Advisory Neighborhood Commission 6B
Minutes of Regular ANC Meeting
February 20, 2007
There was a quorum for conducting business.
Adoption of Agenda
The Chair proposed the Resolution on the DC Voting Rights be
removed from the agenda because Commissioner Russell is its author and she
would like to defer it to our next meeting.
Also need to add a Resolution on the Old Naval Hospital RFP. Remove the DC Office of Planning from the
agenda because the speaker was unable to reschedule for this meeting. Under Planning and Zoning Committee there are
three items. Add BZA Case
Commissioner Jarboe made the motion that the agenda be adopted as modified. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hill. There were no objections. The Acting Chair declared the agenda adopted as modified.
Resolution New Commissioner
The Acting Chair asked
The Acting Chair then read the following Resolution:
WHEREAS, the office of Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner for Single Member District 6B-07 was certified vacant, and the Board of Elections submitted a list of qualified candidates to Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner 6B following the period of petition circulation and challenge pursuant to D.C. Code 1-309.06 (d); and
WHEREAS, only the name of Carol J. Green was certified as a qualified candidate by the Board of Election; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to D.C. Code 1-309.06 (d), if there is only one person qualified to fill the vacancy within the affected single-member district, the area Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners shall appoint the qualified person to the vacancy at its next regularly scheduled meeting;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that Advisory Neighborhood Commission 6B, requests that the Board of Elections and Ethics declare the vacancy filled by Carol J. Green by publication in the District of Columbia Register.
FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the District
of Columbia Board of Election and Ethics, the Mayor, the Secretary of the
Council of the
The Acting Chair moved that the Resolution for acceptance. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hill. The Acting Chair asked all in favor to raise their hands. The vote was 6. The Acting Chair asked all opposing to raise their hands. There were none. The Acting Chair then asked if there were any recusals to raise their hands. There was 1, Commissioner Green. The final tally is 6-0-1.
Acting Chair announced that Alan Page is asking the
Commission to adopt a Resolution on genocide in Darfur and boycotting
The Acting Chair announced the Mr. Ken Walsh from the Capitol Rotary Club, a service organization comprised of Hill professionals, had sent him an e-mail asking him to invite everyone to their weekly meetings. For more information you can contact Mr. Walsh at 202.547.0664.
Ms. Sonja Sweek announced that she owned a property at
Patrick McClintock, the representative for the Executive Search Committee with the Capitol Hill Village, stated that they are seeking an individual to fill the position of Executive Director. Capitol Hill village is a new non-profit organization being formed to help Capitol Hill residents say in their homes as they grow older. The organization’s aims to assist seniors and others in finding the services and information they need to remain safe and healthy in their own homes. Additionally, CHV will organize community-building activities such as shopping trips, lectures, and social events.
For more information the Village visit the website www.chvdc.org or to send your resume contact: CHVSearch@hotmail.com or by letter at
Commissioner Jarboe stated that he fully support the organization. Additionally, Commission Jarboe stated that he will be receiving a Community Achievement Award and it comes with a donation to a local charity in his name, and he will be giving it to The Capitol Hill Village.
Community and Commission Announcements
Commissioner Campbell announced that the Capitol Hill Group
Ministry will be holding their Open House and Dedication of Shirley’s Place,
their newly renovated day hospitality center for homeless families. The open house will be held Sunday, March 4,
2007, from 1-3 p.m. at Shirley’s Place,
Commissioner Ostergaard stated that the Metropolitan Police were involved in two (2) cases in the past two (2) weeks near his SMD and he happen to be in the area and witnessed how the metro police showed up in a matter of minutes and that they give first-class treatment to both victims. Commissioner Ostergaard wanted everyone to know of the outstanding job the metro police are doing in his area.
Commissioner Green announced that she had placed some brochures on the table out front with information regarding AARP’s FREE TAX-AIDE program for low and middle income district residents. The program runs from February thru April of 2007. For more information contact: 202.434.7700 or www.aarp.org/dc.
2007 Old Naval Hospital Request for Proposal
The Acting Chair stated that Commission’s meeting location (
Commission Jarboe also stated that there is question as to what role the ANC should play in the review process. His proposal has two parts. The first is asking the Office of Property Management to issue an addendum concerning community use versus community access and the second urging the reviewers to give the ANC “great weight”.
Commissioner Jarboe proposed that the following letter be sent to the Office of Property Management:
“While ANC 6B is very pleased to see this project move forward, the ANC is concerned that the current wording of the RFP could be read to allow a very broad scope when it comes to the use of the building. The ANC believes that the purpose of the RFP is to promote community use. However, the RFP appears to treat community access as one preferred use. Specifically, the RFP says, “Extra consideration will be awarded for the provision of space for community meetings and events, historical displays, presentations, and office space for community organizations such as the Advisory Neighborhood Commission.” Access is very different than community use.
Therefore, the ANC urges the Office of Property Management
to issue an addendum to the RFP to clarify that community use is a threshold
criteria for consideration of a proposal, and that that the primary use of the
building is to be for community activities, rather than occasional community
Commissioner Jarboe then moved the order. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Garrison. The Acting Chair the asked if there were any comments from the community. There were none. The Acting Chair then asked all in favor to the motion to raise their hands. The vote was 8-0-0.
Commissioner Jarboe stated that the other issue regarding ANC’s role in the RFP process will be referred to the Executive Committee.
Anacostia Waterfront Corporation
The Acting Chair read the following resolution for consideration by the Commission:
Continuation of the Anacostia Waterfront Corporation (AWC)
Whereas, Legislation has been introduced in the District of Columbia City Council to abolish the Anacostia Waterfront Corporation (AWC) and the National Capital Revitalization Corporation (NCRC);
Whereas, This legislation is in response to concerns over the operations and/or structure of the AWC and the NCRC;
Whereas, The AWC is responsible for the development of Reservation 13 (aka the Hill East Waterfront) and is moving forward with the development in accordance with the Master Plan, as approved by the City Council;
Whereas, Abolition of the AWC would result in a major disruption in the activities to development of the Hill East Waterfront and would result in significant delays; and
Whereas, Timely action on development of this site is in the best interest of the neighborhood and the District as a whole and any delays in the process would be to the detriment of the neighborhood and the District as a whole.
Be it therefore resolved that:
ANC 6B urges the City Council not to abolish the AWC but rather to work with the Corporation to help strengthen its capacity, to increase its responsiveness to neighborhood concerns and to work more closely with it to better coordinate other city investments with the Corporation's projects.
Be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be submitted to the Mayor and all Councilmembers and that ANC 6B staff and all Commissioners are authorized to contact Councilmembers to express the support of ANC 6B for the continuation of AWC and the timely development of the Hill East Waterfront.
The Acting Chair asked if there were any comments from the community. There were none.
The Acting Chair asked Calvin Gladney, Vice President of Anacostia Waterfront Corporation (AWC) in charge of Reservation 13 Development, to say a few words about the current status of the project.
Mr. Gladney stated that the Mayor is undertaking a study to
better understand of AWC to make sure it is as effective and efficient as it
can be. The Mayor is also looking at the
proposed legislation to abolish AWC and National Capitol Revitalization
Corporation (NCRC). Mr. Gladney stated
that naturally his organization continues to believe that they should continue
to remain an independent agency as the ANC’s Resolution states. Regarding Reservation 13, the first thing
that is to have people stop referring to the project as Reservation 13 and to
use Hill East Waterfront. Mr. Gladney
went on to say that there are 29 buildings on the site, most of them are pretty
old, and in order to redevelop the site they must be remediated of hazardous
materials and then demolished. Over the
next month or so they are having a Demolish Kick-Off Event, where they will
start with building #25 to remediate and demolish it to make room for a
temporary parking lot, which will allow them to move some parking from other
sites to that location. The second part
is they are working on doing the engineering to allow them to design the new
streets and walking pathways on campus to allow people to access to the
Commissioner Glick asked if Mr. Gladney was saying that they would be demolishing all the buildings on the site. Mr. Gladney responded that they would not. He went on to say that there are two building on the site that will stay, one is Garrett Hall and the other is Anne Armstrong Hall (building #16). Commissioner Glick wanted to know if their plans included the recycling of the building materials rather than taking them to the dump. Mr. Gladney responded that it was always part of their plans to recycle as much material as possible in various ways, so the answer was yes.
Commissioner Ostergaard asked Mr. Gladney what percentage of their funds were public and the dollar amount of that percentage. Mr. Gladney responded that 100 percent of their funds are from public funding, unfortunately he could not give the actual amount, but 6 million is designated for infrastructure purposes.
The Acting Chair then moved for passage of the resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright. The Acting Chair asked if there were any discussion by Commissioners.
Commissioner Garrison stated that the proposed legislation, as referred to by Commission Jarboe, as just a means to do away with AWC, he believes the idea is the fold the functions back into the city government but it still, in his view, do not provide a clear explanation as to why they want to do it. Commissioner Garrison stated that his main concern was that the way the corporation is structured and assuming they wanted to fold it into the government, he was of the opinion that many of the staffers, who are highly qualified and base on the current city pay scale, will leave creating a situation where that is no capacity to do the work the corporation is currently doing. Commissioner Garrison stated that for this reason, he will support the resolution.
The Acting Chair then asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was 7-0-1.
DCWASA – New Combined Sewer Overflow Tunnels
Mr. Lawrence Williamson, Project Manager, presented a brief
overview of the DCWASA plan for the new combined sewer overflow tunnels. Mr.
Williamson stated that the main purpose of the overflow tunnels are to collect
and combine some overflows that goes into the Anacostia River, mainly sewage,
at the time of large storm events and to ultimately transfer the overflow down to
Blue Plains for treatment. It will also capture
some flow from flood areas up in the
They are starting the program by evaluating the various soils they will be encountering when they start doing the tunnels so that the proper design work can be done. Mr. Williamson mentioned that their tunnels will be deeper than the Metro tunnels. In order to perform their testing they will be using two different methods. The first will be the conventional method, which is used a great deal in the city. The second method will utilize sonic drillings. Mr. Williamson stated they have already performed two sample drillings new the WASA’ s main pumping station last year. Most of the samples will be taken down by the river and they will also take a couple of samples from the river bottom itself. They are currently working with DDOT to make sure their sampling operations have the least negative amount of impact on traffic. Mr. Williamson stated that when the tunnels are being dug the machinery used will be far less disruptive as what was experienced when the Metro tunnels were created. At this time they have not decided what the exact route of the tunnels will be, but the construction will be totally underground. However, there will be a minimum of surface destruction in only a couple of locations. The tunnel construction will be performed in two stages. Mr. Williamson estimates that the tunneling through ANC 6B will take place sometime between 2012 and 2018. He assured everyone that all construction efforts will be monitored. The estimated cost to construct the tunnels will be 2 (two) Billion Dollars. Mr. Williamson provided the Commissioners and community with the agency’s e-mail address if there were any future questions or complaints (email@example.com). Mr. Williamson can be reached directly at P: 202.787.2292 or e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Planning and Zoning Committee
The Acting Chair turned the meeting over to Commissioner Campbell, the Chair of the Planning and Zoning Committee.
Commissioner Campbell made the following report:
BZA # 17580, 284 15th St. SE – Macy Development, LLC – Variance from residential recreation space requirement and a special exception from lot occupancy requirements.
Commissioner Campbell stated that he had received a phone call from the applicants informing him of their decision to withdraw their application for the variance of lot occupancy. However, he would proceed with reading their portion of the report, which follows:
Dennis Connor; Architect presenter:
The applicant is asking for a variance from the residential recreation space requirements and a special exception in the lot occupancy from 60% to 61.2%. A number of issues arose during the construction of this property requiring the zoning relief. One is the encroachment of the adjourning S.F. D. (single family dwelling) onto their property. When the foundation of the S.F.D. was laid it was done in such a manner that it extended 6in. onto the Macy’s lot. This was discovered after the Macy property was surveyed. As a result the Macy development is asking for a special exception in the lot occupancy. They are also seeking a variance for the recreational space requirement from 20% to 0 (zero) %. This is because the 20% requirement would place an undo hardship and require the builder to make one of the floors recreational if held to the requirement. Owing to the small size of the project this would not be economically feasible. One additional point; the builder has a request from the neighbor of the adjourning property to keep the rear wall of the previous existing building and Macy’s has agreed to do so despite that this wall will be an additional encroachment on their property of 1ft 6in resulting in a further decrease in their build able space. Builder cannot fit balconies within the 60% occupancy while including the loss of space from the neighboring S.F.D. Builder also has to provide a pump room in the project to increase water pressure per WASA. The builder is providing 4 on site parking spaces.
Owing to the difficulties involved, the Committee believes that the applicant meets the test of uniqueness and hardship required for a variance and therefore recommends approval for the exemption from the recreation space requirement to the full ANC. The Committee would also note that the ANC has voted in the past to eliminate the residential space requirement and that the Zoning Commission is in process of making such a change.
Concerning the lot occupancy, the Committee notes that the foundation of the present structure appears to project well beyond the existing porch of the adjourning S.F.D. and as such will significantly affect the light and air of this S.F.D. This is different that what was pictured in earlier documents, but consistent with earlier plans – as the pictorials had incorrectly assumed that the neighboring dwellings were built all the way forward to the property line. Instead, the porches, not the front doors, of these S.F.D.s are at the property line. The Committee recognizes that this building is a matter of right and that the owner is building within the property lines but wonders if there may have been some misunderstanding or unintentional misrepresentation of the footprint of the building when first presented to the neighbors. The Committee applauds the builder in his concessions and attempts to be a good neighbor but feels that this is an overriding issue. Despite the rear wall concession and overlapping property issues, more work needs to be done to address the issues of light and air. It is because of these issues that the Committee will recommend to the full ANC that it disprove this application for a special exception from the 60% lot occupancy requirement.
The Committee also recommends that the ANC proceed with a
petition to the Zoning Commission for a map amendment to change the zoning of
this portion of
The Acting Chair asked if there was any new information regarding the application.
Mr. Dennis Connor rose and discussed their reasoning for withdrawing their request for the lot occupancy variance. Mr. Connor stated that the reason for their original request for the variance was based upon recommendations that received during their initial application process, that they would be wiser rather than waiting the new law changes they should submit their permit request at the beginning and they would seek the reduction afterwards. Also during that time they had the issue with lot occupancy. Mr. Connor went on to say that recently after working with their case representative from the Office of Planning, it was recommended that they drop the lot occupancy issue. Therefore, their only focus is on the recreational space issue. He then stated that the Office of Planning, even though they had not written their report yet, did agree with them that since the requirement has been amended and the requirement would be abolished that they should continue with this issue only.
Commissioner Jarboe asked Mr. Connor what he was doing that would allow him to drop the special exception request, such as changing the footprint of the building. Mr. Connor responded that the footprint at the time of submission was at 60%. However, they were hoping to go a little over to makeup for the space that was lost, but the Office of Planning has recommended that they do not pursue it. Therefore, if his client does intend to redesign the building in order to get a balcony on the project, they would have to reduce the building to get it within the 60%, including the neighbor’s wall.
Commissioner Garrison asked if their decision means that at 60% the building still will come out beyond the neighboring buildings or if they were going to bring it back to the being on the same line. Mr. Connor responded that the building will remain on the property line. Commissioner Garrison then asked if that meant that the building would extend past the neighbor’s porch. Mr. Connor responded that it would and that that was never a part of the issue they requested through BZA. Commissioner Garrison agreed that he was correct, but it was an issue that was raised during the Planning and Zoning Committee meeting with the neighbors, so their actions do not resolve that problem.
Commissioner Glick stated that for the record, the air and light of the neighbor who has lived in her home for a longtime, he wanted Mr. Connor to state that the building will still be blocking the air and light of the immediate neighbor’s front entrance and windows. Mr. Connor responded that Commissioner Glick was correct. The building will be coming out to the property line, which is 6 feet beyond the neighboring properties.
The Acting Chair asked if there were any other comments by the Commissioners and there were none. The Acting Chair asked if there was any new information regarding the applicant. Mr. Toffa Cushman stood and addressed the Commissioners. Mr. Cushman stated that they are working with the neighbor to try and come up with some type of solution to the problem she is having with the wall. He further stated they want to be a good neighbor and are working to do so.
Commissioner Ostergaard stated for the record, there was nothing that would prevent the applicants from doing what they proposed.
The Acting Chair agreed and stated the only action that can be taken in regards to light and air is when the applicant is going over the 60% lot occupancy limit. He further stated the only action the Commission could take to preserve light and air is if the applicant was going over the 60% lot occupancy. As long as the applicant is not going over 60% it is a Matter of Right, even if they are blocking light and air.
The Acting Chair then stated that given the changes, he believes an amendment to the Planning and Zoning Committee Report would be in order, dropping the section on the special exception, since it is a mute point because the concern has been read into the record and the ANC has no jurisdiction on the special exception.
Commissioner Campbell stated he had no objection, since the applicant has dropped the special exception regarding the lot occupancy, because they are within their 60% of lot occupancy by a Matter of Right.
The Acting Chair then stated that without any objections, the motion will come as part of the Committee Report is amended. The Acting Chair then stated the Committee Report comes as a motion from the Planning and Zoning Committee it needs no second. The Acting Chair then asked all in favor of adopting the Committee Report as amended to raise their hands. The vote was 4-3-1. The Acting Chair then stated the Committee Report was adopted as amended.
The Acting Chair then stated, for the record, the third part
of the motion does still stand, which states that the Commission will be
petitioning the Office of Planning and the Zoning Commission to move forward on
the rezoning of
ZC Case #06-34, Comstock East Capitol, L.L.C, - Consolidated PUD and Related Map Amendments @ Square 1096, Lots 51,52,53,54, and 55
This project has been presented before this Committee as
well as the full ANC. The developers are now appearing before the Committee
with updates to their earlier presentations.
The developer has met with adjourning neighbors, which includes the
Drummond Condo Association,
Commissioner Campbell stated that he had received an e-mail from Shane Dorsey and Fran Patterson stating that applicants had responded back to them and satisfied the issues they originally had.
Mr. Wade Scott, the Vice President of the Farley Condominium Association, which is located in the building adjacent to the project, presented a petition with 14 signatures from the owners in his association voicing their full support of the project. Mr. Scott went on the express their pleasure with the manner in which the Comstock representatives had attempted to work with the people in the area to address their requests.
Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Mark Beckett if they had any new information regarding the project.
Mr. Beckett stated that as discussed at the Planning and
Zoning Committee meeting, they had made a few more landscaping enhancements for
the off-site properties, specifically the other buildings adjacent to their
project, by adding some addition trees and plants in front of those
building. Mr. Beckett also presented the
Commission with letters of support from 12 of the neighbors in the Drummond
Condominium Association voicing their support for the project’s landscaping, repaving
of the alley and their petition to DDOT to change the alley connecting 18th
Street, SE and 17th Street, SE in the block between East Capitol
Street, SE and A Street, SE from the current two-way traffic pattern to allow
only one-way traffic entering the alley from 18th Street, SE and
exiting onto 17th Street, SE.
Mr. Beckett stated that they had meet with DDOT that day and DDOT had
expressed their support for the project.
He also presented the Commission with a letter of support for the
project from the Super Leaders Group, with whom the applicants have an
agreement to make monetary contributions to support
Commissioner Jarboe stated he had raised the question about precedence this project sets because they are doing a map amendment that takes it to an R-5 zone, which ANC 6B does not normally allow. Commissioner Jarboe went on to say that the area is an R-4 zone and the question is whether the project is setting a precedence for rezoning of any of the other residential areas.
Mr. Hughes responded that the answer was no. Mr. Hughes went on to say that it was not a purely zoning issue, it is a consolidated planning unit development and they are proposing to remap the property to R-5b, and conditioning it with the balancing the Zoning Commission will do later. He went on to say that the zoning regulations require that the Zoning Commission consider and be consistent in following the Comprehensive Plan, which they will do. They will take a balancing of flexibility requested and the additional density requested balanced against the amenities they are proposing.
Mr. Hughes stated that Commissioner Jarboe had asked at the Planning and Zoning Committee meeting if the project was constructed and some disaster was to happen and destroyed the buildings, could anything be built there that is not consistent with R-5b. Mr. Hughes stated that the answer was no because the replacement building would have to either be rebuilt according to the plans that the Zoning Commission would have approved, which are the current plans, or to build what is consistent with R-4 zoning.
Commissioner Jarboe followed up with the statement, that it was correct that nothing else could be build on the site other than what Comstock is proposing to build. Mr. Hughes responded that Commissioner Jarboe was correct. Mr. Hughes went on the say that the approved PUD attaches to the land. Mr. Beckett stated that if the PUD is approves the Zoning Commission will issue an order approving it, Comstock will file a Finding of Development Covenant which attaches the order with all of the conditions and puts them in the land records and the covenant binds the owner and all successors in title to construct and use the property only as was the adopted orders or amendment of the Zoning Commission.
The Acting Chair asked if there were any additional comments or discussion by the Commissioners. There was none. The Acting Chair then stated that the matter comes as a motion from the Planning and Zoning Committee needing no second. He then asked all in favor of supporting the PUD to raise their hand. The vote was unanimous (8-0). The Acting Chair commented the applicants for the outstanding job they did in working with their neighbors in finalizing their plans.
Last month, contrary to ANC’s recommendations, the BZA voted
to grant a special exception for an addition that exceeded lot occupancy
The Committee recommends that the ANC request that the BZA reconsider its ruling, based on new evidence to be provided by the neighbors in the form of a light and shadow study.
The BZA also rejected the ANC’s argument that the basement of the building met the definition of a story and therefore addition constituted a 4 story addition. Thus, the BZA implicitly rejected the ANC’s argument that proper place for measuring the height of a story was the facing of the building. By implication, the BZA has stated that the proper place for measuring the height of a story is at the furthermost front projection of the structure, in this case, the porch (even though the porch does not align with ceiling of the basement).
The Committee therefore also recommends that the ANC petition the Zoning Commission for a text amendment to clarify that the proper place for measuring the height of a story in the front of the building is the facing of the building, not any projections. The Committee also recommends that the ANC explore other avenues of correcting this mistaken ruling, such as but not limited to a request to the BZA for reconsideration or an appeal to the Zoning Commission.
The Acting Chair asked if there was any additional information. There was none. The Acting Chair then discussed the photos he had provided them to illustrate how the new addition would impact their neighbor’s light and air when completed.
The Acting Chair stated that the matter comes to the Commission as a motion needing no second. He then asked all in favor of supporting the motion to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (8-0).
BZA Case # 17852 –
The Acting Chair stated that BZA Case # 17852 – Stanton
Development the redevelopment of
The Acting Chair that the Commission support the applicant’s request for the continuance. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright. The Acting Chair then asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (8-0).
HPRB Case # 07-096,
The Acting Chair stated the next case would be the HPRB Case
Mr. Aric Moore, the architect, presented the case.
After the Commissioners had reviewed the plans in detail the Acting Chairs asked the community if it had any questions or comments regarding the application. There were none.
Commissioner Garrison asked if Mr. Moore had received letters of support. Mr. Moore stated that he had, but he accidentally forgotten to include them in the pack. However, he would get them to the Commission ASAP.
The Acting Chair asked Mr. Randolph if he had received any comments regarding the application either positive or negative. Mr. Randolph responded that he had not received any comments at all.
Commissioner Campbell made the motion that the Commission support the application contingent up receiving the letters of support from the neighbors. Commissioner Wright seconded the motion.
The Acting Chair asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was 7-0-1.
Prior to the close of the meeting Mr. Randolph received faxed copies of the letters of support from Mr. Moore.
The Acting Chair stated that since the application had not been heard by the ABC Committee, the Commission will hear the case now.
Mr. Jordan Cappola stated that he also owns Tapatinis, which
is located at
The regular hours of operation for the restaurant and roof
top deck (
There were some community concerns regarding additional
noise, loitering, and the saturation of
Committee agreed to revisit
Commissioner Jarboe made the motion that the Commission support the application contingent upon the applicant executing a Voluntary (Cooperative) Agreement with the following stipulations:
1. Applicant shall not provide, or permit live music at the premises.
2. Any music provided on the premises shall not be audible inside of any other premises at any time.
3. Applicant shall not extend any sound system or speakers to the outside of the premises or on the roof top garden.
4. Applicant will not operate the premises as a nightclub, dance venue, no dance floor or similar venue.
5. Applicant shall not have a D.J. to use the premises more than a maximum of two (2) weekend days per month, and the D.J. and speaker system will be restricted to the second floor area only.
6. Applicant agrees the only hours the D.J. can be used between the hours of 9:00 PM – 2:45 AM.
7. Applicant shall not have any bar area for the dispensing of alcoholic beverages on the roof top summer garden deck area.
8. Applicant shall provide both a front and rear buffered area to prevent sound from the roof top summer garden from disturbing immediate neighbors.
9. Applicant agrees to close (discontinue service) the sidewalk cafe at 11:00 p.m. each night.
10. Applicant agrees the roof top garden area will close on Sunday through Thursday at 2:00 AM, and at 3:00 AM on Friday and Saturday.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hill.
The Acting Chair asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was 7-0-1.
Appointment of Committee Officers
Since the Chair is authorized to appoint Committee Office and due to her absence, the appointments were deferred to the next Executive Committee meeting. Therefore all committee officers will remain the same until the Chair makes the formal announcements.
Quarterly Financial Report
Commissioner Jarboe stated that each Commissioner had been given a copy of the Quarterly Report for the 1st Quarter of 2007 that indicated both the receipts and expenditures doing that period. After reviewing the report with the Commissioners, Commissioner Jarboe made the motion that the quarterly report be accepted as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Glick.
The Acting Chair then asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (7-0).
Revised FY2007 Budget
The Treasurer, Commissioner Jarboe stated that he was offering a modification of the budget that was approved in September. The new changes are to increase the total Federal Wage Tax and the Total DC Income Tax, do the fact that in the prior budget this amount was insufficient to cover the total tax liabilities. The other change is to increase the telephone amount by $100.00 and to also increase the unemployment insurance to cover the payroll tax liabilities and decrease the postage and shipping amount from $500.00 to $100.00. Finally, $200.00 was added to cover the cost of the Community Guide publication.
Commissioner Campbell asked if the revised budget had the raise for the Executive Director or for new business cards for some Commissioners. Commissioner Jarboe responded that the Commission had not vote a raise for the Executive Director, but it did vote and gave a bonus at the end of 2006. Commissioner Jarboe went on to say that the discussion was to consider providing a raise for the Executive Director, but no decision has been reached yet. Regarding the business cards is not in the budget because it is a non reoccurring item.
Commissioner Ostergaard asked if the salary had some type of cost-of-living allowance. Commissioner Jarboe responded that it did not and the Commission would have to vote on any type of increase.
Commissioner Jarboe then moved that the modified version of the budget be adopted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Glick.
The Acting Chair then asked all in favor of adopting the modified budget to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (7-0).
The Commissioners discussed the issue of getting business cards for the new Commissioners. Commissioner Ostergaard suggested that the Commission strongly consider using a local vendor. Commissioner Jarboe stated that Commissioner Olson has estimated that it would cost $187.00 per Commissioner. After much discussion, it was decided that more research was needed before moving forward. Commissioner Glick made the motion that the matter be referred back to the Executive Committee for a decision. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Campbell.
The Acting Chair asked all in favor of the motion to say aye, and those opposed to say nay. The ayes had it and the motion passed.
Approval of January Commission Minutes
The Executive Director stated that each Commissioner had received a copy of the edit version of the minutes prior to the meeting.
Commissioner Garrison made the motion that the minutes of the last meeting be adopted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Glick.
The Acting Chair asked all in favor of the motion to say aye, and those opposed to say nay. The ayes had it and the motion passed.
There was not further business and Commissioner Hill made the motion that the meeting be adjourned until its next meeting date of March 13, 2007. The motion was seconded, and the vote was 7 to 0.
Prepared by Bert Randolph