Tag Archives: Hine

ANC 6B Executive Committee Finds Three 6B Commissioners in Violation of Bylaws – Votes to Correct the Record with Historic Preservation Review Board on Hine

by Larry Janezich

Monday night, at an emergency meeting of ANC 6B’s Executive Committee, three ANC 6B Commissioners – Dave Garrison, Kirsten Oldenburg, and Norm Metzger – were found to have violated ANC 6B bylaws in presenting a joint statement to the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) during a June 30 hearing on the Hine Development.  The three commissioners made a statement strongly supportive of the project, in contrast to the official statement of ANC6B which raised numerous issues with the project and recommended several major design changes.  The three were charged with failing to explicitly state that their testimony was not representative of ANC 6B; failing to explicitly state whether and when their testimony was contradictory of official ANC positions; and of seizing an “opportunity to stress several points not made in ANC 6B’s formal testimony” without stating that at least one of those points addressed an issue that the Commission had not yet deliberated upon.

Of the three Commissioners found to have violated the bylaws, Garrison was the only one present for the meeting.  At various points in the occasionally contentious discussion, Garrison stipulated that he had violated the bylaws, but insisted that he had done so unintentionally and without consequence.  He added that he had corrected the record with HPRB by correcting his testimony after the hearing.  In fact, the corrected testimony filed after the fact differed only in that it included the disclaimer “We are not speaking on behalf of ANC 6B.”

Though prompted by his colleagues at several points, Garrison offered no apology.  ANC 6B chair Neil Glick went so far as to characterize Garrison’s representation before the HPRB as “dirty testimony.”  Glick and others belabored the “lack of contrition,” as Commissioner Brian Pate put it, in both Garrison’s remarks during the meeting and Commissioner Kirsten Oldenburg’s effort to correct the testimony after the fact, which she presented to constituents as a clerical error (“I goofed and attached the wrong version….”) rather than as an effort to correct a violation of ANC 6B bylaws.

While the discussion of contrition elicited the strongest remarks, the most pointed part of the meeting came when Commissioner Garrison insisted that the punitive sanctions for infractions against the bylaws listed in ANC 6B bylaws (Section 2 of Article Six) did not apply to the violations he admitted committing, so ANC 6B had no authority to impose any.  If it did so, Garrison threatened, the Commission would have to “talk to my lawyer” and “answer to the Attorney General.”  A close reading of the paragraph on sanctions reveals ambiguity regarding exactly which infractions the sanctions apply to, depending on whether the language is interpreted broadly or narrowly.  The Executive Committee opted to recommend to the full ANC that a letter be sent to the HPRB detailing the violations of the bylaws and correcting ANC 6B’s position on the Hine Development for the record.

ANC 6B will discuss and vote on the recommendations put forward by the Executive Committee on Tuesday night during its regularly scheduled meeting.  Voting in favor of the findings of fact that violations of the bylaws had indeed occurred and voting in favor of a letter to HPRB as the proposed remedy were Commissioners Critchfield, Frishberg, Glick, Green, and Pate.  Commissioner Garrison abstained from all votes.  Though the complaint originally lodged by Commissioner Pate listed only Commissioner Garrison as having violated the bylaws, the Executive Committee amended the findings of fact to list Commissioners Metzger and Oldenburg as having violated them as well.

Perhaps more than any other issue, deliberation over the Hine Development has introduced tension on ANC 6B.  At the meeting Monday night, Commissioners Pate and Glick referred back to the efforts made to include or accommodate Commissioners Garrison, Oldenburg, and Metzger, first in the original Hine resolution, and later in the memorandum reiterating components of the ANC 6B position on Hine for the benefit of the second HPRB hearing held to discuss it.  It was at the latter hearing that the bylaw violations occurred.  Garrison offered no rebuttal or comments on that point, instead arguing that the gathered Commissioners “were beating up on us” and using procedural arguments to critique substantive positions.  In defending his testimony as representing Oldenburg and Metzger as well, Garrison said only that “a sense of efficiency” encouraged them to consolidate their positions – though he also insisted that doing so did not constitute a “minority report.”

Tuesday night, ANC6B will take up the motions put forward by the Executive Committee, along with its regularly scheduled business including a special exception to permit a Chipotle on Barracks Row and final action on the recommendations of the Retail Mix Committee.  The  meeting will occur at the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS, 522 7th Street, SE, (The Old Safeway Building), 7:00 p.m.

Restoration Society Historic Preservation Committee Gets First Look at Revised Hine Drawings:

Members Give Lukewarm Welcome to Some Proposed Changes

by Larry Janezich

The Restoration Society’s Historic Preservation Committee got a peek at Stanton/Eastbanc’s revised plans for the Hine development Tuesday night.  Project architect Amy Weinstein briefed the committee at its regular monthly meeting.

Weinstein described the major changes she has in mind for the project while emphasizing that it is still a work in progress.

Current thinking is that the façade of the 8^th Street residential building should look like “terrace housing” with a unified design.  Weinstein cited several examples of terrace architecture, pointing specifically to “Schneider’s Triangle” near Washington Circle, referencing its variety and interesting massing.  http://www.flickr.com/photos/anomalous_a/4290184760/  The color palate of the 8^th Street residential building will be red brick, purple red brownstone, and real slate, with the entrance of the building set off by grey brick.  No changes to the height or basic structure of the residential building were detailed at the meeting.

The 8^th Street building facing D Street will retain its modern façade.  Bay windows projecting four feet on upper floors have been added, and the columns crowning the top story will be reduced to balustrade level, bringing down the buildings height.  The façade will be gray brick.  A committee member said that the grey brick courses separated by a course of white brick suggested a stack of concrete blocks.  Another raised the issue of the ungainly tower on the southwest corner of the building which houses the air-conditioning.  Another committee member questioned the “change in language” from the 8^th Street residential Victorian façade to the modern façade of the 8^th and D office building.  Weinstein defended the modern look, saying, “I believe as we move forward in the Historic District, we have to find a way to be modern and still be respectful.”  Questioned about the placement of the windows in the modern façade as not in keeping with other aspects of the project, the architect said she respectfully disagreed, and that there was a place for “playfulness” and “idiosyncrasy.”

With respect to the use of the ground floor space in the 8^th and D building, Weinstein says that three possibilities are being considered:  Shakespeare housing, office space, and “light” retail.

The 7^th floor of the 7^th and Pennsylvania office building will be set back 12 feet and the penthouse will be minimized, providing the perception of a lower building; as of now, no floors have been eliminated entirely.  A glass railing on top of the 6^th floor will enclose a roof top “communal” roof deck.  The asymmetrical rotating columns on the 7^th Street office building remain.

Stanton Development will go back to the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) on June 30^th for historic preservation review of the 8^th Street residential building, the 8^th and D Street office building, and the 7^th Street office building.  Weinstein characterized Stanton’s efforts in the upcoming reappearance before HPRB as responding to HPRB’s comments – “not everything, but what would work for us.”  Stanton will file the revised plans with HPRB on June 14^th or 15^th, to allow time for HPO staff analysis.  ANC6b will hear from the developers on June 21^st and consider a resolution of recommendations to HPRB on that date.

In July, the developers will return to HPRB with revised plans for the 7^th Street residential building, the plaza, and the North residential building.

Following the presentation, the committee went into executive session to discuss the Hine case and other matters before the committee.

Asked if the committee would make a recommendation in light of the fact that the drawings they saw tonight were still a work in progress, committee chair Nancy Metzger said “I don’t know what we’re going to do.  We may make comments to the developer based on what we heard tonight.”  Asked if the developers would appear before the committee prior to the HPRB meeting or if the committee would meet again before the HPRB meeting, Metzger responded “no,” but “when the drawing are filed with HPRB we will discuss them by email,” and, she implied, make a recommendation to HPRB at that time.

In addition to Chair Nancy Metzger, other members of the committee who attended tonight’s session included Judith Capen, James Dean, Shauna Holmes, Marisa Lewis, and Georgina Ardelan.

The Special Call Meeting on the Hine Development Project on June 21^st will be at the Peoples Church, located at 535 8th Street, SE.   The meeting will start at 7:00pm.

CHRS Criticizes Stanton-Eastbanc’s Hine Proposal – Urges Reconsideration of Major Features

by Larry Janezich

The Capitol Hill Restoration Society issued a report to the city’s Historic Preservation Office (HPO) today that was strongly critical of the latest design proposal for the Hine Project.

Regarding the project’s Pennsylvania Avenue streetscape, the report states,   “[a]t this point, we do not think the proposed Pennsylvania Avenue streetscape is successful.  The buildings are not compatible additions to the Historic District, and the side-by-side massing of the two very large structures only emphasizes the problem.  We would welcome a ‘signature building’ but neither of these meet that criteria.”

The report goes on to say that the proposal submitted in 2009 which won the nod from the city, as well as a version put forward by Stanton-Eastbanc in February 2011, provided plans with more appropriate massing and or width.  “We are not sure why that concept was not pursued;”CHRS notes, adding, “[w]e recommend that the massing of both of these proposed buildings be re-studied.”

With respect to the office building at Seventh and Pennsylvania Avenues, the report states that the “building volume is simply too tall and large to blend gracefully with its Capitol Hill neighbors.  A significant reduction in height is necessary to achieve compatibility.”

The Board was also critical of the large amount of glass and the rotated corbelled columns on the office building:  “it is very difficult to assess and understand how this complex design would relate to the historic district …. It is a building and design that is better suited for new offices in a historic warehouse or industrial area where the scale would be in keeping with nearby buildings.”

As for the residential building at Eighth which faces Pennsylvania Avenue/D Street, the CHRS said it, too, “fails to be convincing as a Capitol Hill Building.”

It wasn’t all bad news for Stanton-Eastbanc.  The CHRS did like the restoration of the 700 block of C Streetto the L’Enfant grid, the triangle shaped plaza next to the 7^th and C Streets intersection, the C Street entrances to the new North residential building, and the four story height of the Eighth Street residential building.

But they went on to criticize the redundant presence of the existing alley parallel to the newly to-be-reopened C Street, hinting, perhaps, that the north/south alley behind the restaurants and retail opposite Eastern Market should connect with the reopened C Street.

This notion received support from comments filed separately with HPO by CHRS Board member Monte Edwards, who said, “The plan should also include removal of the east-west alley (that largely duplicates the function of the reopened C Street) and restoration of the original alley connecting Independence and the restored C  Street.”

Other changes called for in the report included the following:

Eighth Street residential building:  Vary the roof line and style references (more balconies, articulated cornices and trim)

C Street facades:  Design architecture for theC Street facades with a “stronger identification with its location” in relation to Eastern Market and the adjacent commercial corridor.

North residential building:  (“building seems uncomfortably large for the location”), reconfigure the use of space (closing the alley would allow lowering the height – ed.), break up the façade on C street and consider store front bays for first floor retail there and on 7^th Street, vary the roofline.

South Side of C residential building:  (“Severe, sharply angled, could be overpowering”), reduction in height of one story, other comments on architectural expression deferred until next review.

Seventh Street Office Buildings:  Reduce height to 58 feet – the height of the existing Hine School, other comments on architectural expression deferred until next review

Finally, the CHRS report urged developers to incorporate street trees and garden spaces so that this feature of Capitol Hill is maintained on all of the site’s streets.

It was unclear what process CHRS followed to generate these recommendations, since most of that process took place in private conversations or correspondence among the Historic Preservation Committee members or CHRS Board members.  It did seem, however, that the views of the Historic Preservation Committee held sway without much revision or comment.

ANC6b meets next Tuesday night to finalize its recommendations to the Historic Preservation Review Board.  A preliminary draft of their resolution appears in an earlier post to this blog.  The Special Call Meeting will start at 6:30 p.m. at Brent School.  The agenda includes an update from Stanton-Eastbanc, questions/comments from Commissioners, questions/comments from community, and commission deliberation on recommendations to the HPRB.

HPRB is scheduled to meet on Stanton-Eastbanc’s Historic Preservation application on Thursday, April 28.  #1 Judiciary Square, 441 Fourth Street, NW, Room 220 South.  It is the first of what is likely to be several reviews.  EMMCA will be among those groups to present recommendations to the HPRB.   The Hine project will be the last case of the day, scheduled for the afternoon.  Live or delayed video coverage of the meeting will be available at the following link:  (http://planning.dc.gov/DC/Planning/Historic+Preservation)

CHRS Board Approves Recommendations on Hine Project – But Holds Cards Close to Its Vest

by Larry Janezich

On Tuesday night, the Capitol Hill Restoration Society met and unanimously approved its recommendations for the Hine project regarding height, massing, and compatibility with the Capitol Hill Historic District.

Nancy Metzger, CHRS Historic Preservation Committee Chair, reported to the Board that earlier that day she had emailed to the Board, a cover letter to accompany the comments which will be sent to the Historic Preservation Office by Thursday.  She described the contents of the cover letter, which she said:  1) concerned the April 5 membership meeting on Hine which CHRS had sponsored, 2) what the city hopes to accomplish with the Hine project, and 3) as drawing attention to comments on the project which have been developed by the CHRS.

The recommendations had evidently been circulated among Board members by email prior to the meeting.  Metzger said that “comments had been received on the draft” recommendations, but “no major changes” had been made.  She offered no description or characterization of what the recommendations or comments were.  Board member Monte Edwards made a motion to adopt the comments and the motion was seconded by President Elizabeth Purcell.  The vote proceeded without debate or discussion and the motion was carried unanimously.

The vote on the comments with “no major changes” means that the Board effectively endorsed the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Committee without modification.

Metzger alluded to three other letters, which, along with the cover letter, will be included in the package sent to the Historic Preservation Office.  She said that the cover letter and the CHRS comments would go up on the CHRS website on Friday.

Those Board members in attendance and voting for the motion are as follows:

President Elizabeth Purcell, Paul Cromwell, Catherine Davis, Monte Edwards, Shauna Holmes, Nancy Metzger, Elizabeth Nelson, Gary Petersen, Janet Quigley, Sharon Weiss, and Lisa Wilson.

DRAFT  DRAFT  DRAFT  DRAFT  DRAFT  DRAFT  DRAFT  DRAFT

(The draft below is a discussion draft that has not been endorsed by either the whole ANC6b or any individual commissioner.  Further modification may take place before the formal resolution is considered at the April 26th Special Call Meeting.  The intention of this draft is to stimulate feedback and allow the community to focus comments at that meeting on the recommendations of the ANC.

It is EMMCA’s hope and understanding that commissioners will receive comments throught email as well as by reading and participating in the comments section of this blog.  ANC commissioners may be reached through emal addresses listed at: http.//www.anc6b.org/ )

Advisory Neighborhood Commission 6B Resolution on Proposed Conceptual Design for Hine School site redevelopment

 Tuesday, April 26, 2011

WHEREAS the city has decided to demolish the existing Hine Jr. High School building and to redevelop the entire block bordered by 7th, Pennsylvania Avenue, D Street, 8th Street, and both sides of a to-be-reopened block of C Street; and,

WHEREAS as noted in an The Commission resolution dated June 30, 2009, “the development of this key location, sitting as it does in the heart of Capitol Hill, adjacent to major activity centers such as the Eastern Market, the Eastern Market Metro Plaza, and 8th Street Barracks Row, is of the highest importance to the future success of the community”; and,

WHEREAS the city conducted a competition to choose a development group to take on 21 this project and selected the Stanton-East Banc team; and,

WHEREAS The Commission held three Special Call meetings (February 2, March 15, and April 26) to consider the Stanton-East Banc team’s conceptual design, and also considered the proposal at a March 1 Planning and Zoning Committee meeting and took community comments at a March 8 Commission meeting; and,

WHEREAS The Commission has received numerous communications from community members expressing views on the proposed design, and individual Commissioners have participated in various discussions of the project with many Capitol Hill residents; and,

WHEREAS ANC6B understands that the initial conceptual review by the HPRB on April 28, 2011 will be followed by subsequent reviews by the Board, possibly one or more times before the PUD process begins and then after a PUD is approved and the project returns to the Board for further review. ANC 6B expects to participate in all substantive reviews of the project by the Board and requests that the Board insure that ANC 6B has an opportunity to participate at each review stage; and,

WHEREAS ANC6B understands that some issues noted in this resolution will be taken up during the zoning (Planned Unit Development) review of the project about to begin.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Advisory Neighborhood Commission 6B (ANC 6B) commends the Stanton-East Banc proposal for its:

1. Overall density;

2. Inclusion of mixed uses (residential, office, retail, parking);

3.  Commitment to use materials that respect the 1 materials used on nearby properties;

4. Division of the project among several distinct structures;

 5. Emphasis on supporting new and existing local retail;

6. Provision of affordable housing units, empty nester units and units that are of an appropriate size for families with small children;,

 7. Reopening of the 700 block of C Street;

8. Size and location of the public piazza at the 7 th and C Street corner;

9. Proposed accommodations for the use of the piazza and C Street on weekends  for the flea market;

10. Use of green building techniques;

11. Commitment to have this critical development provide additional revenue to the city; and,

 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that ANC 6B supports the setback, orientation and proportion of the proposed design as defined in the DC Historic Preservation Guidelines for New Construction in Historic Districts; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that ANC 6B recommends that the Historic Preservation Review Board approve the proposed conceptual design once the following concerns and recommendations are addressed:

Eighth Street Apartment/Condo Building

Height

The heights of the building at the corner of 8th and D St SE (greater than 60 feet from 29 curb to ceiling) and at the 8 th St entrance (greater than 40 feet from curb to parapet) are in 30 excess of the historically appropriate height for this area, and, in the context of this 31 residential block, violate the Board’s Guidelines for New Construction in an Historic District. The Commission recommends reducing the height at the corner of 8th and D St. SE and at the 8th St entrance.

Rhythm and Setback

Option A: Recent changes in the plans respond to Commission and community  comments about the uniformity of the property line and have significantly improved this building. Its design, massing, and siting are fundamentally sound. We urge continued efforts to “soften” the façade, expressed through the design of lintels, cornices and the like.

Option B: While recent changes in the plans respond to concerns about the uniformity of the property line, the uniformity of the 8th st façade, specifically the homogeneity of the roof line, continues to concern the Commission. ANC 6B believes this building would benefit greatly from additional diversity in the height and style of the roofline.

Interior Courtyard

The Commission strongly supports retention of the interior courtyard as a public space.  Current plans present the courtyard as a gated, private area. Should this approach be maintained, we recommend that the developers either reduce the size of the interior open space or elevate the courtyard (in a manner similar to Jenkins Row) to accommodate greater amenities that may relieve height and massing concerns elsewhere in the project.

North Residential Building

Height, Scale and Design

This building, in particular its western portion, should serve as a complement to the Eastern Market – in scale, height (especially the middle portion) and design. The Commission recognizes that this building presents some design challenges in its narrowness and in the requirements set by the terms of the DC Government for provision of 33 affordable housing units in this building. Loosening these terms to allow for more flexibility in the plans for this building should be discussed during the upcoming PUD process.

Rhythm and Façade Design

Variation in the monotone glass façade of the C St side of the building would create a more dynamic rhythm to the building and would reduce its institutional tone.

Pedestrian level streetscape

As designed, this building fails to connect to the historic character of the neighborhood.  C Street will be a new block with no facing historic structure. What is needed is a building design that reflects the character of the neighborhood. The current design does not meet this need.

D Street Building

Design, scale, ornamentation and height

This building does not reflect the character of the neighborhood. It is uniform in almost every aspect and has a “blocky” look that is not part of historic Capitol Hill. Nor does it present a design appropriate to a large and open setting in a historic neighborhood. In concert with the height of the building immediately to its west, as well as its own flat qualities, the building presents itself as too tall and featureless to be an asset to this historic square. The attenuated windows and brick panels make it seem taller than it is. It has an unrelenting quality that relies more on pattern making than architecture. This building seems more akin to buildings in Southwest DC (which may be entirely appropriate in that setting)and is not in harmony with other buildings 1 on historic Capitol Hill.

This building and the one immediately to the West will, by their location and size, be an ensemble landmark, announcing to visitors that this is Capitol Hill. That means the building needs to be distinctive, evocative of the history of the Hill, and welcoming. The two buildings, taken as a unit, do not meet those criteria. The scale, height and façade of these buildings require reconsideration.

Office building at 7th and PA Ave

Design and Scale

The rotated colonnades of the building add playfulness to what otherwise appears as a predominantly traditional office building. Further, the inclusion of brick and high Victorian windows is consistent with architectural features found in the historic district.  The overall design, however, does not fully meet the demands of such a prominent location that sits in the sight lines of Eastern Market, the U.S. Capitol, the Jefferson building of the Library of Congress, and the original and historic Carnegie construction of the SE Library. This building should be a landmark announcing Capitol Hill. The Commission believes that the current design does not meet this objective.

Height

At 85 feet using the standard measures (distance from the curb to ceiling of highest floor) , this is by far the highest point of the development with the penthouses level reaching a height of 106 feet. While recognizing that this building will face a large open area (Pennsylvania Avenue and Metro Plaza), this height is still too great for the area, A lower building overall than the proposed design is needed, one that reduces its feel of massiveness.

7th Street

Design and pedestrian engagement

Design of this building poses both an opportunity and a challenge. The opportunity is to join a street of lively, varied, and attractive commerce on its west side. The challenge is to create a design that does that. While the design under review approaches that goal, more work is needed to meet it, especially in its façade design. The Commission is mindful that the parking access for commercial traffic poses challenges and that it is difficult to design retail fronts absent retailers. With further design work, the Commission believes that this building can be quite successful, and partner with the west side of the street in offering a vibrant and attractive experience for residents, visitors, and retailers.

 Height

The design on the East side should complement the building heights on the West side of this block of 7th Street. In its 2009 resolution, the Commission recommended a height of no more than 50 feet (curb to ceiling of top story) for this component of the development.  The Commission recommends that the height of the new 7th Street building as it approaches the Pennsylvania Avenue building be stepped down to more closely approximate the height of the West side of 7th Street.

General Recommendations:

1. The Commission recommends that the developers investigate options for reducing the massing and height of the overall development by reducing the footprint of mechanical rooms, where possible placing them underground or in the interior of the building.

2. The Commission recommends the expansion of subterranean retail such as grocery stores or theatre. This will allow greater flexibility in the developers approach to the above grade massing, design and scale of the building, while maintaining the overall density of the project.

3. In order to better inform the public, the Commission requests that the developers prepare and display in the North Hall of Eastern Market a three dimensional concept model of the development

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commission, by a vote of X to Y, approved this resolution at a Special Call meeting, duly noticed, on Tuesday, April 26, 2011 and instructs the Commission Chairperson to transmit this resolution to the Historic Preservation Review Board prior to the April 28, 2011 HPRB meeting on this project; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Commission authorizes the Commission Chairperson to designate one or several Commissioners to testify at the HPRB hearing on behalf of the Commission.

Attest:

Secretary

Date

Tuesday Night: CHRS Board of Directors Meets on Hine

The Capitol Hill Restoration Society Board of Directors will meet Tuesday night to consider its recommendations to the Historic Preservation Review Board on the Hine Project.  emmcablog will report on the meeting unless the Board votes to go into Executive Session, in which case, only Board members, staff, and invited guests will be permitted to attend.  Parliamentary procedure allows the Board to go into Executive Session with a majority vote of the Board.  Either way, look for an update on Wednesday morning.

Board Meeting:  6:30 pm

Townhomes, 750 6^th Street, SE, Second Floor.