Super late in getting this post up. DC Urbanturf had the original report regarding apartments planned for a long vacant building at 6101 Sligo Mill Road NE in Lamond. The development team presented at ANC 4B’s meeting on June 28, 2021, and at a community meeting on June 11, 2021.
See the presentation here.
This building was originally slated to be condos as part of a planned unit development (PUD) called The Hampshires, a community of single family detached homes and townhomes, developed by Comstock several years ago (zoning case number 05-30). There is also an adult care facility operated by Metro Homes on the grounds. For many reasons, development of the larger multifamily building just never got off the ground. Now a new development team is proposing to tear down the building and construct a new building with 50 apartments.
During the ANC 4B meeting in June, the owner stated that one of the reasons development of this building has been so difficult is that the layout of the building is not conducive to housing, and now the building is in no condition to be efficiently renovated. The building will have brick facade to blend in with the homes at the Hampshires and the units will have projected balconies. The team plans to spread surface parking around the site with the goal of having vehicles enter and exit through four different entry points.
Development of this building will be quite a process. The building has changed ownership a couple of times and gone through foreclosure. David Zarnoch, representing the new ownership team (a pension fund), stated that the team is committed to the affordability provisions of the original PUD (11 below market rate units). But in response to a question from the ANC about the status of the original PUD, counsel for the development team stated he had to get clarification from the zoning administrator about whether they would need to modify the original PUD or whether this development would be considered a new PUD. Commissioner Evan Yeats (4B01) worried that if the ANC approved the project, then a precedent would be set to allow a developer to delay building affordable units until years after a project has been approved. Mr. Zarnoch noted that this particular development team is new to the project and that they are not the original owners who allowed the building to fall into disrepair. Also a homeowner in the Hampshires questioned how the development team proposed to provide access to the building from different entry points given that the roads at the Hampshires are private roads, so easements might be needed.
If you live in the area or care about this project, expect to receive notice of community meetings from ANC Commissioner Geoff Bromaghim (4B07) and the Lamond Community Action Group.
Next Stop...Riggs Park 
Why are we continuing to build apartments with no multi-use buildings underneath? This is an excellent opportunity to put some shops, stores, or Restaurants under the apartments that will go up, like they did at Fort Totten. With the existing homes and surrounding residences, this would be a great opportunity for everyone to have local access to shops. Is this a consideration in the development?
Just my unfounded opinion – the original PUD that was approved a long time ago included just housing for this particular building. It’s just taking a while to get housing in this particular building built for a number of reasons; everything else was built long ago. Even getting the adult care facility approved and built was a long process, and residents in that area complain to this day (with some merit) about parking issues. I personally don’t think every apartment building needs to be multi-use, specifically include a retail component, because every apartment building may not support having retail. Support meaning the financials/environmental/other elements make sense. There’s a long, convoluted history to this particular building that predates the start of this blog. I have not heard anyone mention putting retail on the bottom, & I suspect (again my unfounded opinion) that people would not be all that thrilled about having shops on the ground floor of a building that is on the grounds of what is basically a very small subdivision of homes. Very long-winded way of saying I’ve not heard what you suggested, but that doesn’t mean it hasn’t been raised. As I mentioned in the post, the ANC commissioner and the Lamond Community Action Group will convene more community meetings about this building.