MEMORANDUM TO: DATE: May 25, 2018 · The lighting plan submitted at Exhibit 18C, Sheet E0107 seems...

Suite E650 1100 4th Street, SW Washington, DC 20024 phone: 202-442-7600 fax: 202-535-2497 www.planning.dc.gov Find us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter @OPinDC

MEMORANDUM

TO: District of Columbia Zoning Commission

FROM: Jennifer Steingasser, Deputy Director

DATE: May 25, 2018

SUBJECT: ZC #12-01A – Catholic University – Campus Plan Amendment and Further

Processing for a service building and parking lot accessory to the north athletic

fields

I. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

Pursuant to Subtitle X § 101, the applicant requests a special exception for a campus plan

amendment and further processing of the approved Catholic University 2012 Campus Master Plan.

The application would allow the relocation and construction of a service building for the north

campus athletic fields, as well as the inclusion in the plan and construction of a parking lot to serve

the athletic fields. The Office of Planning (OP) recommends approval of the application, provided

the applicant addresses the issues listed in this report, which OP has identified to minimize

potential off-site impacts of the project.

II. APPLICATION IN BRIEF

Applicant Catholic University of America

Location North Campus of Catholic University, adjacent to Bates Street

Ward 5, ANC 5A

Square 3671, Lot 3

Property Size ~5.5 acres (portion of the property subject to this application)

Zoning RA-1 – Low Density Apartment Zone; University uses permitted by special

exception

Existing Use of

Property

Practice field

Comprehensive Plan

Policy Map Institutional Uses

Comprehensive Plan

Future Land Use Institutional Uses

JL for

http://www.planning.dc.gov/

http://dc.gov/

Office of Planning Report, ZC #12-01A Catholic University

North Athletic Field Accessory Bld. Amendment and Further Processing

May 25, 2018

of 9

Application and

Proposed Use of

Property

The applicant seeks a campus plan amendment in order to relocate a service

building from the center of the north campus to the north end of the north

campus, to include a parking lot where a field had been previously shown,

and to use a curb cut on Bates Street for access to the parking lot. The

applicant also seeks a further processing for the parking lot and service

building.

Vehicular Parking – 144 spaces

Service Building – 1,500 square feet

III. SUMMARY OF OP COMMENTS

The following table summarizes OP’s outstanding issues with the proposal.

Item Planning and / or Zoning Rationale

1 The applicant should commit to providing

porous paving in all parking bays.

The information in the application is

inconsistent in the exact location of the

pervious paving; OP recommends that the

pervious paving be used for all parking bays, as

implied by Sheet L0203 of Exhibit 18C.

2 Affirm that the landscaping plan meets the

requirements of the Zoning Regulations for

parking lot landscaping.

The Regulations require certain landscaping for

surface parking lots, and the Comprehensive

Plan encourages the use of landscaping to

mitigate runoff from parking lots.

3 The applicant should explore the use of solar

power generation on the roof of the service

building, and /or a green roof on the building.

The Comprehensive Plan encourages the use of

alternative energy sources, and also promotes

green design in all new buildings.

4 The applicant should commit to use only fully

shielded lighting fixtures for the parking lot.

The Comprehensive Plan seeks to reduce light

pollution, and minimize the impacts of

institutional uses on nearby neighborhoods.

IV. SITE, AREA AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The subject site is a portion of the Catholic University north campus, near the intersection of Bates

Road and Fort Totten Drive, NE. It is currently used as an informal practice field, and is adjacent

to the University’s soccer field, to the east, which has undergone a significant investment in recent

years (Ex. 2, p. 1). The site is just north of the baseball and softball fields.

The highest point of the north campus is shown by District GIS data as being 250’ in elevation,

immediately adjacent to the intersection of Bates and Fort Totten Drive. The portion of the campus

subject to this application sits down from that high point at an elevation of approximately 230’.

The topography, therefore, forms a natural barrier between this site and the residential uses on the

west side of Fort Totten Drive. In addition, the intervening land is heavily wooded, adding to the

visual barrier. The approved campus plan does not call for development of the wooded area, except

for the possibility of a future water tower.



May 25, 2018

of 9

The apartments across Fort Totten Drive are low to moderate density. The only other nearby

residential development are semi-detached homes further to the southwest across Hawaii Avenue.

To the north of Bates Road is Fort Totten Park and the Fort Totten Waste Transfer Station.

On the north campus, the soccer field is approximately 12 feet lower in elevation than the subject

site, and the baseball and softball fields are approximately 30 feet lower. The north campus grade

continues to descend to the south end where the existing parking lot is between elevations,

approximately, of 166’ and 178’. The DuFour Center, the indoor athletic facility, is also at the

south end of the north campus.

The applicant proposes to construct a 144 space parking lot and a 1,500 square foot service

building at the north end of campus, to serve the athletic fields in that location. The one-story

service building would have ticketing, concession and rest room functions. In addition, the project

would include stairs and ramps to both the soccer and baseball and softball fields. Access to the

site would be provided at Bates Road. Bates Road is currently gated at Fort Totten Drive, in order

to prevent trash-transfer-station traffic from using Fort Totten Drive. The applicant would relocate

the gate to the east of their proposed entrance, and vehicles using the parking lot would approach

from the west. The lot would have three double-loaded vehicle parking bays and one single-loaded

bay on the south side of the site.

North Campus

High Point Elevation ~250’

Fort Totten Park Waste Transfer Station

Elevation ~240’



May 25, 2018

of 9

V. CAMPUS PLAN FURTHER PROCESSING REVIEW

University or college use in a low or moderate density residential zone is permitted as a special

exception as part of a campus plan. In addition to the campus plan application itself, reviews are

required for individual buildings in “further processing” applications, which may be evaluated

concurrently with campus plan amendments, if necessary. In this case, the applicant requests an

amendment to relocate the service building from where is was originally shown, south of the

baseball field, in the campus plan. The amendment would also remove one practice field and

replace it with the parking lot. The further processing application includes evaluation of the

designs of the parking lot and service building.

Subtitle X Section 101 of the Zoning Regulations provides standards for reviewing campus plan

and further processing applications. OP’s analysis of the application against those criteria is

below.

101.1 Education use by a college or university shall be permitted as a special exception

subject to review and approval by the Zoning Commission after its determination

that the use meets the applicable standards and condition of this chapter.

Catholic University is an educational use with concomitant athletic programs. The proposed

service building and parking lot would be accessory to the University’s athletic programs and

fields.

101.2 The uses shall be located so that they are not likely to become objectionable to

neighboring property because of noise, traffic, parking, number of students, or

other objectionable conditions.

The development of a parking lot and athletic-field service building should not detract from the

nearby residential neighborhood. The closest residences are over 200 feet away from the subject

site, and are screened from the parking lot by topography and forestal cover. By maintaining low

light levels, there should be limited visual impact to the surrounding community. And while OP

defers to DDOT for traffic analyses, it appears that the new facility would typically generate few

automobile trips (Ex. 14A, p. 5). The traffic study states that there would be few net new trips, as

most would be trips that would have otherwise gone to the DuFour Center (ibid.). As stated on

page 6 of the traffic study, some bicycle trips could be expected to be generated by this use, and

page 8 of Exhibit 14A states that eight new bike racks would be located near the parking lot on

two different elevations, depending on whether the riders would arrive from the north or the south.

The lighting plan submitted at Exhibit 18C, Sheet E0107 seems to indicate that lighting for the site

would be suitable for its context. The lowest light levels appear to be at the periphery of the

parking lot, and higher illumination levels are appropriately concentrated around the service

building. In order to further protect light trespass to nearby properties, OP recommends that the

applicant commit to use only fully shielded lighting fixtures at the parking lot.



May 25, 2018

of 9

101.3 Any commercial use customarily incidental to a university use in an R, RF, or RA

zone, or as an adjunct use to a university building, shall be subject to the following

conditions:

a) There shall be a demonstrated and necessary relationship between the use

and the university functions;

b) The total floor area of all commercial uses, including basement or cellar

space, shall occupy no more than ten percent (10%) of the gross floor area

of the total campus plan floor area; and

c) The commercial use shall be located so that it will not become objectionable

to non-university residential neighbors due to hours of operation, noise,

parking, loading, lighting, trash, or other operational characteristics that

are not customarily associated with a residential use.

Concession sales would be a customary ancillary use to university athletic facilities. According to

the page 3 of Exhibit 2, the concession sales would only take place during athletic events. The

small scale of the concession facility, and its location interior to the site, should result in no impacts

to nearby residential properties. The floor area of the concession stand would represent a minute

percentage of the total university floor area.

101.4 The campus plan process shall not serve as a process to create general commercial

activities or developments unrelated to the educational mission of the applicant or

that would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

The proposal would not create general commercial activities on the campus.

101.5 The following development standards shall apply to the maximum total density of

all buildings and structures on the campus in an R, RF, RA, or RC-1 zone:

TABLE X § 101.5: MAXIMUM TOTAL DENSITY OF ALL BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES

Zone Maximum Height

(Feet)

Maximum Floor

Area Ratio

All R and RF zones 50 1.8

RA-1, RA-2,

RA-6, RA-7, RA-8,

RC-1

50 1.8

RA-3, RA-4, RA-5,

RA-9, RA-10 90 3.5

According to page 8 of Exhibit 2, the FAR for the entire campus would be approximately 0.3,

which would be below the maximum of 0.39 permitted in the campus plan, and well below the 1.8

FAR permitted by the Regulations. The 16’ height of the service building would be well below

the 50’ limit in this zone.



May 25, 2018

of 9

101.6 Because of permissive increases as applicable to normal bulk requirements in the

low-density zones regulated by this title, it is the intent of this subsection to prevent

unreasonable campus expansion into improved low-density zones.

The proposed building and parking lot would not result in an expansion into low-density zones.

The uses are within the existing boundaries of the campus, and the proposal should not result in

impacts to nearby residential areas.

101.7 In calculating floor area ratio (FAR), the land area shall not include public streets

and alleys, but may include interior private streets and alleys within the campus

boundaries.

The FAR calculation included in the campus plan did not include public streets but did include

interior streets and driveways within the campus boundaries.

101.8 As a prerequisite to requesting a further processing for each college or university

use, the applicant shall have submitted to the Zoning Commission for its approval

a plan for developing the campus as a whole, showing the location, height, and

bulk, where appropriate, of all present and proposed improvements including, but

not limited to, the following:

a) Buildings and parking and loading facilities;

b) Screening, signs, streets, and public utility facilities;

c) Athletic and other recreational facilities; and

d) A description of all activities conducted or to be conducted on the campus,

and of the capacity of all present and proposed campus development.

With application #12-01, the Commission approved the Catholic University campus plan, which

illustrated, among other items, the locations of buildings, parking facilities, streets, and athletic

and recreation facilities, and also described the capacity of the campus in terms of students, faculty

and staff. The applicant currently seeks an amendment to the area of campus shown in the campus

plan as being used for recreational and athletic uses. The amendment would retain the athletic use

for this area, but increase its functionality and value to the university with the addition of a

bathroom and concessions building and the addition of a parking lot.

101.9 The further processing of specific buildings, structures, and uses within an

approved campus plan shall be processed as a special exception unless the campus

plan approval was included in an order granting a first-stage planned unit

development (PUD) for the campus, in which case the further processing shall be

in the form of second-stage planned unit development applications filed consistent

with the conditions of the approved campus plan/PUD.



May 25, 2018

of 9

The present application is appropriately filed as a special exception for a further processing to the

original campus plan, as well as an amendment to the campus plan.

101.10 Within a reasonable distance of the college or university campus, and subject to

compliance with Subtitle X § 101.2, the Zoning Commission may also permit the

interim use of land or improved property with any use that the Zoning Commission

may determine is a proper college or university function. The land need not be

included in the campus plan. When a major new building that has been proposed

in a campus plan is instead moved off-campus, the previously designated site shall

not be designated for, or devoted to, a different major new building unless the

Zoning Commission has approved an amendment to the campus plan applicable to

the site; provided, that for this purpose a major new building is defined as one

specifically identified in the campus plan.

The Applicant is not proposing an interim use of property.

101.11 In reviewing and deciding a campus plan application or new building construction

pursuant to a campus plan, the Zoning Commission shall consider, to the extent

they are relevant, the policies of the District Elements of the Comprehensive Plan.

The proposal is not inconsistent with many policies of the Comprehensive Plan, including policies

of the Upper Northeast, Land Use, Transportation, Environmental Protection, Parks, Recreation

and Open Space, and Educational Facilities Elements. The application could be improved,

however, in order to more fully comply with the Comprehensive Plan Environmental Protection

and Educational Facilities elements by confirming that the parking lot landscaping meets Zoning

requirements, and through the exploration of solar power and a green roof for the service building.

A review of the proposal against Comprehensive Plan policies is provided as Attachment 1.

101.12 As an integral part of the application requesting approval of new building

construction pursuant to a campus plan, the college or university shall certify and

document that the proposed building or amendment is within the FAR limit for the

campus as a whole, based upon the computation included in the most recently

approved campus plan and the FARs of any other buildings constructed or

demolished since the campus plan was approved.

The original application included both the service building and a new dining facility. Exhibit 2,

page 8, states that with both of those buildings the FAR for the entire campus would be 0.3, less

than the 0.39 permitted by the Campus Plan. Since that time, the application has been revised to

eliminate the dining facility, and the resulting FAR, with only the service building, would be lower

than that described in Exhibit 2.



May 25, 2018

of 9

101.13 Pursuant to Subtitle Z § 405.1, as soon as the application is accepted, the Office of

Zoning shall refer the application to the Office of Planning, the Department of

Transportation, and the Department of Energy and Environment for review and

written reports.

As of this writing the record contains no reports from District agencies.

101.14 Approval of a campus plan shall be based on the determination by the Zoning

Commission that the application will be in harmony with the general purpose and

intent of the Zoning Regulations and Zoning Maps, and will not tend to affect

adversely the use of neighboring property, in accordance with the Zoning

Regulations and Zoning Maps, subject to the special conditions specified in this

section.

It is the intent of the Regulations that university uses should be compatible with their surroundings,

especially in lower density residential zones. OP concludes that the proposed parking lot and

service building would not be out of scale with the nearby residential neighborhood. The

University has worked proactively with the community on this proposal, and the ANC has voted

to support the application, as shown at Exhibit 2C. The proposed parking lot and service building

should not detract from the neighborhood’s quality of life.

101.15 Small deviations from plans approved under further processing that are determined

necessary by the Zoning Administrator for compliance with life, safety, or building

codes, may be permitted without an amendment to a further processing provided

the deviation does not result in an increase in gross floor area of more than four-

hundred and fifty square feet (450 sq. ft.) and the addition shall only be used for

purposes of ingress, egress, or handicap access.

OP does not anticipate that deviations from the plans for the service building, should the

application be approved by the Commission, would be required for ingress, egress or handicap

access.

101.16 A further processing of a campus building shall not be filed simultaneously with a

full campus plan application. However, an amendment to an approved campus plan

may be considered simultaneously with the further processing if determined

necessary by the Zoning Commission.

Pursuant to this section, the applicant requests a campus plan amendment as well as a further

processing.



May 25, 2018

of 9

VI. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAPS

Generalized Policy Map Future Land Use Map

The Comprehensive Plan’s Generalized Policy Map identifies the site as appropriate for

Institutional Uses, and the Future Land Use Map also labels this location as Institutional. The

University use is not inconsistent with these designations.

VII. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES

Please see Attachment 1 for a full analysis of the proposal against the policies of the

Comprehensive Plan. The proposal is not inconsistent with many policies of the Comprehensive

Plan, including policies of the Upper Northeast, Land Use, Transportation, Environmental

Protection, Parks, Recreation and Open Space, and Educational Facilities Elements. The

application could be improved, however, in order to more fully comply with the Comprehensive

Plan Environmental Protection and Educational Facilities elements by confirming that the parking

lot landscaping meets Zoning requirements, and through the exploration of solar power and a green

roof for the service building.

VIII. COMMENTS OF OTHER DISTRICT AGENCIES

As of this writing the record contains no reports from District agencies.

IX. COMMUNITY COMMENTS

At Exhibit 2C is an ANC memo in support of the application.

X. ATTACHMENT

1. Comprehensive Plan Policy Analysis

Office of Planning Report, ZC #12-01A Catholic UniversityNorth Athletic Field Accessory Bld. Amendment and Further ProcessingMay 25, 2018Page 1 of 6

Attachment 1Comprehensive Plan Policies

Y N POLICY OP COMMENTSUPPER NORTHEAST ELEMENTY Policy UNE-1.1.1: Neighborhood Conservation – Protect and enhance the stable

neighborhoods of Upper Northeast, such as Michigan Park, North Michigan Park,University Heights, Woodridge, Brookland, Queens Chapel, South Central,Lamond Riggs, and Arboretum. The residential character of these areas shall beconserved, and places of historic significance, gateways, parks, and special placesshall be enhanced. 2408.2

The development of a parking lot and athletic-field service buildingshould not detract from the nearby residential neighborhood. Theclosest residences are over 200 feet away from the subject site, andare screened from the parking lot by topography and forestal cover.By maintaining low light levels, there should be limited visualimpact to the surrounding community. And while OP defers toDDOT for traffic analyses, it appears that the new facility wouldtypically generate few automobile trips (Ex. 14A, p. 5). The trafficstudy states that there would be few net new trips, as most wouldbe trips that would have otherwise gone to the DuFour Center(ibid.). As stated on page 6 of the traffic study, some bicycle tripscould be expected to be generated by this use, and page 8 of Exhibit14A states that eight new bike racks would be located near theparking lot on two different elevations, depending on whether theriders would arrive from the north or the south.

LAND USEY Policy LU-2.3.1: Managing Non-Residential Uses in Residential Areas – Maintain

zoning regulations and development review procedures that: (a) prevent theencroachment of inappropriate commercial uses in residential areas; and (b) limitthe scale and extent of non-residential uses that are generally compatible withresidential uses, but present the potential for conflicts when they are excessivelyconcentrated or out of scale with the neighborhood. 311.3

The Regulations require Zoning Commission review of the proposeduses. OP’s analysis concludes that the proposed parking lot andservice building would not be out of scale with the nearbyresidential neighborhood.

Y Policy LU-2.3.5: Institutional Uses – Recognize the importance of institutionaluses, such as private schools, child care facilities, and similar uses, to theeconomy, character, history, and future of the District of Columbia. Ensure thatwhen such uses are permitted in residential neighborhoods, they are designedand operated in a manner that is sensitive to neighborhood issues and thatmaintains quality of life. Encourage institutions and neighborhoods to work

The University has worked proactively with the community on thisproposal, and the ANC has voted to support the application, asshown at Exhibit 2C. The proposed parking lot and service buildingshould not detract from the neighborhood’s quality of life.


Y N POLICY OP COMMENTSproactively to address issues such as traffic and parking, hours of operation,outside use of facilities, and facility expansion.

Y Policy LU-3.2.1: Transportation Impacts of Institutional Uses – Support ongoingefforts by District institutions to mitigate their traffic and parking impacts bypromoting ridesharing, carpooling, public transportation, shuttle service andbicycling; providing on-site parking; and undertaking other transportationdemand management measures. 315.6

OP defers to DDOT for traffic analyses, but it appears that the newfacility would typically generate few automobile trips (Ex. 14A, p.5). The traffic study states that there would be few net new trips,as most would be trips that would have otherwise gone to theDuFour Center (ibid.). As stated on page 6 of the traffic study, somebicycle trips could be expected to be generated by this use, andpage 8 of Exhibit 14A states that eight new bike racks would belocated near the parking lot on two different elevations, dependingon whether the riders would arrive from the north or the south.The University’s master plan also encourages the use of Universityshuttles that can transport students or staff from the south campusto the north campus.

Y Policy LU-3.2.2: Corporate Citizenship – Support continued “corporatecitizenship” among the city’s large institutions, including its colleges, universities,hospitals, private schools, and non-profits. Given the large land area occupied bythese uses and their prominence in the community, the city’s institutions (alongwith the District itself) should be encouraged to be role models for smalleremployers in efforts to improve the city’s physical environment. This shouldinclude a continued commitment to high quality architecture and design on localcampuses, expanded use of “green building” methods and low impactdevelopment, and the adaptive reuse and preservation of historic buildings.315.7

The proposed design includes pervious surfaces for the parkingstalls in the parking lot. Because information in the applicationappears to be inconsistent in the exact location of the perviouspaving, OP recommends that the applicant commit that perviouspaving would be used for all parking bays, as implied by Sheet L0203of Exhibit 18C.

Y Policy LU-3.2.3: Non-Profits, Private Schools, and Service Organizations – Ensurethat large non-profits, service organizations, private schools, seminaries, collegesand universities, and other institutional uses that occupy large sites withinresidential areas are planned, designed, and managed in a way that minimizesobjectionable impacts on adjacent communities. The zoning regulations shouldensure that the expansion of these uses is not permitted if the quality of life inadjacent residential areas is significantly adversely affected. 315.8

The development of a parking lot and athletic-field service buildingshould not detract from the nearby residential neighborhood. Theclosest residences are over 200 feet away from the subject site, andare screened from the parking lot by topography and forestal cover.By maintaining low light levels, there should be limited visualimpact to the surrounding community. And while OP defers toDDOT for traffic analyses, it appears that the new facility wouldtypically generate few automobile trips (Ex. 14A, p. 5). The trafficstudy states that there would be few net new trips, as most would


Y N POLICY OP COMMENTSbe trips that would have otherwise gone to the DuFour Center(ibid.). As stated on page 6 of the traffic study, some bicycle tripscould be expected to be generated by this use, and page 8 of Exhibit14A states that eight new bike racks would be located near theparking lot on two different elevations, depending on whether theriders would arrive from the north or the south. The University hasworked proactively with the community on this proposal, and theANC has voted to support the application, as shown at Exhibit 2C.The proposed parking lot and service building should not detractfrom the neighborhood’s quality of life.

TRANSPORTATIONY Policy T-1.2.3: Discouraging Auto-Oriented Uses – Discourage certain uses, like

“drive-through” businesses or stores with large surface parking lots, along keyboulevards and pedestrian streets, and minimize the number of curb cuts in newdevelopments. Curb cuts and multiple vehicle access points break-up thesidewalk, reduce pedestrian safety, and detract from pedestrian-oriented retailand residential areas. 404.8

While sporting events in locations such as the subject site, whichdon’t have ready access to transit, will usually draw some amountof automobile traffic, the traffic study seems to suggest that trafficimpacts would be minimal. Please refer to Exhibit 14A.

Y Policy T-2.3.1: Better Integration of Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning – Integratebicycle and pedestrian planning and safety considerations more fully into theplanning and design of District roads, transit facilities, public buildings, and parks.409.8

The design would include bicycle parking for riders arriving from thenorth and from the south. The traffic study indicates that bikeaccess is available from the Metropolitan Branch Trail, via BatesRoad, and from the campus to the south. Pedestrian access isreadily available from the south, through the campus. Page 8 ofExhibit 14A, the traffic study, states that “Minimal pedestrianactivity is expected to/from the north and the topography alongBates Street NE [sic] at the northern perimeter of the project site isprohibitive for constructing an accessible pathway connectionbetween the renovated athletics field and Bates Street NE [sic].”

Y Policy T-2.3.2: Bicycle Network – Provide and maintain a safe, direct, andcomprehensive bicycle network connecting neighborhoods, employmentlocations, public facilities, transit stations, parks and other key destinations.Eliminate system gaps to provide continuous bicycle facilities. Increase dedicatedbike-use infrastructure, such as bike-sharing programs like Capital Bikeshare, andidentify bike boulevards or bike-only rights of way. 409.9

Y Policy T-2.4.1: Pedestrian Network – Develop, maintain, and improve pedestrianfacilities. Improve the city’s sidewalk system to form a network that links residentsacross the city. 410.5

Y Policy T-3.1.1: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Programs –Provide, support, and promote programs and strategies aimed at reducing the

The University Master Plan included a number of TDM measures.The present traffic study indicates that those items will continue to


Y N POLICY OP COMMENTSnumber of car trips and miles driven (for work and non-work purposes) to increasethe efficiency of the transportation system. 414.8

be put into effect in order to reduce the amount of single-occupancy-vehicle traffic.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONTBD Policy E-1.1.2: Tree Requirements in New Development – Use planning, zoning,

and building regulations to ensure that trees are retained and planted when newdevelopment occurs, and that dying trees are removed and replaced. If treeplanting and landscaping are required as a condition of permit approval, alsorequire provisions for ongoing maintenance. 603.5

The application includes a landscaping plan (Exhibit 18C, SheetL0501). The applicant should affirm how the landscaping meets theparking lot landscaping requirements of the Zoning Regulations (11DCMR Subtitle C § 715).

TBD Policy E-1.1.3: Landscaping – Encourage the use of landscaping to beautify thecity, enhance streets and public spaces, reduce stormwater runoff, and create astronger sense of character and identity. 603.6

TBD Policy E-2.2.4: Alternative Energy Sources – Support the development andapplication of renewable energy technologies such as active, passive, andphotovoltaic solar energy, fuel cells, and other sustainable sources. Suchtechnology should be used to reduce the dependence on imported energy, provideopportunities for economic and community development, and benefitenvironmental quality. A key goal is the continued availability and access tounobstructed, direct sunlight for distributed-energy generators and passive-solarhomes relying on the sun as a primary energy source. 610.6

The applicant should explore the use of solar power generation onthe roof of the service building. Presently the plans indicate thatthe building would have a membrane roof.

TBD Policy E-2.2.5: Energy Efficient Building and Site Planning – Include provisionsfor energy efficiency and for the use of alternative energy sources in the District’splanning, zoning, and building standards. The planning and design of newdevelopment should contribute to energy efficiency goals. 610.7

Y Policy E-3.1.1: Maximizing Permeable SurfacesEncourage the use of permeable materials for parking lots, driveways, walkways,and other paved surfaces as a way to absorb stormwater and reduce urbanrunoff. 613.2

The proposed design includes pervious surfaces for the parkingstalls in the parking lot. Because information in the applicationappears to be inconsistent in the exact location of the perviouspaving, OP recommends that the porous unit paving be used for allparking stalls.

TBD Policy E-3.1.2: Using Landscaping and Green Roofs to Reduce RunoffPromote an increase in tree planting and landscaping to reduce stormwaterrunoff, including the expanded use of green roofs in new construction andadaptive reuse, and the application of tree and landscaping standards for parkinglots and other large paved surfaces. 613.3

The application includes a landscaping plan (Exhibit 18C, SheetL0501). The applicant should affirm how the landscaping meets theparking lot landscaping requirements of the Zoning Regulations (11DCMR Subtitle C § 715). The application begins to meet the intentof this policy by including a significant amount of pervious paving in


Y N POLICY OP COMMENTSthe parking lot. However, the use of a green roof for the servicebuilding should be examined.

Y Policy E-4.7.3: Light Pollution – Maintain regulations for outdoor lighting toreduce light pollution and conserve energy. Particular attention should be givento preventing glare and nighttime light trespass in the vicinity of the NavalObservatory, so that its operational needs are respected. 624.6

The lighting plan submitted at Exhibit 18C, Sheet E0107 seems toindicate that lighting for the site would be suitable for its context.The parking lot would have an average illumination level of 2.02foot-candles (fc), with a maximum of 4.6 fc. The lowest light levelsappear to be at the periphery of the parking lot. Higher illuminationlevels are appropriately concentrated around the service building.In order to further protect from light trespass to nearby properties,OP recommends that the applicant commit to use only fullyshielded lighting fixtures for the parking lot.

PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACEY Policy PROS-3.3.1: North-Central Open Space Network – Protect and enhance

the historic open space network extending from McMillan Reservoir to FortTotten. As future land use changes in this area take place, an integrated systemof permanent open spaces and improved parks should be maintained or created.814.5

The Catholic University campus, together with other institutionaluses in the area, constitute a large part of this “green” area of thecity. The proposal would not be inconsistent with this policy, as thearea in question is cleared of trees already, and the service buildingwould be very small in scale. The feeling of open space, therefore,should be maintained.

Y Policy PROS-4.2.1: Institutional Open Space – Encourage local institutions, suchas private and parochial schools, colleges and universities, seminaries, hospitals,and churches and cemeteries, to allow the cooperative use of their open spacelands for the benefit of District residents. 818.3

While the facilities under consideration with this application wouldnot be available for public use, the Catholic University campus as awhole is a valuable open space asset for the entire community andis generally open for the public to walk through or to sit at a bench.

EDUCATIONAL FACILITIESTBD Policy EDU-3.2.2: Corporate Citizenship

Support continued “corporate citizenship” among the city’s large institutions,including its colleges, universities, hospitals, private schools, and non-profits. Thisshould include a continued commitment to high quality architecture and designon local campuses, expanded use of “green building” methods and low impactdevelopment, and the adaptive reuse and preservation of historic buildings.

The applicant is proposing low-impact development with the use ofporous paving for the parking bays. In order to fully meet the intentof this policy, the applicant should explore the use of solar powerfor or a green roof on the service building.

Y Policy EDU-3.3.2: Balancing University Growth and Neighborhood NeedsEncourage the growth and development of local colleges and universities in amanner that recognizes the role these institutions play in contributing to theDistrict’s character, culture, economy and is also consistent with and supports

The University has worked proactively with the community on thisproposal, and the ANC has voted to support the application, asshown at Exhibit 2C. The proposed parking lot and service building


Y N POLICY OP COMMENTScommunity improvement and neighborhood conservation objectives. Discourageuniversity actions that would adversely affect the character or quality of life insurrounding residential areas.

should not detract from the neighborhood’s character or quality oflife.

Y Policy EDU-3.3.3: Campus Plan RequirementsContinue to require campus plans for colleges and universities located inresidential and mixed use zone districts. These plans should be prepared by theinstitutions themselves, subject to District review and approval, and shouldaddress issues raised by the surrounding communities. Each campus plan shouldinclude provisions that ensure that the institution is not likely to becomeobjectionable to neighboring property because of noise, traffic, number ofstudents, or other similar conditions.

The development of a parking lot and athletic-field service buildingshould not detract from the nearby residential neighborhood. Theclosest residences are over 200 feet away from the subject site, andare screened from the parking lot by topography and forestal cover.By maintaining low light levels, there should be limited visualimpact to the surrounding community. And while OP defers toDDOT for traffic analyses, it appears that the new facility wouldtypically generate few automobile trips (Ex. 14A, p. 5). The trafficstudy states that there would be few net new trips, as most wouldbe trips that would have otherwise gone to the DuFour Center(ibid.). As stated on page 6 of the traffic study, some bicycle tripscould be expected to be generated by this use, and page 8 of Exhibit14A states that eight new bike racks would be located near theparking lot on two different elevations, depending on whether theriders would arrive from the north or the south.

The lighting plan submitted at Exhibit 18C, Sheet E0107 seems toindicate that lighting for the site would be suitable for its context.The lowest light levels appear to be at the periphery of the parkinglot, and higher illumination levels are appropriately concentratedaround the service building. In order to further protect lighttrespass to nearby properties, OP recommends that the applicantcommit to use only fully shielded lighting fixtures at the parking lot.

Y Policy EDU-3.3.5: Transportation Impacts of Colleges and UniversitiesSupport ongoing efforts by colleges and universities to mitigate their traffic andparking impacts by promoting ridesharing, carpooling, shuttle service, bicycling,and other transportation demand management measures. The provision ofadequate on-site parking for institutional uses also should be encouraged.

The University Master Plan included a number of TDM measures.The present traffic study indicates that those items will continue tobe put into effect in order to reduce the amount of single-occupancy-vehicle traffic.

MEMORANDUM TO: DATE: May 25, 2018 · The lighting plan submitted at Exhibit 18C, Sheet E0107 seems...

Documents

Transcript of MEMORANDUM TO: DATE: May 25, 2018 · The lighting plan submitted at Exhibit 18C, Sheet E0107 seems...