Commissioners Present: Julie Olson, Chair; Ken Jarboe, Vice-Chair; Will Hill, David Garrison, Carol Green, Michael Patterson, and Executive Director, Bert Randolph. Commissioners Neil Glick and Francis Campbell arrived shortly after the meeting had begun.
Commissioners Absent: Kirsten Oldenburg, and Mary Wright
Chairperson Julie Olson chaired the meeting and the Commissioners introduced themselves.
There was a quorum for conducting business.
Adoption of Agenda
Commissioner Jarboe stated the Planning and Zoning Committee did take up the issue of the Circulator Bus and a letter to the City Administrator, a copy of the draft letter is included in the Commissioner’s packets, and needs to be added to the agenda. The Chair stated this item would be placed as the last item under Planning and Zoning Committee.
The Chair announced that the HPA case # 09-046,
Commissioner Garrison made the motion to adopt the agenda as amended. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Glick.
The Chair asked all in favor of the motion to say aye. The vote was unanimous (7-0).
There were none.
Community and Commission Announcements
Commissioner Jarboe announced that on Saturday, November 15th,
the Anacostia Waterfront Community Festival at the
Commissioner Garrison announced that on Wednesday, November
19th at , DDOT
will be holding a meeting to discuss the Performance Parking Pilot
Program. The meeting will be held at the
Anacostia Waterfront Civic Engagement Program – Don Edwards, Coordinator
No one was present to make the presentation.
Status Report on Process for Hill East Request For Expression of Interest (RFEI) – Genevieve Hanson, Development Manager, Office of Deputy Mayor for Planning & Economic Development
Ms. Hanson reviewed how the Anacostia Waterfront Framework Plan was developed. Ms. Hanson’s office is currently seeking feedback from the community on the plan. The Framework Plan will guide how the site is developed. The city has requested proposals from development groups. The solicitation reflected the input provided so far by the community and ANCs.
The next step in the process of moving forward will be when the developers present their concept ideas for the redevelopment of Hill East. The City has received proposals from 4 developer teams. Three of teams include large developers from across the nation, each with local partners. Each team has proposed a mix of housing types and income levels, and the engagement of the community at different stages of the process. The developer’s presentations will be held on December 3, 2008 and will be held at St Coletta’s School at 6:00 p.m. This will provide the community an opportunity to hear each developer team make a 20 minute presentation on its specific concept, followed by a community Q&A session. Following the presentations there will be a 30-day public comment period. Ms. Hanson suggested that community comments be forwarded to Commissioner Jarboe who will aggregate them and make a summary presentation back to the District. It is anticipated that by early February of 2009 a developer will be selected.
Commissioner Jarboe informed Ms. Hanson he currently has a number of other obligations and is not sure he will be able to serve as the focal point for collecting the community comments for her. He said he would talk with her about this situation offline.
Planning and Zoning Committee
The Chair turned the meeting over to Commissioner Campbell, Chair of the Planning and Zoning Committee for its report.
HPA # 09-035, 423 New Jersey Avenue SE, Roof Deck addition, restoration work, office and parking pad.
The presentation was made by Chris Corson, architect, representing owner, Ruben Santos. This is a single family dwelling (S.F.D.) in a R4 zone. Current lot occupancy is 51.06%, level that would increase to 59.4% under this proposal. The owner proposes to rehab the property and convert the basement to a one bedroom apartment with front and rear entrances, parking pad in the rear with a 6ft brick wall and metal vehicle gate. First and second floor would be office space with a roof top deck.
The interior would include an elevator and stairway access
to the interior floors and deck. The existing roof would be lowered at it highest
point 2ft 8in to decrease sight lines from and to the roof top deck. A sight
line drawing of views from adjacent streets, showing minimal impact of the
proposed deck, was provided by the applicant.
Included in the submission is s letter of support from the next-door
Ased upon the applicant’s submission and letters of support, and barring no negative information provided the Commission at its November meeting, the Committee recommends the proposal for approval to the full ANC.
The Chair asked the applicant if there was any new information that was not previously presented. Mr. Corson provided the Commission with a letter of support from a neighbor.
Commissioner Garrison stated the property is in an R-4 zone and thus residential property. He asked what the owner’s plans were to have people residing in the property. Mr. Corson stated the owners are planning on using the basement area as the residential portion of the building.
Commissioner Jarboe added that at the Planning and Zoning Committee meeting it was stated that owners were planning to be defined as a the private club, a category of use which is allowed along that strip of New Jersey Avenue. Mr. Jarboe noted that the Committee expressed concerns about that prospect. However, while that problem is of interest to the Commission, it is not determinative of how the Commission will vote. Commissioner Jarboe added that under the new generalized land use map under the Comprehensive Plan that portion of the block is to rezoned as mixed use, which may take care of the problem.
Commissioner Garrison added that one of the major problems is determining exactly how the property will be maintained as regards the normal need to take care of the outside portion of residential property (such as sidewalk snow and ice removal, and normal upkeep), actions which are often neglected by owners of commercial property. Therefore, it is important that the owners give considerations to how this will be handled.
Mr. Corson stated the owners plan to rent the basement area to a permanent resident. It may not be the resident’s direct responsibility to maintain the exterior of the property, but the owner is committed to making sure proper upkeep takes place. Mr. Corson added the owner plans to add in various plants and green treatment to make the outside area have a residential look.
The Chair stated this comes as a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Committee needing no second. The Chair asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (8-0).
BZA # 17845, 1418 K St. SE Special exception to allow a 2-story rear addition to an existing single family dwelling not meeting court requirements.
The presentation was made by Joseph Quarterman, Architect. The proposal is to add a rear addition that will extend 5ft 8in beyond the next-door neighbors existing additions. The proposal is for a two-story addition similar to one at 1416 K St. SE. The proposed lot coverage will be 56.9%, within the allotted 60%.
The present plans do not show existing conditions but only the proposed addition. Adjacent properties, as shown in the plans, are equal distance at the first floor. With this proposed addition, the new footprint may present concerns of air, light and privacy for the adjourning property owners.
Additionally, the letters of consent/support of abutting neighbors are not clear regarding these issues. The Committee takes note that the applicant has encountered difficulty in obtaining a letter of support of one adjacent property owner due to the vacant status of said property. The Committee makes no recommendations at this time to the full ANC pending the submission of more detailed drawings of the proposal to include the existing conditions and more precise letters of support from surrounding property owners.
Commissioner Campbell asked if there was any new information on the case. No one was present to represent the owner.
The Chair made the motion that, since there were concerns voiced regarding the footprint and clarity of the support letter, this case be opposed until the applicant can return to satisfy or resolve the outstanding issues. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Campbell.
The Chair asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was 7-0-1.
BZA # 17848,
Jennifer Fowler, the architect is representing Anne Holbrook and Bernard Moffet the owners. Only Ms. Holbrook was present. The owners have numerous letters of support for the proposal. The present lot coverage is 58.8% and the proposal would increase this to 90%.
As set forth in the D.C.M.R. 3103.2 “(W)here, by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a specific piece of property at the time of the original adoption of the regulations, or by reason of exceptional topographical conditions or other extraordinary or exceptional situation or condition of a specific piece of property, the strict application of the regulation adopted…….would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional and undue hardship upon the owner of the property,“ a variance may be granted.
1). The owners, using the variance test, state in the application that the “exceptionally small” size of the lot, (e.g. 602.8 square ft) makes it one third the square footage of a “legal lot” which is 1800 square feet.
2). The small lot creates a difficulty as the regulation limiting lot occupancy to 60% restricts the size of the house to two rooms on each level.
3). The lot is 12.98 ft wide, which is 5ft shy of the 18 ft minimum lot width as required in the R-4 zone.
Numerous other examples are quoted in the submission, too numerous to enumerate here. Per the applicant’s submission, granting the variance will not be of substantial detriment to the public good as it:
1). Will not be visible from the public right of way and only visible from a small dead end alley;
2). Will not add to traffic, noise or light, will not increase the number of occupants, and will only increase the usable living space to 1264 square feet; and
3). Will be similar in nature to other homes on the block with similar or greater lot coverage.
are noted in the submission. Noted also are statements of the impact on air and
light on the adjourning properties at 1508 and
The proposal includes plans for a roof top deck in the rear of the proposed build out and a green roof portion in the front, set back from the front.
Of concern to the Committee is that these homes were built in the 1930s, predating the regulations as set forth in the DCMR. The homes that the applicant sites in her submissions as having similar build outs were all done prior to the set down of those same regulations as noted in the DCMR and as such were “grandfathered” in. The size of the homes and their “uniqueness” raises questions as to whether this criterion in and of itself would fit the uniqueness test as stated in the regulations.
Pending the submission of further information by the applicant to illustrate the request for the specified variances, the Committee makes no recommendation at this time to the full ANC.
Commissioner Campbell asked if the applicant had anything new information to add to the discussion.
Ms. Fowler responded that she had additional letters of support from the neighbors and copy of a Summary Order by BZA on another BZA case 16895-A where the request for variances were granted, to support her belief that her client should also be granted relief. Additionally, Ms. Fowler stated that several of Ms. Holbrook’s neighbors were present and wanted to voice their support for the project. The neighbors mentioned the size of the house and lot and the fact the lot backs up to an alley, which is not being used by anyone except homeless people who are sleeping and using the area as a restroom, and they believe this project would help prevent some of these activities. Commissioner Campbell asked the neighbors if they were aware that Ms. Holbrook was seeking to add a third story. The neighbors responded that they were and supported her completely because all of the houses in that area are extremely small and could use some additional space.
Ms. Fowler explained that the size and shape of the structure and lot prevents the owner from making improvement to the property based upon the current building codes. Ms. Fowler added that the owner is in desperate need to expand her living room and bedroom in her home is the reason she’s seeking these variances.
Commissioner Jarboe asked Ms. Fowler if he was correct that this house could not be built today according to current building codes. Ms. Fowler responded that it could, but it would only be a one-bedroom house. Commissioner Jarboe followed up by stating it could be built as it is currently configured as it is grandfathered in to the building code. It is not a legal house based upon the current building code. Ms. Fowler responded that Commissioner Jarboe was correct. Commissioner Jarboe stated the earlier case that the Commission decided involved a restoration of a house and a small addition where to do anything required a variance. For example, if the owner wanted to put on a new roof, a variance would have to be approved. Thus that is why he believes the Commission voted unanimously to support the variance Ms. Fowler cited in the earlier case. In that instance, if the variance had not been granted, the house probably would have fallen down, thus the hardship.
Commissioner Jarboe stated that traditionally the Commission has not accepted the argument that “I just want more space” is a satisfactory test of hardship because the ultimate way to relieve that hardship is to sell your house and buy something bigger. However, he understood that that is not always feasible. Many re3sidents want to expand their house, and the question is where do we the draw the line on zoning. If everybody is allowed to expand their house to whatever size they want, you don’t have zoning rules. Thus he was struggling to see why this property is unique in terms of the zoning regulations. Commissioner Jarboe then asked Ms. Fowler if there was anything about the building per se that makes it nonconforming. Ms. Fowler mentioned the size of the rooms in the house.
Commissioner Campbell stated that there were four homes on Independence Avenue that are already at 100% lot coverage as well as another house that is over 70% that is adjacent to those houses and two additional homes on Mass Avenue that are well over 70 %. ,He noted, after looking at Ms. Holbrook’s plans that the stairway she currently has in her home appears to be very steep. The staircase she plans to install would not be at such an extreme angle. Therefore he considers the stairway currently in the house as a safety hazard and the proposed new one would be much safer modification. Therefore, he would support the argument that in that sense it would meet the hardship test.
Commissioner Garrison asked whether would it Commissioner Campbell’s view would change if that objective of building a more suitable staircase could achieve by going to only70% lot occupancy. Commissioner Campbell responded that since there are a number of homes in the area that are already well over the 70%, he does not believe that going only to 70% would give her any effective space. Commissioner Campbell said he would not find it reasonable to make the improvement if expanding only to 70% lot occupancy were permitted.
Commissioner Glick stated
the alley in the rear of the property is a dead-end alley (one-way and does not
service anyone). Commissioner Glick’s
issue is that the proposed addition to
Commissioner Campbell made the motion that the Commission approve the application based upon the fact that the house presently is in dire need and meets the peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties or exceptional and undue hardship upon the owner of the property due to the lack of livable space. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paterson.
Commissioner Garrison stated that with regret he was going to oppose the motion because he was not persuaded that the hardship test has been reached and he is very concerned about the precedent issues.
The Chair stated the motion has been and seconded and asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was 5. The Chair asked those opposed to raise their hands. The vote was 3. The motion passed 5 to 3.
BZA # 17853, 155
Carol Booker and Simeon Booker are the owners, and Carol
Booker presented. Owners wish to take an existing one-story rear porch addition
and convert said addition into a two-story rear enclosure on a single family
home. The surveyor’s report from the
As this condition was never corrected and predates all BZA and HPRB regulations, it has been grandfathered in. Owing to the uniqueness of the lots size and location, the structure is at 79%, well over the 60% as stipulated in today’s regulations. The lot is 1326 sq ft as opposed to the 1800 minimum size called for in the current zoning regulations in the R-4 district. The proposed addition will not change the current footprint of the existing structure but would allow the owners to utilize unusable “air space” space above the existing porch enclosure.
The Committee, in looking over the applicant’s submission, noting the size, location and configuration of the lot and structure and the hardship as stipulated in the “Statement of Support” for the variance requested in the applicant’s submission has no reservations in recommending the requested variance for approval to the full ANC.
Commissioner Campbell asked if there was any new information regarding the case. There was none.
The Chair stated this comes as a recommendation from the Committee needs no second. The Chair asked for the vote and the motion passed unanimously (8-0).
ZC Case #08-06-5, Comprehensive Zoning Regulations Rewrite: Commercial Zones
The Office of Planning is recommending a number of conceptual proposals as part of the comprehensive zoning regulation revision. At the October meeting, the ANC voted to oppose these proposals because the ANC did not receive adequate notification and documentation pertaining to this case to allow an informed decision. Subsequently, the Planning and Zoning Committee heard from Mr. Travis Parker of the Office of Planning on the proposals.
Originally eight recommendations, the Office of Planning modified its request at the Zoning Commission hearing to the following seven recommendations:
1. Support the concept of locally tailored commercial zones. Originally, this request was to incorporate existing commercial zone districts and overlays into standalone districts to reduce confusion. However, the Office of Planning believes that further discussion with other zoning task forces, such as the downtown zone, are needed before deciding whether to replace the overlay system or continued it with modifications.
2. Consolidate the current retail, service, and miscellaneous use list contained in Chapter 7 of the zoning regulations into approximately five categories, with conditions for each use (such as hours of operation, radius requirements, and the amount of gross floor area occupied) established for each district. OP believes that the current long lists of uses are unwieldy, complicated, and continually out of date. Separating uses by general type and impact offers a simpler and more relevant way to regulate building uses and their impacts.
3. Allow for a limit on the size of new retail spaces, as appropriate, to create opportunities for small scale retail and other uses based on local commercial area needs.
4. Require a minimum percentage of the ground floor of any new building in commercial zones to be built for retail use where appropriate.
5. Limit certain uses on the ground floor, where appropriate, to achieve a balanced retail business mix.
6. Establish ground floor design standards.
7. Establish Ground Floor Retail adaptability development standards to ensure establishment of new retail space that would allow for long-term utilization by smaller businesses, but that would not prohibit occupancy by larger retail tenants.
On Recommendation 1, the Committee supports the concept of local tailoring. Depending on how it is carried out, the Committee could also support in concept the idea of melding overlay areas with base zoning. However, given that this discussion is at a conceptual level, the Committee recommends that the ANC reserve judgment on to the details until it can be demonstrated how the local tailoring approach would be applied.
On Recommendation 2, the Committee again recommends that the ANC reserve judgment. While the concept sounds interesting in theory, there may be many practical difficulties when it comes to implementation..
On Recommendations 3 through 7, the Committee generally supports requiring ground floor retail and flexibility. The Committee is also generally in favor of design standards. However, the Committee would like to see how these requirements and standards interact with requirements of historic preservation for both buildings in the historic district and historic buildings outside of the historic district.
Thus, the Committee recommends withdrawal of the ANC’s earlier letter of opposition to the proposals. The Committee recommends that the ANC send a letter stating that the ANC takes a position of not opposing the proposals while conveying the ANC’s concerns as described above. The Committee recommends continued dialogue with the Office of Planning, including further discussions as to how the recommendations would affect commercial areas within the ANC.
The Committee also recommends that the ANC convey to the Zoning Commission its hopes a mechanism can be worked out that provides timely information to the ANCs as to the final substance of the Office of Planning’s request to the Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Jarboe explained that the Office of Planning wants to consolidate the uses to a number of basic categories and the Commission is concerned that this may take away some of the granularity that the Commission has in determining uses. Thus, the recommendation is to reserve judgment as the process goes along to determine how this is going to practically work in our area and to continue dialogue with the Office of Planning to get some actual examples as to how this will work in the Commission’s commercial zones.
The Chair stated this recommendation comes to the Committee needing no second. The Chair asked the vote and the motion passed unanimously (8-0).
ZC Case #08-06-6, Comprehensive Zoning Regulations Rewrite: Industrial Zones
As part of the comprehensive zoning regulations rewrite, the Office of Planning (OP) is proposing changes to the zoning regulations in relation to industrial districts. OP recommends renaming the current CM and M zones as “Production, Distribution, and Repair” (PDR) districts. The proposal reflects changes to the way that industrial uses would be regulated in industrial zones. It proposes the changes in allowable density to promote PDR uses. The recommendations also propose standardizing the buffering requirements to allow removal of separate special exception and overlay requirements.
There are only three areas within ANC 6B affected by this
zoning category: an area south of the Capitol which includes the Capitol Power
Station and the area around the Democratic National Committee headquarters
(zoned C-M-1); the area east of 11th Street and south of the freeway
where the Maritime Plaza development is located (zoned M); and the area
currently known as Boathouse Row (zoned C-M-1).
The General Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan shows only the area
The Committee generally has no comment concerning the OP proposal for industrial zones. One change, however, does raise a concern. The proposal, recommendation #4, would promote PDR (production, distribution, and repair activities) within these zones by providing disincentives, in the form of FAR limitations, for commercial uses in these areas. The Committee is concerned that these limitations could hamper the current commercial uses of these sites. While the Committee understands the need to preserve industrial sites within the District, the Committee believes that the current CM and M sites within the ANC’s boundary are not sites that lend themselves to future PDR activities (beyond that which already occurs on the sites). The Committee therefore recommends that the ANC take no position on the overall recommendations.
Jarboe stated he has subsequently had conversations with the Office of Planning
concerns that, in the manufacturing areas currently located in the Commission’s
area, there are inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan and the Generalized
Land Use. It is the opinion of the
Office of Planning that those areas will be rezoned during the process to bring
the zoning regulations and the Generalized Land Use Plan into compliance and zoned
so that they will be commercial. The one
area will be zoned as mixed-use is the area called
Commissioner Jarboe made the motion to amend the Committee’s report to strike the last concern and to stick with the recommendation of no position on the overall recommendation. The motion was seconded by Commission Garrison.
The Chair asked all in favor of the motion to amend the Committee report to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (8-0).
The Chair stated this comes as a recommendation from the Committee needing no second. The Chair asked for the vote and the motion passed unanimously (8-0).
Circulator Bus Service
Commissioner Jarboe stated a proposal has been made to turn the N-22 bus into a Circulator bus but there is a delay due to funding issues. The City Administrator had asked that WMATA hold off moving ahead with this until they have resolved this funding problem. The Commission is being asked to send a letter to the City Administrator asking that this process move forward and expressing the Commission’s basic support on the transformation of the N-22 bus to a Circulator bus. Commissioner Jarboe had provided the Commissioners with a copy of a letter from the Planning and Zoning Committee to be sent to the City Administrator. The letter is similar to the one Capitol Hill BID, Capitol Riverfront BID, and CHAMPS will be sending to the City Administrator.
Commissioner Garrison stated that the Commission had received a follow-up email regarding this situation and it stated this was not a cancellation of the project, but more of a rescheduling of it. Therefore, Commissioner Garrison suggested that the sentence in the 3rd paragraph “At a minimum, this action derails the process temporarily, if not cancelled it altogether ” should be removed from the letter. Commissioner Garrison said that the explanation for the delay seemed straightforward and the new service would be ready to go early in the New Year.
Commissioner Jarboe suggested that the wording “if not cancelling it out altogether” should be struck from Planning and Zoning Committee’s recommended letter. Commissioner Garrison stated he agreed with the suggestion. Commissioner Jarboe then moved for the acceptance of the modification to the letter. Commissioner Garrison seconded the motion.
The Chair asked all in favor of Commissioner Jarboe’s motion to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (8-0).
The Chair asked all in favor of the Planning and Zoning Committee’s recommendation to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (8-0).
New “CT” Tavern license for American-Italian food, televised sports events, live entertainment, jazz band, blues and rock and roll music, dancing, sidewalk café seating 20, and summer garden seating 60. Occupancy load 70. Sunday thru Thursday 11 am – 2 am, Friday thru Saturday 11 am – 3 am
The applicant, Khaled Hossainkhail, presented. The restaurant would be on the 2nd floor only as the Capitol Hill Sporting Goods is on the first floor and has a 3-year lease to continue operations. There is a separate entrance to the second floor at front of building. Mr. Hossainkhail is the owner of the building, and would like a Tavern license to operate on the 2nd floor and eventually, the 1st floor. They would serve Afghan food, and there would be no dancing, no DJ, and no cover charge, but there would be live music, with a 2-4 piece jazz band. Since it would only be on the second floor until Capitol Hill Sporting Goods lease expires or changes, applicant would need to create a fire exit on 2nd floor. The applicant proposes to build a garden deck off the back. On the 2nd floor, the proposed restaurant would seat 30-35 inside, and the deck would seat 20-25. This application also includes a sidewalk café of up to 10 seats. Live music is requested on Wednesday-Saturday evenings until 2:30 am.
Applicant is willing to sign a voluntary agreement. However, the presentation of information by the applicant was inconsistent and no firm answer as to occupancy could be determined by the Committee. Because the application specifies live music and dancing, and because of the inconsistent information presented to the committee, the committee recommended that the applicant delay his hearing before the ABC Board for one month (until December) to have time to clear up any inconsistencies in the application, and present again to the ABC Committee.
Consequently, the Committee recommends opposition to this license as presented, and recommends that the Commission ask the ABC Board for a one-month delay.
The Chair asked if the applicant was present. The applicant was not.
The Chair stated the Commission is opposing this application because the Commission can not depend upon the applicant to go before the ABC Board to request a delay because the ANC requested it to do so.
Commissioner Garrison asked if the Commission has received a confirmation that the applicant has requested a delay. The Chair responded that the Commission had not.
Commissioner Jarboe stated he was not sure a one-month delay will do a lot of good and believes the applicant really needs to go back and decide really what he wants to do at the establishment and re-submit his applicant to the Commission spelling out the specifics of what he’s planning to do.
The Chair stated this comes as a recommendation from the ABC Committee needs no second. The Chair asked for the vote and the motion passed unanimously (8-0).
Acqua 2 Limited
Partnership I, t/a Al 2, Lic.
New “CR” Restaurant license, Monday-Sunday 10 am – 1:00 am
The applicant, Ari Gejdenson, presented. The restaurant will serve modern Tuscan food and be sourced locally. The applicant will make the restaurant as “green” as possible. They will upgrade the building and serve brunch on the weekend. Occupancy is 104, and there is no sidewalk café requested at this time. The restaurant will not charge a cover charge nor will it provide entertainment or dancing. Applicant said he will sign a voluntary agreement with the ANC.
The Committee commends Mr. Gejdenson for such a detailed and complete presentation. The Committee recommends support of this license application contingent upon the signing of a voluntary agreement.
The Chair asked if there was any new information pertaining to the application. Mr. Gejdenson stated he is waiting to get the voluntary agreement so that he can sign it.
The Chair stated this comes as a recommendation from the ABC Committee needs no second. The Chair asked for the vote and the motion passed unanimously (8-0).
Eastern Market Committee
The Chair turned the meeting over to Commissioner Jarboe the representative to the Eastern Market Community Advisory Committee for his report.
The following is my report on Eastern Market, based on the EMCAC meeting of October 29, 2008 and subsequent activities:
As noted in an earlier email to Commissioners, the City Council has approved emergency legislation (valid for 90 days) to make certain technical changes to allow for the city to take over management of the Market should it become necessary for them to do so. I have no indication at this time that the city is planning such a move. However, as I reported at the last ANC meeting, the current market manager (Eastern Market Ventures) and OPM have traded "notices of default". The EMV contract expires Dec 31.
Construction is proceeding on the Market interior. Planning for the
Streetscape work will begin in January rather than December
to accommodate holiday vending. Sewer
work will continue on
The issue of the electrical bill for the West Hall is being worked out by OPM. EMCAC received assurances that the electricity will not be shut off.
The review process on the responses to the RFP for a unified market manager is underway.
The Ruth Ann Overbeck project has begun an oral history project on the Market. The goal of the project is to capture both past recollections about the Market and comments/recollections about the fire and the community response.
EMCAC and Barracks Row are beginning discussions on the
possibility of joint marketing and branding.
There will be a joint meeting in the future to include other interested
retail participants, including the Market Row merchants and the retail
establishments on the 600 block of
Commissioner Jarboe added that when they started doing the repairs and construction around the market itself, they ripped up the bricks. They were supposed to save the bricks and reuse them, but they didn’t. This was due to an apparent miscommunication between OPM and DDOT, so the bricks were thrown out. OPM is saying do not worry they would put down wire cut bricks and DDOT can come back and put in more historic accurate moulded bricks. That stuck EMCAC as being double the cost, so there is a letter that was sent by EMCAC to OPM asked them to do it right and to do it once. Commissioner Jarboe made the motion that the Commission support the following letter. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Glick.
Eastern Market Community Advisory Committee
February 4, 2009
Robin Eve Jasper, Director
Office of Property Management
Dear Director Jasper,
It has come to the attention of the Eastern Market Community Advisory Committee that the previously agreed upon plans for the reuse of the historic bricks at Eastern Market have been abandoned and plans now call for the use of wire cut bricks instead. This is despite the fact that an agreement has existed between DDOT, OPM and EMCAC since 2005 that specified that existing brick would be re-used where feasible or moulded brick as opposed to wire-cut would be obtained for sidewalk construction. The summary of this issue is contained in the attached report.
This issue was raised at the most recent construction coordination meeting and the suggested solution from OPM was that Forney would order wire brick and EMCAC should hold DDOT responsible for replacing the new wire bricks with new moulded bricks. Surely you agree that asking EMCAC to advocate that taxpayers pay twice for bricks and the expense of labor to lay them down, as well as to tear them up so the appropriate bricks can finally be installed, is not a reasonable solution to this problem.
EMCAC passed unanimously a resolution requesting that you intervene and work with DDOT to insure that the original agreement from 2005 is followed and that historically correct moulded bricks are ordered and installed. We appreciate any efforts you can make to work together across agency boundaries to insure that both OPM and DDOT adhere to the construction coordination agreement forged in 2005. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions or would like to discuss this further.
Chair Eastern Market Community Advisory Committee
CC: The Hon. Tommy Wells
Frank Seales Jr.
Commissioner Jarboe explained that the Commission would send a letter to OPM stating it supports the letter written by EMCAC regarding this matter.
The Chair asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (8-0).
Update and Changes to By-Laws
The Chair stated the Commission has not taken a look at the By-Laws since its last revision in 2002. After reviewing them the Chair suggested that the Commission update them to make them more comprehensive. Additionally, the Chair would like for all Commissioners to have an opportunity to weigh-in on the matter. Therefore, the Chair is officially announcing that the Commission will undertake the effort to revise the By-Laws, which means Commissioners will have to send to the other Commissioners their proposed changes to the By-Laws two weeks prior to the next meeting, which will be the Executive Committee meeting. Therefore, each Commissioner should submit the rules to be changed, the proposed rule change and the reason for making the change prior to the next Executive Committee meeting on the 25th.
The Chair advised the Commissioners to send their documents to her and she will distribute them to the other Commissioners.
Quarterly Financial Report
Commissioner Green reported the balance forward was $59,390.95 and took in $9,546.47 and spent $4,638.37 leaving a balance of $64,299.05. Commissioner Green made the motion to accept the Quarterly Financial Report as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jarboe.
The Chair asked all in favor to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (8-0).
Approval of Minutes
Commissioner Garrison made the motion to adopt the minutes from May 13, 2008. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Olson.
The Chair asked all in favor to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (8-0).
Commissioner Garrison made the motion to adopt the minutes from September 9, 2008, which includes the suggestion that was made at an earlier meeting that the agenda be displayed at the beginning of the minutes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jarboe.
The Chair asked all in favor to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (8-0).
There was no further business and Commissioner Hill made the motion that the meeting be adjourned until its next meeting date of December 9, 2008. The motion was seconded, and the vote was 8 to 0.
Prepared by Bert Randolph