Posted tagged ‘Affordable housing’

Victory Housing/Brinshore Development Selected to Redevelop Hebrew Home Property

August 23, 2017

(Rendering from Victory Housing proposal.)

Yesterday, Mayor Muriel Bowser and Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development Brian Kenner announced that the developer selected to redevelop the historic Hebrew Home at 1125 Spring Road, NW, was Victory Housing with Brinshore Development. This was the same development team that both ANC1A and ANC4C recommended as their first choice at their July ANC meetings.

Through the community engagement process, follow up conversations with development teams, and collaboration between the two ANCs, the Victory Housing proposal was deemed the best overall proposal for the site. Following the selection, the development team will also need to come back before the ANCs as part of the Planned Unit Development/Zoning process through which design refinements can be made. Early conversations with the Victory Housing team showed a wiliness to work with the surrounding neighborhood to refine design elements.

A copy of the full press release is available here and after the jump. (more…)

ANCs Recommend Victory Housing as Top Pick for Hebrew Home Development

July 17, 2017

(Early rendering showing one potential design by Victory Housing.)

On July 12, at separate meetings, both Advisory Neighborhood Commissions 4C and 1A recommended Victory Housing & Brinshore Development as their primary choice for the development team to redevelop the former Hebrew Home property at 1125 Spring Road into a mixed income/multi-generational community. The two Commissions differed on their second choices.

Both Commissions felt that the Victory Housing proposal “meets the shared community priority of providing 88 units of dedicated, affordable senior housing in the former Hebrew Home. It also provides the largest number of affordable, family-sized units of any of the proposals as well with 29 three-bedroom rental units. In addition, it proposes home ownership opportunities along Spring Road NW. It also provides 75 underground parking spaces, with approximately 1.8 parking spaces for each 3 units of non-senior housing.”

The Commissions’ recommendations will be sent to the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED), where the final decision on selecting a development team will be determined.

The Commissions differed on their second choices. ANC4C’s second choice was the NHP Foundation, Fivesquares Development, and Warrenton Group. ANC 1A’s second choice, on the other hand, was the Bozzuto Homes proposal. ANC 1A further selected the Mission First proposal as its third choice. (read ANC 1A resolution at goo.gl/RChVH3 ).

DMPED is expected to select a development team prior to the July 27, 2017 public meeting scheduled to present the District’s intent to declare the Hebrew Home surplus. The meeting’s purpose is to receive comments on the proposed designation of 1125 Spring Road, NW, as surplus property. The surplus meeting is held in order to receive feedback from the community on the District’s finding that the property is no longer required for public purposes. Comments collected at the public meeting will be submitted to the Council of the District of Columbia for its review.

The date, time, and location of the surplus meeting is below:

Date: Thursday, July 27, 2017
Time: 7:00 pm-8:30 pm
Location: Raymond Recreation Center
3725 10th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20010

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.

Zoning Commission Votes Unanimously in Support of a New Park Morton

February 1, 2017
Revised design for the Park Morton apartment building at the Bruce Monroe site.

Revised design for the Park Morton apartment building at the Bruce Monroe site.

On Monday evening January 30th, the Zoning Commission voted unanimously in support of both Zoning Cases related to the redevelopment of Park Morton (cases 16-11 and 16-12 (watch video of meetings here)). The National Capitol Planning Commission (NCPC) will now have 30 days to review and comment on the Planned Unit Development package, and following the NCPC the projects will go back to the Zoning Commission for final action. This is expected to occur in early March.

The projects the Commissioners approved on January 30th incorporate some revisions and clarifications that were a result of the hearings held on December 5th and 8th. Two of the more important changes for the Bruce Monroe site were:

  • Revised architectural design motif for the townhomes to better integrate them into the existing architectural context. The revised design elements include revised materials and materials palatte that incorporate a warmer color scheme; further defined brick detailing that includes brick banding and brick soldier courses; revised window mullion design that creates windows of a vertical proportion for a more residential character; and revised window panel material to brick with banding; and,
  • Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the multi-family building, the Applicant shall demonstrate to the Zoning Administrator that DMPED will convey the PUD Site to Park View Community Partners pursuant to a 99 year ground lease. The ground lease will contain a provision wherein DMPED agrees that a minimum of 44,000 square feet of land area in Square 2890 identified as a public park shown on Sheet G10 of the Architectural Plans and Elevations, dated January 9, 2017, will only be used for park and recreation uses for the term of the ground lease. The Applicant shall have the right to use a portion of the park area as a temporary staging area during construction of the Project.

The changes listed above addressed the concern that the land set aside for the park will actually be improved as a park, and the concern by the Commission that the color of brick originally chosen didn’t compliment the existing neighborhood well and would be difficult to keep clean.

Below are renderings showing the new (approved) brick color for the buildings to be built at the Bruce Monroe site compared to the original proposal.

park-morton-update-1

(Renderings showing approved (above) and original (below) brick choices for the buildings designed for the Bruce Monroe site.)

bruce-monroe-site

Park Morton Redevelopment Effort Clears Significant Hurdle, Receives Council Approval

December 21, 2016

bruce-monroe-site(Rendering of the Bruce Monroe site from the southeast showing park and building locations as proposed in Zoning Case 16-11.)

Yesterday, the Council of the District of Columbia voted unanimously at their Committee of the Whole meeting (watch meeting) to place the Bruce Monroe surplus and disposition resolutions on the consent agenda for their final Legislative Meeting of 2016, at which they were approved later in the day. Prior to the vote, Councilmembers Nadeau, Grosso, Bonds, and May each spoke about the importance of the project and stated their support.

Particularly noteworthy were the comments from Councilmembers Grosso and May. Councilmember Grosso acknowledged having received many emails and calls both supporting and opposing the plan to use the Bruce Monroe site as part of the Park Morton development, but stated strongly that he would be supporting the effort that would allow the District to fulfill its promise to the Park Morton residents. He also noted on a personal level that he grew up in the neighborhood and in his youth the site resembled a jail in the middle of the community with a fence around it, and not a park. Councilmember May, for her part, stated that while she rarely spoke on issues located outside her ward she would be voting in support. She also stated that she was familiar with the needs of the Park Morton residents and that whether in Ward 8 or any other Ward of the city all residents deserve quality housing and a safe place to live.

The Council’s  approval of both the Bruce Monroe surplus and disposition resolutions supports the effort for the site to be used as the “Build First” site in the District’s effort to replace the Park Morton Housing Complex with a new mixed-income community without displacing Park Morton families from the community. The Zoning Commission is scheduled to take action on the related Park Morton Planned Unit Development cases on January 30, 2017, following two hearings held earlier this month (brief overview of zoning hearings here).

Prior to the Council action, Advisory Neighborhood Commission 1A voted in early 2016 to support the surplus and disposition of the Bruce Monroe site for the Park Morton effort with the condition that the District include a large, permanent park as part of the redevelopment effort. The District Government has recognized this condition and 1.02 acres of the site will be redeveloped as a permanent park with programming to be determined with input from the community. A 6,700 sq. ft. central green is also planned for Morton Street as part of the redevelopment project. Advisory Neighborhood Commission 1A will also continue to explore opportunities to improve, create, and expand public access to park spaces in the Columbia Heights, Park View, and Pleasant Plains neighborhoods as it considers future development and engages in the Comprehensive Plan amendment process.

In addition to preserving 147 public housing units and establishing new permanent park spaces, the Park Morton redevelopment effort will increase area housing for seniors and families at all income levels. The project will also have a significant and long-lasting positive impact on lower Georgia Avenue. In addition to increasing area housing options, it will also improve public safety and encourage development along the corridor. By aligning new roads and reknitting the development on Morton Street into the surrounding community, blind alleys and the Morton Street cul-de-sac will be removed – a configuration that is not conducive to public safety. And by removing the uncertainty on whether the redevelopment of Park Morton will move forward, the District will encourage developers who own property on Georgia Avenue to move forward with their respective projects.

Zoning Commission Hears Park Morton/Bruce Monroe Cases

December 9, 2016
The Zoning Commission heard testimony on the effort to redevelop Park Morton this week, with an outcome likely at the end of January.

The Zoning Commission heard testimony on the effort to redevelop Park Morton this week, with an outcome likely at the end of January.

This week, the Zoning Commission heard testimony on the related Planned Unit Development cases for the Park Morton “Build First” site at the Bruce Monroe site (ZC16-11) and for the existing Park Morton site (ZC16-12). The hearings occurred on  Monday, December 5th and Thursday, December 8th, respectively with hearings on both nights beginning at 6:30 pm and running 4-5+ hours. In addition to the applicant and ANC1A, the Bruce Monroe Park Neighbors and Park Morton Residents Council were granted party status in Case 16-11 and the Park Morton Residents Council was granted party status in Case 16-12.

No votes were taken at either hearing. Testimony for ZC16-11 is closed, and submission for ZC16-12 will close at the end of business on December 12th. Additional details/information requested by the Zoning Commission needs to be filed by January 10th, parties will have until January 18th to respond, and January 30th has been scheduled for the Commission to take action on both cases.

While both cases are discrete, it was well understood that the two cases are closely linked and often times testimony in one case referenced the other. The testimony for both the Bruce Monroe case and the Park Morton case was strongly in favor. While there was no notable opposition to the redevelopment of the site on Morton Street, there was notable testimony in opposition to the development planned for the Bruce Monroe site including the aforementioned Bruce Monroe Park Neighbors which has party status in the case. Those wishing to watch the testimony in both cases can do so. Video for both cases is available (ZC16-11 opening statements and testimony here; closing arguments hereZC16-12 here). Prior to the Commission making a decision on the Bruce Monroe site, they’ve requested that the development team meet with the Bruce Monroe Park Neighbors group and attempt to address their concerns.

Questions from Commissioners were encouraging, and seemed to drill down into details that would improve the project or provide better documentation so that the expected amenities would actually be provided. Perhaps the most important questions along these lines for community members had to do with the creation of the new 1 acre park at the Bruce Monroe site. While there was recognition that the park would be a significant amenity, the park itself is not included in the PUD application. To this end, the Commission has requested that appropriate language be included that documents as much detail as possible about the park such as size, location, and any other decisions that have been made. One Commissioner also suggested that perhaps language could be included that would require that the park be constructed and completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the buildings. There was also a request for more details on which entities would be responsible for creating and maintaining the park. At this time, the thoughts on this are that it would be a shared responsibility between the Department of General Services, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the developer.

Commissioner May, in particular, drilled down into the architectural details of both applications. Notably, May and other commissioners commented that they would like a different brick used at the Bruce Monroe site, as white brick tends to get dirty quickly and didn’t really relate to the surrounding community. Commissioner Miller suggested that red brick be considered instead. There was also a sense that the rowhouses planned for the Bruce Monroe site could be more architecturally compatible with the neighborhood, and requested that the developer respond to that.

Testimony in opposition to the development at the Bruce Monroe site ranged from requesting that the buildings be shorter, expressing dissatisfaction with the community engagement process, claiming a lack of ANC representation (Commissioners Brown and Nguyen recused themselves due to conflicts of interest), and advocating to use the entire site as a permanent park.

While the long term use of the Bruce Monroe site has been a hot button issue in the community since the Bruce Monroe School was razed in 2010, Zoning Commission Chair Anthony Hood summed it up succinctly. While questioning Buwa Binitie of Dantes Partners early in the evening on Monday, Hood stated:

I believe when Bruce Monroe [school] was torn down, that I think everyone in this city knew that there was some type of development [that] was going to happen there. So that’s no surprise. I’m sure that even the new neighbors, I think when you bought into the neighborhood you knew there was going to be some type of development in the area.


%d bloggers like this: