Zoning Overlay: More Food in Cleveland Park?

The every two year discussion about the restaurant zoning overlay is taking place on the Cleveland Park listserv. Recall that about 25 years ago, neighborhood leaders, fearing the "Adams Morganing" of their neighborhood took two measures. First, they created a historic district to help manage changes to the Connecticut Avenue commercial strip in the vicinity of the Metro station. Second, they were able to convince the city to install an overlay restricting the percentage of storefronts that can be dedicated to restaurants.

In the early 2000's, clarifications were made with the DC Office of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs related to how the 25% was measured and what kind of food places counted towards the cap.

In the intervening years, the wishes for the desired book store and hardware stores, while still present, seem to be measured with the reality that the viability of such places in a neighborhood like Cleveland Park are pretty slim. Instead, non-food places include a number of tanning salons, nail salons and other uses that some in the community feel are less desirable.

In this era, with internet based retail and more flexible working patterns, the neighborhood experience is evolving. More people want to be able to conduct meetings at coffee houses, enjoy a unique meal or be able to carry out lunch or dinner in an expedient manner. Corridors such as 14th Street, U Street, H Street, or 8th Street South East and the Navy Yards are transforming to very vibrant and unique places based on the services available.

Cleveland Park, on the other hand, remains relatively static in comparison. It is a wonderful neighborhood with fantastic building stock and natural foot traffic based on visitors to the National Zoo and the density of apartment buildings and condos along Connecticut Avenue to the north and south of the commercial strip.

In a 2008 poll, neighborhood listserv members supported the removal or relaxing of the zoning overlay by a factor of 70%. While this is not a scientific survey, it is one measure of public sentiment. So again, there is a new poll to measure public sentiment. Maybe this time, the ANC and Community Associations will take note that residents of the community really do not like this artificial barrier to improving realistic and improved choices in the community.

If you are a member of the listserv, vote now!

Streetcar Barns and Preservation

While mostly about the proposed streetcar barn near Spingarn High School, this City Paper article has a significant discussion surrounding the Western Bus Garage in Friendship Heights, and the prospects for redevelopment.

20016 Real Estate Analysis

Urban Turn has a nice write-up about real estate trends in Upper Northwest.

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.

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.

Van Mess to Van Ness?

Forest Hills Connection and the Coalition for Smarter Growth are sponsoring a walking tour of Van Ness on October 13th to help envision opportunities for improvement along the Connecticut Avenue Corridor. Read more here or register today.

Hearst Elementary Renovation

ANC 3F Commissioner Adam Tope updates the community on the planned Heast renovation for 2013.

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.

Stoddert Soccer and DPR - at odds over fields

Mike DeBonis of the Washington Post covers the squeeze on Stoddert Soccer for field space.

A lot of kids, not very many fields.

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

Update on Wisconsin Avenue House

DC Metro Urban Diary updates the fate of 3611 Wisconsin Avenue.

New Zoning and Ward 3

The District is embarking on a city-wide zoning revision. While this is not solely a Ward 3 issue, there has been a tremendous amount of discussion on various community listservs. Below is a recent, very relevant post:


we have centuries of evidence to see what neighborhoods look like
without parking minimums. I recently stumbled on this great little piece
entitled "Legalize Georgetown" (http://bit.ly/QKVm6a), written by David
Alpert in 2008, back when the zoning rewrite process was just getting
underway. He points out that some of DC's most beloved neighborhoods would
be illegal under today's zoning code.

"If Georgetown burned down tomorrow, then the zoning code should allow it
to be rebuilt similar to the way it is today. If someone wanted to expand
the rowhouses of Capitol Hill to vacant blocks in Southeast they should be
able to. But that's not true...

"My current building in Dupont has 13 apartments and zero parking spaces.
If it were rebuilt today, it would need an empty lot next door that's about
the same size as the building to fit the seven spaces required under
current zoning. It would mean more cars crossing the sidewalk, and one of
the prettiest blocks in Dupont would be much less. And having these spaces
would encourage more driving and raise the cost of living here."


I would add Cleveland Park to that list; many of the grand buildings lining
Connecticut Avenue predate the zoning code and would be much less grand if
they were subject to the 1950s rules. For that matter most of the pre-WWII
duplexes and townhouses in the neighborhood wouldn't be allowed.

None of the great cities of the world rose up under the constraints of
restrictive zoning codes or parking minimums, nor could they have. The most
beautiful parts of Paris, Rome, London, New York - and Washington DC -
would have been prohibited, or scarred with ugly parking lots and garages.

It's the zoning excesses of the 1950s that were reckless experiments, and
their unintended consequences - from the oceanic parking lots and strip
malls of Rockville Pike to the bleak megablocks of Southwest DC - are plain
for all to see. Today's zoning reforms take a small step towards undoing
that damage.

Residential parking scarcity is a problem; but the correct solution, as
I've argued before, is to price parking on public land in a way that
reflects its value, not to impose arbitrary Soviet-style supply quotas on
developers.

Friendship Neighborhood Association

In a recent post to the Chevy Chase Yahoo Group, one activist noted:

I testified on behalf of Friendship Neighborhood Association and asked the
Commission to reconsider some of the more sweeping and untested recommendations
in OP's proposal. I pointed out that OP was recommending the elimination of
minimum parking requirements in areas where there was a potential for a
spillover effect, when high-density residential and commercial development is
near low-density residential neighborhoods. At an earlier hearing, I had
provided a map of the low-density residential neighborhoods that were most at
risk.

So who or what is the FNA?

An internet search doesn't yield much. There is this website. It doesn't appear to have been updated since 2009. It also doesn't list any meeting times or dates. It also doesn't really list how to become a member, other than sending an email to an address that may, or may not work.

Is this an organization that carries any weight with the zoning commission, the ANC or other political bodies? According to the website, the organization was created under the District of Columbia's Uniform Unincorporated Nonprofit Association Act of 2000 (D.C. Law 13-231). Does that mean there are, or are not any tax or other filings?

Shouldn't there be some sort of threshold of public engagement, public input or other means of gauging sentiment of a community to even be able to carry the banner of representing that community?

Many neighborhood organizations and advocacy groups have extensive information and outreach available on the web or through social media. They actively recruit new members and inform their constituencies of ongoing concerns in their communities. This appears not to be the case with this organization.

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?

The latest on Klingle Road/Valley/Park/Trail

The appeal by Klingle Road proponents was dismissed paving the way for, we're not sure. Mike DeBonis of the Washington Post shares the latest.

It is ANC season, 2012 style (updated)

According to the DC Board of Ethics and Elections website, the following have picked up forms for ANC candidacy:

3B
3B01 Joe Fiorillo
3B02 Charles Cinque Fulwood
3B03 Jackie Blumenthal
3B04 Mary C. Young
3B05 Brian A. Cohen

3C
3C01 Lee Brain Reba
3C02 Peter Bruscoe
3C02 Gwendolyn Bole
3C03 Jeffrey Kaliel
3C03 Kevin Wheatley
3C04 Richard Steacy
3C05 Margaret Siegel
3C06 Carl Roller
3C07 Victor Silveira
3C08 Catherine May
3C09 Nancy MacWood

3D
3D01 Kent Slowinski
3D01 Michael Mazzuchi
3D02 Tom Smith
3D03 Nan Wells
3D04 Stuart Ross
3D05 Jameson Freeman
3D05 W. Philip Thomas
3D06
3D07
3D08 Michael Gold
3D09 Gayle Trotter
3D09 Karron Purchass
3D10 Joe Wisniewski
3D10 Silvia Lucero

3E
3E01 Elizabeth Haile
3E02 Matthew Frumin
3E03 Jonathan Bender
3E04 Tom Quinn
3E05 Sam Serebin

3F
3F01 Adam Scott Tope
3F02 Karen Lee Perry
3F03 Mary Beth Ray
3F04 John Wilson, Jr.
3F04 Sally Gresham
3F05 Megan Rosan
3F05 Manolis Priniotakis
3F06 David Solorzano Lowell
3F07 Bob Summersgill

3G
3G01 Carolyn "Callie" Cook
3G02 Gary Thompson
3G03 Randy Speck
3G04 Allen Beach
3G05 David Engel
3G06 Jim McCarthy
3G07 Jonathan T. Chu
3G07 Sandra Thomas
3G07 Henry Griffin

New ANC Boundaries

The DC Government has released the new boundaries for ANCs, consistent with the census process. The Ward 3 maps (PDFs) are located here.

Yikes in AU Park

Word of a horrific fire near AU early this morning.

Hopefully, everyone was able to get out safely.

Preservation versus Sustainability

In brief, here is an article about a recent Historic Preservation Review Board case related to the installation of solar panels on a visible roof in Cleveland Park.

Thoughts?

Cleveland Park Farmer's Market (?)

Despite endorsements from the Cleveland Park Citizen's Association and the local Business Association, the local ANC voted 4-2 not to support the effort to develop a farmers market for the commercial district. One Commissioner noted several reasons for their lack of support:


First, Brookville opposed the application. They are an anchor for our community and have very much been there for us when we have needed them. They agreed to open up shop when no other grocery stores would (including Magruders which came years later). They have literally opened up and stayed open during blizzards. I could go on about the things they've done for the community. I wasn't persuaded that shoppers would both shop at the farmers' market and cross Connecticut Avenue to continue shopping at Brookville or Yes. If we are hoping to attract pedestrians more than drivers, people can only carry so much and are not likely to buy a week's worth of sundries and carry them home.


Second, I was persuaded by my fellow Commissioner, Richard Steacy's, concerns for his constituents who are very dependent on Brookville. He represents many seniors and young professionals who do not own cars and use Brookville as their primary grocery store. I didn't want to contribute to the pressure Brookville is already feeling from Petco (pet food sales are down) and CVS and Walgreen's that have significant grocery departments.



Third, I was not satisfied with the Market manager's response regarding truck management. She stated that she had secured 6 spaces for the 10 expected trucks.
But when asked where the other trucks were going to park, she said two blocks away in the residential neighborhood. Saturday mornings are prime shopping and zoo parking times. This would only add pressure to the shortage of parking we're already experiencing. She also did not seem to have an enforcement plan if the vendors chose to park in the neighborhood rather than the designated parking spaces.


And finally, there are already 4 farmers' markets within a short distance of Cleveland Park; two are less than a mile away. Three are also located where there isn't direct competition with brick and mortar stores. Plus, we heard that Adas Israel may be considering sponsoring a market as well.



While many in the neighborhood have suggested that they concur that a Cleveland Park Farmers Market is a good idea, one neighboring ANC Commissioner has pointed out that the final decision rests with the Public Space Commission.



One should follow the Cleveland Park Listserv for more information regarding the support of this proposal.