Tag Archives: Hine

Eastern Market Board Reaffirms Support of Stanton – Move Comes Amid Community Criticism of Plan

by Larry Janezich

At Wednesday night’s meeting of the Eastern Market Community Advisory Committee (EMCAC), the committee reached back in history 17 months and resurrected its July 10, 2009, letter to the office of the Deputy Mayor for Economic Development and Planning in which EMCAC endorsed Stanton Development’s plan for the Hine site.  The committee then proceeded to reaffirm its endorsement of their July 10, 2009, position.  The reasoning behind the move was uncertain.

EMCAC Chair Donna Sheeder, explained that EMCAC’s support for the Stanton plan was based specifically on the fact that it met two criteria important to Eastern Market.  First, the plan provides shared underground parking on weekends and evenings for Eastern Market patrons and for neighborhood bars and restaurants.  Second, the plan accommodates the flea market and “allows it a little room to grow.”  “The plans are undergoing change, but the basic plan is still relevant,” she said.

Committee Member Barbara Eck, the Capitol Hill Restoration Society’s representative to EMCAC, made the motion that EMCAC reaffirm its support for the reasons stated.

Questioned whether the amount of parking has changed, EMCAC Board member Monte Edwards, also on the Board of the Restoration Society, explained that the number of parking spaces has been reduced because the amount of office space has been reduced.  He also said it was his understanding that 8 – 10 parking spaces above ground would be provided to accommodate delivery vans of weekend vendors.  He went on to say that there had been no significant changes that would alter the plan in-so-far as the market was concerned.  He later corrected the record, saying that there has been a significant change that would benefit the market – the moving of the interior plaza public space to a splayed piazza opening out on 7^th and C Streets pointing toward Eastern Market.  This would better accommodate the weekend vendors, and was an improvement in his view.

Chuck Burger, the third EMCAC Board member who is also a member of the Restoration Society Board, reiterated that this action would affirm EMCAC’s support of the 2009 letter and noted that much deep discussion remained on Hine, including parking and massing – “there are still serious issues out there.”

Brian Pate, ANC6b’s representative to EMCAC noted that there had been significant changes to the project, especially concerning utilization, scale, and massing.

Actually, according to Stanton’s website, the project has changed in significant ways.  For one thing, it has become 30 percent smaller and has become reoriented toward high end residences.

August 2009              February 2011                March 2011

Sq ft Residence                              144,594                      244,074                          237,750

Sq ft Office                                      212,000                      150,156                          156,200

Sq ft Retail                                         52,772                          39,700                            41,200

Sq ft Parking/Service                  144,000                      123,444                         123,444

Total                                                     642,366                      557,374                         447,280

As of now, Stanton plans a total of 270 parking spaces, with 138 allotted for residences.  The remainder would be shared by offices, retail, Eastern Market patrons, and restaurant patrons.  It is unclear is how much parking would cost and whether a limited amount of free time for Market, retail, or restaurant patrons would be allowed.  Another open question is what impact a hotel would have on the number of available spaces if Stanton is successful in attracting a hotel client for the building on the Southeast corner of 7^th and C Streets.  There was no discussion of these points by the committee during the meeting.

When the vote came, it was 7 for the motion, 0 against the motion, and 1 abstention.

Those voting for the motion:

Donna Scheeder

Chuck Burger

Barbara Eck

Monte Edwards

Bill Glasgow

Anita Jefferson

Tom Kuchenberg

Abstaining:

Brian Pate

Councilmember Tommy Wells’ office is drafting legislation to provide for a new Eastern Market Authority to replace EMCAC.  That Authority could be in place by next fall.  Wells recently explained to ANC6b that the new Market Authority is necessary, given the way the current legislation is structured, and given the fact that the city wants out of managing the Market.  “We are faced with the prospect of going back to the way we had – with a (private) market manager and a governing board with no authority.”

The Story Behind the Restoration Society’s Unusual Special Meeting on Hine

Process Clouded by Lack of Transparency

by Larry Janezich

At its March 15 meeting, the Capitol Hill Restoration Society Board (CHRS) announced an unusual special meeting on Tuesday, April 5, to allow for public input on the Hine development.

While the factors leading to that decision are not certain, on March 12, an editor of the emmcablog (myself) sent the letter attached below to the CHRS Board.  Emmcablog had been trying to clarify the process by which CHRS would consider Stanton’s Historical Preservation Application (HPA) for Hine.  CHRS Historic Preservation Committee Chair Nancy Metzger told emmcablog that she assumed it would be handled routinely – that the Historic Planning Committee would make a recommendation directly to the Historic Preservation Office – as they had with the recent application for the Bavarian Beer Garden on lower 8^th Street.  (Metzger is married to ANC6B03 Commissioner Norm Metzger, who will also be voting on Stanton’s Historic Preservation Application when it comes before the ANC prior to the Historical Preservation Review Board on April 28.)

In the 1990s, the CHRS Board had sanctioned its Historic Preservation Committee and its Planning and Zoning Committee reporting directly to the Historic Preservation Office and the Zoning Commission respectively, bypassing the CHRS Board, in the interests of timing and expediency.  The Board meets only once a month and interactions between builders and the city occur much more frequently.

This lends a certain murkiness to the CHRS process, since the CHRS committee meetings, though public, are seldom well attended and are held in a tiny meeting room in the 10^th Street building where CHRS has its basement office. The recommendations or reports of the committees are not usually made public until they are filed with the appropriate government agency or reported to the full CHRS Board.  In addition, the membership of the committees or even their number is not made public on the CHRS website.

Even if one does attend the public meetings, the process can still remain obscure.  For example, at the March 15 CHRS Board meeting, when Metzger reported to the Board on the Historic Preservation Committee, she made no mention that the Committee had heard a presentation from Stanton Development on Monday, March 7.  Instead, Metzger said she “would be sending emails to the board members with an update.”  She announced that the Historic Preservation Committee was planning to put information on its website on the Historic Preservation Review Board to “answer questions people might have and to help members,” but that has not happened as of this morning.  Emmcablog has been the only news organization to routinely cover the Board meetings in recent months.

The importance that the city accords CHRS recommendations lends its lack of transparent process more problematic.  Knowing the potential influence of CHRS findings, developers often end up working closely with a small number of CHRS Board members whose voice ends up being heard by the City Council as representative of the 1,000 member Society when often the Board has had no consideration, input, or debate on an issue.  At a recent meeting, ANC Commissioner Brian Pate seemed to suggest that the CHRS had been influential in Stanton’s decision to move Hine project massing from the 7^th Street side of the project to the 8^th Street (residential) side.  This move has met with considerable criticism from immediate neighbors to the project on 8^th Street.

The special CHRS meeting on Hine will be on April 5, from 6:45pm – 8:30pm, at Maury Elementary School, 13^th and Constitution Avenue, NE (entrance on 13^th Street). Stanton development will make a PowerPoint presentation on what is likely to be the final version of the drawings they will submit to HPRB for consideration.  Any member of CHRS – and I am one of many – may attend and make their views known.  What is less clear is whether and how those views will be reflected in the official pronouncement from the CHRS.

Letter from emmcablog to CHRS:

March 12, 2011

Dear CHRS Board Members:

Apologies that this was not sent to the entire board, but I’m hoping Gloria will forward it to those Board members whose email addresses I don’t have.

The Hine project will have a profound effect on our community for as long as any of us live here – and beyond.  I’m hoping the process by which CHRS considers Stanton’s Historic Preservation Application (HPA) and Public Unit Development Application (PUD) will be as inclusive and transparent as possible.  I know that the PUD will be considered by CHRS’ Planning and Zoning Committee in – possibly – several public hearings, initially featuring a presentation by the developer.  But that will not occur for some six months, and possibly not for a year.

The recommendations of the CHRS Board are considered by the City Council to be the voice of the some 1000 members of the Society.  I think it would be wonderful if that were actually the case and the CHRS Board would hold a well-publicized, open, easily accessible hearing on the HPA and the PUD in addition to the Committee hearings, to inform the membership.  Certainly the scale and relative importance of the Hine development warrants an open process and a clear explanation to CHRS members.  A regular membership meeting or a special meeting would be an appropriate venue.

The bylaws allow five members of the board or 25 members of the Society to call a special meeting.  I hope that a meeting will occur for the following purposes:

1. To hear the Board explain the process by which the HPA and PUD for the Hine project will be considered by the Board, as well as the standards by which these applications will be – or have been – evaluated.

2. To provide an opportunity for the developers to make a presentation to the membership and to answer questions.

3. To allow the Board to hear the concerns of the membership and to craft appropriate recommendations within historic preservation and zoning guidelines, considering the concerns of the membership.  .

In addition, although the practices of the CHRS usually permit the recommendations of the Historic Preservation Committee and the Planning and Zoning Committees to stand as the recommendations of the Board and the Society, I would urge the entire Board thoroughly consider, discuss, and vote on the Committee recommendations in open public meetings.  Also, given the importance of the project, I hope that the Board will post the reports of the Historic Preservation Committee and the Planning and Zoning Committee on the CHRS website, and make them public as soon as the Committees file their reports with the Board.  This project is too important to not have maximum transparency, inclusiveness, and accountability.

As I have discussed in the past, the process followed by a previous CHRS Board in the endorsement of Stanton/Eastbanc as the developer for the Hine property was not inclusive or transparent.  I hope the current Board will not compound that error as the process moves forward.

Regards,

Larry Janezich

Developer Questioned on Massing Issue at ANC6b Special Call Meeting on Hine

Restoration Society to Hold Public Meeting on Hine Project

by Larry Janezich

Almost 40 residents trekked to St. Colletta’s School at 19^th and Independence Tuesday night to hear Stanton Development explain the height and massing concept drawings for the latest version of the Hine development.  The presentation deviated little from the presentations in early March – the only new drawing was one illustrating distances the project would be set back from the street.  The purpose of the meeting was to allow Commission and community a greater opportunity for questions and input.

One of the most contentious issues for nearby neighbors of the project is the massing of the residential building which will face 8^th Street, directly across the street from many of them.  There are three groups deeply concerned with the issue.  Eyes on Hine, made up of residents directly across 8^th Street from the project; EMMCA, the Eastern Market Metro Community Association; and a third group of residents centered on 8^th Street, north of the project.

During the period for questions from the ANC, support for the Stanton concept drawings came from Commissioners Dave Garrison and Kirsten Oldenburg.  Garrison had acquired term sheets for the project which set massing requirements the city expects the developer to meet and elicited from the developer that there is little flexibility to stray from those expectations.

.Commissioner Brian Pate pressed Stanton’s Ken Golding on why the massing of the project had been shifted from the 7^th Street side to the 8^th Street side since last fall and implied that this had some connection with the Capitol Hill Restoration Society.  Golding was unable to provide a satisfactory answer as to how this shift had occurred.  .

Commissioner Ivan Frishberg asked whether the developers had considered moving the massing underground, suggesting that retail outlets like Trader Joe’s are sometimes below grade, and posed the possibility that the needs of Yes! the popular organic food store could be accommodated in this way.  The developer had not considered this, and did not seem interested in the idea.

Meanwhile, at the last night’s Capitol Hill Restoration Society Board (CHRS) meeting, plans were being made to hold a public meeting on Hine the week of April 4   The Board was working on a time and place for the meeting, the purpose of which will be to inform CHRS members and the public of the details of the development and to explain the role of the CHRS in the process.  Stanton has agreed to make another presentation to that group.

On April 4, the CHRS Historic Preservation Committee held a public hearing on the Hine project at which Stanton presented.  No mention of the hearing was made when the Committee reported to the full board at Tuesday night’s meeting.  Committee Chair Nancy Metzger announced she would be sending emails to board members regarding Hine.  She also said information on the HPRB process would be available on the CHRS website to inform CHRS members.

When asked after the meeting when the CHRS would send its report to the HPRB, Metzger said it would be after the Board met in April.  Earlier, Stanton’s Ken Golding had stated before Tuesday night’s Special Call meeting that he expected to hear from CHRS by next Thursday, March 17.

Historic Preservation Board Delays Consideration of Hine Issue until April 28

ANC6b Sets Agenda on Hine Massing and Height Concept

by Barbara Riehle and Larry Janezich

On Tuesday night, ANC6b, at its regular March meeting, approved a new plan for receiving community feedback on the redevelopment of Hine School.  The Historic Preservation Office (HPO) announced at 5:30pm Tuesday night that the Historic Preservation Review Board’s (HPRB) consideration of Stanton-Eastbanc’s Historic Preservation Application (HPA) will be deferred until April 28, at the request of ANC6b.  Originally, HPRB was scheduled to take action on Hine at its March 24 hearing.

Also during the four hour meeting, the Commission approved operating guidelines for “Pacifico” and created a new Standing Committee on Transportation and two new Special Committees.  A report on extending the boundaries of the Performance Parking Program to impose additional parking limitations on the streets east of Barracks Row provoked a sometimes heated discussion.  (Watch for separate postings on the parking plan and on new committees.)

There has been considerable reaction in the Capitol Hill community to the massing and height concept drawings submitted to HPO by Stanton in support of this HPA.  Community commentary on these drawings on the major blogs and listservs following this story can be described as mixed, at best.  (See the following:    http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/9502/make-capitol-hills-hine-project-better-not-smaller/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/newhilleast/ and, of course, emmcablog.org.)

As previously announced, ANC6b will conduct a Special Call meeting – a meeting of the ANC outside of the regular monthly schedule and focused on a single issue – on Tuesday, March 15, from 6:00pm to 9:00pm at St. Coletta’s School, 19th and Independence, SE. Stanton-Eastbanc will present its plans during the first hour, including any changes to the plan since the last presentation on March 2.  During the following two hours, developers will take questions and comments from commissioners and community members.  A second Special Call meeting – time and place tbd – will be held in April to hear additional community input and for the Commission to vote on its recommendation to the Historic Preservation Review Board.  By law, HPRB must give “great weight” to the ANC’s recommendations.  The HPRB hearing will follow on April 28.

(EMMCA members will meet on Wednesday, March 16 to discuss Stanton-Eastbanc’s designs.  Members will be notified by email of time and location.)

A few nearby neighbors of Hine were on hand Tuesday night to respond to ANC6b Chair Neil Glick’s request for initial feedback on Stanton’s designs, first unveiled at the Commission’s Planning and Zoning Committee meeting on March 1 and presented to nearby neighbors on March 2.  Speaking for 8^th Street residents in the block just north of Hine, Bill Pate (no relation to Commissioner Brian Pate) called the designs “incompatible” with the area, objecting specifically to the height of the proposed buildings and the loss of light, air and green space in the plans.

Jeffrey Stine, who lives directly across the street from the Hine site said much had been made of the term “smart growth” and questioned whether the term – which is sometimes used to describe extensive massing near metro stations – is appropriate in an historic district.  He described the designs as “inharmonious” with the existing neighborhood.

There was brief discussion of resolutions on Hine ANC6b adopted in 2008 and 2009, described by Commissioner Dave Garrison as proposed criteria first for the City’s Request for Proposals (RFP), then for assessing the four proposed developers. Commissioner Kirsten Oldenburg injected that she recalled no discussion of height in the ANC6b’s Resolutions, but the June 2009 Resolution contains 12 proposed criteria, including “Restrict building heights to 60 feet along Pennsylvania Avenue SE, 40 feet along 8^th and C Streets SE, and 50 feet along 7^th Street SE.”

To view the full PowerPoint presentation by Stanton-Eastbanc, visit http://hineschool.com/sites/default/files/2011-03-02%20%20Community%20Presentation.pdf.

Does ANC6c Show Us a Better Way to Resolution on the Hine Site?

by Larry Janezich

Ryan Velasco, former ANC6c07 Commissioner and former Chair of their Planning, Zoning, and Environment Committee posted a suggestion on newhilleast listserve from which the following is excerpted:

“I think ANC 6C has some valuable lessons learned in (community involvement in development projects).  Specifically, I’m referring to the process supported by the Office of Planning, development teams, members of the community and civic organizations on several major projects along the H Street Corridor – all of which started out significantly worse than (the Hine) project.  That process facilitated a dialogue that sought to address design concerns from the community and from neighbors surrounding the site.

An external mediator with an architectural background was brought in to shepherd discussions.  Having this objective perspective was key to success of the negotiations.  Community feedback was translated into a redesign and the end result of that collaborative effort was a project most could tolerate (but shouldn’t we aim a little higher than this)?.

I think it would be helpful to employ a similar process for the Hine site with representation from ANC 6B, civic organizations, Market vendors and citizens/market users participating.  There has been a lot of community engagement early on, but that was regarding a more conceptual conversation.  It seems we need a chance for the neighborhood to share their reactions to what has been proposed….  That ANC 6B has requested HPRB to delay it’s consideration of this project is a step in the right direction.”

Mr. Velasco has advanced the dialogue with a concrete and achievable suggestion and one which is hard to argue against.  One hopes he would use this forum to revise and extend his remarks to outline the process by which ANC6c made this happen.