Advisory Neighborhood
Commission 6B
Minutes of Regular
ANC Meeting
October 11,
2005
Commissioners Present:
Commissioners Absent: David Sheldon
Chairperson Scott Cernich
chaired the meeting and the Commissioners introduced themselves.
There was a quorum for
conducting business.
Adoption of Agenda
The Chair stated that there
were two items to add to agenda. First,
HPA
The motion was made
Commissioner Hill to adopt the agenda as changed and seconded by Commissioner
Wright. There were no objections so the
agenda was adopted as amended.
Community Speakout
None
Community and Commission Announcements
No community announcements.
The Chair announced that the
ANC had, after over 3 months much hard work, reached a Voluntary Agreement with
Remington’s and he wanted to specially thank Commissioners Glick and Wright for
their efforts on this matter.
Presentations
None
Planning and Zoning Committee
The Chair turned the meeting
over to Commissioner Campbell, Chair of the Planning and Zoning Committee.
Commissioner Campbell stated
that if there were no objections, he wanted to move HPA #05-447 to the end of
the P&Z agenda due to a number of issues that will be raised by the
community and owners, thus allowing to expedite the P&Z portion of the
meeting. However, Mr. Jamal Kadri
objected and Commissioner Campbell agreed to leave it were it is on the agenda.
Commissioner Campbell then
read the minutes from the October 4, 2005 Planning and Zoning Committee
meeting:
HPA #05-478 – 621 G Street, SE – Two-story addition –
David Taylor and Greg Bailey, owners
Commissioner Campbell stated
that subsequent to the Committee meeting, he did receive some additional information
that indicates that the proposed lot occupancy will be approximately 35%, as
such, no zoning changes are required.
Commissioner Campbell asked
the owner if there was any additional information regarding this case. The owner stated that one change will be made
to the roofline, which was discussed at the P&Z Committee meeting.
Commissioner Glick asked if
the owners had spoken with their neighbors regarding the plans. He responded that they had, however they had
not secured any letters of support or opposition.
The Chair stated that this matter
comes to the Commission in the form of a motion requiring no second, therefore
all those in favor of supporting the Committee’s recommendation to support the
project to raise their hands. The vote
was 8 to 1.
HPA #05-447 – 644 Independence Ave., SE – Two-story
with basement addition to the rear of two-story brick rowhouse – Jamal Kadri,
Owner
Mr. Jamal Kadri, the
applicant, has submitted revised plans of his two-story rear addition. The applicant has presented before to the ANC
at its September meeting and a one-month delay was agreed upon by all
parties. The proposed plans remain a
matter-of-right under zoning, subject only to review by HPRB. The revised plans modify the corners of the
addition, so as to lessen the visual impact of the building. Therefore the Committee votes 2 to 1 to
recommend support of this project to the full ANC.
Commissioner Campbell asked
Mr. Kadri if he had any new information to add.
Mr. Kadri responded that he
did not. He stated that “they would met
with neighbors who would meet with us.”
He went on to say the he was looking at another design that would take
out the 2nd floor addition and add 3rd floor master
suite. However, at this time it is his
intention to go to HPRB with the plans as they currently are, then, with the
approval of HPRB they can then possibly talk about making revisions to the
plan. Additionally, he stated that he
was upset with the overall process and hoped that some changes could be made in
it to reduce the friction between neighbors in resolving issues.
Commissioner Campbell asked
Mr. Kadri if his understanding was correct in that he is saying that if he went
to HPRB and received approval of his plans, he would then meet with the
neighbors on other ideas.
He responded yes and went to
say that the idea of removing the master suite from the second floor so that it
would not have to extend out and what he was hoping for as a “quid-pro-quo”
from his neighbors is to put an apartment over the garage.
Commissioner Campbell then
asked the community if they had any comments regarding this project. There were none.
Commissioner Campbell then
recognized Ms. Fitzsimmons, Mr. Kadri’s neighbor. She asked Commissioner Campbell to read a
statement she had given to him prior to the meeting, which he did.
“October 11, 2005
Dear ANC 6B:
We very much appreciated your
decision of September 13th and looked forward to having communications
with the applicants regarding ways to mitigate their proposed extension’s impact
on this history, visual beauty and direct experience of our neighborhood and
our condominium unit.
It quickly became clear that
communications with the applicant would not be productive. On September 26th, an e-mail
message from the applicant contained a less than veiled threat against our
safety and came with much unwanted information about his private life and
personal history. Then, in a follow-up
email that purported to be an apology, the applicant admitted that most of his
communications with us were designed to support the filing of a SLAPP lawsuit
against us. In addition, he advised that
in spite of the suggested alternatives to the original plan, he would be
sticking with the original concept as submitted to HPRB. After consulting with the police, we have
been advised not to communicate directly with the applicant.
Nonetheless, along with the
Karchers, we did continue our meetings with HPRB, Capitol Hill Restoration
Society, an architectural historian, and the architect we collectively hired.
In our meeting with HPRB we
learned that the draft staff report suggested a 6-foot pull back to the west
wall to mitigate the impact on the balcony.
This was perceived by HPRB as a reasonable modification to the 644
design given the historic nature of the properties. We agreed and asked the applicants to make
this adjustment to the plans. The
applicants said this would not be possible.
The architect we hired has
lived and worked on Capitol Hill and specializes in urban projects where space
is at a premium. In our meeting with him
on October 5, he stated that the applicants could create the inside space they
seek with a much smaller design and one that is more in accordance with the
neighborhood. Such a smaller design
would certainly alleviate the pressure on our balcony and could be achieved
either by following HPRB’s suggestion to bring the west wall in 6 feet or by
following our original request made at the last ANC meeting to step in the back
wall substantially on the second floor.
As for as we know, the applicants’ new plan do not respond to either of
these suggestions and do not significantly mitigate the addition’s impact on
our balcony.
We therefore respectfully ask
the commissioners to stand by their earlier vote to oppose the proposed
addition to
We make this request based on
the fact that the issues raised regarding the impact on the balcony/side porch
by HCRS, HPRB and the majority of neighbors surrounding the properties have not
been adequately addressed. The plans
that you are currently reviewing, to quote a professional, do nothing more than
“tinker around the edges.” We therefore,
respectfully ask you to stand by your well-considered vote on September 13th.
Thank you,
Laura Mamo and Helen
Fitzsimmons
642C
Commissioner Campbell asked
Ms. Fitzsimmons if what he just read was an accurate representation. She responded that it was. He then asked her if she had anything else
she would like to add and her response was no.
Commissioner Campbell asked
the Commissioners if they had any comments or questions.
Commissioner Glick asked Ms.
Fitzsimmons about getting a copy of an e-mail that had been mention, which she
gave him. He then asked if the neighbors
had seen the new design. They responded
that they thought they had seen the latest design, but their architect said
that this design would never be approved by HPRB.
Commissioner Jarboe asked the
neighbors about the 6 foot setback and some discussion pursued to explain their
thoughts regarding such modification.
Mr. Kadri stated that he
could not set back the addition 6 feet because it would cut off egress to his
children’s bedroom, and he thought the safety of his children is more important
than the balcony of a “childless couple.”
Commissioner Campbell asked
the Karchers if they had any comments to make.
Mr. Karcher presented a written statement, which Commissioner Campbell
read.
“To: ANC 6B Commissioners
From: Martin and Carolyn Karcher
Date: October 11, 2005
Re: HPA #05-447,
We would first like to bring
you up to date on the steps we have taken since the last ANC meeting of September
13, at which a majority of the Commissioners voted to “oppose the addition at
644 Independence Ave., based on the historic nature of the back s of the
original houses on either side of this house, including the historic
contribution of the balcony,” and to recommend “an extension of time to allow
the neighbors and residents time to discuss any actual compromises to the
design of the addition.”
Subsequent to that meeting we
met with the staff of the Historic Preservation Review Board, who informed us
that they had suggested to the Kadris “pulling back a portion of the addition’s
west wall a minimum of six feet, as required by zoning, at the second floor to
provide additional breathing space for the porch.”
In the evening of September
21, we learned, courtesy of Mr. Jarboe, that the HPRB meeting was postponed
till October 27.
In the meantime, together
with Ms. Fitzsimmons and Ms. Mamo, we consulted an architectural historian and
an architect regarding the various issues we had raised in our statement to the
ANC meeting of September 13.
With regard to the first
issue, we informed the Kadris that our architect said that windows would not be
permitted in a firewall. After Mr.
Moore, the Kadris’ architect, wrote back that windows with special rated glass
were allowed, we consulted with Mr. Robert Chen at DCRA regarding the placement
of windows I the firewalls overlooking our patio and the alley between 642 and
With regard to pulling back
the west wall, as recommended by HPRB staff, Mr. Kadri informed us through an
e-mail dated September 20 that they had changed the plans to mitigate their
addition’s impact on the neighbors, by pulling the west wall of the addition
back by 6 feet, giving the porch more air and light. However, when we look at the revised plans,
we didn’t find any such pull-back, only that the corners of the addition had
been cut. The balcony would still be
facing a wall some 4 feet on its entire length.
When the HPRB meeting was
postponed, jointly with Ms. Fitzsimmons and Ms. Mamo, we entered into a
contract with our architect to come up with a possible comprise solution that
would be more in keeping with the ANC resolution and the HPRB staff
recommendation. We informed Mr. Kadri
that the first available date at which the architect was free to meet with us
was October 5.
Mr. Kadri responded that he
“may wind up being thankful for the delay as well, if everything works out O.K.
and we can come up with a better design together.” He mentioned the possibility of keeping the
ground floor as it is currently designed, keeping the second floor as it is
currently built, and adding a third floor that would be stepped back from the
front of the house so that it would not be visible from the street. He further wrote that “he was going to talk
to his architect about how long it will take to develop such a plan, and how
much it will cost.” That was our last
communication from Mr. Kadri.
You may thus understand our
surprise at finding out that the Kadris were presenting a set of revised plans
at last week’s Planning and Zoning Committee meeting.
If the revised plans are the
ones with the cut corners, we sincerely believe that a better compromise
solution is possible, more in line with the ANC’s concern for the historic
nature of the back of the houses, including the historic contribution of the
balcony and more in keeping with the HPRB staff recommendation. That’s why we have decided to hire an
architect who has lived and worked on Capitol Hill and who is familiar with the
area and its historical heritage.
In the meantime we
respectfully request that ANC to abide by its initial findings and resolution.
Commissioner Campbell then
asked Mr. Karcher if this was a fair and accurate description, which he
responded that it was. He then asked Mr.
Karcher if the had any additional information he would like to add, and his
response was no. Finally, he asked if
anyone in the audience had anything to add.
Mr. Moore, the architect for
the Kadris stated that he personally met with Mr. Chen with the drawings and he
said the fire-rated windows in the case were okay.
Commissioner Campbell then
asked Mr. Moore to put him comments regarding his meeting and conversation with
Mr. Chen on the acceptability of the fire-rated windows in writing.
After additional discussion
from Commissioner Campbell and other Commissioners, Commissioner Cernich stated
that the Commission wants to know specifically what type of window he will be
using no what he think they might be using.
He then asked Mr. Moore why he would not commit to saying exactly what
type of windows he would be using.
Commissioner Jarboe spoke up
and stated that the Commission was not dealing with construction code issues,
instead it was looking at HPRB design issues, and the Commission does not want
to know if the windows open or closes, it is interested to know what the window
will look like. Mr. Moore responded that
they would look like simulated windows.
Commissioner Jarboe then responded by stating that most “non-windows” do
not look like windows. He then asked
about the facing on that side of the building, to which Mr. Moore stated it
would be stucco.
Mr. Karcher voiced his
objection to having a window on that side of the structure. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Karcher if
his objection to the window was a privacy issue, and his response was yes. He went on to say that according to DCRA
these windows are not allowed.
Commissioner Campbell asked Mr.
Moore if the window would be in a position such that a person of 6 foot height
would be able to look out the window and see people and things outside. Mr.
Moore stated that it would be a normal height window.
Commissioner Campbell then
asked Mr. and Mrs. Karcher if the window was made of such material so that one
can not see through it, would they have any objections to it being placed
there. He then restated his questions by
asking if the building code allowed it and the window did not violate their
privacy would they have any objection.
Mr. Karcher stated that he would not.
He then asked Mr. Kadri and Moore if they would have any objection to
allowing the Karchers to physically hold and see if anyone would be able to see
through the window material. Mr. Kadri
responded that he would not.
Commissioner Campbell then asked both parties that if this was in
writing would they be willing to sign an agreement to this affect, if the
building code allows it. The both parties
stated that they would. Commissioner
Campbell stated that he will draft the letter so that this would not become an
issue in resolving the case.
Commissioner Campbell stated
that the Kadris proposed addition is a matter-of-right and as such the ANC does
not have any right to stop it. He went
on to say that HPRB and CHRS if they decide there is some historical
significance to this then they may rule differently. Meaning that the Kadris may build it any way
the see fits as long as it meets code as a matter-of-right.
Commissioner Jarboe stated
that it is a matter-of-right on zoning, but it still has to be approved by HPRB
and the ANC can make a recommendation to HPRB that the project not go forward.
Commissioner Jarboe asked the
Karchers and Ms. Fitzsimmons if they were hiring an architect to develop an
alternative plan and if they were planning to present those plans to HPRB. They responded that they were planning to
share the plans with the HPO staff.
Commissioner Jarboe then
stated that he had a concern regarding the facing of the building in that they
will be replacing a brick back wall with a stucco back wall. He went on to say that traditionally the ANC
has not been in favor of such a change, therefore he was wondering if the
applicants had taken that into consideration since they would be replacing
brick and the house next to it has brick, would they consider modifying both
the addition and back to have brick veneer to match the next door neighbor’s
back.
Mr. Kardri responded that was
an aesthetic consideration and it would also be a costly one as well. He went on to say there are numerous projects
in the area that are also using stucco and that was his understanding that HPRB
wants a differentiation between different types of structures in the area of
texture and feel from the old and the new, but that he was open to that with
the understanding that when they add additional expenses there would be a
certain amount of “quid-pro-quo” behind the neighbors getting behind supporting
the project. Mr. Kadri went on to
discuss the potential of adding a unit above the garage in the back.
Commissioner Jarboe stated
that an addition to the garage would be a matter of interest to the entire
neighborhood and not a “quid-pro-quo” with his neighbors. He added that there are no “quid-pro-quo”
when you are dealing with design issues.
He went on to say that the supported this is committee and he will vote
to support it now because of the cutback on the sides, but that it was sad that
neighbors can not get along.
Commissioner Glick suggested
that a professional mediator be engaged to help resolve the issue. Commissioner Campbell stated that he would
sit down with all involved to arrive at an agreeable solution.
Commissioner Olson stated
that she opposed the case in committee and will oppose the case now because she
believes the HPRB regulations do not go far enough in taking into consideration
the neighbors concerns and the do not think the new addition still takes into
consideration the neighbors concerns, she likes what Mr. Kadri is proposing is
a nice idea and she wish they could explore it, but in the end she still will
oppose it.
Commissioner Glick stated
that he too will oppose it because it is ignoring the neighbors and anything
that he votes on, he likes to know that all parties agree upon and he just do
not see it in this case.
Commissioner Campbell stated
that he would support this because of a precedent in the past in which this
type of addition was allowed.
The Chair stated that the
recommendation of the Committee is to support the revised plans comes to the full
Commission as a recommendation of the Committee requiring no second. He then asked all in favor of supporting the
Committee’s recommendation to raise their hands. The vote was 3-4-2 to oppose the Committee’s
recommendation.
HPA #
Commissioner Campbell asked
if Mr. Mark Holler was present.
Commissioner Olson stated that he informed her that he was ill and would
not be able to make the meeting.
Mark Holler, owner, is
planning to rebuild an existing front porch with gutters and wishes to raise
the new porch in the rear so as it is more in line with existing porches on the
street and install two skylights in the porch.
The skylights will project approximately 6 inches above the roofline of
the porch, which raises some historic preservation concerns among some members
of the Committee. The Committee would
note that the house next door already has a semi-open porch (a front porch with
only a partial roof). The issue
therefore concerns the visibility of the skylight on the top of the porch, not
its visibility from below. If the
skylight can be built in a manner so that it is either flush with the roofline
or so that upper portion of the skylight is not visible from the sidewalk
across the street, then the Committee would recommend support of this project.
Commissioner Olson stated the
Mr. Holler had spoken with her about being ill and not able to attend the
meeting. Additionally, he told her he
had spoken with CHRS and HPO and neither has given him any comments regarding
his application. Commissioner Olson then
asked the other Commissioners if she should recuse herself from the case
because she is a personal friend of the applicant and she also has a fiscal
relationship with Mr. Holler.
Commissioner Jarboe asked if
she had any fiduciary outcome from this decision and she responded no. With that Commissioner Jarboe and the Chair
stated that it would be up to her. After
some additional decision, she decided to recuse herself from the case.
The Commissioners discussed
and clarified the Committee Report and looked at photographs illustrating the
property and adjourning properties.
Commissioner Cernich stated
that he would oppose the application because it could be seen from the street.
Commissioner Jarboe clarified
the Committee Report regarding the sightline of the skylights in that the
Committee was of the opinion that the skylights would not be visual from across
the street and if this was correct it would not oppose it. He also added that in talking with Emily
Paulus she had indicated that they would most likely oppose this.
Commissioner Cernich made the
motion to oppose the skylights and Commissioner Wright seconded the motion.
The Chair then asked all in favor
of opposing the installation of skylights in the porch to raise their hands and
the vote was 2. He then asked all
opposed of opposing to raise their hands and the vote was 4 opposing, 2
abstaining and 1 recusal.
Commissioner Jarboe then
asked Commissioner Glick, the Parliamentarian, if according to Parliamentary
Procedures the Commission now would need to vote on the P&Z Committee
Report, which he responded that it should.
The Chair then asked all in
favor of supporting the P&Z Committee Report to raise their hands. The vote was 4-2-2-1 recusal.
HPA #05-232 – 658 and 660 Independence Ave., SE –
Subdivision, two-story rear addition
Carolyn Marshall and Daniel
Vogel-Rogers, owners of 658 and
Commissioner Campbell
recognized that Ms. Wilson was present and asked her if she had any additional
information to add.
Ms. Wilson stated that she
was pleased that the owners have asked for a delay. However, she still has not seen the plans and
asked if the ANC could help to facilitate them securing the plans. She went on to say that she will again ask
the owners for a copy of the plans to review.
Commissioner Campbell asked
Ms. Wilson if she was in contact with the owners regarding the plans and she
stated she had been prior to this meeting but she knew that they were trying to
get a survey done and she will again attempt to contact them. He then stated that he understand the issue
is with the fence and wanted to know if she was having a problem communicating
with the owners and if she needed some intervention by the ANC to get a copy of
the plans and she said yes.
Commissioner Jarboe stated
for the record that the Committee did talk about the facing on the addition and
that both the side and back should be made of brick veneer.
HPA #05-481 – 241 10th Street, SE, Robb and
Sarah Stauderman – Addition to rear of single-family structure
The Staudermans and their
architect presented their conceptual drawing for a rear addition. The addition is substantially different from
other architectural features within the Historic District, with a curved wall
and a Mondrian color scheme. However,
the applicants presented a letter of support from their neighbor at
Commissioner Campbell then
asked Mrs. Stauderman if she had any additional information to add.
Mrs. Stauderman and her
architect brought forward a model of their designed project and explained the
orientation of the design, who Mondrian was (a painter), and what a green roof
concept is. She also presented a letter
of support from her neighbor.
Commissioner Campbell asked
the audience if there were any comments against the proposed project and there
were none.
A member of the audience
asked the Commission if individuals were permitted to cut down trees without a
permit. The response was yes you could
as long as it was on your property.
Commissioner Jarboe further explained that the new forestry law states
that if you do, you must replace it the tree with a like tree especially if it is
on the front of your property.
Commissioner Olson stated
that she thought the proposed addition was fabulous and she hopes HPRB will
approve it, however she would oppose the case because she wants to demonstrate
to Commissioner Campbell that the ANC does not support every addition.
The Chair stated that the
Committee’s recommendation is to support the proposed addition and come before
the full Commission as a motion not requiring a second. He then asked all in favor to raise their
hands. The vote was 8-0-1.
ZC Case #05-21, Text Amendment – Dog Boarding
The Chair then asked if
anyone was present regarding the Dog Boarding Zoning Amendment. There was no one.
No action taken by the
Commission.
Committee reports and announcements
None
Minutes Approval
Commissioner Olson informed
the Commissioners that she and the Executive Director have been attempting to
get the minutes up on the web and noticed that most of the 2004 minutes have
not been voted on, except two (2 September and November) have been approved,
therefore the Commission must vote on all of the other 2004 minutes. Additionally, the Commission will need to
vote on the January through September 2005 minutes, except April 2005, which
has already be approved and voted on.
Therefore, she provided the Commissioners with the minutes and asked
them to review them and report any changes and/or corrections at next month’s
meeting, at which time a vote will be taken for approval.
Commissioner Hill asked if
current Commissioners who were not on the Commission during 2004 will they be able
to vote on approving the minutes.
Commissioner Olson stated that may be a problem, but they could abstain
from voting. Commissioner Jarboe was if
the opinion that the new Commissioners could still vote on prior minutes. However, he asked Mr. Randolph to check with
Gottlieb Simon to determine exactly what the rules are.
Quarterly Financial Report
Commissioner Jarboe reviewed
the Quarterly Financial Report with the Commissioners and stated that the ANC
still has not received its allocation and that he is trying to work with the
auditors to determine what seems to be the problem. He has submitted everything that has been
requested. One area of increase is for
the telephone bill and this is because the ANC is paying commercial rates.
Commissioner Jarboe moved to
adopt the financial report as presented.
Commissioner Campbell seconded.
The vote was unanimous 9-0.
Federal Income Tax
Commissioner Jarboe explained
the ANC’s situation with IRS regarding 941 reporting in that prior paperwork
for 941 payroll reporting has not been up to par. However, Mr. Randolph has been able to pull
everything together to correct and update the IRS records. Unfortunately, the IRS has applied some
payments to different quarters, thus we have been getting refunds from the IRS
totaling approximately $1,400.00. We
then got a bill from the IRS stating that the Commission owed about
$1,400.00. Unfortunately, the Commission
had already cash the refund checks, which had explained that the Commission had
overpaid. The Commission now is being told by the IRS that it owes $1,476.88 to
bring the account current. He went on to
say that he had spoken with the IRS and because they are showing the Commission
as having underpaid they are accessing the Commission penalty and interest in
the amount of $750.00, when it was their mistake in putting the payments in the
incorrect quarters. Commissioner Jarboe
stated that he has spoken with them and will be following up his conversation
with a letter explaining their mistake and requesting a waiver of the penalty
and interest.
Commissioner Glick made the
motion that the Commission authorizes the payment of $1,476.88 to pay the IRS
941 payment. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Cernich. 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 November 8, 2005. The motion was seconded, and the vote was 9
to 0.
Meeting Adjourned.
Prepared by Bert Randolph
Attested: