Advisory Neighborhood Commission 6B

Minutes of Special Call ANC Meeting

July 12, 2005

Commissioners Present: Julie Olson, Will Hill, Antonette Russell, Francis Campbell, Scott Cernich, Ken Jarboe, Mary Wright, and Executive Director Bert Randolph. David Sheldon joined the meeting during the first case discussion.

Commissioners Absent: Neil Glick and Sandra Brown Thomas

Chairperson Scott Cernich chaired the meeting and the Commissioners introduced themselves.

Planning and Zoning Committee

The Chair stated that the first item on the agenda would be:

Historic Preservation Case 05-391, 19 9^th Street, SE – Concept/alterations to side addition; rear alterations; removal of sunroom

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 28^th 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:

1. Percentage of affordability units
2. Target for Bonus Density
3. The approval process

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, art.rodgers@dc.gov. (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 28^th day, which will allow for further comments.

PS #XX-XXX, Cesar Chavez Charter Public School, 709 12^th Street, SE – Handicap Ramps

Mr. Greg Rhett the consultant for Cesar Chavez Charter Public School addressed the Commissioners and community and stated that they have met with the residents who are in the immediate impacted area to discuss their plans. He then introduced Ms. Bonnie Johnson the architect with Burns and Johnson who is in charge of the project to provide a more detailed discussion of the ramp project.

Ms. Johnson stated that their mission was to provide accessibility ramps to ADA requirements. She reviewed the plans outlining the specifications and location of the proposed ramp. The originally were planning to have a stairway and ramps, but have modified to plans to have only the ramp.

The Chair after hearing Ms. Johnson’s comments and response to questions, and having no questions from the community or Commissioners commented that the Cesar Chavez Charter Public School was in his SMD and made the motion that the Commission supports the application. Commissioner Olson seconded the motion. The Chair asked all in favor to raise their hands and the vote was unanimous (8-0).

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 Virginia Ave, 8^th Street, and L Street. The building is currently occupied by an auto repair shop. The intent is to remove the current building and construct a mixed use residential building with commercial parking. He then introduced the architect Bill Bonstra of Bonstra Haresign Architects who in turn introduced John Edwards.

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 space along 8^th Street which they are doing. The building is located in the Capitol Hill Historic District. The site has existing curbcuts along Virginia Avenue. There will be one level of underground parking garage with the entrance off L Street which will provide 13 parking spaces and they are also planning to use the parking space under the right-of-way under Virginia Ave where they will gain additional parking spaces. There will be 15 residential units and 3-5 professional offices (3,140 sq. ft.) on the 8^th Street side with storefront windows. He further stated that the 3,140 sq. ft. could be one large retail space or divided to 3 or more spaces.

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 8^th Street. He went on the say that the building adjacent to the proposed building is commercial and there is no other residential building along Virginia and L Streets. Commissioner Cernich stated that he was focusing on the residential property owners in a two-block radius of the project. They had not spoken to of those owners of the residential properties. Commissioner Cernich went on to explain the importance of making property owners in the surrounding area aware of his project. He used the example of the condos currently scheduled to be built across the street from the ANC office and the negative reaction from some neighbors weeks after appearing before the Commission regarding a Historic Preservation issue and he would hate to see that happen to their project, therefore he recommended that he contact the people in the area sooner rather than later to avoid potential problems.

Mr. Bonstra stated that they have met with the Capitol Hill Restoration Society and Barrack Row Main Street and he was not sure there would be any need because currently they are not seeking any zoning approval, just historic issues. He went on the say that when the zoning issue are addressed the city typically send out public notices to residents in the area.

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 U Street and 14^th Street and not Barrack Row mainly because of the amount of glass being use. He went on to say that his comments do not reflect on the architectural design, but it does reflect upon how it would integrate into that particular block. Mr. Bonstra stated they can talk more about the design if that is an issue of the Commission. However, they have met with various groups who are charged with that type issue.

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 8^th Street. Regarding the structure on the top of the building, Mr. Edwards stated that it will be setback about 45 feet from the front to the building therefore it will not be seen from the street level on 8^th Street. They are also planning to use space on the roof for residential recreational space.

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 8^th 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 8^th Street into the design. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jarboe. The Chair asked all in favor to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (7 to 0).

3^rd Quarter Quarterly Financial Report and Minutes

Commissioner Jarboe directed the Commissioners to their copies of the 3^rd 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. Bert Randolph faxed this information to the auditors, but for some reason they could not seem to find it. Therefore, the Commission will resubmit the requested paperwork with the Quarterly Report and will make sure it receives some type of verification of receipt to avoid any further discrepancies.

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).

Adjournment

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.

Meeting Adjourned.

Prepared by Bert Randolph

Attested: