ANC and residents debate loading, parking for Wisconsin Giant

Parking

ANC and residents debate loading, parking for Wisconsin Giant

by Ben Thielen • December 16, 2008 1:17 pm

Last night, Giant representatives presented to ANC 3C their proposal for a mixed-use development including a new Giant supermarket on Wisconsin Avenue. Approximately 75 people attended, and like the meeting in October, the room was sweltering. Critics, who seemed out outnumber supporters this time, focused on loading impacts and asked for more parking.

Giant has made some changes to minimize the impact of trucks servicing the supermarket. Residents of Idaho Avenue, which is primarily a residential street are concerned about the noise and traffic from these trucks. Giant proposes requiring the trucks to enter the loading facility via Wisconsin and Idaho Avenue (right side of the image below). Street-Works, the developer, will install a new traffic light at this intersection (which currently lacks a signal). It will also put in new crosswalks to improve pedestrian safety. Additionally, to improve traffic flow on this section of Idaho Avenue, Street-Works has been working with the DC Department of Transportation (DDOT) to make Idaho Avenue a two-way street from Newark to Wisconsin Avenue. This section is currently a one-way street.

Despite concerns from residents on Idaho Avenue, it seems that worries about the impacts of trucks are overstated. Street-Works and its traffic consultant are making sure the geometry at the entrance of the loading dock will only allow turns onto Idaho toward Wisconsin Avenue, sparing residents on this street. The trucks going to and from the loading docks would pass the police station, the row of new townhouses, and a section that currently contains a multistory building and a surface parking lot. This will prevent the trucks from significantly impacting the existing single-family residences on Idaho Avenue.

Project opponents also objected to the amount of parking. The current Giant has a large surface parking lot. The proposed project would have two levels of underground parking, and reserve three spaces for a car-sharing program. Currently, many of the patrons at the nearby restaurants park on the Giant property. Someone said last night these establishments use 70 spaces.

There's no need for 70 spaces dedicated only the restaurant, however. Opponents seemed unable to understand the concept of shared-parking arrangements. The retail component of the project on the south parcel will have parking available for patrons and customers. There is also parking available for the professional/office space on the second floor above this retail. The offices will use their spaces during the day, while the restaurants need parking in the evening.

Plus, as a concession to neighborhood residents, Giant will provide 30 free parking spaces in the South Parcel parking garage for customers of retail and restaurants along Wisconsin Avenue and Macomb Street. The representative from Street-Works said these spots will cost nearly $40,000 each, meaning Giant will spend over $1.5 million for this "benefit" to the community.

Unlike past Ward 3 development fights, there is a well-organized group of supporters organizing to in favor of this development. The main showdown will take place on February 19th, when the Zoning Commission takes up the case. The ANC will take a position on the project at its January meeting.

26 comments — Share	— tags: Cleveland Park, DC, loading docks, parking, Smart Growth, Wisconsin Giant

Wisconsin Giant opponents file lawsuit (Sep 11, 2009)
Cheh: "broad-based support" for Wisconsin Giant project (Feb 20, 2009)
Fight for your right for a vibrant Wisconsin Avenue (Jan 21, 2009)
Wisconsin Giant plan is not too giant (Oct 16, 2008)
Wisconsin Ave Giant is a great project (Jun 3, 2008)

Comments

I wish you all the luck in the world against the car-and-parking obsessed in your neighborhood.

Although I don't live in the neighborhood, I did my grad school at AU so I'm very familiar with this area on Wisconsin. I can't see how the new mixed-use urban form Giant would be detrimental to the area. There is a lot of traffic and backups on the roads from cars entering and leaving the parking lot. There is no need for more parking.

I applaud you for advocating for a design that is about people and places rather than cars and traffic.

by Cavan on Dec 16, 2008 1:39 pm

The main question going forward is what lengths the vocal minority will achieve in continuing to file zoning briefs and other tactics to stall, delay or otherwise attempt to kill this project.

It has been about a decade. Enough is enough.

by Andrew on Dec 16, 2008 1:44 pm

Cavan- interestingly, the traffic consultant for this project said this area on Wisconsin has pretty good traffic flow. He said there are problems further north on Wisconsin, towards Tenley, and closer toward Glover Park but the area near this development has good traffic flow. He noted that because of neighborhood concern, they studied the traffic impact on streets as far away as CT Ave. The consultant said that Porter & CT Ave might need improvements. The consultant also suggested traffic calming measures on 34th Street, where the 85th percentile speed was 31 mph.

by Ben on Dec 16, 2008 1:51 pm

Thanks for the info, Ben. I haven't driven my car there in over a year so I suppose I was mistaking my memories of the area around Tenley Circle for the area next to the Giant.

by Cavan on Dec 16, 2008 2:06 pm

Nothing will appease the opponents of this project. Very sad and disheartening...

by SG on Dec 16, 2008 2:10 pm

The 30 free parking spaces are a typical example of a very disheartening phenomenon that you see a lot. The design of urban projects is dictated by the most anti-urban segment of the community. The opinions of the more urban segment of the community, even if they are the majority, are disregarded because they don't need to be appeased.

by tt on Dec 16, 2008 2:24 pm

That minority wants nothing at all. They just want the power to say "no." It's about control as much as anything else.

by Cavan on Dec 16, 2008 2:41 pm

Can't the truck noise be easily mitigated by requiring deliveries after 8 a.m.?

by Bianchi on Dec 16, 2008 2:50 pm

Cavan, While you don't use the word "NIMBY" in your comment, it is this type of generalization, in the absence of any information about the concerns of any group involved, that demonstrate your biases and cut into any credibility which you might have.

Bianchi, Is your mitigation plan realistic?

by JR on Dec 16, 2008 3:11 pm

JR-Yes. There's a clock. Once a day it reads 8 a.m. Truck driver is instructed, "Don't deliver to that Giant until after 8 a.m.". I drove a delivery truck for a while. I am capable of reading a clock and following simple instructions. I expect most truck drivers have those skills.

by Bianchi on Dec 16, 2008 3:19 pm

JR,

What do you call it when a small group of people self-proclaim the voice for the community and hijack a major community investment and needed amenity in the name of traffic (it's on Wisconsin Ave), parking (they are providing more at the opponents request, which of course brings more traffic, and said parking is set to alleviate a pre-existing condition) or lifestyle (we only want local residents to be here, screw the city and regional community).

Opponents claim to favor this development, "but have concerns". Opponents have filed, previously, a historic landmark on this property in the name of gaining leverage on the property owner, not because they actually thought it was historic).

It doesn't take a lot of generalizations to see where this group is headed and kudos to the AWARE folks who are making it known that there is widespread support for this proposal.

It is hard to get people to support something (much easier to garner opposition), yet Cleveland Park residents are banding together to see this happen, despite some minor, but organized, opposition.

by William on Dec 16, 2008 3:22 pm

I don't use that word in this forum. It has proven counterproductive to the flow of information.

I do, however, describe behavior that is repeated time and time again. This behavior is held up as "healthy skepticism" or something when the goal is the same in all cases: stop any change. I only think that because this opposition keeps on having moving targets for its concerns. Whenever a builder addresses a concern, the story is changed to some other objection. It's all just a delay tactic in the hope that nothing ever gets done.

That's calling it like I see have seen it time and time again. I don't see why calling a spade a spade causes me to lose credibility. Perhaps in your eyes...

by Cavan on Dec 16, 2008 3:28 pm

A couple of facts re the parking. Today, there are 278 parking spaces in two surface lots for the Giant and other retail; the proposed project has 388, an increase of almost 40%. Does anybody really think the PUD will attract more than 40% more shoppers in cars? Both the existing lot and the proposed garage set aside 30 spaces for visitors to restaurants and other businesses; this limit is not really enforced at the current open lot, but presumably would be at the PUD garage.

What I found most striking about this meeting was that none of the "concerned" neighbors had anything specific to propose.

by JMG on Dec 16, 2008 3:49 pm

@JMG, I find it ironic that many of the current opponents are proposing what they opposed 8 years ago as an alternative.

by Andrew on Dec 16, 2008 4:02 pm

Bianchi, You don't seem to understand my point about whether your plan is realistic. While it is possible to tell the drivers not to arrive between 7 am and 8 am, have you considered the external factors, such as traffic conditions after 8 am, and the impact of scheduling deliveries later. Yes, we can use a clock and enforce your proposed restriction, but what is the impact on the rush hour or daytime traffic, and how does this work with the store's delivery requirements?

Cavan, You wrote: "That minority wants nothing at all. They just want the power to say "no." It's about control as much as anything else." As I said, you didn't use the letters NIMBY, but you made generalizations about individuals without any knowledge of what their actual position and concerns are. Did anyone say they wanted nothing at all? Have you asked opponents about their position, or are you relying on Giant or David to tell you what they think? How is it that this "independent" AWARE group was able to hold their weekend meeting in a closed property owned by Giant? You say it is calling a spade a spade, but since you are basing this evaluation on what you heard from unreliable sources, or these are generalizations simply based on your own biases, this type of generalization, while rampant in thie blog, is not useful to understanding what concerns residents in the area might have. You seem to ascribe motives to individuals with no concern for the history or the facts, which, to call a spade a spade, smacks of prejudice.

by JR on Dec 16, 2008 4:27 pm

If I'm such a bad person with no credibility, then I have to ask you, JR, what do you suppose should be done at the site?

by Cavan on Dec 16, 2008 4:45 pm

I suggest that the knee-jerk response to the knee-jerk response of the antidevelopment crowd be to propose cross-shaped skyscrapers forty stories tall, unornamented, in the middle of shitty parks and parking lots. Perspective can be helpful.

by The King of Spain on Dec 16, 2008 4:57 pm

JR, Are you suggesting that AWARE is anything other than a group of neighbors who came together out of frustration with the delay tactics and simply want a vibrant streetscape in their community?

I would guess that if they asked the owner if they could have access to the building for AC power and storage, they gladly complied.

Unless you have evidence that AWARE is not an independent neighborhood group, please don't start with hyperbole and conspiracy theories.

by William on Dec 16, 2008 5:06 pm

RJ, Stores get deliveries when the truck arrives. I made deliveries all day long, at whatever time I arrived (never before 7 a.m.) I adjusted my schedule to accomodate clients when needed, i.e. deliver the hoagie rolls to this particular restaurant before 11 a.m., etc. Grocery stores didn't care when the the goods got delivered; restaurants did. However, if a particular grocery store had some time frame i would have done my best to meet it, such as "don't go there before 8 a.m." Really don't you think the traffic is lighter between 10 and 11 a.m. then it is between 7 and 8 am? It's a very simple concept. Would you rather just complain about noise and not suggest a possible solution? If that's not the case then what's your suggestion for mitigating noise? Oh look. Cavan is coming to the same conclusion I am - complaints are presented without suggestions for alternative solutions.

by Bianchi on Dec 16, 2008 5:16 pm

Bianchi,

Cavan,

You are missing the point entirely. The PUD requires the applicant not only to mitigate but to provide benefits to the neighborhood being impacted in exchange for these changes (40K SF of residential rezoning, increasing the density, etc...). The applicant has chosen the PUD route. No one wants a nice development at the expense of some residents. All I heard were reasonable residential concerns. Also, the applicant has the burden to provide a plan that does just that. You can't expect everyone to higher architects and engineers to propose new plans. We heard many many reasonable suggestions.

Regarding AWARE, until the constitution is suspended I think anyone is free to associate with whom ever they want. Simply because AWARE receives assistance to organize from the developer, I don't believe for a minute this diminishes their objectivity on the matter. But let's not make that the issue, it isn't.

As far as opponents killing the project, I was impressed with what R Heap said last night. He said that a previous plan that was proposed would have killed this part of Wisconsin Ave. I assume he was referring to the plan that had a long wall and no stores or entrances facing Wisconsin Ave. We have a much better plan today for sure that still needs some improvements.

by Nunsufess on Dec 16, 2008 7:24 pm

What improvements? That's the question. We can't figure out what magical improvements remain to this seemingly great plan without hearing particulars. Just saying that the other guy has the "burden of proof" to provide some ineffable improvements doesn't do it for me.

by SG on Dec 16, 2008 8:15 pm

I think between additional parking that will supposedly mitigate the current overparked condition, a TMD, a LEED-ND project, affordable housing, car-sharing, ped safety improvements, what else does the community want?

Maybe money to improve the dog park or playground?

by William on Dec 16, 2008 8:54 pm

I can't believe that this project is still in contention. The neighborhood has only suffered since the last negative clash; let the project go forward and progress prevail. I have lived in McClean Gardens for over 16 years, and would have loved to have had this boon to the neighborhood years ago. Yes, we have too many cars to park. Yes, there are more and more people wanting to live in the city. But, Yes!, there is a way to deal with these changes, and it seems to me, this plan is spot on as long as the neighborhood keeps watch.

by S.M. on Dec 16, 2008 10:32 pm

I have to commend Giant. After 10 years of vague and unspecfied concerns by an overwheliming vocal minority that do nothing but go out of their way to control the entire developement, I would have thrown in the towel and just sold the property for a profit to the first offer that came along. It blows my mind that so many monied, underworked residents of the neighborhood think they know the grocery business better than Giant does.

On one hand the minority is worried about traffic. Well, in the event you didn't realize, you live in a very populated urban center, right off a main commutting and traffic route for the City (Wisconsin Ave). If urbanism bothers you, you should have moved out to the burbs.

Then, in the same breath these folks are demanding increased parking, to promote ADDITIONAL traffic Hello!

It also isn't Giant's responsibility to provide parking for all the local businesses. The fact that they are spending more than a million on it should silence all the opposition for good, although I doubt it will. I don't remember this vocal minority throwing up a huge stink when Cafe Deluxe, Two Amys or the Tx Mex place went in, yet couldn't "park" themselves.

by Simon on Dec 17, 2008 9:29 am

The truck management plan in the PUD currently allows truck deliveries between 6am and 10pm: too early and too late.

by neighbor on Dec 19, 2008 9:04 am

My notes on the meeting (Originally posted to the Cleveland Park Listserve on Yahoo is available at http://www.cpposts.com/Giant.htm along with many background documents.

by Gabe Fineman on Dec 24, 2008 9:15 am