Advisory Neighborhood
Commission 6B
Minutes
of Regular ANC Meeting
Commissioners Present: Julie Olson, Chair; Mary Wright, Vice-Chair; Will Hill, Neil Glick, David Garrison, Ken Jarboe, Carol Green, and Executive Director, Bert Randolph.
Commissioners Absent: Francis Campbell
Chairperson Julie Olson chaired the meeting and the Commissioners introduced themselves.
There was a quorum for conducting business.
Adoption of Agenda
The Chair announced the removal of HPA # 07-294,
Commissioner Hill made the motion to approve the agenda as amended. Commissioner Glick seconded the motion.
The Chair asked all in favor of adopting the amended agenda to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (7-0).
Community Speakout
DDOT will be conducting two public meetings to discuss the Metrobus 30s Line Study. The meetings will be held in two different locations to make it easier for DC residents who live along the 30’s and M6 routes to participate. The meeting dates and locations are as follows:
St. Columba’s Episcopal Church St. Francis Xavier Catholic School
Great Hall Multi-purpose Room
4201
Chris
Herman announced that the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the
Commissioner Glick announced that last week in the 200 block of 15th Street, SE, a 40 to 50 feet tree that is in front of the condominiums being built there had all of its branches illegally cut off by Macy Development, which has totally destroyed the tree. Commissioner Glick stated that he has reported this incident to the city for their action and hopes the city will fine them for their action. He reminded everyone that trees are important to the environment.
William Flint, Second Battalion Fire Chief, announced that during their Fire Protection Program they installed 75 smoke detectors and CO detectors and will be continuing the program. Chief Flint stated that they had tried to give out smoke detectors, but found they were not installed properly. Thus, they will come out and install the detectors in your home for free. For more information you can call 202.673.3382.
Community and
Commission Announcements
Commissioner Garrison
announced that on Wednesday, October 24th at
Commissioner Jarboe
announced that there will be a Navy Yard Open House as part of Navy Day on
Saturday, October 13th, from
The Chair
announced that there are two vacancies on the ANC Commission. The first is for 6B09, which was recently
held by Commissioner Antonette Russell who moved out of this ANC. The second is for 6B04, which was formally
held by Commissioner
Tim Stracker stated that he had picked up a petition for 6B09 and that the petition is due back on October 15th.
Presentations
Samuel H. Dodson, IV,
Ward 6 Assistant Center Director for Higher Achievement Program stated that
their organization has approximately 30 mentors who work with approximately 80
5th – 8th graders at
Eastern Market
Committee
Commissioner Jarboe announced that Eastern Market/Barracks Row/Capitol Hill neighborhood was awarded One of the Ten Best Neighborhoods in America Award. If people would like more information on the award they should go to the American Planning Association’s website.
Commissioner Jarboe stated that there are two issues that
are outstanding on Eastern Market. The
first is the Office of Property Management is in the process of contracting
with a group call Project for Public Spaces to come in and help craft the RFP
for a Unified Market Manager. As part of
this the Project for Public Spaces will conduct interviews with EMCAC people
and Commissioner Jarboe stated that he will also suggest that they also meet
with the ANC so that the Commission can provide them with its input on the
matter. Commissioner Jarboe also stated
that he was not sure if the Project for Public Spaces would be conducting
public meetings or not, but they will be coming in sometime during the middle
of this month or early next month.
Thirdly, there are discussions being held on the management of
The Chair reminded everyone that the EMCAC meetings are open
to the public and if they are interested in hearing more about Eastern Market
they should plan to attend the meetings.
The next meeting is scheduled for October 23rd, two-weeks
from today and will be held here in the
4th
Quarter Financial Report
Commissioner Jarboe, ANC6B Treasurer, reported that the each
Commissioner had been provided a copy of the 4th Quarter Financial
Report for their review. Commissioner
Jarboe stated that the Commission had received its District Allocation of
$7,678.57 and the expenditures were a little over $6,000.00 ($6,030.18) and
most of that was in salary/wages, telephone, taxes, and office supplies. As of the end of the quarter the Commission
has $63,288.16 in the bank. Commissioner
Jarboe reiterated that the Commission over the years has been banking money
because it understood that at some point soon the Commission will lose its space
here in the
Commissioner Jarboe made the motion to approve the adoption of the 4th Quarter Financial Report. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hill.
The Chair asked all in favor of adopting the financial report to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (7-0).
FY’08 Interim
Budget
Commissioner Jarboe stated that because Congress and the District is operating on a Continuing Resolution, the Commission has not received official notice from the DC Government as to what the Commission’s allocation is, and until the Commission receives that official notification it can not adopt a formal budget for fiscal year 2008. Because the city’s fiscal year began October 1, 2007, he proposed the Commission adopt an interim budget, a copy of which had been provided to each Commissioner for review. The budget is exactly the same as last year’s budget. The adoption of this interim budget will allow the Commission to continue to spend at the same rate as last year, until the Commission receives the new allocation numbers. The current annual rate of spending is approximately $28,000.00 per quarter and he expects the Commission will receive approximately $30,000.00, which allows a little bit of flexibility to the Commission in case unexpected expenditures arise.
Commissioner Jarboe made the motion to adopt the interim budget. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Glick.
The Chair asked all in favor of adopting the interim budget to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (7-0).
Commissioner Jarboe then thanked the Chair for moving his requested items ahead on the agenda because he would be leaving the meeting to attend to personal business.
Planning and
Zoning Committee
The Chair stated that since the Chair of the Planning and Zoning Committee was not present a the meeting and because of the resignation of Commissioner Ostergaard, who was the Vice Chair of the Planning and Zoning Committee, Commissioner Glick will read the Committee’s Report.
HPA # 06-490, 430-434
First Street, SE and 100 N. Carolina Ave SE- ATA, Review modified plans to
restore historic building and streetscape
Presenters: Tony D’Agostino & Mick Burns with R.T.K.L. Architects, Sandy Podjaski; Studio 39.
Project was approved by BZA in November 2006, and will
appear before HPRB on
The Chair asked if there was any new information regarding this case. There was none. The Chair then asked if there was any new information or comments from the community regarding this case. There was none. The Chair then asked the Commissioners if they had any comments regarding the case. Commissioner Glick stated that since he has had financial relations with ATA, he would need to recuse himself from the case and would not be voting.
The Chair stated that the Committee recommends that project for approval to the Full ANC. It requires no second, therefore all those in favor were asked to raise their hands. The vote was 6. The Chair then asked all those in opposition to raise their hands. There were none. The Chair asked all wishing to recuse themselves to raise their hands. There was one. The motion passed 6-0 with 1 recusal.
HPA # XX – XXX,
The Chair announced that because she has had some financial dealings with one of the parties involved in this case she will need to recuse herself from the case. Therefore, she turned the meeting over to the Vice Chair Commissioner Wright.
Presenters: Carol Vasquez & Genevieve Taft-Vasquez, owners. Owners have submitted copies of the CHRS report, plans of the project, history of communication attempts with neighbors, history of the property, a structural assessment from S. P .Kelley, structural engineers, a letter of protest dated September 19, 2007 from the Firm of Hunton & Williams from Richard L Aguglia to HPRB representing Connie Gerrard asking for a deferral of the application to the October calendar and a pamphlet regarding the Community Information and Referral Program which offers dispute resolution. Taking into account the wealth of information in the applicant’s submissions and the Vasquez’s attempts to address concerns voiced by the ANC at the September P&Z meeting along with the HPRB issues, the Committee has no reservations with recommending this project for approval to the full ANC.
Commissioner Wright asked if there was any new information regarding this case.
Commissioner Jarboe stated that one correction needed to made to the report regarding the flyer pertaining to Community Information and Referral Program was actually put into the file by the ANC and not by the applicant.
The owner of the property abutting the applicant’s property
on the north,
After hearing Ms. Gerrard’s comments and Mr. Vasquez’s responses to Ms. Gerrard’s comments Commissioner Jarboe stated that their discussion was a classic case of neighbors fighting neighbors. He went on to say that this is an HPRB case, and as far as he has heard, no one has raised historic preservation concerns about the proposal. The reason he put the Community Information and Referral Program brochure in the file was to emphasize that, it is the responsibility of the parties involved to work this situation out. The DCRA inspectors will have to be told to watch this construction activity to make sure the necessary procedures are followed. Since there are no historic preservation, he will vote to support the case.
The Vice Chair stated that this matter comes before the Commission in the form of a motion from the Committee recommending support of the project and requiring no second. The motion passed 4 yeas, 2 nays, and 1 abstention.
HPA #-7-426, 1223
This case has been postponed as the applicant needs more time to submit a more complete application and proposal.
HPA # 07 – 334, 1129
Pennsylvania Ave. SE Adding two full floors and a partial additional floor on
the one story corner building at 1129 Penn. Ave and adding one additional story
on top of the two–story building at 1123 Penn. Ave.
The Chair asked if this was an informal presentation, and if so, was there a need for the full ANC to hear this case. Commissioner Jarboe stated that it was his understanding that the applicant was planning to go before HPRB with the massing, therefore this was an actually a formal presentation seeking the Commission’s support or opposition. Commissioner Jarboe continued by saying that the applicant is presenting a conceptual design for the massing of the building and it is not the details of the actual building that are to be determined now.
The Chair asked if there was a recommendation from the Committee. Commissioner Jarboe responded that the Committee felt that more information was needed on the massing and it needed to hear more from the neighbors regarding the proposed plans.
Mr. Ziad Elisas Demian, the architect, stated that he has discussed the project with CHRS and HPRB and they had recommended that while they were doing the planning Mr. Demian should come before the ANC go get its input on the massing to determine exactly how much they could build on the site with the setbacks on the block. Mr. Demian stated that they had appeared before CHRS.
The Chair asked if the applicant had spoken with the neighbors in the community. Mr. Demian responded that they had.
A neighbor, who lives on the corner of 12th and G Street, stated that he had meet with the architect and he was not pleased at all with the design because he believes the size of the building is to large for the area.
Mr. Ivory Johnson, who lives at
Commissioner Jarboe asked Mr. Johnson if his understanding of his objection is due to the fact that the proposed project is simply too big. Mr. Johnson responded that this was correct and he believes the structure would change the nature of the neighborhood.
The Chair reiterated to everyone that the matter was a HPRB case and the Commission was not dealing with the construction issues at this time. The Chair continued by stating that the Commission had been asked by Historic Preservation to look at the massing of the site plans and building proposal.
Mr. Demian stated that what they are proposing to do is by-right and the structures are less than the height limits, and the proposal includes more parking than what is required as a minimum. Mr. Demian continued by saying that they are well aware of the parking problem that exists in the area and that they can not eliminate it, but their proposal will help reduce the problem. Regarding the fact that there are no zoning issue because they would be building by-right , which applies to height limits and set-backs and they have worked with the Historic Preservation Board in developing the massing. Mr. Demian stated that the massing was originally higher and denser and was to have had 13 units with 15 foot ceilings, but after discussion with HPRB staff, the proposal, now call for fewer units. Mr. Demian continued by stating that the presentation tonight shows how the applicant has responded to the staff requests for changes.
Mr. Angelo Hill stated that he and several of his neighbors have been working to update their properties by installing fences and remodeling in an effort to help make the neighborhood look good. The Capitol Hill Restoration Society has told them that they cannot put fence around the yards, do much reconstruction to their homes due to the fact that their homes are historic. These huge structures, that the applicant is proposing, would have a negative effect on the neighboring houses when construction is started. The digging of foundations may impact adjacent dwellings. Regarding the parking issue he stated that with the combination of the addition of the proposed residential units, the parking associated with the restaurant located downstairs, the new businesses already in the immediate area, and the nearby school the neighbors will be hard pressed to find adequate parking in the area.
Shelia Fleishell, whose property is immediately adjacent to the proposed project, stated that she too was concerned about the potential parking problem and additionally she was concerned about trash removal once the building is completed. Ms. Fleishell stated that in reviewing the plans she could not see any mention of how trash would be stored or removed from the property. Ms. Fleishell voiced her concerns about proposed abutment of the structure to her party wall, which will block any view that she has from her backyard and she is concerned about its height being above her chimney and the potential fire hazard this could cause. Additionally, she believes the new structure would impose hardships on her if her roof needs to be repaired in the future and if her party wall needs re-pointing it will need to be done prior to constructing the new structure, to name a few issues she has with the proposed project.
Fran Kim, who lives around the corner in back of Frager’s Hardware Store, stated that she too was concerned about the parking problem, which means more cars and more pollution, which will have a negative impact on air quality and the quality of life in the city.
Mr. Hill stated that he is concerned about the lost of air and light, and the additional heat that will be generated by a structure of this size on his home and the others in the neighborhood.
The Chair stated that there was not a recommendation from the Committee regarding this project therefore the discussion would be open to the Commission for more input.
Commissioner Glick stated that he was not present at the Committee meeting, but he had a lot of issues regarding the case and previous issues regarding the applicant’s liquor license, therefore he made the motion that the Commission oppose the applicant’s request.
Commissioner Jarboe asked if the applicant has a problem in another area, is the Commission is going to vote against his proposal because of that unrelated problem? Commissioner Jarboe continued that he found that approach to be totally unacceptable. Commissioner Jarboe then added that while he has about this case, he is hearing several conflicting arguments such as negative effect on air quality, which he agrees with, but then people want more parking places, which will only bring in more cars. He stated that people keep talking about not wanting density, but the building is setting next to the Metro and the whole idea of having a building next to the Metro is in fact to get people out of their cars. Commissioner Jarboe then stated that there is a lot of confusion with lots people making different claims on all if this. If you go to the planners they will tell you to build density next to a Metro stop, but he does not happen to think that that is the correct approach. But he said he also hears that if you give them lots of parking spaces you will have a lot of cars. Therefore, he rejects the idea that the Commission is going to vote against this case because the owner has problems. Thus he recommended that the Commission stick to the issue of the building.
Commissioner Jarboe then stated that the only issue here is whether
the massing of this building as proposed contributes to or is a detriment to
the historic character of Capitol Hill this is the only issue. He went on to say that he had a problem with
the way historic preservation staff is treating this case on
Commissioner Garrison asked Commissioner Jarboe how this
case was different from the collection of 4 buildings at 7th &
Commissioner Jarboe responded that it was that particular situation that caused him to start thinking about why it was possible that no where else on Capitol Hill could you put another story over an existing structure. This concern did not come up in the Commission’s prior discussions and the Commission may in fact have made a mistake. Therefore, he believes the Commission needs to have some discussions with HPO regarding what their rules are on this type of situation.
Commissioner Garrison asked if it would not be better to ask HPRB to delay the case until the Commission has more time to secure a better understanding of what the owner is proposing versus opposing the case.
Commissioner Jarboe stated that the opposition is based upon the fact that until these questions are answered the Commission does not have adequate information to move forward. Commissioner Jarboe then stated that if it was Commissioner’s Garrison desire was to not oppose, but to request that the case be delayed until the Commission has an opportunity to have a discussion with the HPO staff, he would be okay with that, but he was not ready for this case to go before HPO without the Commission saying it does have a problem with the massing.
The Chair stated that from the HPRB standpoint the Commission can only ask for a delay only if the applicant also agrees to it. Therefore, if the applicant is not willing to delay his case before HPRB the Commission will not have a standing in the case. Thus she believes it would be better for the Commission to oppose the case. The Chair went on to say that after reviewing the plans she too would oppose the case based upon the same reasoning given by Commissioner Jarboe.
Commissioner Garrison asked Mr. Demian if his understanding
was correct that he had in fact gone before CHRS. Mr. Demian responded that he had. Commissioner Garrison then asked Mr. Demian
what was CHRS’s comments. Mr. Demian
responded that CHRS’s initial comments were on the previous concept where the massing
was higher. The applicant had redone the
proposal setting the addition back away from line of the existing building and
reducing it by one floor in response to CHRS’s concerns. Thus this latest proposal lowers the height
and thus drops the density. Commissioner
Garrison then asked Mr. Demian if he had been back to CHRS since he’s made his
modifications. Mr. Demian stated that CHRS
had seen the new plans and their comments were that they still had issues about
the second building above the existing and contributing building. Mr. Demian said the applicant was following
the example of the 7th and
Commissioner Garrison informed Mr. Demian that the Commission’s argument was with HPRB and not with him regarding the massing issue.
The Chair stated that there was a motion on the table that had been seconded. Commissioner Jarboe called for question. The Chair then stated that the motion before the Commission is to oppose this HPA case. The motion passed with 6 ayes, 1 nay.
The question was asked by someone in the audience as to what the next step would be regarding this case.
The Chair stated that HPRB would be hearing the case at the end of October. Additionally, individuals will have the opportunity to go down before the Historic Preservation Review Board to make comments regarding this case. The Chair suggested that those individuals interested in voicing their concerns should attend the hearing. It was stated that since HPRB puts it agenda up at the last minute, to obtain more information on the exact date, time and location of the hearing interested parties should contact the Office of Planning or they can call our main office number 202.543.3344 for assistance.
ABC Committee
The Chair turned the meeting over to the Commissioner Wright, the Chair of the ABC Committee for its report.
License Renewals:
Bullfeather’s, 410 1st
Street, SE, Lic. #21165
Thai Roma,
Bread and Chocolate,
There was no representation for the above establishments; therefore, the ABC Committee recommends taking no position.
The Chair asked if there was anyone representing either of the establishments present. There were none. Thus the Commission agreed to take no position on these four applications.
Pacific Grill and
Café,
Owner, Mohnmoud Abdalla, is seeking support for a license renewal of Pacific Grill and Café.
After complaints of alleged violations were reported earlier this year, the Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration (ABRA) investigation team determined in May 2007 that Pacific Grill was in violation of both their ABC license and the ANC’s voluntary agreement of January 28, 2003. The report determined that Pacific Café & Grill offered a disc jockey without ABC approval and operated as a night club on the second floor in violation of the ANC voluntary agreement dated January 28, 2003. The voluntary agreement clearly states that the applicant will not provide amplified music and that it will not operate or advertise the premises as a nightclub or dance club. In addition, the applicant will not advertise the lounge area independent of the restaurant. The ABC investigation confirmed the use of amplified music. The owner was advised to get an entertainment endorsement. To date, there has been no request.
When questioned about the investigation at the ABC committee
meeting on
Based on the above alleged violations and repeated inconsistencies, the ABC Committee recommends that the ANC protests the applicant’s license renewal.
The Chair asked Mr. Abdalla if he had any new information for the Commission or if he had obtained a copy of the ABC Investigative Report. Mr. Abdalla responded that he was given a copy at the ABC Committee meeting.
Commissioner Garrison asked Mr. Abdalla if, as promised at the ABC Committee meeting, he was able to bring a copy of his original liquor license which indicated that the second floor was approved for used by his establishment. Mr. Abdalla responded that he did not have a copy with him, but he would go and get a copy and bring it back to the Commission.
The Chair told Mr. Abdalla that she was concerned that he was not aware that his establishment was being advertised as a club and wanted to know who was authorized to do the advertising for him. The Chair then stated that after reviewing the ABC Investigative Report and the ABC Committee’s report, she believes there is anything more the Commission needs to discuss regarding this application.
The Chair stated that this case comes before the Commission as a motion not requiring a second. The Chair then asked all in support of opposing this application for a renewal to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (6-0).
The Chair stated that since the Commission does not have a Commissioner representing this SMD, she was appointing Commissioner Wright to represent the Commission before the ABRA hearing.
New license
Wisdom,
Applicant, Erik Hozherr, is seeking a new license for
building at
The ABC committee recommends support of the new license contingent upon a signed voluntary agreement which includes that the back alley entrance will not be used by patrons except in an emergency situation and that trash/bottles will not be taken out after the nightly shift (3 am weekends/2 am weekends). Trash removal would occur the following day to offset noise.
Commissioner Wright stated that Mr. Hozherr has signed and provided the Commission with a copy of the Cooperative (Voluntary) Agreement, which stated that the hours of operation of the sidewalk café will end at 11:00 p.m. each night, which is consistent with the other establishment on the block.
The Chair asked Mr. Hozherr if he had any new information and if it was correct that he had met with the neighbors to resolve their issues? Mr. Hozherr responded that he had no new information and that he had met with the neighbors.
The Chair asked if any of the neighbors had any comments regarding the application. One of the neighbors who was leading the neighborhood discussion stated that they were pleased with Mr. Hozherr’s response to their issues and that they believe he will be a good business neighbor.
Commissioner Garrison thanked Mr. Hozherr and the neighborhood representatives for being so responsive and for taking the time to meet together to workout the various issues involved.
Commissioner Glick asked if he was applying for an Entertainment Endorsement at this time. Mr. Hozherr responded that he was not and did not think it was something he wanted to do at this time.
Commissioner Hill stated that he believes Mr. Hozherr will make an excellent neighbor in the neighborhood because he will be living above his establishment.
The Chair stated that this case comes before the Commission as a recommendation from the ABC Committee as a motion needing no second. The Chair then asked all in favor of support the approval of the new liquor license to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (6-0).
Approval of
Commission Minutes
Commissioner Glick made the motion that the minute be approved. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Garrison.
The Chair asked all in favor of approving the minutes as revised to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (6-0).
It was announced that on Saturday, October 27th
from
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 Bert Randolph
Attested: