Hine Redevelopment Downsized – Shakespeare Administration Offices and IRD Non-Profit Partner Out

Neighbors Gather to Hear Status Report on Hine Redevelopment

Hine Redevelopment Downsized – Shakespeare Administration Offices and IRD Non-Profit Partner Out

by Larry Janezich

Some 30 neighbors of the Hine Development met with representatives of Stanton Development Tuesday night to receive a status report on the project.  Stanton partner Ken Golding announced the project has been scaled back in size and scope owing to the economy.

The bottom line is this.  Overall cuts in space will result in the project being reduced by about 85,000 square feed – down to 557,374 from 642,336.

The project has been modified as follows:

Space for residents – up 100,000 square feet

Space for offices (IRD) – down 62,000 square feet

Space for retail – down 13,000 square feet

Tiger Woods Foundation is out – down 19,000 square feet

Shakespeare Theater is out (and “other”) – down 70,000 square feet

Parking – down 20,500

The Shakespeare Theater has decided to keep its administrative offices in place on 8th Street but will house its visiting performers in the development.  The International Relief and Development non-profit will stay in Virginia, though Golding held open the possibility they could become a tenant at some point.

There will be a total of 162 residential units in the new plan.  A total of 270 parking spaces will be allocated as follows:

Residential –138 on weekdays and weekends

Office – 83 on weekdays and 30 on weekends

Retail/Eastern Market – 49 on weekdays and 102 on weekends

The modification of the project will result in some community benefits, including an enlarged community plaza splayed open toward 7th Street, a wider east-west alley between 7th and 8th Streets, and a fully enclosed trash room to ameliorate trash related problems which vex neighbors abutting commercial corridors.

Stanton has engaged Symmetra Design as traffic, transportation, and parking consultants.  Their analysis is still underway and more information will be available at the next meeting.  Information on some related issues emerged during the meeting, including plans for entrance/egress to the garage for cars from C Street and entrance/egress for trucks from 7th Street.

Many of the changes seemed to meet with the approval of the neighbors.  The most skeptical questions had to do with the impact of traffic and the design features for the 8th Street residential building.

With respect to scheduling, Stanton will submit a plan to the Historic Preservation Review Board in time for a March 24 hearing, and meet with ANC6b before that.  Later this year, they will file the Public Unit Development (PUD) and begin the PUD process in 2012.  That will be the most important opportunity for residents and community groups to have input on the project.  Golding said that the overall time line for the project would be unaffected, anticipating a completion date sometime in 2015.

Stanton representatives will update the broader community on Hine at a meeting sponsored by ANC 6B on Wednesday, February 2.  The meeting will be from 7:00pm until 9:00pm at Brent School, 301 North Carolina Avenue, SE.

Stanton’s plans for the site can be seen at http://hineschool.com/.


Filed under Uncategorized

7 responses to “Hine Redevelopment Downsized – Shakespeare Administration Offices and IRD Non-Profit Partner Out

  1. Steve

    Thank you for taking these notes!

    Question (to anybody who attended), what did the gentleman from EastBanc explain about the connection to residential units and on-site residential parking spots? The only clear takeaway point that I retained was that the project sponsors would advocate to the City that residents NOT be elibigle for Zone 6 parking. I couldn’t quite understand what he said about spots being sold (or rented?) separately from the residential sale or lease.

    Thanks again for the notes!

  2. RT

    I don’t know why people supported these development partners… They are in WAY over their heads, and don’t have the money to make this go forward. Too bad JBG didn’t jump in- they’d be in the ground now with a higher quality product. Stanton’s stuff looks mediocre at best anyways. Eastbanc has some impeccable projects but is broke.

  3. Larry, thanks for the post as usual. It was a very helpful meeting and I hope that we get more of the same tonight at Brent. There are a lot of questions still on the table, a lot more detail and opinions to be sifted and it only happens if we get a similarly engaged group showing up tonight to stay on the case.

    Immediately I think we all walked away with a sense that there has been some very active listening from the developers but that there are may more questions and issues that need more investigation. As you noted, a lot of that has to do with parking, transportation, the residential detail of the project, the aesthetics of the project and community benefit.

    Related to that last point, one thing I will address from the description above is the characterization of the improvements to the East-West alley and the inclusion of a trash room as resulting in some “community benefits.” Those specific proposals principally offset other concerns that come with the development; more trash, more trucks, more traffic etc (as you say, ameliorating some of the problems). Given that we are soon to begin the PUD process that tries to measure community impact and benefit I would not want to start counting basic mitigation efforts as community benefits.

  4. barbarascotti

    Thanks, Larry. As usual you got all the facts for us! Steve, Joe Sternlieb, the Eastbanc fellow, seemed to be trying to “spin” your question about whether new residents of the Hine development would be eligible for an on-street parking sticker by saying they (the developers) would do everything in their power to deter street parking. I translate that as of course new residents will be able to park on the street.
    All in all, a good meeting, and I agree with Ivan that some serious listening to our concerns has occurred. That’s a very good thing!

    • Steve

      Thanks, Barbara. I got the spin point, but there was a separate point he was making about sale of parking spots as either connected or disconnected from the dwelling unit, and he said something about the parking spot user internalizing the “true cost” of the parking. Did anyone else catch that?

  5. whoa_now

    They should take some space and have a community garden-most of the space reserved for the residence units built, but a smaller portion should be reserved for ward 6 members.

  6. Wendy Blair

    Stanton/Eastbanc needs a certain percentage of non-profit tenants in order to qualify for the more lucrative market-rate rentals and sales the City will allow in its development. (I don’t have the number, someone please help me.) The only non-profit Stanton/Eastbanc now has will be elderly who qualify for subsidized housing (not elderly who can afford market rates). Gail Kohn, Director Capitol Hill Village, believes that elderly units of both sorts will go like hot cakes.
    I am not clear whether rentals to actors would qualify as subsidized . At present, the Shakespeare Theatre company owns and leases a number of permanently-available rentals throughout Capitol Hill. Most are in the basements and houses of current residents. All are paid at market rates, I believe.
    My point is that on Tuesday night we heard indications (“We are waiting for the market to tell us whether this will be offices or a boutique hotel”, “That has not yet been decided”) that funding is still not solid for this developer.
    It has lost all the non-profits it had originally lined up (Tiger Woods foundation, Shakespeare Theatre offices, others). These names helped this developer win the Hine job. That’s such a shame. StreetSense Company had a more imaginative plan with complete funding in place, and a boutique hotel all lined up ready to go. It also “got” the neighborhood idea, and “listened” — and incorporated residents’ ideas at numerous meetings.
    On another point, Larry, is the Hine redevelopment not simply re-sized, rather than “downsized”? It is the same size as before, but the proportions of commercial and residential have been reconfigured. And the same profit as before must be wrung from it.