Historic Preservation Office & Historic Preservation Review Board | Areas for Further Study & Refinement

Click the link below to read the report from HPO/HPRB on the Hine Development, outlining areas for further study and refinement.


Comments Off on Historic Preservation Office & Historic Preservation Review Board | Areas for Further Study & Refinement

Filed under Design, HPO, HPRB, Report

Office of Planning Recommendations to the Zoning Commission | Hine Jr High School Setdown Report

Click the link below to read the Office of Planning’s recommendations to the DC Zoning Commission regarding the Hine Junior High School development.


Comments Off on Office of Planning Recommendations to the Zoning Commission | Hine Jr High School Setdown Report

Filed under Office of Planning, Zoning

Word Cloud: Benefits & Amenities Public Input

This word cloud was created from approximately 350 community suggestions for what kind of benefits and amenities the ANC should be pushing for as a part of the Hine School redevelopment.

Comments Off on Word Cloud: Benefits & Amenities Public Input

Filed under Benefits & Amenities Working Group

Re-cap: ANC6B Hine PUD Subcommittee | Retail Working Group

ANC6B Hine PUD Subcommittee | Retail Working Group
Notes of Initial Meeting with Stanton-Eastbanc | January 31, 4pm

RWG Members Attending: Julia Robey Christian, Lead; Ken Jarboe and Roger Tauss; and ANC 6B Commissioners Francis Campbell and Kirsten Oldenburg

SEB representatives Attending: Joe Sternlieb (EB) and Kitty Kaupp, Ken Golding, Alex Golding (SDC)

I. Introduction – scope of Retail Working Group

Julia explained that the goal of the RWG at this meeting was to collect information about retail recruitment and learn of the Developer’s plan for attracting retail to the Hine development and for retention of current, existing brick and mortar retail in the immediate area.

II. Overview of similar past projects by Stanton and/or Eastbanc (e.g., Cady’s Alley) (SEB)

Joe said that building a viable retail corridor was an evolving process until you attain a good and unique mix that serves the community.  He cautioned that retail trends change about every 2 years.  He said the their goal was to “create value rather than extract value.”  A worst situation was vacant store fronts but sometimes you have to wait in order to get it right.

III. Powerpoint from SEB presentation at CHAMPS Hine Forum for Business Owners

This document had been distributed prior to the meeting and was not discussed at the meeting

IV. Current Plans for Hine site retail

Ken said that, although they have talked with a number of retailers about Hine, nothing is definite and SEB is looking for feedback from the community to help them know where to focus their efforts.  They are willing to contact any retailers/retail types on behalf of the community.  SEB looks to create a liveliness at Hine but one that is not “messy.”  Restaurants will be part of the mix.  They plan to avoid retailers who would compete with the current shops, especially those along 7th Street and within Eastern Market.

SEB has been thinking about who might be attracted to a below ground space (the size of the parking garage).  Movie theater would not be appropriate because of the interior heights needed.  Trader Joe’s and Rodman’s were discussed as possibilities.

The size and shape of available spaces can affect choice of retailers.  The shell spaces for retail use can be divided up by width but depth is fixed.  Since incubator space should be about 20×50, the North Residential building would be ideal but not the Office building or 7th & C building.

Apparel retail is the hardest to situate. Kitty mentioned that Dawn Price (now on 300 block of 7th) would like to enlarge their establishment to include clothes etc for older kids and might be interested in Hine space.

Clusters: Kitty mentioned that with the new pending retailer Spore (replacing Quizno’s on PA), she is trying to attract a “foodie cluster” that complements what’s available at Eastern Market.

National chains have formulas they use to consider available space and use criteria like the number of pedestrians walking by in a day.  For example, while an Apple store might do well on CH, they would be seeking a space with, say, 700 pedestrians a day and Hine will not generate that.

Need to figure out what is missing in the area in terms of the retail/merchandise mix.

Julia suggested that the current demographics on the Hill easily suggest shops with merchandise for “kids, pets, and food”  will be successful.

We discussed “high vs. low impact” retailers.  A daycare might not generate a lot of pedestrian traffic but would need curb space for drop offs.

V. Incubator space

Although the city requires a certain amount of incubator space be set aside in the complex, this will not be at fixed locations.  Once an incubator grows and no longer needs this type of support, another space in the development will be designated to fulfill the incubator requirements.  SEB is not interested in doing the evaluation of which individuals are ready for moving into incubator space.  The group suggested that CHAMPS, in partnership with SEB, fill that role.

VI. Next Steps

Julia noted that the RWG needed to help educate residents about what’s possible and what isn’t and why.  Joe suggested that SEB critique the list of “wants” people have contributed to the ANC survey.  Ultimately, this discussion resulted in SEB agreeing to put together a grid comparing various aspects of different types of retail.

Joe said that SEB was hoping for a Retail Plan agreement with the ANC prior to “closing” (in 2013) and a subsequent agreement post closing.  (The Retail Plan is part of the LDDA not the PUD).

The RWG will meet again following the next PUD Subcommittee meeting (Feb 23) to draft a survey (with educational component). Following that survey period, the RWG will meet with SEB to review and discuss the results and potentially plan for an additional more drilled-down survey for the community.

The meeting adjourned about 5:45pm.

Comments Off on Re-cap: ANC6B Hine PUD Subcommittee | Retail Working Group

Filed under Meeting Notes, Retail Working Group

Early Survey Results

You can find a raw, unfiltered set of survey results here.  The subcommittee will categorize, assess and report on the results after the survey closes on the 10th.

Thanks to those of you who have already taken the time to complete the survey.  We’ve had over 200 responses, representing a broad spectrum of ideas and positions on this project!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

ANC6B Letter to Office of Planning Prior to Set Down

To:  Office of Planning

Re:  Concerns regarding the PUD filing for the Hine School Redevelopment Project

We are writing to follow up on the informal conversation held last week with members of the Office Planning, DDOT and members of the ANC6B Subcommittee on Hine School Redevelopment.

The Commission would like to reinforce some of the specific concerns raised in that conversation and ask that these issues be addressed in the report being provided for the Zoning Commission at the end of this month.

Missing or insufficient information.

While it is the case that the Office of Planning or the Zoning Commission cannot require the applicants to provide information that is obligated by the Council approved LDDA ,  many of those commitments for information were made to ensure adequate community review of the impacts of the proposed development.  As such, the absence of a comprehensive traffic study, noise study, shadow study, retail plan and open space management plan leave the community at a significant disadvantage in determining what impacts may require mitigation and what impacts may warrant some form of compensating community benefit or amenity.

We find it to be wholly insufficient that this information is not included in the application and that, with the exception of the transportation study, there is no schedule for their presentation to either the community or the City.

Our Commission and the community have spent a great deal of time and attention on the issues that would be covered by the analysis laid out in the LDDA.  In the last year we have completed a Task Force process on retail mix in the Eastern Market area, we have created a Transportation Committee, we have created a stakeholder subcommittee for the express purpose of evaluation of the proposed Hine redevelopment, we have had five special call meetings to learn about and ask questions about the development in addition to two special call meetings to consider the operations of Eastern Market, including its interaction with the proposed development.

To a very significant degree, one of the constant refrains of this activity has been that ‘that will be dealt with by the PUD’ or ‘that will be addressed in the PUD application.’    To find that many of these answers are not addressed in the filing and that the information required for adequate community review is not available presents a significant problem for the next steps in the process.

We would request that all such information that has been agreed to in the LDDA be provided to the community within two weeks of any Zoning Commission decision to set down the application for public comment and hearing.

Relevancy of the LDDA

While we understand that the LDDA is not under the jurisdiction of the Zoning Commission and may be technically outside of its review, it is important to note that that the LDDA plays a central role from the community perspective.

It is also worth noting that the LDDA is not a document that received significant review or official approval from the community.  The prior Commission was significantly engaged in commenting on the terms for the RFP that was issued by the City, but the subsequent agreements between the City and the applicant do not necessarily reflect what would be considered an agreement between the applicant and the community.

The disposition of the Hine site transferred a significant amount of public space and prime land for an extremely low price to the developers.  One concern has been that many of the specific commitments made by the developers that spoke to the commensurate benefits to the community have either been removed from the project (e.g. Shakespeare theatre) or are currently the subject of intense debate (e.g. adequacy of space for a weekend flea market).  Additionally, given the central and visible location of this site, the community was promised exceptional design and architecture.  While this can be a matter of opinion, official comments from ANC6B and the Capitol Hill Restoration Society have raised significant concerns about at least some aspects of the project.

We ask that the Zoning Commission fully understand the terms of the LDDA and minimally hold the applicant to those same commitments to the fullest extent of its authority.

We thank you for your consideration of these matters.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

MEETING NOTICE: Date & Location Change

The Sub-committee on the Hine School Development previously scheduled for Thursday, January 26, 2012 has been rescheduled to meet at 7pm on Monday, January 30, 2012.  The meeting will be held at Brent Elementary School, 301 N. Carolina Avenue, SE.  The Sub-committee will be having a preliminary discussion of options for proposed community amenities and benefits that might be provided by the development of the Hine School and as a part of the Zoning Commission’s Planned Unit Development Process.  The Sub-committee will take public comment.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized