WHEREAS: ANC 3F unanimously adopted a resolution on September 18, 2000, recommending against approval of the pending application and promptly filed that Resolution with the Zoning Commission (ZC) and supplied copies to the Office of Planning (OP), applicant and ANC 3E; and

WHEREAS: On October 13, 2000, ANC 3F acquired a copy of the OP Memorandum “Final Report” to the ZC herein dated October 11, 2000, and considered same at the duly noticed monthly meeting held October 16, 2000, with a quorum of the seven commissioners present; and

WHEREAS: OP recommends approval of the application with only six conditions, namely:
 Conditions 1 & 2: that Phase I involve a total of 11 townhouses – four along Albemarle Street, three along Nebraska Avenue and two pairs of townhouses in the “rear” or north (with the middle proposed townhouse disapproved) – and Phase II continue to involve two more town houses (on Mr. & Mrs. Bregon’s land),
 Condition 3: the townhouse units should not be increased in size or dimension from those shown in the applicant’s pre-hearing statement,
 Condition 4: the applicant’s proposed “public amenities” be accepted (without further identifying or defining “amenities” in question),
 Condition 5: a covenant be added to the “homeowners association” covenants that prohibits accessory apartments within the development,
 Condition 6: the applicant also provide 25 replacement trees [i.e., to replace 18-20 mature trees which were growing on this private property at the time of Holladay Corporation’s acquisition] to be planted in locations elsewhere in the neighborhood to be determined by the “neighborhood association” [i.e., Tenleytown Neighbors Association, Inc., or “TNA”] or [to the extent TNA does not select locations] the National Park Service (NPS); and

WHEREAS: ANC 3F has sought, with some success, to clarify the meaning and impacts of OP’s current recommendations (comparing OP's views in Director Altman's Report dated March 3, 2000, excerpted in Appendix A) and to understand the negotiations between OP and applicant – with OP’s help, OP having attended the October 16 ANC meeting but applicant having declined invitations to attend (first extended on September 28 and then renewed on October 13); and

WHEREAS: the Zoning Regulations setting forth area requirements provide (11 DCMR 2401.1):
 The minimum area included within the proposed development, including the area of public streets or alleys proposed to be closed, shall be as follows:
 • A total of two (2) acres for a development to be located in any R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4 or R-5-A, zone district;
 • A total of one (1) acre [43,560 square feet] for a development to be located in any R-5-B zone district; or
 • A total of fifteen thousand square feet (15,000 ft.2) for development to be located in any other zone district.
In certain circumstances (and if the ZC finds after public hearing that the development is “of exceptional merit”), the ZC may waive not more than fifty percent (50%) of the specified minimum area requirement “of this section” (11 DCMR 2401.2); and

WHEREAS: this property consists of six tenths (6/10ths) of an acre located in an R-1 zone district for which the “minimum area requirement of this section” is two acres and, even if the ZC could find that a maximum fifty percent waiver was justified, the post-waiver minimum would be one acre – almost twice the area now applied for; and

WHEREAS: OP assumes that the waiver standards of the Zoning Regulations should be those applicable for an R-5-B zone district rather than those applicable to the property today, but fails to acknowledge (much less address) the contention of Tenleytown Neighbors Association, Inc. (TNA) that R-1-B standards govern proposed waiver in this case; and

WHEREAS: OP does not state a position on whether applicant’s development offers “exceptional merit” (or identify any “merits” which OP believes to be “exceptional”), deferring instead to the ZC (“Final Report” at page 5); and

WHEREAS: the OP “Final Report” lists 13 ostensible “Amenities and Public Benefits” but (a) fails to identify benefits and amenities to the neighborhood and (b) fails to list or evaluate existing amenities of value to the neighborhood (and the City) which OP’s plan would impair or destroy, such as proposed destruction of over 19 City-owned trees, mostly mature and some of majestic proportion, along Albemarle and Nebraska public space as well as proposed assaults on Fort Drive Park and pleasures it offers its users; and

WHEREAS: the OP “Final Report” strongly implies that OP will support similar zoning changes, waivers of minimum acreage requirements, and approval of planned unit developments (PUDs) for limited properties northwest of Nebraska Avenue within 500 feet or 528 feet [1/10th of a mile] from a METRO station);

NOW, THEREFORE, ANC 3F further advises:

(A) We have examined 13 ostensible “Amenities and Public Benefits” listed in OP’s “Final Report” and conclude as follows:

 OP’s #4 (“Richly landscaped site”) is flawed, unbalanced and incomplete:  OP recites promised planting of 12 Willow Oaks on public space along Albemarle Street and Nebraska Avenue but fails to note
 • these 12 trees, of unspecified heights, will be 2 ½ to 3 ½ inches in diameter;
 • they will replace over 19, mostly mature trees in the public space along Albemarle and Nebraska (see Appendix B: Live Trees in the Public Space Along Albemarle & Nebraska to Be Replaced by 3" Willow Oaks
 under “Rich Landscaping” Favored by Office of Planning);
 • diameters of existing trees, of diverse species, range up to 55 inches and total about 300 inches (contrasted with about 36 inches for applicant’s substitutes);
 • applicant’s development will result initially and for years to come in diminished tree cover, for this part of the neighborhood and for the City as a whole;
 • OP disregards that Mayor Williams and the D.C. Council have expressed alarm at losses of tree cover already sustained by our City;
 • OP fails to ascribe any value to the existing City-owned trees which applicant seeks to destroy, thereby effectively placing a value of zero dollars;
 • OP has not consulted with the D.C. Trees & Landscape Division in DPW as to these District-owned trees;
 • If applicant seeks a permit to destroy these live District-owned trees it will have to secure Tree Division approval.
 OP also recites promised planting of several smaller trees as well as shrubs on the private property.  These smaller trees (of uncertain height and diameter) would provide little tree cover.

 OP’s #6 ("Soapstone Creek clean up and restoration plan") is trivial at best.  OP’s “Final Report” says that applicant “is coordinating” with Woodrow Wilson High School whereas the pre-hearing statement says that applicant “will undertake” consultation “with its arborist and the National Park Service.”
  • If any changes are to be made, both high school and NPS have vital stakes.
  • The high school and neighborhood now conduct ecologically-sensitive annual cleanups.  It is unclear to us what good “privatization” of the clean up will do.  The first principle must be:  Do no harm.  Given Holladay Corporation’s track record on this site neighbors may reasonably fear that this “amenity” will backfire.  At all events, this clean up work is doable without this townhouse development.  So too the erosion control projects related to the high school’s outfalls into the Creek.

 OP’s #7 ("Bio-retention stormwater infiltration") comes into play only because of problems created by the zoning changes sought and applicant's insistence on radically  regrading the site toward the Nebraska Avenue storm sewers (thereby avoiding federal Clean Water Act review, under Section 401, which would bring into play the Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, D.C. Department of Health and public participation).

 OP's #13 ("One centralized driveway") seems preferable to four curb cuts under "of right" development, but since traffic will come from three times as many units the chances of encountering a car coming out of the centralized driveway will be three times as high as the chance of encountering a car on all of four cuts combined.  (Moreover, a developer might well find it advantageous to put in fewer cuts anyway and have them shared.)

 OP’s other listed “amenities and public benefits” simply reiterate proximity to Metro and economic development benefits of any construction.  Claimed support for local stores (OP’s #9) scarcely withstands scrutiny: The project OP advocates would add seven housing units over and above what R-1-B zoning now allows.  OP’s restricted application of the “principles” it advocates to properties northwest of Nebraska (“Final Report” at pages 14-15) would add very few more units, because much of that land, for which OP advocates more housing units is owned by the National Park Service (NPS), having been acquired by Congress in the mid-1920s (plainly for non-residential purposes).

 Dis-amenities (i.e., impairment or destruction of amenities) which OP overlooks include  adverse impacts on user enjoyment of Fort Drive Park by squeezing this 100 to 120 foot park segment with its 18 trees (including three evergreens) against walls of townhouse, by fencing it off from views to the north and east and southeast,
 • by digging a drainage ditch along the boundary which may cut roots of nearby Park trees,
 • by deliberately cutting down majestic trees in the "parking space" on City-owned land near the street, and
 • by grading and  drainage changes on the property, as well as construction activities, with  impacts which may kill the great old white oak on District-owned land north of the property.

(B) The foregoing analysis illustrates the wisdom of the Zoning Regulations in requiring larger minimum areas for PUDs in residential zone districts R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 than in other zone districts and why it makes sense to interpret the minimum area regulations as applicable to the zone district at the time the application was filed.  Accordingly, ANC 3F recommends that the ZC grant the pending motion to dismiss filed by the Tenleytown Neighbors Association, Inc. (TNA), notwithstanding the $100,000 that we understand applicant has paid the District of Columbia for the opportunity to be heard in a Contested Hearing.

(C) ANC 3F authorizes and directs Commissioners Heinrich and Bardin to represent this Commission at the ZC public hearing or hearings and authorizes them in light of the evidence adduced to urge preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement and/or preliminary environmental report prior to ZC decision.
 
 

Adopted by vote of 7-0-0 at a duly noticed meeting with a quorum present on October 16, 2000.
 

 /s/ David J. Bardin     /s/ Robert V. Maudlin 
Chair                          Secretary

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Several environmental issues raised last winter by Office of Planning (OP) Director Andrew Altman included:

 “During our site visit(s), mature beech, walnut and spruce trees graced the site, but these have been recently removed.  A grand old white oak, largely on the high school's property, straddles and overhangs the subject property as well–although many of the overhanging branches were recently removed by the applicant.

 “The site is also adjacent to a rare gem in the District's largely buried and forgotten waterway system: a small, year-round, headwaters tributary to Soapstone Creek in relatively pristine condition.  This creek contains native aquatic organisms, an indicator of its good health.  There is evidence that it is fed by underground springs.  The creek is not on the developer's property, but on that of adjacent Woodrow Wilson High School.  It is said that historically, one of the school's science teachers was instrumental in preserving the creek from the usual fate of being banished into a culvert.

 “Considering the importance of the headwaters stream and spring on the adjoining Wilson High School property, neighbors–including the National Park Service–believe that 80% impervious surface coverage ... will dry up the spring(s) and year-round creek.  In response, the developer proposes a stormwater bio-retention system that may recapture most of the water from the property.  This system would filter the water and infiltrate it back into the groundwater on site.

 “A major concern of the National Park Service is that the proposed site plan will damage (and ultimately destroy) a large oak tree that is at the edge of the developer's property, ...  NPS believes that the majority of the tree's root structure is on the uphill (developer's) side, and this root structure will be largely covered by the 10 units proposed for the rear of the developer's property.  NPS believes that this tree is crucial to controlling the temperature of the headwaters stream and hence to the organisms currently found there: freshwater clams, salamanders, and phantom crane flies.  NPS maintains that creek temperature is extremely important to the health of these species and to other aquatic species downstream.

 “OP agrees with the NPS and other neighbors that the creek is worthy of being protected.  We have worked with the developer to get the proposed stormwater bio-retention system and we are discussing site plan/density changes and other means to further protect the creek and its crucial vegetated riparian area.  There is another sizeable tree along the Albemarle frontage which is also an important neighborhood asset.”

(Report dated March 3, 2000, to the ZC, pages 2, 6.)

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Circum.                                      Diam.
11         maple [Albemarle]               4
26         ash                                      8
170        poplar *                           55
49         locust                                16
39         hemlock                            12
91         white pine                         3 0
28         locust                                  9
27        maple                                   9
34         red oak                             11
16         maple                                  5
34-47** locust                               26
20         oak                                     6
74         oak [at corner]                  2 4
20         elm                                      6
28         elm                                      9
59         elm                                    19
39         holly                                  12
49         hemlock                            16
39         willow oak [Nebraska]      12
853                  TOTAL                289

* This is the other the other "sizeable tree along the Albemarle frontage which is also an important neighborhood asset” according to OP's March 3, 2000, report.
**  divided trunk.

Prepared by Commissioner Phil Heinrich, ANC 3F06