ANC 6C Meeting on Capitol Place Tonight

Dreyfus will present its Capitol Place PUD proposed development tonight (Wednesday, June 21) at 6:00PM at 775 H Street, NE. [This is the address of the space formerly occupied by Blimpies.]

Below is SPNA's analysis of that PUD.:


June 19, 2006


Ms. Ellen McCarthy, Director
DC Office of Planning
801 North Capitol St., NE
Washington, DC 20002

Re: Capitol Place Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Zoning Commission Case No. 05-37


Dear Ms. McCarthy,

The Stanton Park Neighborhood Association (SPNA) represents the residents in the area bounded by Second Street, H Street, Tenth Street, and East Capitol in the Northeast sector of the District. SPNA has consistently lobbied for a pragmatic and practical approach to development and revitalization efforts in our neighborhood. For example, SPNA supported the H Street Overlay in 2005 and the rezoning of Second Street a few years prior to that.

The SPNA Land Use Committee has become increasingly concerned about the proposed Capitol Place PUD. Part of our concern stems from what we perceive as the applicant’s purposeful scheme to conceal the full scope of the zoning bonuses it is seeking. As evidence, we point in part to the Office of Planning Setdown Report for Capitol Place dated April 3, 2006 which references some, but not all, of the zoning bonuses requested. We conclude that the applicant’s effort to obscure the magnitude of its requested zoning bonuses achieved an overly-charitable Setdown Report. Even if the Office of Planning were to support what we believe is an excessively tall and monumental building on the east side of Second Street, a full accounting of the disparity between the current matter of right development and the developer’s proposed PUD is of critical importance in determining an appropriate amenity package. The applicant’s PUD submittal requires very careful scrutiny to elicit the full scope of the requested zoning bonuses.

Attached is a memorandum summarizing SPNA’s analysis of the critical elements of the proposed Capitol Place PUD. Two aspects of the applicant’s request are of paramount importance in understanding the cause of the detrimental effects of this proposal:

1. Change in zoning from C-2-A to C-2-B for the majority of the project site.
2. Creation of a single record lot through the requested subdivision to evade rear lot requirements and gain additional height.

The above benefits are then combined with the additional PUD height and density increases to almost double the current matter of right height from 50 feet to 100 feet above Second Street, and almost double the matter of right floor area from 226,194 Sq. Ft. to 396,741 Sq. Ft. (Dreyfus, June 6, 2006 revision). Notwithstanding our intense objection to a building of this size and height on a square with historic, small-scale residential structures; the quality of the architecture (especially on Second Street), mitigation of deleterious effects on surrounding properties, and proposed amenity package simply do not reflect the tremendous benefit the applicant seeks through the PUD process.

We strongly urge this project be redesigned and reduced in scale to reflect the existing zoning. We do not come to this conclusion lightly or without careful consideration. Our thinking and analysis is set forth in far greater detail in the attached Memorandum.


Sincerely,


Monte Edwards, Co-Chair
SPNA Land Use Committee

Cc: Council Member Sharon Ambrose
Carol Mitten, Chair, DC Zoning Commission
Mark Dixon, Chair, ANC 6C
Bill Sisolak, ANC 6C Zoning Committee Chair
Anthony Rivera, ANC 6C-06
Richard Wolf, Capitol Hill Restoration Society
Bob Braunohler, Dreyfus Property Group


MEMORANDUM


To: Ms. Ellen McCarthy, Director
DC Office of Planning

From: SPNA Land Use Committee

Date: June 19, 2006

Re: Capitol Place PUD
Zoning Commission Case No. 05-37


This memorandum is organized into the following sections:

A. Comments on the Office of Planning Setdown Report
B. Summary of Land Use Committee Meeting with the Applicant
C. Analysis of the Requested Zoning Bonuses
D. Comments on Amenities
E. Additional Comments
F. Conclusions & Recommendations

A. Comments on DC Office of Planning Setdown Report, dated April 3, 2006

We note the following statements in the setdown report that we believe could be inappropriately interpreted in favor of the applicant:

1. Paragraph 2 on Page 1 states “As part of the zoning overlay much of the property on this site . . . . was rezoned from C-2-A to C-2-B.” A more accurate statement would be that less than half of the Capitol Place site was recently upzoned from C-2-A to C-2-B. The impression left by a casual reading of the setdown report leads to the inaccurate conclusion that the majority of the site is already C-2-B. We searched in vain through the applicant’s PUD submittals for the relative size of the C-2-A and C-2-B portions of the site.

2. Paragraph 1 on page 2 states: “The height of the main structure on 2nd Street would be 90’.” In fact the height of the building is nearly 10’ higher owing to the applicant’s assumption that the property consolidation through the requested subdivision is a fait accompli. Until and unless the subdivision is approved as requested, all statements as to the building’s height are substantially inaccurate. In fact, as we will describe further below, the effect of the requested subdivision is far from an inconsequential matter and one which the applicant is using to intimidate the community by claiming a matter-of-right potential as bad or worse than the requested PUD.

3. Paragraph 1 on page 3 states a brief overview of the zoning history. However it fails to mention that the C-2-A portion was also upzoned during the mid-1990s from C-1, and from R-4 prior to that. We question whether there is any rationale for a further expansion of the zoning envelope other than the Applicant’s desire for an additional zoning windfall beyond those already supported by the community. Increased zoning density is contrary to the need to develop this area as a transition to the low-rise residential and commercial uses that exist to the south and east of this site. We note that the proposed NoMA Plan identifies this site as included in “Transition Area A” which indicates a maximum height of 5-6 stories at this location. While recognizing that the NoMa Plan is yet to be adopted, we cannot fathom how the Office of Planning could fail to fully summarize the zoning bonuses already granted and more strongly voice concern over the 90+ foot height of the building proposed for the C-2-A portion of the site and its relationship to the C-2-A and R-4 uses that exist south and east of this site.

4. The zoning tabulation on page 4 needs correction and should also include the Existing Matter of Right and PUD for the C-2-A zone. Including only the C-2-B information misleads the reader into assuming that the C-2-A portion is de minimus, when in fact it is approximately 60% of the site. The zoning tabulation would be more useful if it also included the lot area for the C-2-A and C-2-B portions of the site, the floor area ratios, and the resulting maximum building area.

The tabulation should also note the effect of lot consolidation to achieve the applicant’s requested additional 10’ in height and elimination of the rear yard requirement.


5. Page 5 describes the PUD Evaluation Standards, but fails to mention the full importance of the C-2-B zoning, and especially of the request for upzoning from C-2-A that portion outside the H Street Overlay. For example, fast food restaurants are not a matter of right in C-2-A and were excluded from the H Street Overlay as a matter of right in the area already upzoned to C-2-B, even though in a normal C-2-B zone (i.e. without the restrictions of the H Street Overlay, HS/C-2-B), fast food restaurants are allowed. It is inconsistent to encourage a more permissive zoning deeper within a residential district than along the commercial corridor. The applicant has been asked on multiple occasions to stipulate that the relaxation from C-2-A to C-2-B would exclude such expanded uses in this project, but the requested stipulation has thus far failed to appear in the submittals to the Zoning Commission.

6. Page 6, Items 2 and 3 discusses the proposed alley easements. The 20’ dedicated alley is a potentially valuable amenity for the adjacent residential property owners provided this area is deeded to the District and parking is strictly prohibited. The area proposed as an alley easement is considerably less than the rear yard requirement (10 feet vs. 15 feet). The introduction of dwelling units off of the alley is welcome provided that residents are prevented from treating the alley as a more preferable parking area than the remote parking garage.

Note that the “connection to 3rd Street” is now reduced to a narrow, brick-wall lined walkway with no clear line of sight. This design looks like little more than an escape route for miscreants than a genuinely beneficial pedestrian connection.

The offer of a sewer connection in the alley may have value to the property owners along Third St. provided construction of garages or accessory use structures is otherwise feasible. Due to the narrow width of the alley any potential garage may have to be located unacceptably deep within those properties. We request an evaluation by OP on the potential introduction of accessory uses behind the Third St. houses, and in particular what building line and setback would be required on a space that is part public alley, part easement. If construction is deemed feasible, the new sewer/stormwater drainage line should run adjacent to rear property line consistent with its purpose of carrying water from gutters and downspouts of garages that may be constructed. Installation along the property line will avoid demolition of the new alley paving.

Reconstruction of the alley, while welcome, poses problems of access for residents. Every effort must be made to minimize disruption and maintain access to resident parking areas, trash pick-up, fire protection, etc.. If the alley must be used for construction activities, the applicant must keep disruption must to a minimum with ample notice and compensation to the affected property owners for loss of use and inconvenience.

7. Page 6, Item 4 notes that “Other contributions include replacing sidewalks along 3rd & G Streets . . . “ We challenge the accounting of this item as an amenity to the community and can find no category in (a) through (i) of this section of the PUD Zoning Regulations that would allow this item to be included. We believe maintenance and replacement of public sidewalks is a District responsibility and that the community should not be pressed to accept routine maintenance as an “amenity”.

8. Page 7 addresses the “Comprehensive Plan and Public Policies”. We concur that “The sites, like this one, tend to represent underutilized potential for transit-oriented development.” However, we believe that any underutilized potential has already been addressed with community support through the very recent H Street Overlay and fairly recent upzoning of Second Street. We believe the Zoning Commission has already taken appropriate steps in this regard and that the current zoning is appropriate. To the best of our knowledge there are no extant Office of Planning documents that would support any further upzoning. In fact, the Comprehensive Plan identifies Second Street as a critical dividing line in this neighborhood between high-density development and the historic, lower-scale neighborhood on either side of Second Street. The NoMa Plan proposes to reinforce the transitional nature of this site.

9. Page 8 under the H Street “Revival” Plan notes that “The Plan calls for 6-8 stories in this area . . . “ (i.e. along H Street) and “Specifically, the Plan envisioned 500 – 600 new residential units in the five westernmost blocks of the corridor.” This is the vision that the community agreed to as part of the H Street Overlay, yet the combined proposals in the 200 block (north and south sides) and 300 block on the north side alone are already well in excess of 1000 residential units. Thus far we have yet to see any “6-8 story” proposals but instead are seeing only requests for 9 stories and higher. While the prospect of a significant number of new residents is welcome as an important component to the recovery of H Street’s commercial areas, this factor simply must be balanced against the compatibility with the adjacent lower scale rowhouses. Further, we would argue that, if the Office of Planning is serious about developing NoMa as a high-density, mixed residential neighborhood, the supply of housing elsewhere in the neighborhood must not siphon off any near-term potential demand.

10. Page 9 Agency Referrals & Comments. Not surprisingly, the applicant’s paid traffic consultant contends that there is no adverse traffic impact. However, the applicant’s traffic consultant even goes so far as to claim that “The proposed development, therefore, would have less traffic impact than the by-right development.” (See Capitol Place Transportation Study by Wells Associates, p. 25.) It is simply absurd for the applicant to maintain that adding over 300 additional dwelling units will lead to an improvement in traffic over the far less intense by-right development. The hypocrisy of such a self-serving conclusion calls into question the entirety of the traffic analysis report.

As mentioned in 9 above, in excess of 1000 dwelling units are already under construction or proposed in the first two blocks of H Street – approximately twice the number envisioned by the H Street Overlay. In addition, there are other large PUDs in the area immediately off of H Street and especially to the north. The expansion of high density housing in the area will clearly have a significant effect on both traffic circulation and parking with no planned or proposed increase in the capacity of the streets to handle this additional burden. The Office of Planning needs to address the total proposed new traffic load of the multiple PUDs surrounding the lower end of H Street and not accept the applicant’s unsupportable statements of “no impact” (or in this case an absurd claim of improvement!).

Residents on Third Street can attest that there is already a rush hour traffic problem, much of which is caused by trucks and busses illegally using Third Street. Third Street is a narrow two-way street between Massachusetts Ave., and Florida Ave. that trucks and busses routinely utilize despite signs prohibiting such use. Many residents parking on this street have had hit-and-run damage from trucks, busses and cars trying to squeeze through this residential-scale street. The Office of Planning and DDOT urgently need to do their own analysis of the overall traffic impact of the multiple PUDs in this area. We further recommend that serious study be given to extending one-way traffic on Third Street north of Massachusetts Ave., to at least H Street and possibly as far as Florida Avenue.

11. Page 9 under Community Comments correctly states “The applicant has had preliminary discussions with community members and made presentations to the ANC. There has been some neighborhood concern expressed about the relation of the building to the neighboring properties to the east.” On the face this statement is correct, but for the applicant to meet with the community and ignore what community members have to say is not a productive approach. There is deep community opposition to the applicant’s request for a significant zoning bonus from C-2-A to C-2-B as a reward for demolishing 14 potentially eligible historic structures and constructing in their place a building far out of scale with the adjacent neighborhood. Recall that the scale of the new SEC offices, built by this same applicant, was of extreme importance to the adjacent residential community. In large measure the community lost its effort to require a more compatible design for that project, but part of that discussion and the resulting design did include a stepping down of the SEC building along Second Street as part of the intended transition to the R-4 neighborhood. Rather than proffering a project that accommodates and implements that transition, the applicant has instead proposed a project that is higher on Second Street than the street wall of the SEC building.


B. Summary of Land Use Committee Meeting with the Applicant

On Monday, June 12, 2006 the SPNA Land Use Committee met with the applicant to review the project. Our discussion focused on the following:

a) Elimination of a significant portion of the commercial use previously proposed by the applicant is appropriate. This site suffers from problems of vehicular and commercial access because of the H Street Bridge. The earlier proposal included a large commercial footprint that the applicant had previously stated might be a Trader Joe’s or similar grocery. We felt that the lack of visibility of this site, vehicular traffic circulation, and truck delivery for a grocery store was highly problematic and are relieved that this component has been eliminated. However, the potentially detrimental expanded matter of right uses under the requested C-2-B zoning on Second Street remain. Curiously and inexplicably, the applicant stated that eliminating the grocery store concept allowed the first floor ceiling heights to be reduced by approximately 8 feet, but this results in only a 5 foot reduction in the overall building height. The only explanation proffered by the applicant for this discrepancy was that this was required to avoid stepping down to the commercial uses at Second & G Streets. If some 8 feet of building height has been eliminated, the building height should be reduced by that amount. Instead, it seems that the applicant realized that the initial PUD application was flawed or was at best impractically misleading.

An additional benefit from the reduction in commercial floor area is that it permits a more efficient garage design that eliminates the underpinning of 734 Third St. and deep construction adjacent to that property.

b) The height of the building above Second Street was discussed at some length. Despite our repeated requests for an accurate statement of the building’s true height above Second Street, the applicant continues to confuse the actual height with the artificial height afforded by measuring from the Third Street frontage, which the current configuration of parcels does not permit. The most current revision (Dreyfus, June 6, 2006) quantifies this discrepancy: it shows a Second Street elevation of –9 Ft. 5 In. The negative 9 Ft. 5 In. is the difference between the Third Street and Second Street elevations, and thus the actual height of the Second Street façade is 94 feet, the sum of the artificial height and artificial Third Street elevation.

c) The effect of the requested subdivision to consolidate the property into a single record lot was argued vigorously. The applicant maintains that all benefits resulting from the requested subdivision are accorded by right with no basis for community input and no consideration of the tangible and very valuable effect of the city’s granting the subdivision.


C. Analysis of the Requested Zoning Bonuses

Due to the difficulty of divining the full extent of the zoning bonuses the applicant requests, SPNA specifically asked for an analysis of the current by right development envelope. That Memorandum dated June 7 from Whayne Quin and Thomas Carroll to Sean Cahill is attached. You will note that their analysis treats the subdivision as merely an “administrative” matter in which neither the community nor Office of Planning have any relevant input. We strongly disagree. The granting of the subdivision (a matter which the Office of Planning failed to note in its Setdown Report) is of critical importance. The division of property in this neighborhood into small, narrow lots is a defining characteristic of both R-4 and C-2-A neighborhoods. This pattern of subdivision is crucial to promoting projects of compatible size and scale. The applicant ignored this critical, basic land-planning metric and instead designed a project that presumes a pattern of large, consolidated lots. The applicant goes much further, however, and uses the presumption of an already-approved lot consolidation through subdivision to gain the following very valuable benefits:

i) Measurement from Third Street to calculate the building height results in an artificial measurement on Second Street. The tail is wagging the dog here: the Third Street frontage is by far the smallest street frontage. It may be a legal technicality that affords a fig leave of truth, but in assessing the applicant’s PUD application, it is critically important to understand the full extent of the zoning bonuses being requested. Even without the change in zoning, the subdivision affords a full extra floor of building height – a benefit that would accrue only to the applicant without being acknowledged as a PUD benefit, subject to consideration in the amenities package.

ii) The applicant has employed its presumption that the subdivision has already been approved as a tactic of community intimidation. The applicant has recently begun to claim the right (along with the intention) to build a 50’+ high building 10 feet from the rear property line of the residences fronting on Third Street. This matter-of-right claim assumes an approved subdivision with Third Street as the datum for height, and Second Street as the rear yard. The prestidigitation goes further by making the C-2-A and C-2-B 15’ rear yard requirements completely disappear with the claimed right to measure the rear yard from the centerline of Second Street. The combined effect is an assertion by the applicant it has an uncontested right to construct a 50’ building on the property line across a 10’ alley from R-4 properties. Despite this potentially very material effect, the applicant maintains that the subdivision is of no importance to the community.

iii) The applicant claims the right to measure the building from Third Street even if the C-2-A zone is maintained owing to the single record lot with multiple street frontages. The applicant assumes the subdivision is granted with no community input or oversight by the Office of Planning and no mitigation of potential detrimental effects.


D. Comments on Amenities

The scale of the zoning bonuses requested necessitates a significant amenity package. However, to date scant amenities have been proffered, and those that have been are of limited merit. For example, the promised replacement of brick sidewalks relieves the District of a maintenance obligation, but this should not be deemed an “amenity” for the residents. The widened and improved alley has some benefit, but residents may not be able to utilize the possible sewer connection.

The “special merit” quality of the architecture is still under debate. The LEED certification is certainly welcome and the applicant is commended on it. Although the proposed architectural statement could potentially be further developed into an interesting design, the Second Street elevation is by far the least interesting and requires much further design refinement. The principal problem with this design is the building mass on the C-2-A portion of the site. We believe this portion of the property should not be upzoned.

There have been discussions over the past several months about accepting a payment from the applicant to fund a survey of the unprotected rowhouse neighborhood to the east of the project. While the Applicant is commended for agreeing to pay for the survey, it will not provide a genuine amenity until that survey results in actual protections. SPNA contends that the applicant’s own self interest demands that it should assist in funding a survey regardless of the outcome of the PUD. Historic district designation of the properties adjacent to the applicant’s site would have considerable marketing appeal and will support the sale of condominiums at higher prices. We have very mixed feelings about accepting a cash contribution in exchange for the applicant’s demolition of 14 potentially eligible historic structures to construct an out-of-scale project that diminishes and threatens other potentially eligible structures.


E. Additional Comments

We find some aspects of the applicant’s behavior disturbing. The applicant has expended great effort to obscure the effective height of the proposed structure and the full scope of the requested zoning bonuses. In effect, the applicant has dealt itself valuable benefits that it would prefer the community not take under consideration. We are certainly cognizant that Office of Planning has a tremendous work load and understand how the Setdown Report may have overlooked some of the hidden material benefits obscured by the applicant’s less-than-forthcoming PUD submissions. As a result, we feel we have no alternative other than to request a very full and exacting account of the various zoning bonuses requested vis-a-vis the current matter of right development envelope. Further, we request documentation of any extant Office of Planning documents that would conceivably support a 9 story building in excess of 90 feet on the east side of Second Street. We do not endorse the requested subdivision to consolidate the property into a single record lot. The potential for lot consolidation could lead to an even more adverse design based on that presumed subdivision. Very careful consideration and accounting must be made of the benefits that would accrue at each step of the subdivision, rezoning, and PUD process.

Every record lot on the southern part of this property (consisting of individual lots that front on Second and G Streets) in fact now has a rear yard. SPNA will vigorously oppose any lot consolidation that does not meticulously account for the resulting benefit and mitigate potential adverse effects. Any subdivision or rezoning approved as part of this PUD must be contingent on that PUD alone and the resulting amenity package. The PUD must be tightly constrained by an expiration deadline with language limiting extensions and approvals lest the community be faced with another debilitating development process. Every effort should be made within the PUD process to assure that vacant and abandoned buildings will not be tolerated and that routine maintenance and responsibilities of building owners are not relaxed because of some hoped-for development. Lack of maintenance and failure to secure now-vacant properties has already become an issue with properties under the applicant’s control. SPNA is very concerned that the applicant may decide to abandon the project leaving the community in a far worse position – potentially a large C-2-B zoned property on a single record lot with “no rear yard”.

This neighborhood has already been living with the disruptions associated with large scale construction for a number of years: the SEC’s three phases, Senate Square Condos, and the proposed PUDS in the 200 and 300 blocks of H Street. However, unlike the SEC and Senate Square, the PUDs proposed by Dreyfus in the 200 Block of H, and Steuart in the 300 Block of H are on squares with numerous residents. Far more care must be taken to protect those residential structures and to insulate the residents from the unfortunate effects of large-scale construction. At a minimum, every house on the affected squares, and possibly those in a larger radius as well, must be surveyed and monitored to assure that excavation, foundation pile driving, sheet piling, retaining walls, and other construction activities do not contribute to the deterioration of fragile century-old rowhouses.

At its May 3rd meeting, the ANC 6C Zoning Committee advised the Applicant to hold a community meeting in the affected neighborhood in order to broaden the level of input. We support that recommendation because it is appropriate for a project of this significance. Some six weeks later, on June 16, the applicant scheduled that meeting for June 21 and notified some residents by mail. The following day, a second notice changed the location of the meeting. The short notice provides minimal time for residents to become aware of the meeting and adjust their schedules so that they can attend.

E. Conclusions and Recommendations

SPNA strongly urges a far more rigorous review of the multiple and considerable zoning bonuses that are both explicit and implicit in the proposed resubdivision, rezoning, and PUD processes so that a more equitable accounting of an appropriate amenity package and mitigation of this project’s harmful effects can be considered. We believe the requested building height on Second Street is not supported by even the most generous interpretation of the applicable planning documents and that the urban fabric would be significantly harmed by this project as designed. The applicant should accept the considerable zoning incentives already supported by SPNA and the rest of the community, and should also accept the community’s invitation to propose a project - including a PUD - that respects the existing zoning envelope.