The final approvals had been slowed by a number of items that concerned the commissioners. Among them:

* While a memorandum of understanding detailing benefits and amenities of the project had been worked out earlier in the process between the developer and ANC 6B, neighbors that live along L Street SE north of the project continue to have objections to various aspects of the project, such as there only being 220 parking spaces for a 673-unit development, as well as the impact of the standard hours of construction on their "quality of life," which Chairman Anthony Hood keyed on as an item where there could have been some "negotiating," though commissioner Peter May noted that the building is not particularly close to L Street SE (with the new Southeast Blvd. and the CSX train tracks separating the two).

* The lighting plan for the building, which had originally been shown with a fair amount of up-lighting but is now all down-lighting after the commissioners objected.

* The plan for a "place-making sign" on the building's penthouse had gotten Peter May up in arms at the Proposed Action stage, and so the developer came back with additional options. (If you click to enlarge the rendering at the top of this post, you can see up at the roofline a smidge of the BROOKLAND-like sign facing north.)

May and the other commissioners still sighed a bit over there being a sign up there at all, but did agree that Option 1 is a "more subtle" version that is an "improvement." I have a notion that some readers might disagree:

In the end, though, there were no showstoppers, and the commission voted 5-0 to approve both the first-stage PUD for the overall project and the second-stage PUD for the first residential building.

My 1333 M project page has additional renderings and information--and if you are new to the story and can't quite visualize where 1333 M even is, it's on the part of M Street that proceeds eastward underneath and past the 11th Street Bridges.

UPDATE: Forgot to include that the project made it past the National Capital Planning Commission as well.

The request has been altered a bit since I last wrote about it in February, but the gist remains the same.

First, DCHA is looking to move 30 affordable units outside of the Capper PUD boundaries and onto the block where WC Smith is developing the Park Chelsea, 800 New Jersey, and a third as-yet unnamed residential building.

Second, instead of being held to the originally approved unit counts on the blocks known as squares 767, 768, and 739 (as described in the fuzzy graphic above that I snagged from the Office of Planning report), the Housing Authority requests the flexibility to change the configuration of the 206 total affordable (ACC) units on each square while not ever going below 15% of the total number of units for that square.

Agency representatives testified at length about the progress at Capper, including that the community center is finally underway. But they told the commission that the current "financing atmosphere," especially for mixed-income residential projects, is increasingly constraining, and so having some flexibility built in could make it easier to work with potential development partners and financial institutions on designing projects before coming to the commission for Stage 2 approvals. (The four-year process and convoluted solution that included a "mountain of documents" to secure financing the mixed-income Lofts at Capitol Quarter was used as an example.)

However, it's been known for a year that one of the creative scenarios that DCHA has come up with to move forward on Square 767 would be to sell half of the block to EYA (developers of the Capitol Quarter townhomes) so that a market-rate condo building can be built, and then taking those proceeds to fund a second building on the block that would be all affordable units.

And while this particular zoning case does not specifically cover that not-yet-finalized plan, and putting aside that any plans for that block will have to come back to the Zoning Commission for approval before moving forward, a number of Capper/Capitol Quarter residents along with incoming ANC 6D07 representative Meredith Fascett used the hearing as a forum to make clear their displeasure with the idea of segregating incomes in separate buildings, saying that it violates the spirit of the entire Hope VI mixed-income vision that the Capper redevelopment has been based on. (Fascett's written testimony is here.)

David Cortiella of DCHA did say that the agency believes many of the issues with the two buildings/two incomes plan on Square 767 "will be addressed" once a "community engagement process" about the project gets underway, specifically mentioning a "shared courtyard" for the two buildings so that a "more friendly environment takes shape."

The zoning commissioners did not seem overly troubled by the requests covered the current zoning case (though Michael Turnbull made sure to say that they "will look very carefully" at future second-stage submittals).

The Office of Planning supports the flexibility request--however, DCHA is still wanting to further modify the modifications that OP put forward in its most recent report, both because of some concerns about the wording about the units to be constructed by WC Smith but also because the Housing Authority wants to come up with a cap on the number of ACC units on each square that is different from OP's suggested 50-percent cap.

It's expected that the commission will vote on this case at its January 26 meeting; if and when this case receives its final approval, there would then be a vote on a concurrent case to grant a five-year extension to the Capper PUD (which I didn't even talk about here because no one is reading at this point anymore anyway).

One other Capper-related tidbit coming out of the hearing is that movement is continuing on the planned 171-unit rental building on the south side of L between 2nd and 3rd, with work on the financing "well underway" (helped no doubt by getting a cut of a $142 million funding pot.)

(Editor's Note: Leading off with a convoluted post about zoning after an extended holiday layoff is not optimal.)

Commissioners used words like "handsome," "attractive," and "unique" to describe this 13-story building that would be situated just north of Nats Park on the northeast corner of South Capitol and N streets. Robert Miller called it as a "definite asset for the neighborhood and for the city," while Michael Turnbull described it as a "very elegant-looking building" that "I like very much," while also wryly thanking the design team for not trying "to pick up on the architecture of the {ballpark} garages across the street" (in case anyone thinks that the Zoning folks have forgotten that the garages were designed and built without their approval). Even noted stickler Peter May said that there are "a lot of great things about the architecture and the project overall."

But this didn't mean that there weren't still concerns the commissioners want to see addressed. Marcie Cohen expressed her concerns about the project's LEED certification, wanting it to at least meet Silver, preferably Gold. Chairman Anthony Hood wanted to see clearer indications of where the signage for the project's 25,000 square feet of retail will go. A slight concern was raised about the positioning of the residential lobby entrance on Van Street between the entrance to the two-level parking garage and the loading bays. And there was a worry or two about the rooftop pool's decking perhaps needing a handrail.

A somewhat more substantial issue was the design of the building's north face, with "at risk" windows that could end up staring across only a 10-foot space right into any building that eventually replaces the Self Storage building. (The image at right from the updated zoning submission gives a view of this wall and the windows at issue.) JBG's Bryan Moll testified that the storage folks show no interest in selling (and that JBG would be very interested in buying if and when they do), but that should a building go up, JBG would be prepared to reconfigure the units to turn them into two bedrooms with den or three bedrooms, so that the units along the north wall would become a part of larger units with (presumably) better windows and positioning away from that wall. Commissioner May grumbled his skepticism about the storage site not being redeveloped anytime soon, but the issue was not a showstopper for him.

The issue that was a showstopper for him (and for Michael Turnbull) was the design of the penthouse and the proximity of the cooling-tower wall, which he called "really really problematic." May emphasized that while he understands the desire to maximize rooftop amenity space, "setbacks for mechanical uses have to come first." (Don't ask me to go into more detail beyond parroting that commissioners want to see how JBG can "push the penthouse back from the north wall of the courtyard"--my inch-deep understanding of DC zoning regulations got left in the dust during this discussion, and I'm guessing any of my readers versed in zoning already have a better understanding of the issue than I ever would.) May was however pleased with the general design of the penthouse, saying it was exactly what they "had in mind with the change to the Height Act."

The Office of Planning strongly supports the project. DDOT has given its blessing as well, with JBG agreeing to the conditions that it will building the missing sidewalk on the west side of Van Street up to M Street, will erect a transportation information screen in the lobby with real-time arrival/departure times for nearby offerings, will include one electric-vehicle charging station, and will install 11 "short-term" bicycle racks on the sidewalks near the building's entrances. (This is in addition to the 110 secure bicycle parking spaces within the building.) ANC 6D had unanimously supported the project last month.

JBG will return to the drawing board on the penthouse issue, and it's expected that the design will come up for a vote at the commission's Jan. 12 meeting.

For more about the building itself, see my recent posts and also my 1244 South Capitol project page.

The early questions from the commission centered mainly around Peter May's contention that granting this density--which the applicants refer to as an additional 1.0 FAR but which May was happy to always refer to as "264,000 square feet"--was akin to "incentivizing something that's going to get built anyway." May expressed that the additional height and additional density were "perfectly appropriate" but that he was "not seeing the greater good that comes out of this," i.e., what Forest City would be providing in return.

Initially May zeroed in on proposed language he felt was too weak, that the eventual review of any building proposed along the Yards West M Street frontage would ensure that its design and site plan would "facilitate the provision of a public entrance to the Navv Yard Metrorail Station" on the southwest corner of New Jersey and M. (He also mentioned as an aside concerns he said he had heard recently that the explosion in residential development in the neighborhood instead of office projects was restricting the amount of available evening and weekend garage parking for stadium events.)

But then ANC 6D chair Roger Moffatt testified, noting that while the ANC voted 6-0 to support Forest City's request, it did so while strongly encouraging the Zoning Commission "to require units have more than two bedrooms as a condition of this added height and density." He continued: "ANC 6D supports growing DC into a larger population, but we don't want to exclude families who have children from being able to live in our section of the District. We believe this is an issue whose time has come and we hope that Zoning will take a step in the right direction here tonight."

A light bulb then seemed to go on, with each commissioner supporting May's request that Forest City work with the Office of Planning and the Office of the Attorney General to come up with stronger language not only on the Metro issue but on a "greater mix." Marcie Cohen spoke of families being pushed out of the city, and that Forest City needs to offer "compelling evidence" that there is no market and will be no market for units with more than two bedrooms. Michael Turnbull discussed how if a family has a boy and a girl "you are looking at a three-bedroom unit to make things work" and that "two children is not unreasonable for a lot of families."

While agreeing with the desire to have the language of the proposed text amendments looked at, commissioner Robert Miller did say that the board shouldn't treat lightly that granting the additional density would result in an additional 350 residential units to the area beyond what's already allowed, 70 of which would be affordable housing units, which is "something we need."

Finally, chair Anthony Hood admitted that the commission hasn't concentrated on the issue of units with more than two bedrooms ("I don't call it derelict because I'd call myself derelict"), and that it is something that the board needs to "start looking at this in other projects across the city." However, he seemed a bit skeptical that anything could really come of taking the extra time for the Office of Planning to work on the language in this particular case to achieve that end: "Let's see what happens. Make me wrong."

This case is scheduled to be back in front of the commission in late November.

Materials filed with the Zoning Commission earlier this month are giving a first glimpse at JBG's plans for 1244 South Capitol Street, on the northeast corner of South Capitol and N, just across from Nats Park's Parking Lot C.

It will be a residential building with 290ish units and about 26,000 square feet of retail, and the renderings indicate that the design by architect Eric Colbert and Hariri Pontarini isn't a "typical" Washington DC box-like building. Images show the building's west side, facing South Capitol Street, with only six floors of height at its middle, allowing the interior courtyard to be open to South Capitol from the 6th floor on up, breaking up the pure U-shape that is so often employed 'round these parts. A few more views (click to enlarge):

At left is a stylized version of the view that you'd see standing at Van Street one block west of the Center Field Gate, looking toward the big self-storage building and points to the northwest. At right is a closer view of the South Capitol Street facade and the courtyard, upper floors, and roof. (Note that in these three drawings you can see hints of Akridge's proposed Half Street residential building on the perimeter, though that's not appearing to be getting underway anytime soon.)

The 26,000 square feet of retail will of course warm the hearts of stadium-goers, and the filing indicates that the retail spaces will wrap around on three sides of the building. This rendering depicting the corner of South Capitol and N (with a certain dome in the distance) shows two stories of retail along both streets, with more ground-floor spaces designed along Van Street.

There would be 176 parking spaces on three levels below ground for vehicles and and 100 spaces for bikes. Residential units would range from studios to 2 BR/den. The courtyard and 6th-floor open space would have plantings and seating areas, while the roof would have a pool, lounge areas, and a bocce court (!). These plans also show "rooftop dining" at the far northwestern corner. (And will residents be able to sneak a peek at games while hanging out poolside? The image up top seems to show an angle for that to work, but it's hard to tell if the entire field would be visible.)

The design will get its Capitol Gateway Overlay District Review hearing on November 13, and it will be interesting to see how the Zoning Commission members react to the design.

According to the Washington Business Journal, "Commissioners were not thrilled with the hotel design, specifically the rooftop trellis, but it wasn't a 'show stopper' for any member of the panel."

The commission also okayed the 175-room hotel's plan to only have 40 parking spaces (instead of the mandated 53), but to get that approval, developer Englewood LLC agreed to various transit-related requirements, including offering full-day Circulator passes to guests, designating a "transportation coordinator," partnering with Bikeshare, and installing an information screen in the lobby showing transit status.

Earlier reporting said that it was hoped that construction could begin later this year or early in 2015, though building permits still need to be secured.

While the Courtyard by Marriott at New Jersey and L has had the Near Southeast hotel market to itself since 2006, this Homewood Suites is not the only new entrant--a168-room Hampton Inn at 1st and N is already under construction, and an additional 170-room hotel is expected in that same block once "Ballpark Square" gets underway.

The angles are from Half Street (left) and Cushing Street (right). The site is directly across M from the west entrance to the Navy Yard-Ballpark Metro station.

The building is planned to be an 11-story, 140,000-sq-ft structure with one level of underground parking with a requested 40 vehicle parking spaces instead of the mandated 53, and 12 spaces for bicycles. I wrote more about the plans a few weeks back, or you can check out the project page for more details and photos of the current location.

This is part of the Capitol Gateway Overlay Review that projects in many parts of the neighborhood are required to go through, to make sure that new buildings meet the many goals for design that were set when the area was just a gleam in the Office of Planning's eye.

The filing mentions the basics: the hotel will be 11 stories/40,000 square feet, of which about 4,800 square feet will be reserved for ground-floor retail. There will be a pool and fitness center, a rooftop terrace, and a green roof. And if the current design becomes the final design, the project would most likely meet LEED Silver requirements.

Also included were some early elevations, such as the one at right and a few others that I snagged and have put on a newly thrown-together 50 M Street project page. (And yes, it's in the new JDLand design format--I can't be bothered to build a separate one in the old layout. If it's not displaying right for you, drop me a line and tell me what browser you're using.)

The only special exception to the CG Overlay being sought is that the developers are asking to include only 40 parking spaces, when 53 would be the normal base requirement, because of the hotel's "urban location" directly across from the west entrance of the Navy Yard-Ballpark Metro station. Judging from the drawings, the underground parking entrance will be on Cushing Street; and the developers stated in the filings that they would be building a new sidewalk along the property's frontage on that street.

ANC 6D will be reviewing the project at its next meeting, on Monday, May 12 at 7 pm at 200 I St. SE., in advance of the Zoning Commission's as-yet unscheduled hearing.

* PUMP IT UP: City Paper reports that DC Water is soliciting bids for the design of a new headquarters, which would move from Blue Plains to a new building atop the existing O Street Pumping Station. (NOT the beautiful Main Pumping Station just to the north!)

And, if one looks at the renderings that Forest City released during its quest for zoning approval to develop three blocks around the station, you can deduce that this idea did not crop up in the last few days. The rendering above shows the O Street station in the right foreground, and you can see how it does look similar to the description reported by City Paper: "[It] will have five stories of offices perched above the pumping station. The offices will be supported by columns; there may or may not be a small gap between them and the pumping station."

(Note that this is a separate issue from the stalled drive to move some of DC Water's operations before Forest City can start work on the proposed movie theater there.)

Here's the solicitation itself.

* THUMBS UP: The Zoning Commission has issued the final orders to allow veterinary hospitals in the Southeast Federal Center Overlay and for the Trapeze School to move to New Jersey and Tingey.

* BOTTOMS UP (OR NOT): An application for a Class C liquor license is now in the pipeline for the The Big Stick, the new restaurant coming later this year to 20 M Street, The application describes the venture thusly: "A sports bar featuring an alpine lodge theme and décor serving casual foods such as bratwursts, sausages and kielbasas, salads, sandwiches, wraps and crispy oven-baked macaroni and cheese. Occasional DJ. No nude performances."

That's all that's up with me. What's up with you?

(And yes, this "Yards West" thing is new, but it does make some sense, given how the properties along 1st Street are mostly separated from the heart of the Yards between 3rd and 4th.)

As shown on the graphic Forest City provided to the Zoning Commission, the four parcels along N Street just east of 1st dubbed F, G, H, and I currently have a maximum allowed height of 110 feet, while to the north, south, and west there's a 130-foot maximum. (There's also a density difference that caps Yards residential development at 6.0 FAR versus 7.0-8.2 in the Capitol Gateway (CG) Overlay.)

This means that the SEFC Overlay permits less height and density than on the surrounding properties because, Forest City says, "no one fully anticipated the success of the tremendous public and private investment that is transforming the area."

Further proposed text amendments would "require Zoning Commission design review for any property utilizing bonus height and density for residential use" and would "authorize deviations from the ground-floor preferred use requirements, only after approval from the Zoning Commission."

During the zoning hearings a few weeks back to allow some changes to the NGA building site (known as Parcels A, F, and G, but which for now I just call Parcel A because I'm lazy), it was mentioned that Forest City was in the process of hiring an architect to design a residential building on Parcel H, which is on the southeast corner of 1st and N, with hopes of beginning development in 2015. Though I'm guessing they'll want to find out whether they can build to 130 feet instead of 110 before finalizing that design.

More as it develops.