ANC 3F RESOLUTION RECOMMENDINGREJECTION OF THE REVISED PLANS SUBMITTED BY THE WASHINGTON HOME IN BZA APPLICATION NO. 16836, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE A NEW HEARING
Advisory Neighborhood
Commission 3F
North Cleveland Park,
Forest Hills, and Tenleytown
4401-A Connecticut
Avenue, N.W., Box 244
Washington, D.C.20008-2322
WHEREAS, at a special meeting on December 17, 2002, the Board of Zoning Adjustment (the Board) approved a 4-bed addition to The Washington Home (The Home) and an increase in parking spaces to 130, conditioned on approval of the following:
·a parking management plan to control access to the lot from 7:00 am to 3:00 pm with designated spaces for employees and visitors, but with the option of leaving a few spaces open near the door for visitors (Dec. 17 Tr. at 45, 49-50);
·an employee transit plan that encourages personnel to use alternative means of transportation such as carpools, transit subsidies, and shuttle service (Dec. 17 Tr. at 45-46, 48);
·a site plan showing the location of the parking spaces and a “landscaping plan that is comprehensive, screens the lot adequately and tries to address some of the concerns that were raised in the testimony” (Dec. 17 Tr. at 58)
and gave guidance on how the site plan should be redesigned:
·Preserve the berm along Upton Street (Dec. 17 Tr. at 27-28, 44)
·Preserve the area around the cupola (Dec. 17 Tr. at 44)
·Reduce the amount of paved or impervious surfaces (Dec. 17 Tr. at 42)
·Utilize the space more efficiently (Dec. 17 Tr. at 47)
·“Preserve most if not all of the park-like setting” (Dec. 17 Tr. at 21, passim)
·Minimize the impact on the large trees on the site (Dec. 17 Tr. at 28, 45)
·Utilize techniques like scrim screening and berms to screen vehicles on the lot adequately (Dec. 17 Tr. at 28); and
WHEREAS, on September 23, 2003, The Home submitted a revised site plan, a parking layout plan, a landscaping plan, and a parking policy plan; and
WHEREAS, the
revised site plan meets the Board's criteria in some respects – such as
separation of the lot from the Upton Street berm, gated access, and designated
spaces for visitors and employees – it fails in others and, indeed, runs
diametrically counter to the Board's guidance in several respects (see
Comparison Sheet, Attachment A):
·The
area of the revised lot would be virtually the same as the original proposal,
despite the 25% reduction in the number of parking spaces;
·It
raises from 373 to 472 square feet the amount of impervious surface per
vehicle parking space, an almost one third increase in the amount of impervious
surface per parking space (for 130 vehicles) as compared to the original
plan (for 173 vehicles) that the BZA rejected;
·The
parking layout has extra-wide aisles, all full-size parking spaces (no
compact spaces), and parking at a 90 degree angle, a plan that seems designed
less for efficiency than the possibility that The Home will restripe the
lot later to add more spaces as it has done in the past;
·According
to Jim Urban, see Attachment B, the islands in the parking lot are still
too small to support large trees;
·It
is unclear whether The Home intends to limit the number of spaces to 130,
as indicated on the parking layout, C-05, or to stripe 138 spaces as shown
on the Landscape Plan, which has an additional 8 parallel spaces along
the 37th Street driveway.Residents
who attended the ANC meeting said they would prefer that these 8 spaces
along the driveway be part of the 130 total (and possibly move the gate
to the 37th Street driveway) in order to allow The Home to move
the eastern edge of the parking lot further away from 37th Street;
and
WHEREAS,
the revised plan creates new problems or increases flaws in the original
plan (see Impact on 37th Street, Attachment C):
·The
eastern edge of the parking lot would be 8 feet closer to 37th
Street than the original proposal, or only 50 feet from the curb, an even
greater intrusion into the neighborhood and on this busy pedestrian corridor;
·The
lot would be elevated substantially above 37th Street, and thus
be more noticeable;
·Bringing
the lot this much closer to the grove of large white pines and the black
locust near 37th Street would almost assuredly endanger some
of them; in fact, the closest large pine no longer appears on the landscaping
plan; and
WHEREAS,
the landscaping plan is meager and continues to have the same flaws as
the original plan (see e-mail from Jim Urban, Attachment B):
·Planting
dogwoods, azaleas, and crape myrtles in the critical root zone of the large
poplar on the Upton Street berm could damage the tree, as Jim Urban and
ANC 3F testified on Oct. 15, 2002;
·Although
more of the crape myrtles would remain, several would have to be moved
simply to give room for a berm to shore up the parking lot; transplanting
them would still be difficult (testimony and e-mail of Jim Urban);
·The
effect of the crape myrtles as a memorial grove would still be lost because
so many would be scattered throughout the site;
·Some
plants chosen, like dogwood and azaleas (rhododendron), have not done well
on this site, while others that have thrived, like viburnums and hollies,
have been ignored; and
WHEREAS,
this plan cannot be approved because it does not meet the screening requirements
of 11 DMCR Section 2303.2, which provides that
A
parking lot in an R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, or R-5A District . . . shall be screened
from all contiguous residential property located in the R-1, R-2, R-3,
R-4, or R-5A District by a solid brick or stone wall at least twelve inches
(12 in.) thick and forty-two inches (42 in.) high or by evergreen hedges
or evergreen trees that are thickly planted and maintained and at least
forty-two inches (42 in.) high when planted.
·The
37th Street side of the parking lot would be left without screening
because at least 21 trees would be removed, along with hedges and shrubs,
but no new trees, hedges, or significant plantings would replace them.The
only plantings planned for this edge of the parking lot would be English
ivy, a ground cover of about 6 inches, and isolated clumps of shrubs;
·Screening
around the cupola also would be limited:the
steep bank of the parking lot would be planted with English ivy and cotoneaster,
a low spreading shrub, not high enough to screen more than the bank;
·The
only attempt at scrim screening is the red maples at the far end of the
parking islands, over 100 feet from each other.The
Home claims that it cannot plant trees in the center of the long island
because of the bioretention area.Including
a bioretention area in this plan is commendable, but The Home is mistaken
that trees or large shrubs cannot be planted here.Trees
are a standard feature of bioretention areas in the Washington region,
see Attachment D.The Prince George’s
County Bioretention Manual lists 37 species of trees suitable for bioretention
areas.Not only would scrim screening
be possible by planting trees throughout the long island, the trees would
help shade the parking lot, reduce the urban heat island effect, and may
reduce maintenance of the bioretention cell;
·Of
the trees to be planted, none are evergreen, and therefore would provide
almost no screening in winter. The shrubs and ground cover are evergreen
but too low to provide effective screening.
·The
plants to be installed are much smaller than the 42 inches required, and
many will not attain that height when mature; and
WHEREAS,
the Board’s May 27, 1994, order in BZA Application No. 15831, The Methodist
Home, is instructive both on the process and amount of screening necessary
to soften the visual impact of a parking lot and shield nearby residents
from noise and light.In that case
The Methodist Home, residents, and representatives of ANC 3F met approximately
20 times over the course of a year to come to agreements on landscaping
and other issues.The Methodist Home
agreed to build and landscape a high berm along Fessenden Street.A
detailed landscaping plan, approved by residents and ANC 3F, was submitted
with the application and its implementation was made a condition of the
order.In contrast, The Washington
Home has promised to devise a final landscaping plan after the application
is approved, but the ANC and residents have no confidence that it will
be adequate or that their views will be taken into consideration.Changes
have not been made to address the concerns raised at the hearings.To
date, The Washington Home has been unwilling to enter into a dialog with
residents and the ANC on landscaping and other issues pertaining to this
application.Although residents approached
The Home this summer to collaborate on the revised plans, the first time
anyone from the community or ANC 3F saw the plans was at a meeting on September
18, 2003, just days before filing.The
plans were presented as a fait accompli;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT
ANC 3F recommends that the Board of Zoning Adjustment reject the revised
site plan and landscaping plan or reopen the hearing under 11 DCMR Section
3124.3 on the issues of the parking lot layout, screening, and landscaping
plan; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT,
Commissioner Kessler and Commissioner Wiss are authorized to represent
ANC 3F in any further proceedings.
/s/Cathy
Wiss/s/David
J. Bardin
Cathy
Wiss, ChairDavid J. Bardin, Secretary
Attachment
A:Comparison Sheet
Attachment
B:E-mail from Jim Urban
Attachment
C:Impact on 37th Street
Attachment D:Examples of Bioretention Areas with Trees
I.The Parking Lot
Number of Parking Spaces
Existing lot:75 permitted, 89 striped
Application:173 total
Revised Plan:130 total + 8 shown along 37th Street driveway in landscaping plan
Revised Plan:63,916 sq. ft. = 39% increase.Efficiency:492 sq. ft./ vehicle.
Orientation and Size of Parking Spaces
Existing lot:90 degree and parallel parking. Size not available.
Application:51 at 90 degrees; 122 angled.Some compact spaces?; 6 HC spaces.
Revised Plan:25 at 90 degrees; 5 + 8 parallel.All full size, no compact; 5 HC spaces.
Revised Plan:90 ft. near driveway; 120 ft. near cupola.
Distance of Lot from 37th Street
Existing lot:varies from 58 feet near driveway (6/25/02 Tr. at 46) to approximately 112 ft. near cupola
Application:uniformly 58 feet (6/25/02 Tr. at 46-47)
Revised Plan:uniformly 50 feet.
Revised Plan:approximately 31 ft. at the closest point
Difference in Elevation between the Lot and the
Cupola (Cupola = 339 ft.)
Existing lot:7.5 feet higher (10% slope)
Application:approx. 2 feet higher (lot = 340-342 ft.) (18% slope)
Revised Plan:7 feet higher (lot = 346 ft.) (23% slope)