Advisory Neighborhood
Commission 6B
Minutes
of Regular ANC Meeting
Commissioners
Present:
Commissioners Absent: None
Chairperson Julie Olson chaired the meeting and the Commissioners introduced themselves.
There was a quorum for conducting business.
Adoption of Agenda
Commissioner Jarboe asked that two zoning cases be added to the agenda: 07-15 dealing garages and 04-33B dealing with the follow-up to Inclusionary Zones. The Chair stated that the two items would be added at the end of the Planning and Zoning portion of the agenda.
Commissioner Hill made the motion to accept the amendments to the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commission Ostergaard. The Chair asked if there were anyone in opposition. There were none. The agenda was adopted as amended.
Community Speakout
Rock Creek Pizza (Papa John’s Pizza) – Mr. Richard
Aguglia, attorney-at-law, stated that he was representing his client, Rock
Creek Pizza (Papa John’s Pizza), and he wanted to provide the Commission and
community with a heads-up regarding his client’s intention to file an
application with BZA for a special exception for a pizza carry-out/delivery
service at
Mr. Aguglia stated that his client has met with the Office of Planning and received informal advice that OP would support the application and that a minor parking variance (2 to 3) spaces is required. The parking would be in the rear and be “tandem” because of the limited turn around space). A FAR variance (17% as the upstairs will be for office) would also be required.
The Commission was provided a packet that included pictures of the current property and a petition with 28 signatures from neighbors surrounding the property in support of the proposed business operation. Because the property is in the historic district and exterior signage will need to be approved, the applicant will also be contacting HPRB.
The Chair informed Mr. Aguglia that the Commission will not be meeting again until September, which should provide him sufficient time to make his application to BZA before returning before the Commission.
Neighborhood Crime – Mr. Bryan Cassidy stated he
wanted to make the Commission and community aware of the rash of teenage
violence that has taken place in his neighborhood. Mr. Cassidy and his neighbors requested that
the Park Department cut-down the bushes on the
The Chair advised Mr. Cassidy to meet with Commissioner Ostergaard in whose SMD the Park is located. Commissioners Green and Garrison said they were also available to assist in this discussion.
PSA 106 Actions – Commissioner Ostergaard announced that there will be a PSA meeting the first Tuesday of the month to attempt to address Mr. Cassidy’s issues and others, and he invited everyone interested in becoming involved to attend the meeting. Commissioner Ostergaard went on to say that in the past they have had police officers, 311 and 911 operators and several Commissioners from the PSA area in attendance. Commissioner Ostergaard went on to say that at their meeting the previous Thursday they did discuss Mr. Cassidy’s issue, and there was an arrest made in conjunction with this matter. Additionally, there was another arrest made for a holdup in the area, although the person was subsequently released because the Office of the Attorney General decided there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the case.
PSA 107 Meeting – Commissioner Green mentioned that
Commander Groomes and Inspector Keegan from MPD’s 1st District, will
attend the next PSA 107 meeting to discuss the recent increase in crime in our
neighborhood. The meeting will be held
June 21st,
Community and
Commission Announcements
PSA 106 Meetings – Commissioner Ostergaard announced
that PSA 106 meets the first Tuesday of each month at
Commissioner Glick announced that he and Commissioners Wright, Green and Ostergaard had the opportunity to tour the DC Jail and that they were impressed with the facility.
Presentations
Neighborhood
Strategy Planning for the area surrounding Potomac Avenue Metro Station –
Presenter; Jeff Davis, Office of Planning
Mr. Davis announced that on Monday, June 18th,
from
Eastern Market
Committee Report
The Chair turned the meeting over to Commissioner Jarboe, who is the voting representative of ANC 6B with the Eastern Market Community Advisory Committee, to make his report.
Commissioner Jarboe stated that he had circulated a summary of the EMCAC meeting of May 2007. Commissioner Jarboe continued by saying that he wanted to bring to the Commission’s attention several items that were discussed. Rebuilding of the Eastern Market building is continuing. The Office of Planning has expanded the scope of work to not only include the renovations that were planned but a repair of fire damage. EMCAC passed a resolution stating that it wanted the Office of Property Management to push the scope of the project so that it would include not only repairs and renovation but actual restoration of the building. Therefore, EMCAC will be going to HPRB about this change and will also be coming before the ANC to discuss this change as well. Commissioner Jarboe stated that he abstained from voting on the matter of changing the scope of work from renovation to restoration since the ANC has not spoken on that matter yet.
Commissioner Jarboe mentioned that there is an on-going dispute with the North Hall tenants Market 5 Gallery in that they have not paid the rents in a few months, but they have raised the rents of their sub-tenants. This dispute will be handled by the Office of Property Management. As part of this issue, the Office of Property Management is looking at some possible legislative changes, which will have to come back to the ANC for its comments. Part of the legislation will have to do with how funds are allocated and mechanisms for leases because a lot of the sub-tenants are operating without leases.
Commissioner Jarboe pointed out there was some minor
discussion about the
Commissioner Jarboe stated that since the EMCAC meeting there was an event Sunday morning at Eastern Market where DC United presented a check in the amount of $50,000.00 to the foundation based upon the ticket sales from one of its games. Additionally, a banner was unveiled that stated “The Market is Open” which is part of an aggressive marketing and promotional campaign that will let the city and community at-large know the Market is in fact open for business.
Planning and
Zoning Committee
The Chair stated that since Commissioner Campbell was not present, she turned the meeting over to Commissioner Ostergaard the Vice Chair of the Planning and Zoning Committee to make the Committee’s Report.
BZA# 17582, 656 Pennsylvania Ave. , LLC, 666 Pennsylvania
Ave. Associates & 327 7th
Street, SE, LLC, 325, 327 7th Street. SE, and 656, 660 Pennsylvania
Ave. SE, (square 873, Lots 115, 116, and 117) – Variance from building height,
F.A.R. (floor area ratio) and off-street parking requirements to construct an
office addition to several contiguous buildings in the CHC/C-2A district
The applicant is seeking three (3) variances: 1) variance from the building height under Section 7770.1 of Zoning Regulations; 2) variance from FAR under Section 1572.3; and, 3) variance from the parking restriction under Section 2101.1.
The property consists of 4 buildings with improvements:
The developer wishes to construct a one-story addition on
top of 656 Penn. Ave SE that will wrap around 660 Penn Ave to join a three
stories addition atop 327-7th St. SE and the private alley. The proposed addition will connect to the
existing office space of the 660 Penn building and will comprise approximately
13,000 square feet of office space. No
changes are proposed to
The height variance requested is less than 6 ft to allow the
addition to line up with the existing floors on 660
The applicant submitted, along with their application,
copies of the
The Committee finds that there are not significant changes
from the original BZA findings, in that the property remains unique in shape,
placement, and without significant changes to the historic facade of the
Taking into account the past rulings of facts as presented in the BZA case files regarding this property, the applicant’s submissions, case law and no apparent detriment in granting the variances, the Committee recommends approval of this project to the full ANC. However, the Committee notes that nearby neighbors have raised concerns, mostly about construction issues. Therefore, the Committee requested that the applicant and the ANC provide an opportunity for the neighbor concerns to be raised before the full ANC makes its final decision.
The Chair asked if there was any new information regarding the application.
Commissioner Wright stated that she had two letters she would like read regarding the case.
Commissioner Wright stated that the first letter was from the Pennmark Condominium Board of Directors, where she also resides. The letter was as follows:
To Whom It May Concern:
The Pennmark Condominium Board of
Directors along with many concerned owners and residents met with Staunton
Development to discus the proposed development along
We acknowledge some benefits of the proposed developments. Additional daytime population is valuable to businesses, and this added density is appropriately close to the Metro. Furthermore, the architect’s work is known in the community and some residents trust her design ability and sensitivity to the character of the neighborhood.
However, there are several issues of great concern.
First is a concern about the
massing along
Second is the request for a parking
variance. Lack of parking is a growing
problem throughout the city, and Eastern Market is no exception. Residents worry that the additional office
space without code-required parking will worsen the parking situation and
potentially cause metered spaces to be extended further down
Third is a question of material quality. Generally, Pennmark owners welcome the proposed copper façade which would face our building. However, some question the durability of tile and worry that an entire elevation of title would not blend with the predominant brick surroundings and result in low-quality aesthetic.
Additional concerns include construction noise, staging, and access to the site, as well as a fear that zoning approval will set an undesirable precedent for future development applications.
Finally, all of these concerns are exacerbated by the impending development of Hines and the site behind Hines, for fear that parking, massing, and neighborhood character will incrementally deteriorate.
Thank you for consideration of these concerns.
Regards,
The Pennmark Board of Directors
The next letter is from Ann Parks Hawthorne Photographer and
is addressed to Mary Wright, ANC Representative,
Dear Ms. Wright:
Allow me to voice my concern that
the planned construction on
As I have told you previously, I am
supportive of the plans
Thank you for your good service with the ANC.
Sincerely,
Ann Hawthorne
The Chair asked the applicant if they had any new information to share with the Commission.
Ken Golding with Stanton Development stated he had letters
of support from the merchants on
Amy Weinstein, the architect, stated she could assure everyone that every effort would be made to not disrupt the activities of the businesses around the construction site.
Commissioner Glick stated he was concerned about the impact this project would have on parking in the area. The Chair responded to Commissioner Glick’s concern by stating that the parking issue had been thoroughly vetted during the Planning and Zoning Committee meeting.
Commissioner Jarboe stated he would be supporting the
application and wanted to note a couple of concerns of the neighbors that were
voiced during the Planning and Zoning meeting.
First was their concern that this project might cause
Commissioner Jarboe stated that, regarding the potential
precedent, he is considering this to be truly a special case and not setting a
precedent for any other development on Capitol Hill because this block is
different. He went on to say that most
of the double parking in the area is done on
The Chair stated that the recommendation comes from the
Planning and Zoning Committee, therefore no motion or second is needed. The Chair then asked all in favor of
supporting the application to raise their hands. The vote was
BZA# 17628, 323 C Street SE – Special exception and variance to allow addition to an existing flat (two-story dwelling)
Owners Paul and Christina
Wilson propose to re-build the rear of their three-story plus cellar row
dwelling. The re-build would comprise of an addition to the third floor and
cellar in the rear and a re-build of the first and second floors of the rear
façade. The applicants are not changing the floor plan of the building. The property is located in the R-4 Zone. A
special exception is required because the structure is an existing 2-unit flat
that is not in compliance with the lot occupancy regulation (currently at
62%). As the addition maintains the
existing footprint, the addition would have no impact on the air, light or
privacy of adjoining properties.
A variance is also needed
as the current structure has a FAR of 1.8 (the maximum allowed in the Capital
Interest Overlay) and the addition would increase the FAR to 1.86. The applicant states that the lot is odd
shaped due to the diagonal line on the west side or back of their property. The
applicant argues that this very minor increase in FAR. The size of the addition is necessary for the
rear façade to remain architecturally consistent and match with adjacent
properties in the neighborhood.
The Committee believes
that the applicant has met the test for a special exception for the lot
occupancy and the variance test for the minor increase in the FAR. The Committee therefore, with Commissioner Olson
recusing herself due to a possible conflict of interest, recommends it to the
full ANC for approval.
Commissioner Jarboe
mentioned that since the Chair has recused herself from this case, the
discussion should be turned over to the Commissioner Russell, the Vice
Chair. The Chair turned control of the
meeting over to Commissioner Russell.
The Vice Chair asked the
applicants if they had any new information regarding their application. There was no new information from the
applicants.
The Vice Chair asked if
there were any questions from the Commissioners. There were none. She then asked if there were any questions
from the neighbors of the applicants.
There were none.
The Vice Chair stated
that the matter comes from the Planning and Zoning Committee as a
recommendation needing no motion or be seconded. The Vice Chair than asked all in favor of
supporting the application to raise their hands. The vote was 7. The Vice Chair then asked all opposing the
application to raise their hands. The
vote was 1. The Vice Chair then asked
all wishing to abstain or to recuse themselves to raise their hands. The vote was 1. The motion passed by a vote of 7-1-1 to
support the application.
BZA #17637, 320 South Carolina Avenue SE – Variances from rear yard, court, and nonconforming structure requirements to allow addition to an existing single-family rear dwelling.
Commissioner Jarboe asked the Chair for permission to ask a procedural question of the applicant, which she granted.
Commissioner Jarboe stated that he had received a phone call from one of the applicant’s neighbors who said there was a possibility that the case would be postponed and he would like to understand from the applicant exactly where they were in this process. Commissioner Jarboe then asked the applicant if they were still going ahead with the hearing date of July before BZA.
Dennis Conners, the architect, stated that he and his client are thinking about possibly delaying their appearance before the BZA if they can not resolve some final design issues with the historic staff in sufficient time for the Office of Planning to get its report to BZA.
Commissioner Jarboe responded by asking if he was correct in stating that the applicant would not be requesting a delay by BZA. Mr. Conners responded that he was correct.
Commissioner Ostergaard continued to read the Planning and Zoning Committee Report:
Presenters: Dennis Conners; Architect and Simon & Robyn Hinson-Jones, owners. The owners are proposing to construct a partial 3rd floor addition to an existing 2-story SFD. The house is a non-conforming structure at 70.5% lot occupancy due to an existing non-conforming side court or “dogleg” that does not meet minimum width requirements. There also is an angled rear lot line which does not allow the existing dwelling to fully conform to the rear yard requirements under Section 404. Therefore the applicant is seeking relief to Sections 403, 404 & 406 of the zoning regulations.
The owners state that the addition will not adversely affect neighboring structures regarding light, air or privacy as those nearby units are taller than the applicant’s home. The addition will be substantially set back from the front of their house (20ft.) and will not affect the “scale, rhythm, and style” of the surrounding neighborhood. The owners have supplied copies of “sight-line” views of the proposed addition which does not appear to be seen from the street level.
One neighbor, Mr. Jeffry Marx of
The Chair asked the applicant if he had any new information regarding the application. Mr. Conners responded that Commissioner Russell has asked him at the Planning and Zoning Committee meeting to bring some photos that show the backyard area, which he submitted to the Commission.
The Chair asked if there were any comments from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Jarboe stated that he had new information regarding the application. Commissioner Jarboe stated that Mr. Marx had attempted to reach Commissioners to explain his position regarding the case and he was able to reach Mr. Jarboe. Commissioner Jarboe said he would attempt to relate his conversation with Mr. Marx to the Commissioners. Commissioner Jarboe stated that Mr. Marx said the applicants had told him that the applicant would be postponing the hearing and he, Mr. Marx, was very surprised to see the case move forward on the Commission’s agenda. He reiterated all of the concerns he had expressed at the Planning and Zoning meeting having to do with the structural issues and the potential impact on his building. Additionally, he expressed some concerns about the potential impact on his air and light on the bathroom window in his dogleg. Commissioner Jarboe stated that Mr. Marx would like to hire a structural engineer and a zoning lawyer to find out what his options were regarding this case, and was assuming he could do that prior to the case going to BZA.
Commissioner Jarboe stated that speaking as a Commissioner, he understood the issues of construction, but he did not think it would be applicable because this is an addition to one house and will not necessarily have any impact on abutting houses. Secondly, these construction issues are not in the ANC’s preview as far as the zoning case goes. Commissioner Jarboe went on to say that he was a little concerned that Mr. Marx was asking the applicant to hire a zoning lawyer so that he, Mr. Marx, could fight the zoning case, which is Mr. Marx business and not the applicant’s. Concerning air and light, Commissioner Jarboe stated he thinks there may be a potential issue regarding the window in the dogleg, but from what was shown on the drawings and what was shown at the Committee meeting, the window is fairly recessed into the dogleg. Commissioner Jarboe continued by saying that the only time direct light enters into the bathroom window is at limited times of the day. Therefore, he is not certain that adding an addition will have any impact on air and light, especially since this is on the north side and the sun is coming from the opposite direction. Thus, this addition will not cast a shadow on the back of the house. Therefore, he will be supporting the Committee’s report with the caveat that the applicant tries to workout remaining concerns as much as possible before the BZA hearing. If the applicant does postpone the case before BZA, it is understood that the applicant will come back before the Commission to present its case regardless of the vote taken tonight.
Commissioner Glick stated that he would have like to have seen letters from the neighbors and wanted to know if the case could be postponed until later. Commissioner Jarboe responded that the case is scheduled to be heard by BZA in July, and delaying the case would require a special meeting of the Commission. The Chair added that she thought the Commission had sufficient information upon which to vote on the case tonight.
The Chair asked if there were any additional comments from the Commissioners or the community. There were none.
The Chair stated that this matter comes as a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Committee it needs no motion or second. The motion carried, 7-0 with 1 abstention.
HPA# 07-267, 522 7th Street SE – The Church of
Latter-Day Saints – Teardown old non-historic church building and replace with
a much larger church structure.
Presenters: Kevin Shearer, Architect, and Bruce Degan,
Bishop. The applicants are members of
the
The Chair asked if the applicant was present and if so, was there any new information.
Mr. Kevin Shearer stood and stated that there was one correction in that the height of the steeple is 73.9 feet and the 138.25 feet was the elevational height from street level, and not the height of the steeple itself. Commissioner Jarboe asked Mr. Shearer what was the height of the roofline. Mr. Shearer responded that it was 45 feet. Mr. Shearer stated that they had taken into consideration the comments of the Commissioners from the Planning and Zoning meeting and had made some adjustments to their plans and had produced a new rendering of the plans. Mr. Shearer provided the Commissioners with a copy of the new plans, which included photographs of the existing structure and the neighborhood surrounding the structure.
Mr. Shearer stated that at the Planning and Zoning meeting the issue of massing was brought up, and as a matter-of-right they are well within the height and size with the building design. He went on to say that they are slightly increasing the footprint, but in doing so they are making some adjustments to the site by providing additional parking to alleviate concerns about parking. Additionally, they looked at the elevation because there were concerns from the Committee regarding the windows and they have redesigned them taking into consideration windows from structures in the local Capitol Hill area.
Commissioner Garrison asked Mr. Shearer if they had met with the Capitol Hill Restoration Society yet. The applicant informed the Commission that the Society reviewed the original plans the previous evening. Additionally, Mr. Shearer said he had sent an e-mail to Anne Brockett and found that she too is also on vacation. However, he had spoken with Jonathon Mellon at HPRB and informed him that would be submitting paperwork by July 15th for his review.
Mr. Shearer stated that his plans are conceptual and they are very much willing, over time leading up to the final design, to meet with the neighbors as a group to go over the final design and the materials that will be used in the construction.
The Chair informed the Commissioners of new information regarding her conversation with Jonathan Mellon at Historic Preservation who is currently handling this application. Mr. Mellon agreed with the Chair that the size and scope of the project is out of character for the neighborhood and at this point the staff recommendation was to not recommend the approval before HPRB. The Chair went on to say that this would have to be worked out in great deal over a period of time.
Commissioner Garrison asked if the people at Historic Preservation had seen the new plans. Mr. Shearer stated that they had not.
The Chair asked if there was any new information or comments from the community.
Mr. Mike Qualter, a member of the church, asked the Chair when she speaks about size and scope, if she was talking about height or expanse as well. The Chair responded that the concerns are for both height and expansiveness, and the overall placement of the structure in the Historic District and how it architecturally works size wise with the surrounding buildings.
Ms. Shonna Homes, a member of Capitol Hill Restoration Society Committee, stated that they have not seen the revised plans by were eager to talk with the architect and the church about the new design work. Ms. Homes went on to say that the Committee shares some of the same concerns the Commission has voiced regarding the project.
Commissioner Ostergaard asked if the applicant had letters of support for the project. Mr. Shearer stated they do not. The church has been discussing the plans with the neighbors but Mr. Shearer thought it was premature to try to get with all the neighbors to discuss the plans until they were more final in nature. However, the church does plan to meet with neighbors as a group.
Mr. Shearer asked for a better understanding regarding the Commission’s concern about the massing issue because the proposed design is an attempt to provide space to provide for parking while respecting the design of the surrounding Capitol Hill neighborhood.
Commissioner Jarboe asked Mr. Shearer if he had gone over the plans in detail with the HPRB. Mr. Shearer responded that on May 24th they submitted their plans to HPRB and he has not had an opportunity to meet with them to review the plans in detail. Commissioner Jarboe suggested that they are not ready to go before HPRB at the end of the month, because he thinks there are too many details they still need to workout and that also sounds like where the HPRB staff is on the case. Therefore, if they went to HPRB this month, Commissioner Jarboe was of the opinion that HPRB would recommend to not approve their request. Commissioner Jarboe then suggested they consider pulling this application from the June HPRB agenda and to work with HPRB and CHRS staff to workout the details of the design.
The Chair stated she would definitely like to see the applicant hold off until September to allow them to have time to meet with the neighbors, CHRS and HPRB to discuss the plans. Mr. Qualter stated that the church would definitely be meeting with the neighbors as a group to discuss their plans.
Commissioners Garrison and Glick both recommended to Mr. Shearer that they consider delaying their case until September which would give them more time to properly review their plans with their neighbors, HPRB and CHRS because as the case stands, they would not be willing to support it as presently presented.
Mr. Shearer stated he agreed and he had hoped that they would be able to get from the Commission recommendations on how they could move forward with HPRB and CHRS. Commissioner Garrison stated that the Commission was expecting the applicant to have already met with HPRB and CHRS to get their comments prior to coming before the Commission.
Commissioner Ostergaard stated he was excited to see their plans to take down to old building and replacing it with something more attractive and he appreciated their responsiveness to comments from the Planning and Zoning Committee meeting last week. Commissioner Ostergaard went on to say that he thought it was critical that the applicant allows the neighbors to comment on their plans and he would be supportive of the plans as long as HPRB, CHRS and the neighbors have no major objections.
Commissioner Glick made the motion that the Commission amends the Planning and Zoning Report to recommend that HPRB postpone this case to allow the applicant time for further discussions with the community regarding the design. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Garrison.
The Chair asked all in favor of the new recommendation to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (9-0).
HPA #06-179, 225 7th Street SE – Review of
Eastern Market Restoration Plan – Office of Property Management
The Office of Property Management had appeared before the
ANC to present a rehabilitation plan to the Eastern Market prior to the fire of
* Restoration of South Hall roof assembly
* Addition of exterior building lighting
* Sited alterations, west side
* Restoration of fire-damaged windows and doors
* HVAC distribution, South Hall
* Interior lighting, South Hall
* Replacement of South Hall floor
* Basement renovation
* Energy Efficiency improvements
The plan now is to restore the Market to the 1886 detail, incorporate the original skylights, continuous ridge vents and chimneys. The internal roof trusses have suffered enough fire damage so that they are no longer able to support the roof. OPM proposes to design new structural trusses to resemble the originals, remove damage trusses and replace every other one with the new trusses keeping (8) those as historic non-structural elements.
The plan also includes new lighting on the exterior in the tree boxes at the North Hall, exterior lighting at entrances to the South Hall, new air intake vents approximately 10 ft. tall against the Natatorium wall.
The Committee believes that the city should take advantage of this opportunity and pursue a restoration of the building as proposed by OPM. Therefore, the Committee recommends that the ANC support this HPA application.
The Chair asked if there were any new information on the case. Aimee Occhetti from the Office of Property Management stated there was none.
Commissioner Jarboe stated there would be a special EMCAC
meeting this Thursday, here in the
Commissioner Jarboe then stated that the EMCAC recommendation is that the Special Events Lights only be wired and turned on for special events and that other more traditional globe lights be used during the normal times (nightly). These lights will provide some security lighting.
The second item Commissioner Jarboe mentioned was the discussion as to whether or not the skylights along the rooflines were actually part of the original structure. He went on to say that it appears the skylights were included in the original plans but it is unclear whether they were actually installed. The Tenants Council has risen the issue having to do with light coming through the proposed skylights onto the food and whether this would be a problem or not. Commissioner Jarboe asked if there was a FDA regulation regarding the proper preservation of fresh food as to whether or not the produce and/or meats would be washed out by the sunlight. The Tenants Council recommendation is that the skylights be installed, but they be allowed to be covered up, if they turns out to be a problem.
Ms. Occhetti stated the architects were aware of the concerns and are studying the issue before making a final determination.
Commissioner Jarboe made the motion that the Commission amend the Planning and Zoning Report to support the recommendation that alternative outdoor lighting be installed on the North Plaza for special events and that standard lighting for everyday (night) security lighting also be installed in that area, and that the architect be made aware of the vendor’s concerns about the potential negative impact of direct sunlight from the proposed skylights upon their food items. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Russell.
The Chair asked the vote. The motion carried 8-0-1.
ZC Case # 07-15
(Including Accessory Structures in §223 Special Exception)
The Chair turned the discussion over to Commissioner Jarboe.
Commissioner Jarboe stated that the Commission discovered earlier this year that the BZA had changed its interpretation of the regulations by treating detached garages as auxiliary structures, thus requiring a variance rather than a special exception. Commissioner Jarboe went on to say that the Commission had traditionally treated detached garages as needing only a special exception. This Zoning Commission case was triggered by a request from the Office of Planning to change the regulations to once again require additions and auxiliary structures to be treated needing a special exception for lot occupancy. Commissioner Jarboe was of the opinion that this would solve the problems the Commission had discussed numerous times. He made the motion that the Commission support the Office of Planning proposal. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Garrison.
The Chair asked if there was any discussion from the other Commissioners. There was none. The Chair then asked if there was any community discussion and there was none.
The Chair asked all in favor of supporting the motion to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (7-0).
ZC Case # 04-33B (Inclusionary Zoning – Addition of R-2 Zones Standards for Certain Overlays, and Clarifying Amendments)
Commissioner Jarboe stated that this case was a reaffirmation of a vote the Commission took last September when the Commission expressed its support for the proposed Inclusionary Zoning policy with the exception that the Commission opposed the application of any additional bonus density on the 8 Street Overlay District. Commissioner Jarboe stated that the reason the overlay was installed in the first place was to limit the height of buildings next to the Navy Yard and Latrobe Gate, a historic area. The height limit was set at 45 feet. This ZC case would allow the height to go up to 55 feet under Inclusionary Zoning, and since Inclusionary Zoning is mandatory, any residential building there could add an extra floor, notwithstanding the overlay height limit. Commissioner Jarboe went on to say that it is something the Commission voted in September to oppose and he made the motion that the Commission reiterated its opposition to this aspect of the proposal.
Commissioner Garrison asked Commissioner Jarboe why the need for the Commission to reiterate its opposition to this matter. Commissioner Jarboe stated that the matter is coming before the Zoning Commission as a stand alone case separate from the earlier case. Commissioner Jarboe went on to say that when the Commission took the vote in September it was addressing a different case. In order to be sure the ZC understood the ANC’s wishes, he proposed that the Commission restate its opposition.
The Chair asked if there was any discussion from the Commissioners. There was none. The Chair then asked if there was any discussion from the community on the case and there was none.
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 Commission Wright the Chair of the ABC Committee to make her report.
Commissioner Wright read the report that stated the
following establishments appeared before the Committee to have their License Renewals:
Lic# 26006 Banana Café and Piano bar,
Lic# 60779, Belga Café,
Lic# 60421, Starfish Café,
Lic# 60689, Capitol Hill Tandoor and Grill,
Lic# 60805, Finn MacCool’s,
Lic# 16357, La Lomita,
Lic# 60596, New York Pizza,
Lic# 26739, Sizzling Express,
Lic# 6858,
Lic# 23567,
Lic# 60383, Tunnicliff’s Tavern,
Lic# 74926, Zack’s,
Lic# 259, Mr. Henry’s,
Lic# 8946, Traltoria Alberto,
The above applicants appeared before the ABC Committee and are in compliance with ABC regulations. The ABC Committee therefore recommends support of their license renewals upon the execution of a cooperative agreement.
The Chair asked if there were any representatives for the mentioned establishments present.
Mr. George Zamorano, the owner of both the Banana Café and Starfish Café, was present.
Commissioner Wright asked if he had signed the Cooperative Agreement that was given to him at the ABC Committee meeting.
Mr. Zamorano responded that he had signed the agreement for Starfish, but had a problem with the agreement for the Banana Café regarding live music. Mr. Zamorano stated that the Banana Café also has piano bar. The Cafe has been operating as such for 13 years, has been very respectful of the neighborhood and never had any problems. Therefore he is reluctant to sign the agreement prohibiting live music.
The Chair stated that the Commission would revise the agreement to allow for live music and he can sign it later. Mr. Zamorano stated he would be willing to sign the revised agreement.
Commissioner Jarboe made the motion that the Commission amend the report to state that the Commission supports the changes to Banana Café and Piano Bar’s Cooperative Agreement to allow the existing entertainment to continue. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Ostergaard. The Chair then asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (9-0).
The Chair then asked for the representatives from Finn MacCool’s to come forward. The Chair stated that there was some new information regarding their establishment in that the Commission realized it already had a Cooperative Agreement with them. The representative stated that they also had a problem with one of the provisions in the Cooperative Agreement regarding their ability to have both amplified and live music at the establishment.
Commissioner Jarboe made the motion that the Commission revise the Cooperative Agreement to allow for music that exists in the prior agreement. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright.
The Chair asked all in favor to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (9-0).
Commissioner Glick commented that he was dissatisfied to see how Finn MacCool’s had been placing table and chairs in the area near the tree box, which was causing the pedestrian public to walk around the tables and chairs into the tree box area. The Chair stated that the Committee had discussed this situation with the applicant at the last meeting and corrective actions have been taken to prevent this from happening in the future.
One other gentleman representing Finn MacCool’s stated that they had received a letter for Public Space allowing them to use the tree box in front of their establishment. Commissioner Glick responded that he found it very hard to believe that Public Space would allow such a thing, and in fact, if this was true they would be the only establishment in the city that is allowed to do so. Commissioner Glick stated that he would like to see a copy of their letter from Public Space regarding this issue before he would believe the statement is true.
The representative of the Sizzling Express come before the Commission and presented their signed copies of their Cooperative Agreement.
Mr. Cheung the owner of Szechuan House Restaurant come before the Commission and as requested at the ABC Committee meeting, provided the Commission with a copy of his old Cooperative (Voluntary) Agreement that was signed in 1997. Mr. Cheung also provided the Commission with a copy of his license certificate, which indicated that their name change was in effect to operate as Szechuan House Fusion Grill.
Commissioner Glick asked Mr. Cheung if he was operating as a nightclub with dancing. Mr. Cheung responded that they do not allow any dancing, now, and there do not have admission charges.
The owner of
Commissioner Jarboe explained that he was not sure of the
ramifications of allowing an establishment to sign a one-year Cooperative
Agreement, which would entail the establishment having to sign a new agreement
each year. Additionally, he does not
have any reason to oppose the renewal of their license. However, he would like to move this case into
the category of “taking no position” on this case on the report. This will allow the Commission to not file a
protest against their application, effectively supporting their renewal. Commissioner Jarboe made the motion that the
Commission move
The Chair asked all in favor of the motion to say yea. The motion passed unanimously.
Tunnicliff’s Tavern was not present and did not have a signed Cooperative Agreement on file. Commissioner Jarboe made the motion to move this case to the “take no position” category on the report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright.
The Chair asked all in favor of the motion to say yea. The motion passed unanimously.
The owner of Traltoria Alberto, Ramon Buruca, provided the Commission with an executed copy of his Cooperative Agreement, with a few modifications. Commissioner Jarboe made the motion that the Commission amend the Cooperative Agreement to support the changes Mr. Buruca has made to reflect the existing endorsements. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright.
The Chair asked all in favor of the motion to say yea. The motion passed unanimously.
The Chair then stated that the Commission was recommending the support of the renewal of the license for Traltoria Alberto with the execution of a Cooperative Agreement as amended. The Chair then asked all those in favor to raise their hands. The vote was 9-0. The Chair then asked all in opposition to raise their hands. The vote was 0. The motion passed unanimously (9-0).
Lic# 60779, Belga Café,
Lic# 60390,
Lic# 16357, La Lomita,
Lic. # 60422, Mortmarte –
Lic# 60596, New York Pizza,
Lic# 29448, Park Café,
Lic# 72017, Sonoma Restaurant,
Lic# 11596, Thai Roma,
Lic# 23567,
Lic# 60383, Tunnicliff’s Tavern,
Lic# 71973, Ugly Mug,
Lic# 74926, Zack’s,
The above applicants did not attend the ABC committee meeting. Therefore, the ABC Committee takes no position regarding the renewal of their licenses.
Bart Vandaele, the owner of Belga Café rose and explained to the Commission his regret for not being able to attend the ABC Committee meeting because he arrived after the meeting had concluded. He went on to say all of his paperwork was in order and that he had previously signed a Cooperative Agreement.
Commission Ostergaard made the motion to support Belga Café’s application for the renewal of their license. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jarboe.
The Chair asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The motion passed unanimously (9-0).
Commissioner Hill stated that La Lomita was not present at the meeting, but the establishment is in his SMD and he was not aware of any complaints or problems associated with their operations. Commission Hill went on to say that La Lomita has already signed a Cooperative Agreement.
Commissioner Hill then stated that the same is true for New York Pizza regarding complaints and signed Cooperative Agreement, and supports the renewal of their license.
Commissioner Jarboe made the motion that the Commission support both La Lomita and New York Pizza’s application for renewal of their licenses. The motion was seconded by commissioner Ostergaard.
The Chair asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The motion passed unanimously (9-0).
The Chair stated that the motion is to take no position on the above establishments except for Belga Café, La Lomita, and New York Pizza and all those in favor to raise their hands. The motion passed unanimously (9-0).
Lic# 3812, Las Placitas,
The applicant didn't appear before the ABC Committee and concerns were expressed regarding their encroachment onto public space, violating their permit and ABC license. The ANC will not support their renewal until the public space and ABC issues are rectified.
The Chair stated that she had spoken with the owner about the public space issue and they have removed the tables that were causing the problem.
Commissioner Jarboe asked if Las Placitas had executed a Cooperative Agreement. It was determined that they had not. Commissioner Jarboe then made a motion to support their application pending the execution of the agreement. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright.
The Chair stated that there was a motion to support the application pending the execution of a Cooperative Agreement and asked all in favor to raise their hands. The motion passed unanimously (9-0).
Approval of Committee Minutes
Commissioner Garrison made the motion to approve the April and May Commission minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jarboe.
The Chair asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The motion passed unanimously (9-0).
Adjournment
There was not further business and Commissioner Hill made
the motion that the meeting be adjourned until its next meeting date of
Meeting Adjourned.
Prepared by
Attested: