Advisory Neighborhood
Commission 6B
Minutes
of Special Call ANC Meeting
July
16, 2008
Commissioners
Present: Julie Olson, Chair; Ken Jarboe, Vice-Chair;
Commissioners Absent: Neil Glick, Francis Campbell and Michael Patterson
Chairperson Julie Olson chaired the meeting and the Commissioners introduced themselves.
There was a quorum for conducting business.
Adoption of Agenda
The Chair stated that since this is a Special Call meeting there will not be Community Speakout or anything extra or new on the agenda because the agenda is decided before hand and only those items that are on the published agenda can be covered.
The Chair announced that there were several items that
needed to be deleted from the agenda: HPA #08-XXX,
Planning and
Zoning Committee
The Chair turned the meeting over to Commissioner Garrison, Vice Chair of the Planning and Zoning Committee to make the report in the absent of the Chair, Commissioner Campbell.
PS # 38188 – 430 First
Presenting was Antonio D’Agostino of RTKL Architects; Sandra
J. Podjaski, Studio 39 Landscape Architects.
ATA has appeared before the ANC prior to present their plans of the
rehab of
Aspects of the landscaping include placement of a trash
container at the corner of North Carolina Ave and First St. SE, low level light
fixtures on the building streetscape, brick retaining walls, varying in height
from 18 to 24 inches, along First Street to address changes in the street grade
from First Street to North Carolina Avenue and erection of brick steps and
lighted handrails also at the front secondary.
The applicant proposes to place trees along the street frontage and
brick retaining wall at the corner of first and
There are two issues are of small concern to the Committee: first, who is and will be responsible for the maintenance of the trash receptacle at the North Carolina Ave corner; and second, it is important that the benches on site be configured in a manner to discourage people from sleeping on them and still maintain the historic aspect of the Capitol Hill area.
With these items addressed, the Committee recommends this project for approval to the full ANC
The Chair asked if there was any new information on the project.
The representative from RTKL Architects stated that the issue of maintenance of the trash can has not been resolved yet, but they are attempting to get an answer from DDOT as to who will be responsible for it. However, they will continue to work on resolving this issue.
The Chair stated that generally if you install a trash receptacle you are responsible for maintaining it.
Regarding the Committee’s suggestion that the bench design include armrests in the middle of the bench, the applicant agrees with the suggestion and has changed the plans so that the requested type of bench will be installed.
The Chair stated this item comes before the Commission in the form of a motion from the Committee needing no second. The Chair asked all in favor of supporting this case to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (7-0).
HPA # 08-320, 320 12th
Street, SE – Two-story rear addition with a roof deck
At the Planning and Zoning Committee meeting there was insufficient information to reach a decision on this case. Therefore, the case will be heard anew at this time.
The owner, Shirley James, presented the Commission with a copy of a Goggle map which showed her property in relationship with the others in the neighborhood. Additionally, she provided a more detailed drawing of her proposed project and photographs of the rear of the property and the alley. The plan is to remove the existing columns on the first floor level and to remove the existing wooden frame enclosure on the second level, and a deck on part of the roof with a spiral metal staircase in the rear. This will be replaced with an enlarged kitchen area on the first floor and an enlarged bedroom on the second floor.
Commissioner Garrison expressed his concerns regarding placing a spiral stair case in the rear due to the increased risk that unauthorized people will be able to use the staircase to access her property as well s those of the neighbors by way of the connected roof tops. Ms. James explained that there is another property near her that also has a rear staircase and so far as she knew that access had not been abused. In any case, her outside staircase would not be the only one on the block.
Commissioner Oldenburg also expressed her concerns about the potential of someone using the staircase to access and burglarize properties in the area. Ms. James stated that if a burglar wanted to do that they can now use her neighbors back porch to get upon the roof to do their burglary, so she did not see why what she was proposing would make matters any worse.
The Chair asked if there were any neighbors who would like to voice their opinions regarding this application. There were none.
The Chair stated that she was troubled by the roof top deck and the rear staircase, which will allow people to have access to her neighbors’ property. The Chair also expressed unhappinessit with the proposed use of stucco walls and vinyl windows in the rear.
Commissioner Jarboe made the motion to not oppose the application. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright.
The Chair asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was 6 in favor. One person voted against the motion. The motion passed.
Presenting was James Solomon, the architect representing Michael Monti, the owner. The owner states that neighbors have been given a copy of the plans to review. The proposed building will occupy the same footprint. The owner plans to make the first floor side windows smaller. Plans are to remove the 1980 addition (family room) on the first floor, to increase the size of the two rear first floor windows, remove the rear wall of the second floor, remove walls and doors on the second floor, and add a master bath, hall bath and master bedroom.
On the first floor, the plans propose changing the rear window to French doors. There will be a new roof and the rear building façade will have an updated look. Owner will present letters of support to the full ANC on its meeting on July 16th. Pending the submission of these letters the Committee has no reservations in recommending this project to the full ANC for support.
The Chair asked Mr. Solomon if he had copies of the letters of support from the neighbors. Mr. Solomon stated he had a letter from is neighbor at 1114 C Street, SE and that he spoken with the other neighbor but has not been able to obtain his written support in time for this meeting.
Mr. Solomon stated that after their discussions with HPRB regarding the rear windows, he was submitting a modified drawing to illustrate the new look of the rear portion of the structure.
The Chair stated this comes as a motion from the Planning and Zoning Committee needing no second. The Chair then asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (7-0).
HPA #08-036,
Presenting was James Noel, the designer. The applicant proposes to add a third story addition to the front of a single family dwelling to mirror the present façade. The addition will contain 2 bedrooms, a bath and an entertainment room. The first floor demolition and renovation is to enlarge the kitchen and living room/dinning room space. The second floor will be adding a master bedroom and enlarging the bathroom and changing window aspects on the rear of the existing two-story home to reflect the new third story addition.
The footprint will remain the same, and the applicant has submitted extensive plans, pictures and letters of support for his project.
The Committee recommends this project for approval to the full ANC.
The Chair asked if there was any new information. Mr. Noel stated that the footprint will be enlarged slightly and he provided the Commissioners with a drawing to illustrate the change. As requested, Mr. Noel presented the Commissioners with photographs of the rear of the property.
Commissioner Jarboe stated that he is aware that CHRS has some concerns about adding a third-story in a residential area, but he wanted to note that this is a non-contributing structure, which means the applicant should be allowed to make this change because he is not trying to preserve the original facade of the building. Additionally, there are a number of other houses on the block that are also three-story and non-historic in nature. Therefore, Commissioner Jarboe is of the opinion that this design will make this building fit better with the character of the Historic District than what is there now.
The Chair stated this comes as a motion from the Planning and Zoning Committee needing no second. The Chair then asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was 6 in favor of the motion and one abstained. The motion passed 6-0-1.
HPA # 08-XXX, 821 G
Street, SE – Security upgrade at Commandant’s house
Presentation by Dan Emerine from Office of Planning
As part of the effort to update the DC Zoning Code to conform to the newly adopted Comprehensive Plan, the Office of Planning has developed a set of proposals regarding on-site parking. The most controversial element of this proposal is the removal, except for certain limited purposes, of the current requirement for minimum parking standards.
The Committee recommends that the Commission advise the Zoning Commission that ANC 6B has a variety of concerns with the OP proposal. The Commission should point out that it is difficult to assess the viability and logic of the OP parking proposal out of context with proposals to implement other aspects of the Comp Plan. Decisions about how the zoning code should address parking must be made as part of the larger fabric of decisions about goals for the city’s neighborhoods. The Comp Plan update, in Chapter 2 on Land Use, reads as follows:
Policy LU-2.1.11:
Residential Parking Requirements
Ensure that parking requirements for residential buildings are responsive to the varying levels of demand associated with different unit types, unit sizes, and unit locations (including proximity to transit). Parking should be accommodated in a manner that maintains an attractive environment at the street level and minimizes interference with traffic flow. Reductions in parking may be considered where transportation demand management measures are implemented and a reduction in demand can be clearly demonstrated. 309.15
It is not clear to the Committee that this Comp Plan section supports OP’s recommendation. Rather, the sort of major policy change envisioned in the OP parking proposal -- one that would surely result in increased competition for an already very scarce resource -- moves well beyond what is required to implement the Comp Plan.
The Commission should support efforts by the city to reduce dependence upon automobiles, especially in areas adjacent to major bus and rail nodes. However, the Commission should not support approaches that result in significantly reduced neighborhood parking options for existing residents who have already reduced their dependence on automobile usage to minimal levels. In order to achieve the proper balance noted in the Comp Plan, the city needs to consider the full range of government decisions impacting access by cars to our neighborhoods, including such regulatory systems as the Residential Parking Permit program as overseen by DDOT and DPW. Thus, if the zoning code were to permit the residential projects that had little parking on-site without the city also taking action to restrict the ability of new residents of such projects to get on-street parking permits, the result would simply be less on-street parking options for all residents.
OP’s proposal sets forth the idea that developers would be permitted to reduce by up to 50% the minimum number of parking spaces required in a project by paying a per-parking space fee to a transportation fund. It is difficult to evaluate this approach without more information about the purposes for this fund and how the fund would be administered. And in situations where there is good justification for providing fewer on-site parking spaces than what the minimum standard would require, what is the justification for charging the developer a fee?
The OP proposal makes the interesting suggestion that projects with more than 50 parking spaces provide space for car share company vehicles. While the Commission should support the spirit of this proposal, it should urge caution that the provision does not inadvertently limit access to such spaces only to one approach to alternate transportation facilities. In time, there may be other alternatives to the current single Zip Car option.
The OP proposal states: “If the building does not have an alley or secondary street access then parking spaces may be accessed from the front of the building provided that the DC Department of Transportation grants permission for a curb cut from the adjacent street.”
If a driveway or alley can be constructed to access the rear, would the rule still apply?
The OP proposal calls for significant landscaping, including planting trees, for any surface parking with six or more spaces. It is unclear from the presentation how this could be accomplished without significantly reducing the area available for parking. It would be helpful to see some graphic descriptions of how this can be done.
The Committee recommends that the Commission convey these comments and concerns to the Office of Planning and the Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Jarboe stated that the Office of Planning will now be presenting only recommended principles to the Zoning Commission and not draft changes to the zoning code. Thus the Committee proposes that the Commission comment on the principles and under what circumstances would developments under such revised rules reduce space dedicated to off-street parking without simultaneously creating problems for the surrounding neighborhood. Regarding the car sharing proposal, Commissioner Jarboe is personally in favor of the idea, but he is concerned that the draft principles do not seem to be broad enough to encourage other alternatives to car ownership that Zipcar. For example, it is not clear from this language that spaces set aside for car sharing could also be used for company car pools, car vans or taxis. All examples of ways of reducing car usage. The taxi car is rented by the minute and the zip is rented by the hour, and the rental car is by the day. It was unclear whether the draft regulations would permit these other uses.
Commissioner Garrison stated that there is some confusion because the Office of Planning has posted on its website only the draft regulations, which was the approach OP was taking before it moved backwards to this more generalized principles level of presentation. Commissioner Garrison wondered why the draft principles were not also posted.
Commissioner Garrison added that he thought it would be very helpful that, if the Commission approves these set of comments, one of the Commissioners should go down and present the Commission’s views to the Zoning Commission in person. The Chair authorized that both Commissioners Garrison and Jarboe to appear before the Zoning Commission on behalf of the ANC 6B.
The Chair stated this comes as a motion from the Planning and Zoning Committee that the Commission expresses it concerns about the rewrite case needing no second. The Chair then asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (7-0).
This amendment, proposed by the Office of Planning, would to allow buildings formerly used as public schools to be used by District government agencies (subject to limitations), medical and dental clinics, community service uses, and non-profit office uses. In addition, the Office of Planning proposes the repeal of 11 DCMR § 222, which permits, subject to special exception approval, government uses in existing and former public school buildings that are historic landmarks or located in historic districts.
The amendment has already been adopted by the Zoning Commission on an emergency basis to deal with the situation created by the recent closing of a number of DC Public Schools. The emergency regulations expire in October. The Office of Planning is proposing to make the regulations permanent.
The Committee appreciates the fact that a number of schools have been or are about to be closed and supports the quick reuse of the vacant school buildings. But the Committee questions whether these regulations are needed or warranted on a permanent basis. The logic behind the wording of the regulations, while appropriate to the specific circumstances, may not hold up in the long run. Specifically, the regulations propose a matter-of-right reuse of the buildings for government and non-profit offices but not for commercial offices. This fits the current plans for reuse of the recently closed buildings. However, the Office of Planning has not demonstrated how the use of a building for a government or non-profit use has any different or less impact on the neighborhood than reuse as a commercial office building. Likewise, the regulation makes “community services use” a matter-of-right without defining what those uses are. For example, are half-way houses, jails and drug treatment facilities examples of “community service uses.”
Given that the proposed regulations would permanently make all of these uses a matter-of-right, there would be no option for determining how or if these uses could be disputed or even discussed by the community. Although some and maybe all of the new uses of these school buildings being considered may be of benefit to the community at large, there is a chance that these uses may be a detriment to the immediate community of a given building. The Committee is very concerned that there be some mechanism for community input.
Thus, the Committee recommends that the full ANC oppose the regulations as drafted and suggests that the uses described be allowed only under a special exception. This would allow community input without subjecting these non-residential uses in a residential area to the stricter test of a variance.
The Chair asked if there were any comments from the community regarding this issue.
A lady, who was not auditable on the tape, asked about the
potential impact of the proposed text amendment on the reuse of
Commissioner Garrison responded by stating that the emergency legislation allows the city to make decisions about how vacant school buildings can be reused for local government or non-profit uses without having to go through the more extensive and public process normally required for such public reuse decisions. The proposed text amendment is silent on what should actually happen to any one of the school buildings that have been closed. So there is nothing about this proposal that would speak one way or the other as to what the use of Hine would be.
Commissioner Jarboe added that it was also silent on the issue of whether Hine must be reused as a school. So there is nothing in the emergency rule or what is being proposed in the permanent text amendment regarding whether a school must be reused as a school. There is nothing that would prohibit Hines from being used as a school, but there is nothing to make it required either. There are a number of schools being closed where there is already a process in place involving the community and a number of these schools are being considered for government or other public reuse. The emergency legislation was put in place to make that process easier and quicker. What the Commission is concerned about is not so much this round of closing but what rules will govern the process for deciding the reuse of other school buildings in the future.
Commissioner Garrison added that the general understanding is that Hines is on a path for re-development, rather than reuse by DCPS. There is a meeting with Councilmember Wells on the 22nd to further discuss this matter.
The Chair stated this comes as a motion from the Planning and Zoning Committee that the Commission to oppose this regulation needing no second. The Chair then asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (7-0).
ABC Committee
The Chair turned the meeting over to Commissioner Wright the Chair of the ABC Committee for their report.
Matchbox,
Applicant,
The ABC committee recommends support of the new license
contingent upon a signed voluntary agreement.
The Chair asked Mr. Smith for an update on their application.
Mr. Smith thanked the Chair and members of the Commission for working with him and his organization in doing what is necessary to become a member of the ANC 6B business community. Mr. Smith introduced his partners: Drew Kim, Mark Neal and Ty Neal and their attorney Mr. Mallios.
Mr. Smith stated that Matchbox is dedicated to being a good community member by abiding by all the rules and regulations. Mr. Smith asked that the hours of operations be changed to Sunday-Thursday, 11:00 AM – 2 AM and Friday and Saturday 11 AM – 3 AM. Mr. Mallios added that they changed the hours of operation in the Cooperative (Voluntary) Agreement to reflect this change. Additionally, they changed the hours of the sidewalk café to close on Sunday – Thursday at 1 AM, and Friday and Saturday at 2 AM., and they added that the mezzanine seating will be no more than 40 patrons.
Mr. Mark Shrien, who lives at
Commissioner Hill stated that he also believes Matchbox will be a welcomed addition to the Hill business community.
Commissioner Green stated that, in the portion of Commission’s standard Cooperative (Voluntary) Agreement where issues of public space and trash are discussed, the Commission should add a provision regarding the dumping of the trash and she believes it also should be added into section #6, Noise and Privacy.
Commissioner Jarboe asked if she was
suggesting that the last sentence “Applicant will ensure timely disposal that
is least disruptive to the neighbors and that commercial trash pickup will only
take place between 7 a.m. – 7 p.m.” be added as the last sentence in section
#6. Commissioner Green responded he was
correct.
The Chair stated this comes as a
recommendation of the ABC Committee to support the application needing no second.
Commissioner Jarboe offered an amendment to the Committee Report to represent that the Committee is accepting the revised Cooperative (Voluntary) Agreement. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright.
The Chair asked all in favor of the amendment to the Committee Report to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (7-0).
The Chair then asked all in favor of the original recommendation to support the application for a new license contingent upon the signing of the Cooperative (Voluntary) Agreement to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (7-0).
Lola’s, 711 8th Street, SE, Lic.
# XXXXX
Applicant, Xaviar Cervera, is seeking a stipulated CT
license, with an entertainment endorsement, for the building at
The ABC committee recommends support of the new license contingent upon a signed voluntary agreement.
Commissioner Wright stated that Mr. Cervera has already signed the Cooperative (Voluntary) Agreement.
Commissioner Jarboe stated that this Cooperative (Voluntary) Agreement was the same agreement the Commission thought was in place with the previous establishment. Thus the Commission is simply allowing Lola’s to do what the previous establishment was entitled to do.
Commissioner Garrison mentioned that
Commissioner Wright read in her report that the private functions and disc
jockey be limited to “approximately two per month” and he recommends that the
word “approximately” be removed.
Commissioner Garrison then made the motion to amend the report to remove
the word “approximately”. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Jarboe.
The Chair asked all in favor of the amendment to the Committee Report to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (7-0).
The Chair stated this comes as a
recommendation of the ABC Committee to support the original recommendation with
the amendment needing no second. The
Chair asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (7-0).
Eastern Market
Committee
This item was deleted from the agenda.
Leasing of
Temporary Office Space
This item was deleted from the agenda.
Quarterly Report
The Chair turned the meeting over to Commissioner Green the Treasurer for the Quarterly Report.
Commissioner Green stated the Commission started the quarter with $54,092.50 and added the 2nd and 3rd quarter allotments of $15,867.80 plus interest of $32.26 for a total of $15,900.06. The expenditures were $10,601.61 ending with $59,390.95. Commissioner Green added that a portion of the $6,000.00 for purchase of services will be refunded in the amount of approximately $1,800.00, and will appear on next quarter’s report.
Commissioner Garrison asked about the purchase of services item and wanted to confirm that this was for the purchase of legal services to handle the Pacific Café protest. Commissioner Green responded that the attorney had been paid the full amount. However a rebate of the portion that was not used will be forthcoming to the Commission.
Commissioner Hill made the motion that the Commission accepts the quarterly report as present by Commissioner Green. The motion was seconded by Commission Wright.
The Chair asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (7-0).
Approval of
Minutes
This item was deleted from the agenda.
Adjournment
There was no further business and Commissioner Hill made the motion that the meeting be adjourned until its next meeting date of September 9, 2008. The motion was seconded, and the vote was 7 to 0.
Meeting Adjourned.
Prepared by
Attested: