1550 Penn Ave (Used Car Lot) Building Meeting Recap

March 3, 2013
Attendees listen to a presentation about plans for a residential building at 1550 Penn Ave SE.

Attendees listen to a presentation about plans for a residential building at 1550 Penn Ave SE.

We had a good turnout for the Feb. 27 community meeting on plans for a 80-84 unit residential building at 1550 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, current site of a used car lot. Here is a brief recap of the meeting:

  • I led off with a discussion of the ANC’s role on the project. NOVO Development  is requesting two variances and one special exception from the Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA). The BZA hearing is on April 30, and ANC 6B will consider the case during the commission’s April 2 planning & zoning committee meeting and April 9 full commission meeting. While ANC 6B can vote to support  or oppose the variance and/or special exception requests, the BZA ultimately determines whether the relief is granted.
  • Greg Selfridge of NOVO Development, architect Eric Colbert and transportation consultant Bill Schultheiss gave a presentation (pdf) on the project. Selfridge said the building would have 80-84 apartment units, with 75 percent of the units one bedroom. Colbert discussed the building’s design and noted the building’s 15 foot setback from the adjacent rowhouses on Kentucky Avenue. Schultheiss, a former Capitol Hill ANC commissioner, talked about traffic flow around the site, particularly the need to think about how vehicles will enter and exit the building.
  • On parking, the building will include 31 spaces – 23 in an underground garage and 8 off of Freedom Way. Selfridge cited the property’s unique shape, shallow water table and proximity to transit as justification for the parking variance request.
  • NOVO is also seeking a loading variance. Selfridge said the 55 foot truck loading dock requirement is unnecessary at the site, and that 55 foot trucks would have a difficult time navigating Freedom Way. My sense was attendees supported the loading variance request.
  • The special exception request relates to the height of the building’s mechanical penthouse. Colbert said that the design was still in flux and the developer may not need the special exception request.
  • On parking, attendees raised a number of concerns. Many residents are worried that residents from the building would take up on-street parking spaces along the 700 & 800 blocks of Kentucky Avenue SE. Selfridge and Schultheiss were confident that many residents in the building would not own cars and would instead use Metro, bikeshare and/or carshare services.
  • A number of attendees asked NOVO to consider using existing curb cuts on Kentucky Avenue for the entrance to the parking garage, particularly since Freedom Way is extremely narrow. Selfridge said that they would explore the possibility of using the curb cuts with the District Department of Transportation but noted that DDOT prefers parking garage entrances off alleys. One resident noted that DDOT signed off on Douglas Development’s use of an existing curb cut for the proposed retail building at 1442 Penn Ave SE.
  • Attendees also voiced concerns about the number of units and the target demographic of the building: young professionals. A number asked if NOVO would consider reducing the number of units or combining units to attract more families to the building. Selfridge said that NOVO was comfortable at 80-84 units and noted that there is a high demand for apartments on Capitol Hill. He also signaled a willingness to work with neighbors on a memorandum of understanding on noise, trash, construction and other issues.
  • Traffic flow around the building is a major concern. Currently, vehicles trying to access the parking garage from the north would have to travel east on Potomac Ave SE, south on 17th St. SE, west on Barney Circle and north on Kentucky Avenue SE or would have to travel south down the extremely narrow Freedom Way. When the idea of making Kentucky Avenue a two-way street was brought up, a number of attendees voiced opposition. However, attendees also voiced concern about increased traffic on Freedom Way.
  • One attendee suggested narrowing Kentucky Avenue to one-lane by adding diagonal on-street parking. While this would reduce speeding along the corridor and add on-street parking spaces, it would not resolve the issue of increased traffic on Freedom Way. I plan to ask DDOT about the diagonal parking alternative.
  • Residents along the 1500 block of Pennsylvania Avenue SE raised concerns about pedestrian traffic from the building passing in front of their homes. Currently, the city allows residents to park their cars on driveways in front of their units despite the fact that the cars block the sidewalk. One potential solution would be to remove the curb cuts and add on-street parking along the 1500 block of Penn, though that would mean residents lose their current driveway parking.
  • There was some discussion of the benefits of the project. It certainly would increase foot traffic on the 1500 and 1400 blocks of Penn Ave, which would help existing and planned retail along the corridor. Attendees also noted that the increased foot traffic would also improve public safety.
  • Overall, I was pleased with the turnout and thought the meeting was helpful. I plan to work with the neighbors and the developer to address as many of the concerns raised as possible prior to ANC 6B consideration.

Thanks to everyone who attended the two-hour meeting, and thanks to Greg Selfridge, Eric Colbert and Bill Schultheiss for spending time walking through the project and answering questions. And a BIG thank you to New York Pizza for hosting the meeting.

Please post your comments, questions or anything I missed below.

2 Comments | Barney Circle, Development, Penn East | Permalink
Posted by bflahaven

Testimony on Reservation 13 for March 1 DMPED Oversight Hearing

March 1, 2013

This morning, I testified on behalf of ANC 6B at the DC Council’s Committee on Economic Development oversight hearing for the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED). My testimony, posted below, focused on the status of development plans at the Hill East Waterfront/Reservation 13.

Good morning Madame Chair and members of the Committee on Economic Development. My name is Brian Flahaven, and I serve as chair of Advisory Neighborhood Commission 6B. My single member district, 6B09, lies in Hill East and includes Barney Circle, the Historic Congressional Cemetery, and the Eastern Branch Boys & Girls Club Building.

I’m here today to testify about the Hill East Development, also known as Reservation 13, the 67-acre former site of DC General Hospital. I’m testifying on behalf of ANC 6B, which approved my testimony 4-0 during a Feb. 26 Executive Committee meeting.

Eleven years ago, this Council approved a master development plan for Reservation 13. The plan, created with substantial community input, envisioned a mixed-use development that would finally connect surrounding neighborhoods to the Anacostia River waterfront. The plan recognized the site’s many advantages – waterfront location, access to Metro and close proximity to two wards – and it envisioned bringing housing, retail and office space to an area of the city in desperate need of all three.

In 2008, the Fenty Administration issued a request for proposals seeking a master developer for Reservation 13. Four development teams responded to the request, and ANC 6B and the surrounding neighbors heard presentations and weighed in on each request. In 2010, citing the economic downturn, the Fenty Administration issued a scaled back request to the four development teams, asking each to submit plans to develop the two parcels closest to the Stadium-Armory metro plaza. Two of the four teams submitted responses to the scaled back request.

The city sat on the two responses until early 2012, when the city attempted to convince the Washington Redskins to build a training facility on the site – an attempt that drew loud opposition from the community. At the time, the city was ready to give away this valuable piece of real estate for nothing, and while the Mayor made it clear the Redskins would have to pay for the facility, he also indicated that the city would cover the cost of infrastructure improvements.

Once it was clear that the training facility was not going to happen, Mayor Gray announced in March 2012 that DMPED would move forward with mixed-use development plans. We applauded the Mayor’s announcement and were eager for DMPED to select a development team. Unfortunately, instead of choosing one of the two responses on the table, DMPED chose to begin the process again and issued a new RFEI in Oct. 2012 with responses due in January. At the deadline, only one development team – Donatelli/Blue Skye – submitted a response to the RFEI. While we are pleased that Donatelli/Blue Skye submitted a response, we are extremely disappointed that additional development teams decided not to participate.

Why did DMPED only receive one response? ANC 6B believes there are four explanations:

First, in their revised RFEI, DMPED removed language that gave the winning development team the right of first refusal to negotiate with the city to develop the rest of the site. This was a huge incentive for developers to bid on the scaled-back project and also demonstrated a commitment by the city to eventually develop the entire site.

Second, the RFEI required development teams to pay for all infrastructure improvements, including the construction of public roadways. Unlike the Redskins training facility, the city was unwilling to make the same infrastructure commitment to a project that is a much better use of the site – one that will provide new tax revenue, jobs and housing. The Mayor has budgeted infrastructure funds for other development projects, such as Walter Reed and St. Elizabeth’s. Why is he not willing to do so for Hill East?

Third, the city does not have a plan for closing DC General and relocating any of the services located on the site. Though initially planned to be temporary, the city has continued to expand the DC General homeless shelter. The shelter now houses around 1,000 homeless individuals in a deteriorating building separated from the rest of neighborhood. In addition, the city operates a methadone and other clinics at the site, which already includes the DC Jail. Without a plan, the development community remains skeptical that the city is committed to closing DC General and developing Reservation 13.

Fourth, the city’s on again, off again strategy on the site has made it an inherently risky opportunity in the eyes of the development community. Development teams are reluctant to spend investment dollars on competitions with no winner.

To help this important project proceed forward, we urge the committee to ask DMPED the following questions:

  1. How does DMPED plan to proceed with the Donatelli-Blue Skye response? Do they plan to share the response with ANC 6B, ANC 7F and the surrounding community? Can they proceed with one response?
  2. Given the lack of responses to the RFEI, does DMPED and Mayor Gray plan to seek funding in the FY14 budget for infrastructure improvements at Reservation 13?
  3. How is DMPED working with the Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services and the Department of Human Services on a plan for eventual closure of DC General?
  4. What does DMPED plan to do to demonstrate to the development community that the city is serious about developing the Hill East waterfront?

After years of distractions, three RFPs and numerous delays, the city has lost credibility on this project in the eyes of both the development community and surrounding neighbors. However, ANC 6B and Hill East residents are committed to working with the Mayor, DMPED and our Ward 7 colleagues to finally get this project across the finish line. We see Reservation 13 not only for its potential to bring new jobs, housing and retail options to our neighborhoods, but also as a way to strengthen the connection between residents on both sides of the river. 

Thank you for your time, and I’d be happy to answer any questions.

9 Comments | Development, Reservation 13/Hill East Waterfront | Permalink
Posted by bflahaven

Residential Building Planned for 1550 Pennsylvania Ave SE

February 19, 2013
A used car lot currently sits on 1550 Pennsylvania Avenue SE.

A used car lot currently sits on 1550 Pennsylvania Avenue SE.

Lots of things happening around Barney Circle these days. In addition to the planned Barney Circle transportation project, Penn Avenue Partnership, LLC  plans to build an 80-84 unit residential building at 1550 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, located at the intersection of Penn Ave and Barney Circle. Neighbors can learn more about the plans and ask questions of the owner and developer at a meeting on Wednesday, February 27, 6:30 pm at New York Pizza (1401 Pennsylvania Avenue SE).

In addition to the initial plans (pdf), here are some additional details about the project:

  • The northern portion of the proposed building will be three stories, matching the existing three story rowhouses on the 1500 block of Penn Ave SE. As the building approaches Barney Circle, it will rise to five stories, the maximum allowed in the C-2-A zone. The initial design is by Eric Colbert & Associates.
  • Penn Ave Partnership is seeking two variances and a special exception from the Board of Zoning Adjustment. This means that ANC 6B will have an opportunity to weigh in on the project, perhaps as early as March.
  • One variance will be for parking. The plans call for 31 parking spots – 23 in an underground garage and 8 along the alley (a.k.a. “Freedom Way”) which runs behind the property. This is 11 spots short of the required 42 parking spaces. The applicant argues that the property’s unique shape makes it difficult to provide 42 parking spaces and that building a second underground level of parking would be prohibitively expensive. Additionally, the applicant points to the site’s proximity to the Potomac Avenue Metro and other transit to make the case that meeting the full parking requirement is not necessary.
  • A second variance request relates to a requirement for a loading dock that can accommodate 55-foot trucks. The applicant argues that the unique shape of the property and the narrowness of Freedom Way makes providing such a dock overly burdensome.
  • The special exception request is a technical matter relating to roof height requirements of the mechanical penthouse.
  • While there are currently curb cuts on Penn Ave and Kentucky Ave, the plans call for vehicles to enter the new building via Freedom Way. While I certainly support the idea of removing curb cuts, Freedom Way seems ill-suited to handle traffic in and out of the building. In addition, the current one-way configuration of Kentucky Ave. SE means that Freedom Way will be the only northern access point. Vehicles will have a difficult time navigating the alley, particularly if it remains two way.
  • While no final determination has been made, the projects 80-84 units will likely be apartments.
  • While parking and traffic flow are certainly concerns, the project would significantly increase foot traffic along the 1400 & 1500 blocks of Penn Ave, providing a major boost for existing and proposed retail along the corridor.

Again, the owner, developer and architect will present their plans to the community and answer questions on Wed., Feb. 27, 6:30 pm at New York Pizza. In the meantime, post your questions and comments below.

Initial design of proposed residential building courtesy of Eric Colbert & Associates.

Initial design of proposed residential building courtesy of Eric Colbert & Associates.

19 Comments | Barney Circle, Development, Penn East, Potomac Avenue Metro | Permalink
Posted by bflahaven

15th & D Street SE Building Plans & Preliminary Design

January 30, 2013
View of D Street SE of preliminary design of proposed residential building. Design by R2L Architects.

Preliminary design of proposed residential building (view from D Street SE). Design by R2L Architects.

Around 20 residents attended a Jan.  24 community meeting organized by Commissioner Nichole Opkins (6B06) and me to learn about plans for a residential building at 401 15th Street SE, located at the corner of 15th & D Streets SE. Sheldon Jones and Michel Regignano of property owner Goodeon Kingston LLC presented their preliminary design plans for a 12-unit residential building on the site and answered questions from residents.

While attendees certainly disagreed on various aspects of the project, I felt the meeting was helpful and that Goodeon left with some constructive suggestions for the project. They are also open to hearing additional feedback from neighbors and the community in the future.

A brief recap of the highlights:

  • The building will include 12 residential units (likely condos) and will be five stories in height, the  height allowed under the site’s C-2-A zoning. Almost half of the units (5) will be one bedroom units, while the remaining units will be 2 or 3 bedrooms. As required by inclusionary zoning, there will be one affordable unit.
  • Goodeon Kingston does not plan to seek any zoning relief for the building, which means the ANC and Board of Zoning Adjustment will not have a chance to review the final plans and design.  
  • Goodeon decided against including retail on the first floor of the building, citing a lack of space and current market demand. The first floor units could potentially be used for office space, but Goodeon believes they will likely be residential units.
  • The building includes the required six parking spaces . Parking will take up about half of the first floor of the building and is one of the reasons why retail is no longer part of the plans. Vehicles will enter using the existing curb cut on 15th Street SE.  
  • Goodeon plans to raze the current one-story structure on the site in March. Construction on the new building would likely begin either late this year or in early 2014. John Reid Construction LLC will be the builder.
  • Representatives from R2L Architects presented the preliminary design of the building, sharing views looking south from D Street SE and north up 15th Street SE. Goodeon and the presenters made it clear that they were sharing preliminary plans not final plans and were eager to get feedback from the community. View the preliminary design (pdf).
  • Reaction to the building design ranged from outrage to acceptance. One resident said, “It’s not as ugly as I thought it would be.” Others said the building was too tall and was not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Some argued that changing the zoning along 15th Street SE  to R-4 would prevent such out of scale buildings. Others voiced disappointment with the lack of retail on the ground floor and the lack of connection between the building and the surrounding sidewalk.
  • While I agreed that the design could use some work, I did like that the architects stepped back the height from adjacent properties and provided some variation in the facing. The connection between the building and sidewalk could certainly be improved.
  • Mr. Jones said that his team would come out to the community for a follow-up meeting with updated plans. He thanked attendees for the feedback and suggestions, and Commissioner Opkins and I thanked him and his team for agreeing to meet with the community.

What do you think of the building plans? Do you like the design? Can you point to examples of new construction in Capitol Hill and Hill East that both meet the need for additional housing and “fit in?” Please post your comments below.

12 Comments | Development | Permalink
Posted by bflahaven

Reservation 13 Update: DMPED Receives Only One Response to RFEI

January 25, 2013

Yesterday, the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development’s office (DMPED) announced that only one development team submitted a response to the Request for Expressions of Interest to develop parcels F1 & G1 of the Hill East/Reservation 13 project. As reported by Jonathan O’Connell of the Washington Post, the sole response was submitted by the team of Donatelli Development and Blue Skye Development. Some previous bidders, including William C. Smith & Co, decided not to bid this time around.

To say that I’m disappointed is an understatement. In making the decision to start from scratch and rebid the site, the city argued that the recovering market would translate into more development teams bidding on the site (they also referenced a shaky legal argument). Now, instead of choosing between two responses from teams who had submitted plans for the entire site back in 2008,  the city and neighborhood now have only one option to evaluate.

Here are my best guesses as to why the city only received one response:

  • Removal of “right of first refusal” language. In their revised RFEI, DMPED removed language that gave the development team that won the right to develop parcels F1 & G1 the right  of first refusal to develop the rest of the site. The right of first refusal was a huge incentive for developers to bid on the scaled-back project and also demonstrated a commitment by the city to eventually develop the entire site. 
  • No money for infrastructure. The RFEI required development teams to pay for all infrastructure improvements, including the construction of public roadways. Back when Mayor Gray, Councilmember Jack Evans and former Councilmember Michael Brown were trying to lure the Redskins to build a training facility on the site, they said that while the city would not cover the cost of building the  facility, the city would cover the cost of infrastructure. Unfortunately, the city is  unwilling to make the same commitment to a project that is a much better use of the site – one that will provide new tax revenue, jobs and housing. The Mayor has budgeted infrastructure funds for other development projects, such as St. Elizabeth’s. Why is he not willing to do so for Hill East?
  • No plan for social services.  This is probably the main reason that developers remain skeptical about Reservation 13. The city does not have a plan for relocating any of the services located on the 67-acre site. I plan on continuing to urge the city to come up with a concrete and comprehensive relocation plan – one that will provide some certainty to the neighborhood and development community.

I am appreciative that Donatelli and Blue Skye submitted a response and I’m eager to learn more about their plans. Donatelli was a partner in one of the top two bids in 2008.  But as I argued last year, the city should have selected one of the two scaled-back responses submitted in 2010. Instead, the city wasted another year re-bidding the project with a worse result.

11 Comments | Development, Reservation 13/Hill East Waterfront | Permalink
Posted by bflahaven

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »