Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/60869051/ZC-10-28-Setdown-Report-With-March-7-Corrections-to-Table-2-1
Timestamp: 2020-01-17 12:42:31
Document Index: 455476946

Matched Legal Cases: ['art01', '§2405', '§2603', '§ 411', '§2201', '§2405', '§ 2405', '§2119', '§ 22', '§411', '§2401', '§2403', '§ 2405', '§ 411', '§411', '§ 2201', '§ 2403', '§ 2600']

Chapter 2 Highway Functional Classification 1
group-2-proposal.docx
art01c01
Ballyhaunis Local Area Plan 2010-2016
Alangilan Realty & Development Corporation v. Office of the President
Denver City Council Revised Bill for Medical Marijuana Industry
Federal Realty Montrose Crossing
Ashland Future Land Use Plan Maps
District of Columbia Zoning Commission Jennifer Steingasser, Deputy Director- Development Review & Historic Preservation March 4, 2011 – with March 7 corrections to Table 2 Setdown Report – ZC 10-28 – Consolidated PUD at 901 Monroe Street, N.E.
I. OP RECOMMENDATION –IN-BRIEF
The Office of Planning (OP) recommends the Zoning Commission schedule a public hearing for this application by 901 Monroe Street, LLC for:
a consolidated Planned Unit Development (PUD) with the requested associated map amendment from C- 1 and R-2 to C-2-B;
and, in the alternative, a consolidated PUD with an associated map amendment of C-2-A with additional FAR relief under the provisions of §2405.3.
OP also recommends the Commission instruct the applicant to supply the additional information and further address the issues noted in Section XI, on the last page this report.
II. APPLICATION- IN- BRIEF
Figure 1. Site Location. (North is at top).
After submission of a supplementary report on February 24, 2006 the applicant is now requesting a consolidated PUD consisting of:a 3.12 FAR mixed use development with approximately 221 apartment units
(three fewer than in the original application), and ground floor retail on Monroe Street. The project would have a height of 60 feet, 8 inches on Monroe,
9 th and 10 th Streets, with 14 to 16 foot setback from the property line, a ½ to
1 setback at the 50 foot level; and a height of 50 feet (rather than the previous 60 feet, 8 inches) on Lawrence Street.
The supplemental filing corrected the original FAR calculations, reduced the height on Lawrence Street, and provided more detail on the proposed project amenities and community benefits.
1100 4 th Street SW,
fax: 202-535-2497 www.planning.dc.gov
The proposed building would be set-back from its property line at a varying distance of 14 to 16 feet. On the north, east and west sides It would be 60 feet, 8 inches high, with a 5-foot 7-inch set-back at the 50-foot level. The building would occupy 75% of its site, and have a 3.12 floor area ratio (FAR). 120 to 130 underground residential parking spaces would be provided in a ratio of approximately 0.8 space for every two apartments. The 16,130 square feet of retail space would have 16-foot interior heights.
The applicant has requested an FAR of 3.12 through an associated C-2-B map amendment. While this FAR would not be inconsistent with the the Comprehensive Plan and the Brookland Small Area Plan (SAP the association of the C-2-A zone may be more clearly consistent with the policies and illustrations in those documents and with the site‟s context. Therefore, OP recommends the Commission set down this project with both the requested C-2-B zone and the alternative C-2-A zone, so that it may consider the merits of each associated zone.
The zoning regulations require that in a C-2-B zone 8% of the residential space be affordable to families earning no more than 80% of the area median income (AMI). The proposal would meet this requirement. For the alternative C-2-A zone, the applicant would need to revise its application to comply with §2603‟s requirements that 10% of the residential space be affordable: 5% at the 80% AMI level, and 5% at the 50% AMI level.
The applicant has already requested the following zoning flexibility
An associated map amendment from R-2 and C-1 to C-2-B, as limited to the heights, FAR, setbacks, lot occupancy, parking and design noted in the revised application and summarized above;
Two roof structures, not set back at a 1:1 ratio (§§ 411.2, 411.3 and 411.5);
A 30-foot rather than 55-foot loading berth (§2201.1).
For the alternative C-2-A setdown, the applicant the following additional relief would be necessary:
A demonstration that the project would meet §2405.3 ‟s criterion that “the increase is essential to the successful functioning of the project and consistent with the purpose and evaluation standards of the chapter [24]”.
The Brookland neighborhood comprises primarily two and three story single-family detached dwellings, as well as rowhouses and small-to-moderate scale apartment buildings. 12 th Street, between Lawrence Street and Michgan Avenue, is Brookland‟s commercial “Main Street”. The area includes small scale industrial buildings near the rail lines, several moderate to medium scale institutional properties associated with the Roman Catholic Church, and mixed-use townhouse and 70 foot high buildings west of the rail tracks that the Commission- approved for a PUD in Case No. 08-24. The Metro station has provided significant stimulus for new development, about which neighborhood residents have expressed mixed opinions.
The applicant‟s 60,000 square foot site is located on Square 3829 Lots 3, 4, 11, 22 and 820. The site is on the south side of Monroe Street across from the Brookland/CUA metro station, three blocks east of Michigan Avenue, ½ block east of the CSX/Amtrak/Metrorail lines, and two blocks west of 12 th Street. The Catholic University of America is ½ mile west.
Square3829 is bounded by Monroe Street (north), 10 th Street (east), Lawrence Street (south) and 9 th Street (west). Each of the streets has a sixty-foot right of way, with the exception of 9 th Street, which has a fifty-foot right of way. The Square is generally level, with a gradual slope from the northwest to the southeast. 10 th Street is the lowest point between the rail embankment west of 9 th Street and the 12 th Street.
The applicant‟s property comprises three-fourths of the Square and is occupied by a two story, early twentieth century commercial building used as a restaurant and bar, a now-vacant modern companion structure, an
accessory parking lot, three detached houses on 9 th Street and two detached houses on Lawrence Street. The southeastern part of Square 3829 is not part of the proposed development site and is occupied by six rowhouses in two clusters of three. There is a north-south alley behind these houses.
The historically-designated Col. Brooks Mansion is immediately north of the site. It is owned by the District and occupied by its cable television operations. To the east, on 10 th Street, is a public school. To the south, there are five single family detached houses across from the site, on Lawrence Street. On the west side of 9 th Street, there are row structures used primarily for non- residential purposes and, to the south, vacant land owned principally by WMATA.
The applicant proposes to demolish the six existing buildings and redevelop the site as a mixed-use residential/retail building wrapping a large semi-enclosed courtyard. It would include:
206, 631 GSF, comprising 215-230 du‟s, averaged to 221 units for the application;
– 8% -- approximately 16,130 GSf -- required as affordable @ 80% AMI)
– Residential Parking: 120-130 underground residential parking spaces (1 space: 0.56 apartment)
16,130 SF retail w/16 „ interior height,
– Accessed from enclosed private east-to-west alley
– Retail Parking:
– Other Parking:
68 bike spaces
– Loading:
30-foot berth, one 400 SF platform, two 30-foot service delivery spaces
– Enclosed and accessed from enclosed private east-to-west alley
Voluntary setback of 14‟ to 16‟ from property line around entire building
– Potential sidewalk cafes on public and private land on Monroe Street
– Two tenant courtyards and a swimming pool
– Balconies and top-floor terraces
– Cf. public benefits below
– Exemplary Design:
Natural and cast stone, tile and brick facing of several types and shades
– Decorative floral pattern at top of bays Prominent element at corner of 9 th and Monroe establishes sense of place
– Building and upper-story setbacks to reduce apparent height
– Stepping down of height towards residential neighborhood to south
– -Public Benefits:
Retail Space, with neighborhood participation in retailer selection
– Potential sidewalk cafes
– Enclosed parking access and loading docks
– Reconstruction of alley entered from Lawrence Street.
– Trees and Landscaping along alley
– A First Source Employment Agreement
– A transportation demand management program
– One or more of several potential recreational or neighborhood improvement proffers detailed in the applicant‟s supplemental filing of February 24, 2011.
Figure 3. Proposed PUD’s Monroe Street Facade
Parking and loading would be entered from 10 th Street and travel would be in a one-way westerly direction to the enclosed loading bays, or the underground parking. All vehicular exists would be to the west, where the internal alley would exit onto 10 th Street.
There would be a landscaped courtyard on the eastern side of the building, secured with decorative iron fencing, and screened by trees to be planted in front of the fencing on the west side of the alley behind the remaining 10 th Street row- houses.
V. RELATIONSHIP TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND SMALL AREA PLAN
The proposed development would be not inconsistent with the housing, economic development, environmental protection, land use, and upper northeast area elements of the Comprehensive Plan. It would also be not inconsistent with the guidance in the Brookland Small Area Plan (SAP).
As further discussed in Appendix A of this report, the project would strike an appropriate balance between the Comprehensive Plan elements that support the construction of new housing and mixed uses in areas adjacent to rapid transit stops and those that stress the importance of conserving healthy lower-density residential neighborhoods. Although it would increase density, it would do so across from a Metro station and on one of the two principal mixed use streets in Brookland‟s town center. It would provide new housing, and enhance the area‟s retail offerings. It would also strengthen street-level continuity between new development the Commission approved for the Catholic University of America‟s south campus and the retail offerings on 12 th Street N.E.
The applicant seeks the association of C-2-B zoning with this project rather than the underlying C-1 and R-2 zoning. The applicant has requested additional relief from the zoning regulations‟ requirements for:
the depth of the residential loading berth; the number of roof structure enclosures, and roof structure setback. The zoning aspects of the application are summarized in Table 1.
OP has recommended that C-2-A zone also be advertised in the alternative. If the C-2-A zone were approved the applicant
would need to either reduce the project‟s size by 0.12 or seek an FAR increase of 5% greater than the maximum floor area
ratio under the criteria contained in § 2405.3. Table 2.
The zoning aspects of the alternative C-2-A setdown are summarized in
Table 1: Proposed Project’s Zoning Analysis with Requested C-2-B Zone
C-2-B MOR
60,000 sf (1)
4.2(IZ)
(1.5 non-res.)
(2.0 non-res.)
222,854 sf. (total) ( 12,922 sf. (comm.) 201,631 sf (res.) --- (w/8% - 16,130 sf- @ 80% AMI)
80% res.
75% (residential & comm )
100% non-res.
100% non-res
40 ft. , 3 stories
75 ft. (IZ)
1/750 sf. Retail:
Retail: 13
1/300 sf.
1/750 sf.gfa >3,000 sf, Residential.: 1 /3du‟s
gfa >3,000 sf, (i.e., 13spaces) Residential:
Residential: 114
gfa&cellar
Total: 120-130
>3,000sf
Residential 1/ 3 du‟s
1/3 du‟s (i.e., 71 – 73)
Bike Pkg.
5%required
5% of required retail auto spaces
5% of required retail auto space
Complies (§2119)
Retail 2 service/delivery @ 30 ft. deep
Relief requested from § 22
1 berth@ 30 ft.
1 platform @ 100 sf.
1 service/delivery@ 20‟
1 berth @ 55 ft. deep
1 platform @ 200 sf.
1 space @ 20 ft.
1 berth @ 30‟. deep
1 platform @ 400 sf.
2 @12‟-0” tall
ALT: 3-12‟-0”, 1 18.5
from §411
NW stair: 32‟ - 9 th & Monroe;. 19‟-2” - courtyard. Elevator penthouse: 32‟- 9 th St., 6‟-2” - courtyard
ALT. NW enclosure:
26‟-Monroe; 28‟
9 th; ,
7‟2” - courtyard. ALT. end stairs: 0‟ aligns w/ „chimney‟
Table 2: Proposed Project’s Zoning Analysis with Alternative C-2-A Zone (With 2 corrections dated March 7, 2011. Error struck through; correction bold underlined)
C-2-A MOR
(§2401)
3.0 (IZ)
Requires 5%
relief under
§2403.5
222,854 sf. (total) ( 12,922 sf. (comm ) 201,631 sf (res.) w/ - 5% (10,082 sf) @ 80% AMI%
If residential proposed:
If residential proposed: 5% @ 80% AMI 5% @ 50% AMI
5% @ 80% AMI 5% @ 50% AMI
5% (10,082 gsf) @ 80% 5% (10,081 gsf) at 50%
80% 60%res.
60% res.
Complies under IZ s
90 ft. 65ft.
gfa >3,000 sf, (i.e., 13 spaces) Residential:
5% of required retail auto space (i.e., 1)
1 service/delivery@ 20‟ Residential
1 berth @ 30 ft. deep
2 @12‟-0” tall ALTERNATE: 3 - 2@12‟-0”, 1@ 18‟-6”
NW stair: 32‟ from 9 th St. & Monroe St., 19‟-
2” from courtyard. Elevator penthouse:
32‟ from 9 th St., 6‟-2” from courtyard ALT. NW mechanical enclosure: 26‟ from Monroe Street, 28‟ from 9 th Street, 7‟-2” from courtyard. ALT. end stairs: 0‟ - in line with build edge and would continue „chimney‟ element embellishment.
VI. ZONING FLEXIBILITY
The applicant has requested the following flexibility from zoning requirements, under the provisions of § 2405.7:
A. Multiple Roof Structures (§§ 411.2, 411.3), not all of which would be set-back at a 1:1 ratio
(§411.5)
Because the applicant has not yet decided on whether the HVAC systems will be centralized or decentralized, the architectural plans show alternative layouts and dimensions for the roof structures. Under any alternative there would be one staircase providing access to the roof and one elevator overrun. The applicant has requested permission to have each separately enclosed, believing that the visual impact of two smaller structures would be less than than of one larger structure.
Under none of the alternative would every roof structure be set-back from the
walls of the 6 th floor in a 1:1 ratio of the structure‟s height to its setback from the wall. With a decentralized system, there would be two roof structures – one for stair access and one for the elevator overrun. While the stair enclosure would meet all set-back requirements, the 12- foot tall elevator overrun enclosure would be set back only 5-feet from the 6 th floor
wall facing the open courtyard.
centralized system, the mechanical enclosure would be 18‟ 6” tall, and it would not meet the required setback from the open courtyard-facing wall. A different alternative shows 12-foot high staircases at either or both of
the extreme ends of the central corridor. At either location, such a roof structure would not comply with set- back requirements from wall at the end of the corridor.
Under any scenario each enclosure would meet meets or exceeds the required setback from the roofs edges that faces out to street walls. At any location the proposed deviations the impact on the light and air available to adjacent buildings would be minimal to non-existent. However, there would be a greater visual impact on some of the townhouses on the west side of 10 th Street from locating a roof-access stair at the end of a corridor than there would from other locations.
B. Loading Berth Size Relief (§ 2201.1)
The project‟s retail component would require one 30-foot long loading berth, one 200-square foot loading platform and one 20-foot long service delivery space. The residential loading requirement would be one 55- foot loading berth, one 200 square foot loading platform and one 20-foot long service delivery space. The applicant proposes providing one 30-foot berth, one 200-square foot platform and two 30-foot delivery spaces. This would require relief from the 55-foot residential loading berth requirement. The applicant has
stated that 10 th Street‟s the width makes it difficult for a truck scaled to a 55-foot berth to make the turning movements from Monroe Street to southbound 10 th Street to the west-bound internal service alley the applicant proposes providing. It has also stated that the relatively small size of the proposed apartments would not require the use of a large moving van.
The applicant has reviewed its proposed loading provisions and circulation movements with the District Department of Transportation (DDOT). DDOT has not expressed reservations about the proposal.
C. Potential FAR Relief Under the Alternative C-2-A District (§ 2403.5)
If the Commission sets down the application with associated C-2-A zoning in the alternative, and the applicant wished to maintain its proposed 3.12 FAR, it could ask the Commission approve up to 5% additional FAR above the C-2-A PUD‟s 3.0 FAR standard, provided it demonstrated that “the increase is essential to the successful functioning of the project and consistent with the purpose and evaluation standards of the chapter [24]”.
The purpose and standards for Planned Unit Developments are outlined in 11 DCMR, Chapter 24. Section 2400.1 states that a PUD is “designed to encourage high quality development that provide public benefits.” In order to maximize the use of the site consistent with the zoning regulations and to utilize opportunities for additional FAR, the applicant is requesting that the proposal be reviewed as a consolidated PUD. This would allow the utilization of the flexibility stated in Section 2400.2.
The overall goal is to permit flexibility of development and other incentives, such as increased building height and density; provided, that the project offers a commendable number of quality public benefits and that it protects and advances the public health, safety, welfare, and convenience.”
Section 2403 further outlines the standards under which the application is evaluated.
The impact of the project on the surrounding area and the operation of city services and facilities shall not be found to be unacceptable, but shall instead be found to be either favorable, capable of being mitigated, or acceptable given the quality of public benefits in the project.
Urban Design, Architecture and Site Planning The project would have superior site planning, architecture, and landscaping. Its ground-level setbacks would enhance the pedestrian environment; the building is fully designed, employs front-façade-quality materials on every face. The multiple street-activating residential entrances would help be in keeping with the design of other surrounding buildings, and the corner “turret” at 9 th and Monroe Streets would help to establish the presence of retail uses from the Metro Station and from new developments west of the rail tracks. Upper level setbacks would mitigate the building‟s height, especially facing the single family houses to the south. Courtyard plantings and perimeter trees would help to buffer the development from adjacent residences. The internal service alley and trash enclosures would help minimize noise that might spill-over from the-site.
Housing As part of the overall development, the applicant would meet the Inclusionary Zoning requirement that 30,520 square feet (8%) of the housing to be dedicated to affordable housing, resulting in 30-33 units distributed among unit-types proportional to the market rate units. The units would be available to families earning up to 80% of the area median income. The units would be dispersed throughout the building, not including the two top floors.
Under the alternative association of the C-2-A district with the proposed PUD, the applicant would have a more aggressive affordable housing requirement. In that zone the greater of 10% of the project‟s residential square footage, or 50% of its bonus residential density would have to be provided for affordable housing, with half of that at rates affordable to households earning up to 80% of the AMI and half affordable to households making up to 50% of the AMI.
Under either C-2-B or C-2-A affordable units would be considered a public benefit, but they could not be considered a proffer because § 2600 requires them to be provided.
OP would, however, consider a modification of the application to include more market rate and affordable two and three bedroom units to be a proffer public benefit, because such larger units would not be required and the demand for such units is great.
Retail The provision of new retail space would improve the urban fabric and increase pedestrian activity to create a livelier and more inviting streetscape for residents and visitors. With the proffered neighborhood participation in retail selection, the proposed retail uses would be neighborhood serving.
Local Business Opportunities and First Source Agreements The applicant would be entering into a Memorandum of Understanding with the District of Columbia Local Business Opportunity Commission, and would include participation by small, local and disadvantaged businesses in the contracted development costs in connection with the design development, construction, maintenance and security of the project.
Similarly, the applicant should work with the Department of Employment Services and use DOES as its first source for recruitment, referral and placement of new hires for employees whose jobs are created by the PUD.
Green Elements The developer proposes to include a number of environmentally sensitive elements consistent with the applicant‟s emphasis on sustainable design and construction to LEED silver certification standards. OP is supportive of this initiative and has informed the applicant that it will need to submit a completed LEED checklist for the public hearing.
Transportation Demand Management The proposed project would provide the required number of retail parking spaces, approximately 23 more than the required number of residential spaces, and, as part of its Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, 67 more bicycle spaces than would be required. The TDM also includes proffered coordination of the location of car-sharing service at the site, the provision of a Smart Trip transit can for intial residents for one year, and the designation of a transportation management coordinator.
The applicant‟s transportation analysis indicates that levels of service at five nearby intersections now range from LOS A to LOS D – all acceptable LOS‟ in an urban settings. Taking into account the proposed project‟s assumed 1% contribution to future traffic at these intersections, a 1% annual background traffic growth rate, and eight major developments or expansions within approximately 1.5 miles, the applicant projects future LOS‟s at these same intersections to range generally from A – D, with the exception of the Monroe and 10 th Streets intersection, where it would reach an unacceptable LOS E by 2015. The applicant suggests that this deficiency could be offset by signal time improvements on Monroe Street at 9 th Street and the WMATA entrance driveway. The applicant has not proffered a contribution to such a signalization improvement.
Should the application be set down, OP would look to DDOT to assess the sufficiency of the applicant‟s estimates, and whether any contribution to signalization improvements would be appropriate.
The objectives of a PUD are to permit flexibility of development in return for the provision of superior public benefits, provided the PUD process is not used to circumvent the intent and purposes of the Zoning Regulations, or results in an action inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Public amenities are defined in Section 2407.3 as including “one type of public benefit, specifically a functional or aesthetic feature of the proposed development that adds to the attractiveness, convenience or comfort of the project for occupants and immediate neighbors”.
The applicant has listed a number of areas which they feel contribute towards their amenity package. These are
noted in the first table below, with OP‟s evaluation of how the items should be classified.
continuing to work on finalizing the amenities and benefits, as illustrated in the February 24, 2011 supplemental
BENEFITS /AMENITIES CITED BY APPLICANT
8% affordable @ 80% AMI
Superior Arch/Urban Design
Setback-above 50‟
(14‟-16‟)
Transit Oriented Project
Reduced curb cuts
Internal service alley
Enclosed loading/trash
68 Bicycle spaces
1 retail required
Adds only 1% to traffic
Noted but n/a
Some, by DDOT
Environmental Benefits, including LEED-certifiable
41-43 pts.
Special Value Uses: –tax
X if accepted by DDOT
16‟ buffer & trees west of alley
Construction Management. Agreement w/nghbrs & ANC 5C
st Source Agreements
Ward 5 job training program
Swimming Pool (shown on drawings but not mentioned in text)
The application will be referred to the following agencies for comments:
1. District Department of Transportation (DDOT);
2. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department;
3. Department of Public Works, Tree and Landscape Division;
4. District Department of the Environment
5. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA).
The applicant has met with DDOT, which has indicated preliminarily that the parking and loading
provisions appear to be acceptable. Should the application be set down, OP would look to DDOT to assess the sufficiency of the applicant‟s traffic estimates, and whether any contribution to signalization improvements would be appropriate as part of a TDM program.
The applicant will need to meet with the appropriate District agencies to resolve neighborhood concerns about a possible underground stream on the site, and runoff questions both during and after construction.
X. COMMUNITY COMMENTS
There has been considerable discussion of the project within the affected neighborhood.
Both the applicant and OP have separately participated in several community meetings about the project with the ANC 5A Single Member District Commissioner and constituents in the proposed project area,, the Brookland Community Civic Association, and other groups of neighborhood residents.
Project proponents have favored the provision of additional retail the project would provide, and stated that such shops and the visibility generated by the project‟s design would draw potential customers eastward to Brookland‟s town center from the Metro and from the approved CUA-South PUD west of the rail lines.
Opponents have cited two principal areas of concern:
The C-2-B zoning the applicant has requested be associated with the project;
The proposal to exceed the fifty-foot height limit the SAP recommends for east of the rail tracks.
Other opponent-concerns have included:
The general scale of the building in relations to its smaller-scaled surroundings;
The potential of the associated zoning and height to set a precedent for the rest of the neighborhood
Potential negative effects on nearby residences through flooding from an underground stream said to be on the site, and through vibrations associated with loading in the enclosed private alley;
The possible residential parking impact,
The relatively small size and the all-rental status of the apartments, particularly when they are within ½ mile of a university campus;
Potential construction impacts on the stability and environment of structures near the project, and
The details and feasibility of the proffered and ancillary community benefits.
OP concludes that the proposal is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, its Future Land Use and Generalized Policy maps, and its supplementary Small Area Plan. The project would include elements that would be superior to development that could be realized as a matter of right, including additional neighborhood-serving retail, the elimination of surface parking, the provision of affordable housing, public space improvements, more sustainable utilization of land across from a Metro station, and several potential community benefits.
The Office of Planning recommends that the Commission:
Schedule a public hearing on the application with an associated C-2-B map amendment and, in the alternative, with an associated C-2-A map amendment.
OP further recommends that the applicant:
• Provide additional details about its proffers; particularly what and how it proposes to deliver potential improvements of public open space and/or parkland;
• Provide numerical projections of tenant parking outside of the proposed project garage of its impact on on- street parking;
• Present additional mitigation options for the potential impact of the project‟s height, and reflected noise from the swimming pool‟s usage, on the rear yards and project-facing windows of the remaining 10 th Street rowhouses in Square 3829;
• Present simulations of the project‟s appearance to pedestrians on each side of the streets bordering the site.
• Consider the provision of more units larger than studio and one-bedroom types.
Further Explanation of the Relationship of Proposed PUD to the Comprehensive Plan and the Brookland Small Area Plan
Citywide Elements – Land Use
• Policy LU-1.3.5: Edge Conditions Around Transit Stations: Ensure that development adjacent to Metrorail stations is planned and designed to respect the character, scale, and integrity of adjacent neighborhoods. For stations that are located within or close to low density areas, building heights should “step down” as needed to avoid dramatic contrasts in height and scale between the station area and nearby residential streets and yards. 306.14
• Policy LU-2.4.5: Encouraging Nodal Development: Discourage auto-oriented commercial “strip” development and instead encourage pedestrian-oriented “nodes” of commercial development at key locations along major corridors. Zoning and design standards should ensure that the height, mass, and scale of development within nodes respects the integrity and character of surrounding residential areas and does not unreasonably impact them.
The project‟s scale would mediate between the 70-foot high developments the Small Area Plan supports adjacent to the Brookland metro station and on the Catholic University south campus, and the single family neighborhoods to the east and south of the project. Monroe Street east of the rail tracks now contains a mix of uses, including single-family and multi-family residential, retail, and institutional uses. The 900 block of Monroe Street is predominately retail. Adjacent to the proposed project, 9 th Street contains row structures that are primarily residential and a parking lot accessory to a commercial structure. 10 th is institutional on the east side and residential on the west side, with a combination of single family detached and row houses. The project design integrates this form by continuing the traditional materials and bay-rhythms common to the neighborhood‟s commercial corridors – of which Monroe Street is one. It mitigates the impact of its uses, height and scale by setting the structure 14 to 16 feet back from its property line, by providing smaller scale architectural details that relate to adjacent structures, by buffering and screening itself from adjacent residential yards, and by limiting its apparent height from surrounding streets to five stories through the provision of an additional set-back for its top story.
• Policy LU-2.1.3: Conserving, Enhancing, and Revitalizing Neighborhoods: Recognize the importance of balancing goals to increase the housing supply and expand neighborhood commerce with parallel goals to protect neighborhood character, preserve historic resources, and restore the environment. The overarching goal to “create successful neighborhoods” in all parts of the city requires an emphasis on conservation in some neighborhoods and revitalization in others.
• Policy LU-2.1.3: Conserving, Enhancing, and Revitalizing Neighborhoods: Protect and conserve the
District’s stable, low density neighborhoods and ensure that their zoning reflects their established low density character. Carefully manage the development of vacant land and the alteration of existing structures in and adjacent to single family neighborhoods in order to protect low density character, preserve open space, and maintain neighborhood scale. 309.10
• Policy LU-2.1.8: Zoning of Low and Moderate Density Neighborhoods: Discourage the zoning of areas currently developed with single family homes, duplexes, and rowhouses (e.g., R-1 through R-4) for multifamily apartments (e.g., R-5) where such action would likely result in the demolition of housing in good
condition and its replacement with structures that are potentially out of character with the existing neighborhood. 309.13
– The site‟s location is affected by differing Comprehensive Plan policies among which it must strive for balance: Transit Oriented Development, commercial revitalization and neighborhood conservation. The proposed project would strike this balance. Although it would result in the demolition of five freestanding houses and would introduce moderate to medium density zoning on sites now zoned for lower density commercial and residential uses, it would also remove a surface parking lot while reinforcing citywide Comprehensive Plan elements such as: economic development, land use, and leveraging of locations adjacent to transit stops. Given the location and the proposed design, height and FAR restrictions and uses of the PUD, the project and the associated zoning request would not be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan‟s land use element.
• Policy LU-2.3.3: Buffering Requirements: Ensure that new commercial development adjacent to lower density residential areas provides effective physical buffers to avoid adverse effects. Buffers may include larger setbacks, landscaping, fencing, screening, height step downs, and other architectural and site planning measures that avoid potential conflicts.
– The proposal includes 14 foot to 16 foot setbacks from the property line, a 0.5:1 setback for the top story on Monroe, 9th and 10th Streets; a stepping down of height to the south, facing the single family detached properties on Lawrence Street; and extensive planting of trees and shrubbery between the courtyard and the rear yards of the remaining 10th Street houses.
Citywide Elements – Housing
• H-1.1 Expanding Housing Supply: Expanding the housing supply is a key part of the District’s vision to create successful neighborhoods. Along with improved transportation and shopping, better neighborhood schools and parks, preservation of historic resources, and improved design and identity, the production of housing is essential to the future of our neighborhoods. It is also a key to improving the city’s fiscal health. The District will work to facilitate housing construction and rehabilitation through its planning, building, and housing programs, recognizing and responding to the needs of all segments of the community. The first step toward meeting this goal is to ensure that an adequate supply of appropriately zoned land is available to meet expected housing needs. 503.1
• Policy H-1.1.3: Balanced Growth: Strongly encourage the development of new housing on surplus, vacant and underutilized land in all parts of the city. Ensure that a sufficient supply of land is planned and zoned to enable the city to meet its long-term housing needs, including the need for low- and moderate-density single family homes as well as the need for higher-density housing. 503.4
• Policy H-1.1.4: Mixed Use Development: Promote mixed use development, including housing, on commercially zoned land, particularly in neighborhood commercial centers, along Main Street mixed use corridors, and around appropriate Metrorail stations. 503.5
– The project would result in approximately 221 new housing units, at least 8% of which would be affordable at to households earning ≤ 80% of the area median income (AMI). The project would support housing policies even more strongly if it included some multiple-bedroom unit types.
– The site is across the street from a Metro station, is already mixed use, and the Small Area Plan envisions Monroe Street as a mixed-use corridor between Michigan Avenue and 12 th Street. The proposal would not be inappropriate for this location.
Citywide Element – Economic Development
Policy ED-2.2.3: Neighborhood Shopping: Create additional shopping opportunities in Washington’s neighborhood commercial districts to better meet the demand for basic goods and services. Reuse of vacant buildings in these districts should be encouraged, along with appropriately-scaled retail infill development on vacant and underutilized sites. Promote the creation of locally-owned, non-chain establishments because of their role in creating unique shopping experiences
This project would provide for smaller scale retail and a restaurant.
Citywide Elements – Environmental Protection
Policy E-1.1.1-- Street Tree Planting and Maintenance --encourages the planting and maintenance of street trees in all parts of the city. Policy E-1.1.3 –Landscaping-- promotes landscaping to beautify the city, enhance streets and public spaces, reduce stormwater runoff, and create a stronger sense of character and identity. Policy E-2.2.1 -- Energy Efficiency -- promotes the efficient use of energy, additional use of renewable energy, and a reduction of unnecessary energy expenses through mixed-use and shared parking strategies to reduce unnecessary construction of parking facilities. Policy E-3.1.2 -- Using Landscaping and Green Roofs to Reduce Runoff encourages the promotion of tree planting and landscaping to reduce stormwater runoff, including the expanded use of green roofs in new construction. Policy E-3.1.3 -- Green Engineering-- has a stated goal of promoting green engineering practices for water and wastewater systems.
Citywide Element – Urban Design
Policy UD-2.2.5: Creating Attractive Facades : Create visual interest through well-designed building facades, storefront windows, and attractive signage and lighting. Avoid monolithic or box-like building forms, or long blank walls which detract from the human quality of the street.
Policy UD-3.1.7: Improving the Street Environment : Create attractive and interesting commercial streetscapes by promoting ground level retail and desirable street activities, making walking more comfortable and convenient, ensuring that sidewalks are wide enough to accommodate pedestrian traffic, minimizing curb cuts and driveways, and avoiding windowless facades and gaps in the street wall.
Policy UD-3.1.8: Neighborhood Public Space : Provide urban squares, public plazas, and similar areas that stimulate vibrant pedestrian street life and provide a focus for community activities. Encourage the “activation” of such spaces through the design of adjacent structures; for example, through the location of shop entrances, window displays, awnings, and outdoor dining areas.
The masonry-faced building would be fully designed with windows and architectural detail on every façade and every floor. It would not have a “back”. The material and scale of the bays would give variety and rhythm to the facades. The 14 to 16 - foot setback from the property line, and the avoidance of utility vaults in public space would enhance the pedestrian experience., as
would the introduction of individual apartment entrances at the ground level on 9 th and 10 th Streets. The sixteen foot-high interior space, the intended sidewalk café and the prominent architectural treatment of the corner of 9 th and Monroe Streets would emphasize that corner as a neighborhood-oriented center between the Metro Station and the area of Brookland south of Monroe Street.
Citywide Elements – Transportation
Upper Northeast Area Element Policy Focus Area
• Policy UNE-1.1.2: “New development around each of these three stations is strongly supported”. “Encourage moderate density mixed use development on vacant and underutilized property in the vicinity of the Brookland/CUA Metro station”.
The Comprehensive Plan‟s future land use map designates a Brookland-CUA Metro Station Area policy focus area on the north side of Monroe Street. The scale and uses of the proposed PUD would provide an appropriate transition between the intensities at the policy focus area, and the residential area to the south of the project site.
• Policy UNE 1.1.6: “Continue to enhance 12 th Street NE in Brookland as a walkable neighborhood shopping street…New pedestrian-oriented retail activity should also be encouraged around the area’s Metro stations.”
The ground floor interior height for the retail spaces along Monroe Street would be sixteen feet. The sixteen foot setback from the property line is intended to enable the location of sidewalk cafes along Monroe Street and at the corner of Monroe and 9 th Streets, where they would not interfere with existing residential uses.
• Policy UNE-1.2.2: Protect historic resources in Upper Northeast, including…the Brooks Mansion…”
The applicant‟s efforts at identifying appropriate project proffers has focused on the provision of funds or technical assistance for capital improvements to the Brooks Mansion and/or enhancing its landscaping to foster its use as public open space or a park. However, in response to neighborhood comments the applicant has shifted, towards providing other community benefits.
• Executive Summary, Small Area Plan Concepts, Land Use & Neighborhood Character. Monroe Street is the primary gateway and connector between the East and West sides of Brookland. Monroe Street is envisioned as a tree-lined mixed-use street, with neighborhood-serving retail, restaurants, arts and cultural use on the ground floor, and residential above. Economic Development and Neighborhood Amenities: Monroe Street will [include] infill and redevelopment east of the tracks to 12th Street. The commercial area south of the Metro Station would include additional residential and cultural development, compatible with the neighboring residential area. Open Space and Environment: Sidewalks should include open space…Open
spaces and new trees, made possible by the under grounding of utilities, are envisioned to be part of every new development.
The applicant is proposing a small scale mixed use project with retail and restaurants on the ground floor and residential above. The landscape plan shows new trees around the project, including on Monroe Street. The applicant has not proposed undergrounding utilities on the site, but is exploring how to approach that objective on a neighborhood-wide basis, due to the expense of doing it on a project-by- project basis.
• SAP Monroe Street Sub-Area Recommendations:
7. Allow infill and redevelopment along Monroe Street east of the WMATA/CSX tracks.
8. Development along Monroe Street east of the WMATA/CSX tracks may be allowed up [to] a maximum 50
feet through a Planned Unit Development…
. Buildings in the [Monroe Street] sub-area should step back in height at a ratio of one half to one above
feet. For example, for every 10 feet in height above 50 feet, the building façade should step back 5 feet
from the building edge.
The applicant is proposing both redevelopment and infill. While it would be 60‟ 8” high for most of its perimeter, it would be set-back 14 to 16 feet from the property line and would respect the intent of the sub-area recommendations by further stepping back at the recommended ½:1 ratio at the 50 foot level on three sides, and approximately 3:1 at the top level facing Lawrence Street.
11. Reposition Brooks Mansion as a community civic building and its grounds as a civic open space.
Consider removing the surface parking area to reclaim addition Open Space and integrate with the Newton
Street public space.
The applicant had suggested proffers for mansion maintenance and landscaping enhancement but, responding to comments from the community and from the owners and tenants of the building, the supplemental filing shifts this focus to facilitating discussions about maintaining the WMATA property known as the “Brookland Green” as community open space.
SAP Commercial Area South of Metro Station Sub-Area Recommendations
4. Development south of Monroe Street to Kearny Street may be allowed up to 5 stories or a
maximum of 60 feet through a planned Unit Development….Buildings should taper down to
transition to adjacent lower scale residential structures.
5. Building facades facing a public street in the sub area should step back in height at a ratio of one
half to one above 50 feet.
Although it is clear that the western side of 9 th Street, NE is included in this sub-area, the SAP is ambiguous about whether any of the proposed PUD site is included in this sub-area, as well as in the Monroe Street Sub-Area. The northwest portion of the site, at Monroe and 9 th Streets is zoned commercially and is south of Monroe Street. If this recommendation applies, then the proposed PUD would essentially comply with the height and set-back recommendations.
2017 10 19 CPC PMDrepeal Kinzie
IR 016HErrata
Ryansyah Izhar
BARCEONA 2.1.pdf
City of Seattle - Central Staff Memo With Potential Amendments - 1-19-17
STEPTOEANCSTATIONER_AGENDASatSep242011
CUA Community Meeting August 11
GIB Bracing Systems
F.1 CD Care Pacific Ro Dp
Hittite Cities - Looking for a Concept
Joris Katkevicius - Component Exercise
Ojt Final Requirement
Rincess Reyes
Load_distribution in Container
Saffron_Hills_E-Brochure.pdf
Sample Civil estimate (9).xlsx
vaishnavi malu
Preview_66_23_en-CA_0_July_2016_CONSTRUCTION_MANUAL_with_retail.pdf