suggest that creating more or easier parking simply draws more vehicles to a destination. On the other, is it necessary to have some parking?
Another contributer offers this commentary:
What I don't understand is how ANY new residential building,
regardless of the proximity to a metro, can't have a minimum for required
parking...as if buyers don't have cars? Sure! Some people will walk to metro and
use it to go to work or elsewhere. Sure! Some people can walk here and there ...
But who would allow a NEW building WITHOUT parking? What if the people who
actually wanted to buy a place owned a car! Where do you park if you live
there? Clearly not on the street where all these people are saying there already
is no parking! I admit I don't live exactly right there but I also admit I truly
don't understand how people could think having NO parking for a new building is
acceptable. The area clearly needs developments and full-time residents. The
area clearly needs good development. But people own cars. And people need to
park cars.
The idea, for some local residents, to contemplate that there are individuals and households in the city, and around the world who exist without cars seems unfathomable.
The underlying question here is whether a developer can create a new residential structure that will have minimal, to no impact on the current residents ability to park near their homes. Further, for whatever retail might come in to these spaces, will they be able to attract and retain employees who may also need a car-less form of mobility, saying nothing about the potential customer base.
Certainly in a perfect world, one can envision new retail opportunities with housing atop that are completely viable. After all, there are cities around the world that are walkable and vibrant with little to no vehicular amenity. The question is, will demand be sufficient for renters without cars and will retailers and restauranteurs remain viable in such an environment?
Who is right here, or is that even the right question?
Wednesday, June 06, 2012
Cathedral Commons to Commence
The last piece of the puzzle on Wisconsin Avenue has announced its intention to relocate by July 13th to make way for Cathedral Commons. The Cathedral Sun Trust Branch disclosed to customers the intention to open a temporary branch adjacent to the intersection of Wisconsin Avenue and Macomb Street during the construction period.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
More afoot with Van Ness Square?
A recent CityBiz article suggests coming changes for Van Ness Square at 4455 Connecticut Avenue.
Friday, April 27, 2012
WMATA and Friendship Heights: Changes Abound?
The City Paper is reporting that WMATA is seeking a parcel to potentially replace the Northern and Western bus garages. This could potentially alter how Friendship Heights is viewed in coming years.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Clark looking at WMATA site
According to reports on DC MUD Safeway and Clark Construction are eying the WMATA chiller site at the corner of 42nd Street and Ellicot. Under the plan, the proposed mixed-use development would absorb the facility, which provides ventilation and air conditioning for both the Tenleytown and Friendship Heights metro stations and provide additional retail and housing opportunities at the location.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)