Posts about Loading Docks

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.

Preservation

On Hilton, HPO takes broad view of historic compatibility

by David Alpert   •   September 30, 2008 1:30 pm

The Historic Preservation Office is recommending that HPRB wait to approve the Hilton's proposed renovations until the hotel can work out an agreement with the community over loading docks. Once that is done, the staff report recommends moving ahead with the project.

Loading is a severe problem along 19th Street. When the Hilton was first constructed, planners anticipated a freeway running along Florida Avenue west of Connecticut and then eastward between T and U. The Hilton was to sit at the edge of the freeway, and 19th Street would have been primarily an access road on and off the freeway.

Instead, thankfully, 19th stayed a neighborhood residential street, but instead of sitting under a freeway, the loading docks now impact the neighborhood. The bays are not deep enough for many of today's trucks, which stick out across the sidewalk, blocking pedestrian traffic and creating noise.

Neighbors and the ANCs of Adams Morgan and Dupont Circle have consistently brought up this issue, often to deaf ears. At the landmark hearing in July, HPRB Chairman Tersh Boasberg repeatedly cut off witnesses who mentioned the loading problems, claiming they had no place in the landmark decision. But, at least according to the staff report, they are appropriate to discuss when reviewing the proposed modifications.

One of historic preservation's controversies revolves around how broadly preservationists should evaluate each project. Is their mandate simply to consider the aesthetic appearance of the building in the context of a historic area, or can they address other concerns? How do we define what factors go into determining if a change is 'compatible'?

ANCs such as Dupont's have regularly clashed with HPRB over this very issue. For the building at 1433 T Street, the allegations of tenant abuse fell outside HPRB's mandate to approve or disapprove the proposed alterations on historic grounds. When rejecting the raze permit for Third Church, HPRB Chairman Tersh Boasberg repeatedly stressed that the Board could not consider the religious liberty arguments made by church officials.

The impact of loading docks, however, represent a grayer area. One could argue that loading and traffic impacts a historic district in more direct ways than tenant abuse or religious liberty, and therefore that it's appropriate for HPRB to insist on a satisfactory solution to the problem as part of a historic review.

The report, primarily written by Historic Preservation Office director David Maloney, states,

From its initial discussions with the applicants, the staff has stressed both the importance of achieving compatibility with the historic landmark and the need to address long-standing community concerns about the impact of the hotel design and operations on its neighbors. Some of these concerns relate more to urban planning than historic preservation issues, but in the context of a multi-year project representing the most substantial change to the building since its completion, a thorough consultation on these issues with all interested parties has seemed the only appropriate course of action.

What to do about the loading docks? Neighbors have asked the Hilton to move the loading docks into the garage, creating a passageway where they would enter on T Street and exit on 19th Street. According to the staff report, the owners' analysis shows this to be cost prohibitive. Instead, the Hilton has proposed reducing the two lanes of traffic exiting the garage to one lane, making room for wider and deeper loading bays. The trash compactor would also go in a deeper bay with room for a truck to completely park in front without sticking out.

Neighbors have panned the Hilton's loading dock suggestions, arguing they don't do enough to alleviate the issues. 19th Street is narrow, and trucks often have to back up several times to get into the spaces. Since the Hilton stands to make a great deal of money, they argue, they should do more to fix this problem rather than push negative impacts of the expansion onto the surrounding streets.

Tomorrow: The rest of the Hilton's plan, including the urbanism issues along the Connecticut Avenue, T Street, and Florida Avenue faces.

Parking

We need better loading and performance parking around the Hilton

by David Alpert   •   July 10, 2008 4:01 pm

Last night, the Dupont Circle ANC passed a thoughtfully crafted resolution on the Hilton proposed development. The ANC opposes the landmarking, and also opposes the project as presented. They objected to the inadequate loading docks, insufficient parking, the mass of the development, and the swimming pool. But as Commissioner Mike Silverstein emphasized, the primary concern of the ANC was the loading docks. If the Hilton fixes the loading problem, Silverstein said, "this ANC will not micromanage" the project.

Hilton representative Peter Comey claimed that the Hilton's new owners are working hard to better manage the loading, such as insisting that trucks and taxis respect the rules by not idling on neighborhood streets. Residents, however, argued that problems persist, and that trucks violate the no truck areas multiple times each day.

According to Comey, the Hilton has been unable to work out a loading solution that works for the neighborhood and city agencies that is financially feasible for the Hilton's owners. The ANC responded skeptically. Commissioner Bob Meehan asked why the Hilton could not use some of the underground parking areas for loading rather than parking. After all, the Adams Morgan ANC requested a reduction in residential parking from the excessive amount the Hilton owners proposed.

Why did the Hilton propose so much parking (up to 2-3 spaces per unit, according to Ann Hargrove)? I asked Comey about that. He explained that they planned large amounts of underground parking in response to neighborhood concerns; they were surprised by the Adams Morgan ANC request. This may be a case of reacting too literally to residents' concerns.

Today, many employees park on the street. During the day, many of them go out every two hours to move their cars around. In the evenings, the on-street demand from employees and guests makes parking very difficult. It's understandable that residents want to do something about this.

But building a huge garage doesn't solve this problem, and to the extent it alleviates one issue, it creates others. A big garage will encourage even more people to drive, once they don't have to repark every two hours. Excessive parking for new residents will generate a lot of traffic.

The ANC resolution balances these considerations. It asks the Hilton to "incorporate ... sufficient parking to reasonably accommodate employees, residents, guests, and visitors," but also urges the Hilton to use SmartBenefits, Zipcars, Metro shuttles, bike sharing, and other strategies to encourage non-automobile commuting by its employees and the residents of the new complex.

This is a perfect place to institute performance parking. Just like at the ballpark or in Columbia Heights, we have a large (proposed) development that will generate significant transportation demand along with high existing demand. Instead of suffering through on-street parking problems, the ballpark now lets residents park for free and visitors pay to park on neighborhood streets. It's working there, and something similar can work here.

I live only a few blocks away, and Lauriol Plaza also brings in huge numbers of visitors who park for free on evenings and weekends. If visitors pay, we can ensure spaces are available for residents and visitors alike, generate revenue to benefit the neighborhood, and reduce traffic.

It's clearly time for a North Dupont Circle performance parking program. With such a program, a reasonable but not excessive market-rate parking supply at the Hilton, and most importantly a workable loading arrangement that doesn't unduly burden public space and residential streets, the Hilton's proposed expansion can go forward without undue burden on the community.

It's too bad we couldn't have a more urban-friendly development, like the townhouses Comey told the ANC were part of the original proposal. But if we must have a suburban-style circular tower, we can still use urban transportation tools to make the project fit better with the neighborhood functionally than it does architecturally.

Preservation

ANC, HPRB should reject Hilton landmarking

by David Alpert   •   July 9, 2008 1:25 pm

I've been researching the Hilton hotel's expansion plans and thinking hard about its landmarking. I endorsed landmarking the HUD building, but in contrast, the Hilton's qualification under the landmark critera is questionable at best. Still, I pondered that perhaps the parking exemption might be a worthwhile tradeoff.

After finding out more about the project, I've come down against landmarking. We should not landmark this building. I'll be encouraging the Dupont Circle ANC to oppose the landmark nomination at tonight's meeting, and urging HPRB to reject it when they meet this month.

Landmarking would preserve and exacerbate the loading problems.

The biggest concern of community members is loading. When the Hilton was built, a freeway was planned along Florida Avenue from the West End and across to U Street; 19th Street would have been a major access road with ramps, and for this reason the Hilton built loading docks on 19th instead of to the south.

Instead, the freeway was cancelled and 19th Street stayed a neighborhood street. Today, the loading docks are way too small for modern trucks. Long trucks stick out into the sidewalk, trucks have to back up and do 9-point turns to get in and out, and there is constant noise affecting residents.

If the Hilton builds a new condo tower, they will have to improve the loading, which doesn't meet a host of codes today. But if they win landmark status, they may be exempt. That would worsen the situation for the neighborhood.