Archive for the ‘Development’ category

Park Morton Development Plan for Bruce Monroe Site Draws Appeals

June 9, 2017

Four separate, but nearly identical, petitions to review the Zoning Commission’s Board Order to redevelop the Bruce Monroe site for the Park Morton project were filed with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals on May 30, 2017. The petitions were filed by residents living close to the site, and ask the Court to “begin the briefing that will show how [the] final decision [of Zoning Case 16-11] is not in line with applicable DC Code, DC Zoning Regulations, the DC Comprehensive Plan, and the law to [the filer’s] concrete detriment.”

Based on some of the testimony given before the DC Council during the surplus and disposition process and before the Zoning Commission, these appeals were not unexpected. Presuming the Court of Appeals reaffirms the Park Morton effort when they review the petitions, and taking into account the current timeline for appeals before the Court, the appeals will result in either no delay in breaking ground or a delay of 1-3 months. The project and development team are continuing to work on plans with a Summer 2017 start date in mind.

(Design for the Park Morton apartment building at the Bruce Monroe site.)

Proposals to Develop Hebrew Home Presented to Community

May 26, 2017

On Thursday evening, May 25th, DMPED hosted a meeting at Raymond Recreation Center so that the seven most promising development teams could present their ideas to the community on their ideas to renovate the old Hebrew Home property. All teams presented idea to convert the historic structure into housing and construct new housing to the east. However, no two presentations were exactly alike, with key differences being the number of units proposed, the amount of affordability of those units, and the density of the buildings.

A chief concern voiced by many residents was the impact that the development would have on area parking. There were also differing opinions on how much housing should be affordable, and how much density or height the new construction should be for the right balance.

The Powerpoint presentations from the meeting are available online here. Members of the public are invited to review them and provide any comments through an online forum available here: https://goo.gl/frtYFa  The forum will close on June 9th.

Below is a brief recap of each of the proposals with key data:

Team #1: Victory Housing & Brinshore Development

Key facts

Planned Unit Development: Yes

Housing proposed: Total 187  units

  • 88 senior units in historic Hebrew Home (100% affordable) (1- and 2-bedroom units)
  • 91 new construction units (60 affordable, 31 market rate) (1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units)
  • 8 new townhouses for home-ownership opportunities

Parking spaces provided: 75

Comments: More information is needed on levels of affordability. Powerpoint available here.

Team #2: Bozzuto & The Menkiti Group

Key facts

Planned Unit Development: No

Housing proposed: Total 146 units

  • 90 senior units (100% affordable)
  • 50 market townhouses
  • 6 affordable townhouses

Parking spaces provided: onsite for townhouse units

Comments: Would be the fastest to build as it would be a by-right project, but is also problematic as it has no affordable units outside of the senior units. Additionally, six of the rowhouses are planned on the site of the historic Hebrew Home which would require HPO and HPRB approval, which I find doubtful. Powerpoint available here.

Team #3: Mission First, Urban Matters, & Lock7

Key facts

Planned Unit Development: Yes

Housing proposed: Total 224 units

  • 86 senior units in historic Hebrew Home (81 affordable, 21% at less than 30% AMI) (1- and 2-bedroom units)
  • 117 new construction apartment units (95 affordable, 24% at less than 30% AMI) (1-, 2-, and 3-bedroom units)
  • 21 new condo units on 10th Street (2 affordable)

Parking spaces provided: underground.

Comments: This project would be completed in three phases, with the Hebrew Home building being the first phase. This proposal is the most sensitive of those that were presented with regards to the preservation and renovation of the Hebrew Home building, with a commitment to preserve/restore interior elements of the building as well. Of the projects that proposed more density, this proposal has good harmony and relationship to the historic structure. Powerpoint available here.

Team #4: CPDC & NVR

Key facts

Planned Unit Development: Yes

Housing proposed: Total 109 units

  • 77 senior units in historic Hebrew Home (100% affordable) (1- and 2-bedroom units)
  • 32 new construction townhouses (4 affordable)

Parking spaces provided: contained in each new rowhouse.

Comments: This team proposed the least number of overall units for the site, with nearly all of the affordable units being for seniors in the Hebrew Home building. The rowhouses proposed reflect the rowhouse character of the surrounding neighborhood. Powerpoint available here.

Team #5: Borger Management & Spectrum Management

Key facts

Planned Unit Development: Yes

Housing proposed: Total 202  units

  • 30% of the units will be affordable
  • 15% of units will be set aside for families at 30% of AMI.

Parking spaces provided: 49 surface parking spaces.

Comments: This is a good architect and developer, but the number of affordable units is at the minimum amount required. There is no dedicated senior housing, and the current design isn’t as compatible or sensitive or compatible with the surrounding community as other high-density proposals. Powerpoint available here.

Team #6: NHP Foundation, Fivesquares, & The Warrenton Group

Key facts

Planned Unit Development: Yes

Housing proposed: Total 206 units

  • 131 apartments (95 affordable)
  • 75 condos (8 affordable)

Parking spaces provided: underground parking.

Comments: The density of this project was compatible with the existing Hebrew Home building. One of the merits of this proposal was how it focused on greenspace. The green roofs, landscaping, and particularly the deep set back on 10th Street which included a wide sidewalk and benches were features that should be incorporated into the final project regardless of who the developer is. Powerpoirnt available here.

Team #7: Gilbane Development & NHT-Enterprise

Key facts

Planned Unit Development: Yes

Housing proposed: Total 212  units

Hebrew Home building:

  • 71 affordable units for seniors and families, some of whom are formerly homeless
  • 41 deeply affordable units at 30% AMI

New mixed income building:

  • Mixed-income building with 10% of units affordable to families at 80% AMI
  • 9 for-sale townhomes

Parking spaces provided: underground

Comments: This was a good group who indicated a wiliness to create more affordable units if the District would be willing to provide additional financial support. It was the only proposal to include permanent supportive housing for residents formerly homeless, and the team demonstrated a record of other deeply affordable projects that they had completed. Powerpoint available here.

Reminder — Meeting on Developing the Old Hebrew Home is Thursday

May 24, 2017

Here’s a reminder that on Thursday, May 25th, the next public meeting is scheduled for the redevelopment of the old Hebrew Home on Spring Road. The flyer is below. You can read an overview of the June 3, 2016, meeting here.

District’s Comprehensive Plan Amendment Period Extended through June 23rd

May 22, 2017

Map showing the area elements of the Comprehensive Plan.

Last week, it was announced on several listservs that the District had extended the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Period from May 26th to June 23rd. This provides more time to anyone reviewing the Comprehensive Plan to read it and suggest where it can be improved to meet the needs and goals of our growing city.

I’ve been able to read several chapters and submit amendments already, and while I find the online process a tad clunky, it isn’t difficult to register and submit a proposed amendment.

My suggestion to anyone who may fine the Comprehensive Plan daunting is to focus on the things that matter to you and prioritize those parts of the document first. For example, my initial focus was on the Mid-City Element and the chapters focusing on Land Use, Parks Recreation and Open Space, Historic Preservation, and Arts and Culture. Now with more time, I can on to Infrastructure, Transportation, Housing, and Urban Design.

The full text of the extension announcement is below:

District Extends Comprehensive Plan Amendment Period

Office of Planning will accept public amendment proposals through June 23

(WASHINGTON, DC) – During the “Open Call” period of the past two months, the DC Office of Planning has received hundreds of Comprehensive Plan amendment proposals from stakeholders across the city.  Based on conversations with a variety of stakeholders, we expect hundreds more amendments will be submitted before the original deadline of May 26.  In response to requests from Advisory Neighborhood Commissions and other community groups, the District will extend the Open Call for almost a full month, through June 23.

For more than a year, Mayor Muriel Bowser, the DC Office of Planning (OP), and the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development have engaged the public in a conversation about how Washington is growing and the role of the Comprehensive Plan in shaping future development.

“Community members have not only been attending our events and office hours for technical assistance, but have recently sponsored their own activities and done their own organizing,” said OP Director Eric Shaw.  “We wish to support this community-led planning and give a little more time to ensure this energy and thought can be captured during the formal amendment period.”

The Comprehensive Plan is the 20-year plan the District government uses to guide future development within Washington, D.C.  It contains the maps and policies that influence the neighborhoods in which residents live, work, shop, and play, as well as the investments the city makes in its services and infrastructure.  Most importantly, it is the primary tool that helps the District to manage change in a way that embraces progress while protecting the qualities that make DC a special place.

Stakeholders interested in making an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan can find useful materials under the “Propose an Amendment” tab on the [PLAN]DC website, including:

  • an Amendment Submission Form;
  • a How-to Guide for submitting an amendment;
  • a “Roadmap” of planning references;
  • a set of Frequently Asked Questions;
  • an Engagement Calendar; and
  • an Evaluation Framework, which OP will use to screen amendment proposals

During the extended period, the [PLAN]DC project team will be available to provide assistance in drafting and submitting amendments.  OP has also created the “meeting in a box,” a kit containing all the materials a community representative would need to lead a conversation with constituents about the Comp Plan amendment process.

Interested parties may contact the [PLAN]DC project team at plandc(at)dc(dot)gov to ask questions or request resources.  Those who do not wish to propose a specific amendment, but instead would like to share a general idea for consideration may also write the project team at plandc(at)dc(dot)gov.

Checking Out Progress of Development at Sherman and Lamont

May 18, 2017

Thought I’d check on the progress of the development located at 3229 Sherman, just south of Lamont. Construction began in October 2016 and replaced an old wood-frame single family home that was built in 1890. The new structures should provide six new units of housing.

Checking out the Development at Sherman and Girard

May 16, 2017

(Excavation at 2800 Sherman Avenue in preparation of more housing in the area.)

Anyone traveling on Sherman Avenue is sure to have noticed that there is a new development in progress at the northwest corner of Sherman and Girard, NW. This development removed an existing commercial building and garages along the alley in order to construct 11 two-family row dwellings (or 22 units) along Girard and Sherman. The development was approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustment in February 2016.

The drawings below are from the set of plans filed with the BZA in November 2015 and should give an idea of what the development will look like.

(View toward northwest from Sherman and Girard.)

(Girard Street elevations.)

Community Opportunity to Review Proposals for Redeveloping the old Hebrew Home on Spring Road

May 11, 2017

Following the community meetings on April 9, 2016, and June 2, 2016 as part of the OurRFP process to redevelopment the former Hebrew Home for the Aged at 1125 Spring Rd, it is finally time for the community to come out and learn about the progress that’s been made for this site. A community meeting has been set for the evening of May 25th regarding the 1125 Spring Road NW project.  At the meeting, development teams will be presenting their visions for the redevelopment of the site and the community will have an opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback.

When: May 25th
Time: 6:30 pm
Where: Raymond Recreation Center


%d bloggers like this: