Advisory Neighborhood
Commission 6B
Minutes of Regular
ANC Meeting
November 14, 2006
Commissioners
Present: Julie Olson, Will Hill, Antonette Russell, Francis Campbell, Scott
Cernich, David Garrison, Mary Wright, and Executive Director, Bert
Randolph. Commissioners Ken Jarboe and
Neil Glick arrived late.
Commissioners Absent:
Sandra Thomas
Chairperson Scott Cernich chaired the meeting and the
Commissioners introduced themselves.
There was a quorum for conducting business.
Adoption of Agenda
There were no additions or changes to the agenda. The Chair moved that the agenda be adopted as
presented. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Hill. There were no
objections and the agenda was adopted as presented.
Community Speakout
Jeff Davis, Ward 6 Neighborhood Planner with the DC Office
of Planning announced that they in conjunction with the Downtown Business
Improvement District (BID), are leading a strategy
planning process to develop a new action agenda for
This new agenda will establish a new set of five-year goals
and develop a list of key strategic initiatives that can be initiated over the
next 18-months in order to achieve those goals.
The goals will be accompanied by a series of performance measures to
ensure progress towards those goals. In
addition, this effort expands the planning area to encompass a broader
definition of the center City – an area stretching from
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 6, 2006, at
Mr. Davis also announced that the Office of Planning would hold
a Community Charrette for the Pennsylvania Avenue Corridor Land Development
Plan at the
Mr. Patrick Crowley is with the Association for the
Preservation of Historic Congressional Cemetery, which is located on the corner
of Capital Hill. He announced that next
year the Cemetery will be celebrating its 200th Anniversary. In conjunction with this event they are
planning a big festival for that May and a commemorative event for
September. They are applying for grants
from the Anacostia Waterfront and the DC Historic Preservation Office’s Grant
Program. They are applying for
$19,000.00 from the DCHP group and DCPH is requesting letters of support from
various community and other groups regarding their grant application. He provided the Commissioners with a packet
outlining the grant application, their organization and descriptions of the
activities they have planned to celebrate this great anniversary.
The Chair made the motion to submit a Letter of Support in
support of their grant application. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Olson.
The Chair then asked all in favor of the motion to raise their
hands. The vote was unanimous (7-0).
Mr. Calvin Gladney, Vice President of the Anacostia
Waterfront Corporation, announced that they will be hold a public meeting to
update the community on the status of predevelopment activities and
implementation of the Hill East Waterfront Master Plan. The meeting will be held on Wednesday,
November 15th, from 6:00 pm until 9:00 pm, at the Eastern Senior
High School Auditorium, which is located at
A lady representing the neighborhood group located in
Commissioner’s Glick SMD rose and stated that her neighborhood was experiencing
a large amount of drug trafficking in their neighborhood and she is asking for
advice in help to get the problem cleaned-up.
Additionally, she had a petition and asked those interested in helping
to address the problem and who live on
The Chair asked if she and her group had attended the PSA
meetings in her area. She responded that
her husband, who is an ex-police office, had and he felt his reception was
lukewarm.
Commissioner Glick informed her that the Commission had
requested stop signs for 16th and
Battalion Chief Paul Jones of the Engine 8 at
Community and
Commission Announcements
Ms. Patti Shea, a coordinator for PSA 105, announced that
due to the increase in car break-ins in the area, they will be holding a
meeting on November 18th at the substation, located at 5th
and E Street, SE, at 10:00 a.m. to discuss this situation and all interested
parties are invited.
Mr. Juan-Jose Garza announced that Mayor-elect Adrian Fenty
will be conducting a Town Hall Meeting on Tuesday, November 28th, at
6:30 p.m. at the King Greenleaf Recreation Center at 201 N. Street, SW, to
discuss the future of the community. For
more information, please contact Mr. Garza at 202.478.9214 or www.fentytransition.org.
The Chair announced that DC Community Heritage Project, an
initiative of the Humanities Council of Washington, DC and the DC Office of
Planning Historic Preservation Office will be conducting a December Symposium
on Saturday, December 2, 2006, at 9:30 a.m. until 3:00 p.m.. The meeting will be held at the
There is no cost to attend.
RSVP requested by November 27, 2006 by contacting dcnhistoryproject@wdchumanities.org
or call 202.387.8391.
Presentations
None
Planning and
Zoning Committee
The Chair announced that the Commission would first hear the
case of
HPA# XX_XXX,
Megan Walsh of Megan Walsh Architects / Carol
Commissioner Campbell asked if there was any new
information. Ms. Walsh stated that there
was none. He then asked if anyone in the
community had any comments or questions regarding the case. There were none.
The Chair stated that the recommendation from the Committee
comes in the form of a motion requiring no second. He then asked all in favor of accepting the
Committee recommendation to raise their hands.
The vote was unanimous (8-0).
PS # 22588, 1391
This is an application for the installation of paving below
grade entry plaza, steps, planter, retaining wall, planting areas, railing,
fences and up-lighting (Potomac Avenue side) of the project. No one was present at the Planning and Zoning
Committee meeting on November 9, 2006, thus no action was taken.
Commissioner Campbell asked if anyone was present to
represent this case.
Mr. Carlos Bonner with JPI was present. He was asked to provide the Commission with
details regarding the project, which he did.
Commissioner Jarboe asked about the plans for the putting a
café in the corner of the structure and seating on the outside. He responded that the café and seating were
still part of the plans. Commissioner
Jarboe then asked about security and lighting in and around the structure. Mr. Bonner responded that there will be
security access devices and security lighting on the exterior of the building
complex. Additionally, he thought that
Harris Teeter would have its own security systems.
After being satisfied with the information presented,
Commissioner Olson made the motion to support the public space
application. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Hill. The Chair then asked
all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (8-0).
HPA #
Eric West, owner and Walter Veney, Contractor appeared
before the Committee on October 3, 2006 and at the ANC on October 10, 2006. The
ANC took no action on the project because all the paperwork requested was not
submitted. The applicant again appeared
at this P&Z Committee on November 9, 2006 with the plans of his proposed
addition. The applicant did state that
he had letters of support from the neighbors and they had been previously
submitted to Anne Brockett at HPRB. The
applicant was instructed to return to the Full ANC Meeting on November 14, 2006,
with additional information; site plans, rear elevation plans and copies of the
support letters. Pending the submission
of these documents the Committee would recommend the approval of this project
to the full ANC.
Commissioner Campbell asked if the representatives were
present. Mr. West and Veney rose to
address the Commission. Commissioner
Campbell asked if they had brought the necessary paperwork as requested. Mr. West responded that he had and presented
the information to the Commissioners.
The Chair asked if there was any new information or comments
or questions from anyone regarding this project. There were none. The Chair then stated that the recommendation
from the Committee comes in the form of a motion requiring no second. He then asked all in favor of accepting the
Committee recommendation to raise their hands.
The vote was 8-0-1.
HPA 305-481,
Sarah Stauterman is the owner. The owner appeared before the Committee in
October 4, 2005 and before the full ANC on October 11, 2005. The project was approved and sent to HPRB,
which requested significant changes to the project. The owner and architect then revised those
plans significantly requiring their appearance once again before this
Committee. The new project is 3 stories
in the rear measuring 20ft.by 33ft.at its
deepest. The rear wall now uses new
designs to create setbacks at each floor with triangular decks at each level
covered with open trellises. The owner
proposes to build a new structure with a green roof incorporating plantings
into the design of the trellis. There is
one other significant change. The owner is asking to be allowed to remove a
large portion of the gable roof to accommodate the side gable roof. This would not be visible from the front of
the property. Although this would result
in the removal of a very large portion of the roof, the Committee finds no
cause to object, as it again will not be visible or change the character of the
front of the house. The owner and
architect have submitted alternative plans for the addition and the Committee
finds no cause to object to either proposal.
Given the applicant’s history and willingness to work with each agency
and neighbors in modifying her plans to accommodate their concerns, the
Committee has no objection recommending this project to the full ANC for
approval.
Commissioner
Campbell asked Ms. Stauterman if she had anything new to add to the case. She responded that she did not. He then asked if there was anyone in the
audience had any comments for or against the project. There were none. Ms. Stauterman introduced her neighbor who
lives on the south side of her.
Commissioner Campbell asked him if he had any concerns. He responded that he did not.
The Chair stated that the recommendation from the Committee
comes in the form of a motion requiring no second. He then asked all in favor of accepting the
Committee recommendation to raise their hands.
The vote was unanimous 9-0.
BZA #17537, 740 13th Street,
SE
Requesting special
exception not meeting lot occupancy and variance from limitation on the number
of stories, to construct a 4-story rear addition to a flat (two-family
dwelling).
No one was present
at the Planning and Zoning Committee meeting, therefore no action was taken.
Commissioner
Campbell asked if anyone representing the case was present.
Mr. Victor Tabbs,
the property owner, rose to address the Commissioners. Mr. Tabbs stated that he was in the process
of constructing a 3-story plus a cellar rear addition onto his property when in
May an inspector stopped him because it addition went out 4 feet to far. This meant that he was at 64% of lot
occupancy. Thus he was instructed to
make an application with BZA for lot occupancy exception, which he did.
The Chair asked Mr.
Tabbs to explain is case to the Commissioners.
Mr. Tabbs presented
the Commissioners with photos of the build as it currently stands. He stated the city submitted a letter to BZA
for a variance and to his understanding it should not be for a variance,
because the addition does not exceed the height requirement. He stated the property is described as a
three-level plus a cellar and he could go up to 40 feet in height and use 60%
of the lot occupancy.
Commissioner
Campbell asked Mr. Tabbs what was his current lot occupancy with the inclusion
of his rear addition. He responded that
it was 64% and added that BZA could approve up to 70%. Commissioner Jarboe added that the approval
of up to 70% would be as a special exception.
Mr. Tabbs went on to say that he was not sure about the need for a
variance, thus he was applying for a special exception and not a variance.
Commissioner Jarboe
explained that the paperwork received from BZA stated that case was for both a
special exception for lot occupancy and a variance for height.
Mr. Tabbs responded
that BZA had sent out a correction notice to address this error and provided
the Commission with a copy of the notice to review.
Commissioner Jarboe
asked Mr. Tabbs what was the height of the new addition to the rear of the
structure. Mr. Tabbs responded that it
would be 38 feet. Commissioner Jarboe,
after looking at the correction notification paperwork, stated that it seem to
add the special exception and keep the variance.
Commissioner Olson
then stated that one document is dated June 16, 2006 and the other is dated
October 7, 2006, which means it supersedes the other. However, Mr. Tabbs stated that city did not
change the date on the June 16th document. He went on to say that he was issued the
document the first of October, but they did not change the date on the notice
provided to him.
Commissioner Jarboe,
after looking at the file, stated that the Commission did have a corrected
notice, but it is for both a variance and special exception. Commissioner Cernich added that the variance
was due to the fact that it was for a 4-story rear addition. Mr. Tabbs responded that the city is telling
him that it is a 3-story plus a cellar.
Commissioner Cernich then read the language of the BZA notice which did
specify that it was for a variance from the limitation on the number of stories
under subsection 400.1, to construct a four (4) story rear addition to a flat
(two-family dwelling).
Mr. Tabbs responded
that the current structure is two-story and he is adding one additional story
in the rear plus the cellar, which means it will be 3-stories and not 4-story.
Commissioner Cernich
stated that BZA considers the structure to be 4-story, thus the need for the
variance. Commissioner Cernich stated
that the problem is that the basement (cellar) has such a height that it is
being considered a first floor meaning the other floors will make it a 4-story
structure.
Commissioner
Garrison asked Mr. Tabbs if he had letters of support from his neighbors. He responded that he did and that they were
part of Commission’s file.
The Chair recognized
Mr. Bryan Cassidy to speak regarding the addition.
Mr. Cassidy stated
that he was in opposition to the case and had signatures from neighbors in the
area who also are opposed to it. He
stated that the new structure would in fact be a 4-story building.
Commissioner
Garrison asked Mr. Cassidy if the was arguing that the addition would be higher
than the 40 feet allowed. He responded
that he was not and that the building was within regulations.
A homeowner who
lives at
Commissioner Cernich
stated that the applicant has not presented to the Commission any reason why a
variance should be supported in this case. It was clear under the special
exception rule that the addition would block air and light and there is
continuing problem with illegal construction.
He went on to say that approving a project after the fact, when someone
has already constructed something that does not comply with the law or requires
a special exception or variance, continues to concern him and he does not
believe the behavior should be rewarded.
Therefore, he will oppose the application.
Commissioner Jarboe
stated that he does not have a problem with the special exception and is
willing to compromise on that because at 64% the Commission routinely allows
people to go up to 70% lot occupancy.
However, the variance is what troubles him the most. He would strongly oppose the variance because
it does not meet the uniqueness that is required for approval.
Commissioner Jarboe
made the motion that the Commission approve the special exception, but oppose
the variance. He further stated that he
was open to an amendment on his motion for those who would like to oppose the
special exception. The Chair recommended
that the variance and special exception be taken up as separate issues. Commissioner Jarboe then made the motion that
Commission oppose the variance based upon the fact
that the project does not meet the test for variance. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Cernich. The Chair asked all in favor of
opposing the variance to raise their hands.
The vote was unanimous (9-0).
Commissioner Cernich made the motion to oppose the special
exception. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olson. The Chair
asked all in favor of opposing the special exception to raise their
hands. The vote was 3 in favor of opposing the special exception and the
motion failed. Commissioner Jarboe then made the motion that the
Commission supports the special exception. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Russell. The Chair then asked all in favor of the motion to
raise their hands. The vote was 4 in favor and the motion failed.
Thus the ANC takes no action on the special exception application.
BZA #17548, 430 – 434 First Street,
SE, - American Trucking Association –
The applicant seeks a variance from floor area
requirements (FAR) and a variance from nonconforming structure to
construct an addition and undertake a renovation of an existing nonconforming
office building.Kenlie Dumas presented A.T.A.’s request for a variance for a
nonconforming structure. ATA wants to fill in the open office space of the
building at
The H.P.R.B. hearing was on October 26, 2006 and no issues
or objections regarding this project were raised. The owners have met with DDOT
and with community members and have shown letters of support for the project.
The roof deck has been set back approximately 18ft. and is not visible from the
opposite side or stoop of the building across the street. It is the
recommendation of the Committee to forward this to the full ANC for approval.
Commissioner Campbell asked if there was any new information
regarding this case. There was none.
The Chair stated that the recommendation from the Committee
comes in the form of a motion requiring no second. He then asked all in favor of accepting the
Committee recommendation to raise their hands.
The vote was 8-0-1.
BZA #17541, 214 S. Carolina Ave. SE – (Capitol Hill Day
School) – Special exception to allow continued operation of private school for
30 students in pre-kindergarten through eighth grade and five (5) faculty and
staff members in the basement through the 2nd floor entrance.
Applicant request a variance to continue to use 214, a
residence, as a one classroom school for no more than 30 students and approved
staff for a period of 10 years. The Committee has no objection to this use as
requested therefore the Committee recommends this project to the full ANC for
approval.
Commissioner
Campbell asked if there was any new information regarding this case. There was no new information.
The Chair stated that the recommendation from the Committee
comes in the form of a motion requiring no second. He then asked all in favor of accepting the
Committee recommendation to raise their hands.
The vote was unanimous 9-0.
BZA #17540, 210 S. Carolina Ave SE.- (Capitol Hill Day
School) variance from lot occupancy, rear yard and parking requirements and
special exception to allow construction of an addition to the private school
.
Presenting: Winfield Sealander, Facilities Chair of
C.H.D.S.; Architects, David Cox & Jerome Gray of Cox, Gray and Spack;
Catherine Peterson, Head of C.H.D.S.; Chuck Schwartz, Chairman of Board; and
Jacques DuPuy, Zoning Attorney.
C.H.D.S. has presented plans for variances from lot
occupancy, rear yard and a special exception to build an addition to their
private school. In summary C.H.D.S.
wishes to construct an addition to the DENT School adjacent to the present
school building, which was originally approved as a private school by BZA on
March 27, 1979, application #12860, and approved August 12,1988 application #
14780, as a private school for 225 students, 38 staff and 20 car parking spaces
and 3 bus spaces.
The proposes to build an addition that is to be located on
the eastern side yard of the DENT building between it and 214 but only
connected to the DENT building. It will
include 3 stories and a basement level that is to be constructed 17ft. below
ground. This will include a
multi-purpose room and a small stage with removable seating for 250. The 1st floor will have the
entryway, lobby, administrative office and 2 classrooms. The second floor will have administrative
offices and one classroom. The 3rd
floor will have 3 classrooms. Due to the
steep grade change between the existing property and 214, the 1st
floor is lower than the rear yard of 214.
There is currently a 10ft. retaining wall separating the properties in
the rear. A fire exit will be
constructed in the rear of the addition to access the rear yard. The rear parking lot will be restructured,
dropping to the rear grade as the existing alley necessitating removal of the
rear retaining wall between the rear yard and alley. There will again be no physical connection
between the addition and
Specifically the variance test is:
1) The
property must be unique because of size, shape, topography or other
extraordinary or exceptional situation or condition inherent in the property.
2) Applicant
must demonstrate that it will encounter practical difficulty if the zoning
regulations are strictly applied.
3) The
requested variances will not result in substantial detriment to the public good
or the zone plan. Further to prove the “practical difficulty” the applicant
must demonstrate that compliance with the area restriction would be
unnecessarily burdensome and that the practical difficulties are unique to the
property.
The school has no plans to increase enrollment, faculty or
staff with this proposal, and thus there is no adverse impact because of the
number of students or staff. The hours
of operation will not change from Monday through Friday 8:00am to 6:00pm. Regarding meetings held at the facility,
there are approximately three per month and no more than occasional weekend
activities with no more than 6 per year total.
The addition is to be located on property owned by the school with a
large section located underground. The
first floor will be at grade and below
the rear yard of the 214 property, and thus no imposition to adjacent properties
on the square. The second and third floor additions are set back comparable to
the rear of the back porch of the row houses east of 214.
Regarding the lot occupancy, presently the DENT building is at 42% and they are
seeking an increase to 67%. Regulations
state that private schools are allowed only 40% lot occupancy but public
schools, row houses, churches on properties in the
CAP/R4 are allowed 60% occupancy. C.H.D.S. sites that their facility, though is
not public or charter school, is identical in all aspects and therefore should
be allowed the maximum use of the lot occupancy as public or charter schools
have, up to 70% and as they are only asking for 67% should be granted the
variance.
Being that the property is small and that the Dent building
was built in 1900 and remains on the same lot it occupied In comparison to
modern schools, CHDS lacks space for modern play grounds or playfields. Owing
to the historic nature of the building, CHDS is restricted in the area and no playfield
can be constructed. With the footprint
of the proposed building, the front will be contiguous to the exiting row
houses and the rear first floor will be below grade of the adjacent homes and
invisible to them from their rear yards.
Thus, the
applicant argues that any potential impact is minimal or non-existent and as
such the variance should be granted as it will not impact these properties.
Lastly, the applicant
argues that the rear yard depth variance should be granted as the addition at
the first floor would be below grade relative to existing properties, and that
the second and third floors only extend to the same distance as other
properties on the square Further, no structure exists behind the school that
would prohibit the addition where the 10ft rear yard is proposed and as a
result of the buffer created by the alley the proposed addition would not
adversely affect properties located in the rear of the school across the
alley. It is based on these
conditions/facts that the Committee recommends this proposal to the full ANC
for approval.
Commissioner Campbell asked if there was any new information
regarding this case.
Mr. Sealander stated that there was new information based
upon the request that Commissioner Jarboe made for them to present any case law
that established a precedent for the granting a variance. He also stated that when they presented at
the Planning and Zoning Committee meeting there was some confusion regarding
their 255 student cap. They are allowed
30 students in the 214 building and 225 students in the Dent (210) building and
he would like to clarify those numbers.
He then turned the discussion over to their attorney Mr. DuPuy.
Mr. DuPuy stated that they did find two (2) institutional
uses in the R-4 on Capitol Hill in which lot occupancy variances were granted
by the BZA. The first was the
application of the National Republican Club of Capitol Hill, Application No.
14113, located at
Commissioner Jarboe stated that in one of the earlier cases
there was a finding by the BZA that the site was unique. Mr. DuPuy responded that it was the
application by the Day School for parking variances, which included variances
to provide smaller spaces than would normally apply. The variance under the requirement would be
for the screening of the parking areas and that each parking space would be
directly accessible from the street or alley.
Currently the spaces are stacked, and the finding was that the lot was
exceptionally small. Commissioner Jarboe
asked Mr. DuPuy if he was using that fact as the means of meeting the test of
uniqueness. Mr. DuPuy responded that it
was one of the reasons. The other was
the building itself is either unique or an exceptional circumstance because of
its configuration, age, condition, and structure.
Commissioner
Jarboe stated that in the previous case (BZA #17541) the Commission support was
simply a ten (10) year extension of the existing rules. The existing rules allowed for no more than
30 students to be in the 214 building at anytime. He went on to say that his understanding from
what BZA gave the Commission as the description was a special exception to
allow the continued operation of a private school for thirty (30) students in
pre-kindergarten through eighth grade and five (5) faculty and staff members in
the basement through the second floor.
What puzzles him was that the proposed conditions that were submitted
last week referenced eight (8) faculty
in the 214 building and then the proposed conditions for the combined project
refers to 35 faculty in the new structure and the Dent building and no more
than 43 faculty in the combined buildings. Commissioner Jarboe’s question was where
did the additional three (3) faculty come from.[DFG1]
Mr. DuPuy responded that the total number of faculty for the
school remains the same. Commissioner
Jarboe then asked Mr. DuPuy what was the actual number he was referring
to. He responded that it was 43. Commissioner Jarboe then stated that that was
his problem because the last time he checked the total number of faculty was
thirty-five (35) in Dent building and five (5) in the 214 building, which is a
grand total of 40. Mr. DuPuy responded
that there should be 38 in the Dent building.
Commissioner Jarboe stated that it must have been a typo because that is
not the number that was in the proposed set of conditions that was given to the
Commission at the Planning and Zoning Committee Meeting. Mr. DuPuy stated that it may be a typo and
that he had in fact rewritten the proposed conditions with respect to that item
to make it clear that there is a limitation on the 214 building and that there
is a overall aggregate limitation so that there is no confusion in the future
about the issue. Mr. DuPuy went on to
say that he thought the problem was that when the 214 was approved, the Dent
building had been approved years earlier, so that was not revisited or
analyzed. The application was only for
214 and as Commissioner Jarboe had indicated the Commission had approved the 30
staff and five (5) faculty members. Now
they want to make it clear that what BZA should approve and the community
should know about is the overall aggregate as well as the limitations on 214.
Commission Garrison stated that he wanted to focus on the
student count side of the issue. He said that according to his understanding of
the BZA cases that are relevant. the CHDS had gotten
approval from BZA at one stage to go from 200 to 225 students, and that was
approved when the parking situation was resolved. He went on to say that that was the last time
BZA spoke to the size of the student body for the school and based upon his
reading of the records. Commissioner Garrison said that he could find no evidence
in the BZA record that the number of students in the 214 building (30) was to
be added to the School’s cap of 225 for the overall number of students
in the school. It is his understanding that the maximum number of students
should be 225. Therefore, Commissioner
Garrison wanted to know if the School was requesting an increase in the cap for
the total number of students in institution from 225 to 255.
Mr. DuPuy responded that they disagree with Commissioner
Garrison’s analysis because the application itself is for thirty (30) students
and five (5) staff in to 214. He further
stated that Commissioner Garrison was correct in that the condition does refer
to the maximum number of students in the building at one-time, but the
application itself is for thirty (30) students and five (5) staff members, so
they read this as always being the intent and that is what BZA approved. His reasoning was that the 214 case came
years later than the last case involving the Dent building. BZA looked at each case independently and did
not look at them in aggregate.
Commissioner Garrison stated that his concern was about the
School’s desire to increase the student cap for the school. He said it had been his understanding that it
was the School’s plan to use the 214 building for additional classroom
space. He did not believe that there was
any indication that they had made any presentation to BZA that they will have a
school with 255 students and he does not see anything in the record regarding
this one point.
Mr. DuPuy responded that they disagree with his
assessment. In fact, it has been known
by the community what the overall cap was and they had talked about it (the
cap) in their neighborhood quarterly meetings.
Mr. Sealander stated that since he has been a member of the
board they have operated under the assumption that they had a 255 student
cap. He added that since 1995 they have
gone from a high of 244 students to a low 222 students and they have always
operated under the understanding that there cap was 255 students. He went on to say that it was the first time
he had heard any discussion that the cap may be in question.
Commissioner Jarboe stated that in reviewing his records, he
did find the additional three (3) staff persons, so the cap on the faculty in
the Dent building is 38 and five (5) in the 214 building for a total of 43
total faculty members.
Commissioner Garrison asked about the landscaping that is
proposed along
Mr. Cox, the architect, reviewed the various graphical
drawings (site plans) that illustrated the landscape treatment that will be put
in place. He stated they have not yet
picked the specific type of plants that will be placed in the area, but their
objective is to have plants in place to block headlights from intruding into
neighboring property. He added that the
whole idea of rearranging the parking is to allow for the cars to be pulled
head in so that the headlights are facing toward the building.
Commissioner Garrison asked Mr. Sealander to elaborate on
their plans for utilization of
Mr. Sealander stated that part of their cooperative efforts
with the neighbors, it was brought up that if they were going to be allowed to
enhance their property then they should in turn enhance the park, which they
use for student recreation and he believed that it was a very valid point. Capitol Hill Day School uses the park
everyday Monday thru Friday, so they plan to augment their existing $5,000.00
per year support by increasing it to a $10,000.00 a year stipend for the
park. They also looked at ways that they
could strengthen the park going forward and it was decided between them and
some of the members of The Friends of Garfield Park, specifically Bill
Phillips, that what is really needed at the park is a master plan. So they are proposing that some of the
$10,000.00 would go toward developing a master plan for the park.
Commissioner Olson asked Mr. Sealander if he was proposing
that they give $10,000.00 per year to the park and also allocate funds for a
master plan.
Mr. Sealander responded that at this point the proposal is a
total of $10,000.00 for the park, which includes funding for a master plan. They
are not sure yet what the master plan process would cost.
Commissioner Campbell asked if there were any members of the
audience that had additional information they would like to present.
Mr. Albert Cantril who lives at
Mr. Harold Brazil stated that he was a neighbor, but not an
immediate one, and both of his children had attended Capitol Hill Day School
and he wanted to voice his strong support for Capitol Hill Day School and the
outstanding job it has and is doing in educating the children on Capitol Hill.
Mr. Brad Pine rose and addressed the Commissioners. Commissioner Campbell recognized Mr. Pine and
informed him that the Commission had received his letter, which is part of the
permanent file and was aware of his opposition to the plan. He asked Mr. Pine if there was any additional
information he would like to add.
Mr. Pine stated that the references to precedents as
mentioned by Mr. DuPuy, in both the Palmer and Gil Morton case were tried in
the DC Court of Appeal for zoning cases. He argued that it was determined by
the court that each zoning case should be considered and decided on its own merits. He argued that there were no particular set
of precedents that should apply here. He went on to say that both of these
cases are not comparable in terms of the scope and size of the percent
variance. Mr. Pine stated that it is his
estimation that the parking area is approximately 1500 square feet less parking
area as the new structure will take up part of the current parking area. Therefore, he could not understand how the
School could increase the number of parking spaces while reducing the square
footage for parking and he believes that this fact should change the scope of
the project. Mr. Pine disputed that
there is a requirement to have an elevator in the building to make it handicap
accessible.
Mr. Pine stated that, regarding the discussion the rights of a public schools, he feels that the Capitol Hill Day
School is an excellent school, but it is a private school. The Board of Zoning
Adjustment many not consider a given use as another use and that it may not
hypothesize about what a building might be if it was something else or what it
might get in regards to lot occupancy or variances if it was something else. He
went on to say that he did not think it would be appropriate for the Commission
to consider that as it makes its decision regarding the case. Mr. Pine then stated that home schools do not
get 70% by right, they get 60% by right and if they want to go over 60% they
must be shorter than 20 feet, which is what they have been asking in this case.
Ms. Pine stated the impact on neighboring property of such a
project should be minimal or non-existing.
His view is that the School proposes to move 40 foot or more closer to
his property, as well as closer to the entrance in the front, closer to the
kids, faculty, and visitors coming to the school.
Mr. Pine then asked to review the graphics of his backyard
view. He wanted to know if there would
be a window on the side and a rear entrance on the extension next to his
property. The architect responded that
there would not be any windows or doors facing him on the side and that the
entrance and windows would be in rear of the proposed building next to his
property and he stated that this was a direct request they made. Mr. Pine concluded his comments by stating
that he would like to see this project as being fair and balanced for all
involved.
Mr. Stan Kolbe, who lives at 215 E Street,
SE, stated that for 30 years he has represented the large construction
industry. He stated that at the last
meeting there was some discussion regarding the fact that there were a lot of
names on the petition opposing the expansion, but they were not in attendance
at the meetings. He reasoned that most
people in the neighborhood were of the belief that the expansion could not really
happen in their neighborhood. Secondly,
construction experts he knows in the city and in the historic district were of
the opinion that this expansion would not happen in this residential
neighborhood, so many residents were very complacent. Finally, he stated that some people in the
city government, which will remain unnamed, off the record said that there were
so many variances it will not happen.
He also voiced some concern about potential collapse of building while
doing excavation near historic building as another concern of neighbors. Mr. Kolbe then expressed his concern
regarding the potential collapse of the retaining walls during the construction
process.
The Chair informed Mr. Kolbe that he understood his concern
regarding the various issues he has raised, but none of them go to the issues
that are before the Commission that it must decide in regards to the standards
related to granting the variances. He
then asked Mr. Kolbe if he had anything that would have direct bearing on the
issues before the Commission.
Mr. Kolbe voiced some concern regarding the potential noise
associated with the HVAC unit that will be mounted on the roof. He then referenced that fact that the
National Cathedral wanted a huge addition to their athletic center, but the
neighbors say no. National Cathedral
decided to go down 60 to 65 feet down into the ground and built a world class
facility that does not impede the view or upset the structure of the
neighborhood. He further stated that
they had suggested doing something similar at this project, and that was not
seen as a creditable suggestion.
Commissioner Jarboe stated that everything the Commission
had heard during the meeting was how the people who opposed the expansion did
not want the excavation and how disruptive the excavation would be and now he
was telling the Commission that he wants to go down 60 feet to build the
expansion. Commissioner Jarboe went on
say that it appears that Mr. Kolbe wants to have it both ways and that is
impossible.
Mr. Jay Ellison, a member of the Board of Trustee with
Capitol Hill Day School, stated that he was in favor of the case as well as the
recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Committee. He stated they have over 200 students and
they could have brought signatures from a vast majority of the parents on a
petition to support the school’s expansion efforts, but they have voiced strong
support of the project. Additionally,
the school has been in consultation process for over the past 18 months and
they have held ten (10) meetings, and they have made every accommodation
feasible given the means of their school.
He finished by stating that he believes this is a living and growing
project and he asked the Commission for its support.
Commissioner Russell stated that the school is not ADA
compliant at this time and in order to make it compliant and remain a
functioning school they would need to add an elevator, which would mean the
lost of building space in a building that is already existing in a limited
space environment and there would be a need to add an elevator shaft on the
roof and it would obstruct the view of the neighbors. Additionally, their accreditation is up for
renewal next year and without the building being
After much discussion between the Commissioners regarding
the case, Commissioner Jarboe then addressed the applicants and stated that to
make the record clear, when the Commission voted on the special exception for
the townhouse (214), it was on extending the existing special exception with
the same exact conditions that applies to that special exception now. Therefore the Commission did not accept the
school’s proposed conditions for that particular special exception. Commissioner Jarboe stated that, regarding
the conditions the applicants proposed for the Dent building, he would make an
amendment that they be incorporated into the Commission’s proposal regardless of
the outcome of the final vote.
Commissioner Jarboe stated he would like to slightly change some of the
conditions because the townhouse was always meant to be temporary. This was due to the fact that the first
special exception was granted and the BZA case specifically states that “they
are granting it because it is a temporary nature”. The first approval was for five (5) years and
the next one was for ten (10) years and now we are looking at a request for
another ten (10) years. He further
explained that the way the proposed conditions are worded now, it puts all 255
students in the entire school. It is
currently now 225 students at the Dent building and 30 at the townhouse (214
building). If at some point the
townhouse exemption goes away and that goes back to being a residential unit,
he does not want the 30 students to be transferred over to the Dent
building. Specifically, he does not want
that to be a backdoor way of increasing the cap on the number of students in
the Dent building. Commissioner Jarboe
made the motion to amend the Committee Report with a proposal that the
Commission accept the proposed conditions that were passed out at the Planning
and Zoning Committee meeting with the change that number 2 be amended to say
“the number of students shall not exceed 255 provided that no more than 225 are
in 210 S. Carolina Avenue (Dent building) and 30 in the adjacent building at
214 S. Carolina Avenue. Additionally,
the first sentence in number 4 be amended to read “No more than thirty-eight (38)
faculty and staff shall be employed in the premises.” Commissioner Garrison seconded the motion.
The amended conditions are as follows:
The Chair then asked all in favor of Commissioner Jarboe’s
motion to amend the Planning and Zoning Committee Report to raise their
hands. The vote was unanimous (9-0).
Commissioner Garrison commented that being a new
commissioner, he was very impressed with both the way in which the school
approached the process and the fact that they have been open and forthcoming
about all aspects of the undertaking and he is also impressed with the fervor
of many of the people, and especially those who expressed opposition. He went on to say that a number of letters
sent in have been quite thoughtful and expressed strong emotions about the
issue. However, his understanding of
what the Commission is doing today is the requirement of the three (3) part
test that Commissioner Campbell read in the Planning and Zoning Committee
Report. His reading of those facts as applied to the situation leads him to
conclude that the school has met the burden.
He went on to say that many of the issues raised tonight and that are
raised in the many letters to the Commission are not relevant to the issue in
front of the Commission tonight. Thus,
construction noise has never been a relevant matter in such cases even though
one may wish them to be. He further
stated that he feels strongly that the schools are huge assets to neighborhoods, and our city and that we need to do what we
can to provide a full range of choices for families. He does not buy the
argument that because this is a private school it should not be thought of as
an asset to the community. He stated
that it was important to have the school stay on Capitol Hill to serve Capitol
Hill children. In conclusion, he stated
that for those various reasons he is also supporting the proposal.
The Chair stated that the amended recommendation of the
Committee comes before the Commission in the form of a motion requiring no
second. He then asked all in favor of
adopting the Committee’s recommendation to support the variances to raise their
hands. The vote was 7-2.
ZC Case #06-33, Text
Amendment – Parking for Historic Buildings
This case is seeking to clarify parking requirements for
historic landmarks and buildings contributing to an historic district. The proposed clarification is important to
prevent multiple interpretations of the zoning regulations and provide
consistency in enforcement of parking regulations.
Under current rules buildings in historic districts or
historic buildings may not be required to have any additional parking on them
if they change uses or expand. The
Zoning Commission wants to change the rules so that as long as such a building
changes use or expands, additional parking requirements can be imposed upon
them.
Commissioner Jarboe stated that since this case did not come
as a Committee Report, he moved that the Commission support the text
amendment. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Russell.
The Chair asked all in favor of supporting the motion to
raise their hands. The vote was
unanimous (9-0).
Committee reports
and announcements
None
Approval of
Commission Minutes
The Chair stated that all Commissioners had received a copy
of the October minutes prior to the meeting.
He then made the motion that the Commission adopt the Commission’s
minutes as corrected. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Olson. The
Chair asked all in favor to raise their hands.
The vote was unanimous (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
December 12, 2006. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Russell, and the vote was 9 to 0.
Meeting Adjourned.
Prepared by Bert Randolph
Attested:
[DFG1]Bert: You need to check off with Ken about this
data. I don’t think this is correct,
even with my fiddling.