Advisory Neighborhood Commission 6B
Minutes of Special Call ANC Meeting
July 12, 2005
Planning and Zoning Committee
The Chair stated that the first item on the agenda would be:
Historic Preservation Case 05-391,
Mr. Michael Ray, the architect representing the owners rose and presented the concept/alterations plans for a side addition, rear alterations and removal of a sunroom. The Commission did not have a prior copy of the plans and Mr. Ray only had one copy to use as the review document.
Mr. Ray stated that the only thing new to the original sight plan was the addition of a breakfast area and the removal of a sunroom. He reviewed the interior design in detail including the 2-car garage area. Additionally, he mentioned that with the removal of the sunroom, a decorative iron gate will be installed on the same line as the sunroom to create a new terrace area. There is a driveway in that area and it will be retained, which will allow for parking without encroaching on public space. There are two curbcuts; one on the south side and another for the garage.
Commissioner Jarboe stated that the one issue the neighbors have voiced is the question of the curbcut and it is his understanding that the owners are not interested in getting rid of the curbcut on the south side of the property. He went on to say that he understand that the owners cannot be talked into getting rid of it.
Commissioner Jarboe made the motion that the Commission not opposed the changes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Russell. The Chair stated that their motion had been seconded to not oppose the changes and all those in favor were asked to raise their hands. The vote was 7-0-1 with Commissioner Sheldon abstaining.
ZC Case# 04-33, Text Amendment to require Affordable Housing Inclusionary Zoning
Presenter – Art Rodgers, DC Office of Planning
Art Rodgers stated that he and Steve Cockren will be preparing and submitting a report to the Zoning Commission. In November of 2004 the Coalition of the Campaign for Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning submitted their proposal to the zoning regulations management for Inclusionary Zoning. In May of 2005 the Office of Planning submitted its report to the Zoning Commission recommending that their proposal the Campaign for Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning along with a third version for a Voluntary Inclusionary Program be submitted. The Zoning Commission setdown their Campaigns of its own proposals and the compromised version they had worked out with the independent campaign. They have setdown public hearings in two phases. The first will be July 25 and 28th in the Commission Chambers at 6:00 p.m., and the second phase has not been scheduled yet.
There are several areas that will be considered in the first phase meeting:
Mr. Rodgers presented a review/comparison between the OP and CMIZ proposals in which he covered project threshold size, projects meeting threshold that are subject to the program requirements, affordable set-aside percentages, bonus density to accommodate affordable and additional market rate units, eligible incomes and percent that must be set aside, development standards, pricing methodology and contrail period.
After several questions from Commissioners Cernich and Jarboe regarding Bonus Density and follow-up discussions, Mr. Rodgers stated that the developers would get more square footage, but would not necessarily get a change in lot occupancy or height. In essence, the Bonus Density has to do with FAR requirements. (Floor Area Ratio is the ratio between the amount of square footage a building is allowed and the land area. Example: a 10,000 sq. ft. lot and a FAR of 3, you are allowed to have three (3) the 10,000 sq. ft. or 30,000 sq. ft.).
The Commissioners expressed their concerns about a developer coming into the area and buying up several small row homes, demolishing them and building in their place condos and getting the Density Bonus and its overall impact on affordable housing in the area.
Gary Peterson, Chair of the Capitol Hill Restoration Society Zoning Committee stated that his group had a number of comments regarding the proposals. He stated that they were not necessarily concerned about the Historic District, but they were concerned about the area around it. He agreed with the Commissioner’s concerns about developers coming in and buying R-4 houses and replacing them with condo, which is not desirable, therefore everyone should make sure there is a disincentive to do so.
The other area of his concern was the Relief from Requirements, which he thinks is a bad idea. Specifically, the Off-Site Units Partial Relief should not be considered at all because this does nothing for the area where the structure being built. The other area is the Buyout Contribution to a fund designated by the Council, which he believes will function much like a bribe and therefore should be eliminated from consideration. He went on to say that he would like to see all hardships removed unless the developer can prove that there is no other viable economical use of the land, or Full Relief.
Regarding the Development Standards, he does not like the idea of allowing the developer to offer different size units as affordable and believes it should also be removed from the proposal.
Jim Myers rose and stated that he had a bad feeling regarding the 2-step process they are proposing to evaluate the proposal. He could see a number of problems, many not really in favor of the residents. He went on to point out that if something is discovered in Phase II that could have a negative effect on something that had already been decided in Phase I, what would happen. He was of the opinion that nothing would happen and that could have a negative impact on the specific community. Therefore, he believes the proposal should be taken to the communities first to get their input before the move forward.
Contact information for Mr. Art Rodgers, firstname.lastname@example.org. (2020) 442-7600
Commissioner Jarboe pointed out that this was not a proposal that came from the Office of Planning it was from the Coalition of the Campaign for Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning.
There was discussion between the Commissioners regarding their desire to submit comments, it was decided that the Commission would notify the Office of Planning of its desire to submit comments at a later date and request that the record remains open.
Mr. Rodgers comments that he was of the opinion that the zoning will remain open past the July 28th day, which will allow for further comments.
Mr. Greg Rhett the consultant
Ms. Johnson stated that their
mission was to provide accessibility ramps to
The Chair after hearing Ms.
Johnson’s comments and response to questions, and having no questions from the
community or Commissioners commented that the
HPA #05-402, 801 Virginia Avenue, SE – Concept/demolition of one-story commercial building; construction of 4-story mixed use building
Tom Raithel with Olde City
Development stated that his group is acquiring the property bounded by
Mr. Bonstra stated that the
project is part of the Overlay District which reduces the FAR from 4 to 3. The have a requirement to provide retail
Commissioner Cernich asked if they were building completely by of-right. Mr. Bonstra stated that they have residential recreational requirements that are part of residential and commercial zoning and they probably will be seeking relief for and some others, but he didn’t see any associated with bulk and height. The building will be 4-stories, 45 feet in height.
Commissioner Cernich asked if
Mr. Bonstra had notified any of the surrounding property owners of his
project. His reply was no, but he has
had discussions with the adjacent owner for over a year and they have been in
discussions with the owner of Model Glass people about what they are planning
to do. They have not spoken with the
other businesses along
Mr. Bonstra stated that they
have met with the Capitol Hill Restoration Society and
Commissioner Cernich informed Mr. Bonstra that he is saying today that they are do not know if they will have to go to zoning so those notices may never go out from the city. Additionally, regardless of this meeting being a pubic forum everyone may not be aware of the meeting agenda and he believes the neighbors would still appreciate knowing what is going on in their area.
Commissioner Jarboe asked what has been the reaction of the Capitol Hill Restoration Society and DC Historic Preservation. John Edwards responded that they have not had any major objections, however Historic Preservation has made several suggestions and they have taken those suggestions into consideration.
Commissioner Sheldon stated
his reaction was that the project appears as though it should be on
Commissioner Cernich asked Mr. Bonstra what other projects have they worked on in the city because he shares the same concern that Commissioner Sheldon expressed. Mr. Bonstra sited several buildings they have and/or currently working on in the city and invited everyone on a tour. Commissioner Olson stated she also agrees with both Commissioners regarding this issue.
Commissioner Jarboe voiced his concern about the appearance of the tower at the top of the build as not being a very attractive part of an historic building.
Commissioner Olson stated that she agrees with a lot of the comments and she also recognizes that the Commissioners are not experts at historic preservation and architecture, but she does not believe this structure fits in at all with the character of Barracks Row. She further stated that she believe there is too much glass and she does not like the tower (trellis) on top of the building and the large massing in the very back seems to her to be too much and out of place.
Mr. Edwards stated that they
are working on several different renditions of the top of the building to make
it more attractive and will take their input into consideration. Mr. Bonstra also stated they are looking to
have a more open and lively storefront retail space on
Commissioner Campbell also voiced his concern about the amount of glass that is being used in the floors above the retail space and don’t believe it fits into the character of the street.
Commissioner Olson asked Mr. Bonstra if HPRB has requested that ANC 6B review this building. His response was yes. Commissioner Olson then stated that that must mean that they had some concerns and wants public input.
Mr. Bonstra stated that this was not their first project before an ANC and certainly not before the HPRB and they are aware of the process and how it works. His question to the Commissioners regarding the architecture does it look to the Restoration Society for the esthetics side.
Commissioners Olson and Jarboe responded by saying no not necessarily.
Commissioner Olson made the
motion that the Commission write a letter to HPRB making the concerns that were
being expressed, even though Mr. Bonstra addressed them very well. She went on to say that the Commission is
probably in support of the project, however these things are not part of the
Historic District and need to be addressed.
Commissioner Jarboe asked if she could list some of those concerns. She responded by saying the trellis on the
top floor, too much glass above the retail space, and the better incorporation
of some of the other architectural features along 8th Street into
the design. The motion is to write a
letter to HPRB supporting the project with reservations concerning the trellis
on the top floor, too much glass above the retail space, and the need to better
incorporation of some of the other architectural features along
3rd Quarter Quarterly Financial Report and Minutes
Commissioner Jarboe directed the Commissioners to their copies of the 3rd Quarter Quarterly Report and stated that the entries were normal with the exception of the printing of business cards in the amount of $272.38. He further reported that everything is within budget with the exception of two (2) items. First, the telephone charges are exceeding expectation, due to the DSL line, and will need to be increased approximately $400.00. Second, the A/C units in the office do not work and only one in the main meeting room works properly, therefore the Commission needs to purchase at least one new A/C unit.
Commissioner Olson stated that there is a definite need to get at least two units. Commissioner Jarboe suggested that the Commission look at getting portable unit instead of the window unit. Commissioner Cernich suggested that an amount of $500.00 be allocated for the purchase of an A/C unit or units.
Commissioner Jarboe made the motion for the approval of the Quarterly Report and it was seconded by Commissioner Cernich. The Chair asked all in favor to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (7-0), Commissioner Russell had stepped out prior to the vote.
Commissioner Jarboe then made the motion to increase the budget for telephone services by $400.00 and authorize the expenditure of $500.00 for the purchase of an A/C unit. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Campbell. The Chair asked all in favor to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (8-0), Commissioner Russell returned to vote on this matter.
Commissioner Jarboe stated
that the final item on the Financial Report was a letter he received from the
auditor and each Commissioner should have received a copy, regarding the back
side of cancelled checks. The Auditor’s
office had called the office and left a message regarding their desire to get
copies of the cancelled check’s backs.
The Chair stated that the Commission needs to approve the Minutes from January, February, March, subject to any administrative changes or corrections that need to be done. The Chair then moved that the Minutes be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Campbell. The Chair the asked all in favor to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (7-0).
There was no further business and Commissioner Hill made the motion that the meeting be adjourned until regular scheduled meeting n September 13, 2005. The motion was seconded, and the vote was 7 to 0.
Prepared by Bert Randolph