Advisory Neighborhood
Commission 6B
Minutes
of Regular ANC Meeting
October
14, 2008
Commissioners
Present:
Commissioners Absent: Neil Glick and Michael Patterson
Chairperson
There was a quorum for conducting business.
Adoption of Agenda
The Chair announced that BZA Case # 17834, 715 E Capitol Street, SE would be taken off of the agenda per the owner’s request. The Commission will add a Public Space case for the Hawk’n Dove to extend the hours of their sidewalk café. This item will be added at the end of the Planning and Zoning Committee section. At item # 8 the Commission will add the FY 09 Interim Budget. The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund 5K Run – “Race to Remember” will be moved so as to come before the Planning and Zoning Committee report. Finally, item # 6, Resolution - Barracks Row Parking Lot Fence, will be moved under item # 3.
Commissioner Hill made the motion to accept the agenda as amended. Commissioner Campbell seconded the motion. The agenda was approved unanimously.
1. Adoption of Agenda
2. Community Speakout
3. Community and Commission Announcements
4. Resolution – Barracks Row Parking Lot Fence
5. Planning and Zoning Committee
·
PS # 41109, Locanda Restaurant,
·
PS # 41111, Lola’s Barracks Row,
· BZA # 17844, 801 Virginia Avenue, SE – Variances from court requirements and off-street parking to allow construction of new commercial office building with ground floor retail in the ES (Eight Street Overlay)
· ZC # 08-06-5, Comprehensive Zoning Regulations Rewrite: Commercial Zones – Jennifer Steingasser, Deputy Director, Office of Planning
·
New
·
HPA # 08-443,
· PS – Hawk’n Dove, sidewalk café seating
6. ABC Committee
·
Zack’s, Inc., Lic # 74926, 305
7. Eastern Market Committee Report and Resolution
8. Approval of Commission Minutes
9. FY 09 Interim Budget
10. Adjournment
Community Speakout
Mr. James Stoddard who lives at lives on
Commissioner Olson informed Mr. Stoddard that Marian Park was in her Single Member District and she gave him her business card and asked him to contact her directly and she would love to work with him offline to resolve this matter.
Ms. Melissa Rudd with the
Mr. Louis Wassel, the new interim Director of Barracks Row Main Street Program, introduced himself to the audience. Mr. Wassel also introduced Ms. Sharon Bosworth who works with him. Mr. Wassel invited anyone who may have questions or complaints about the Barracks Row Main Street Project to please contact him at 202.544.3188 and he will work to assist them in getting answers.
Community and
Commission Announcements
It was announced that the Capitol Hill Restoration Society
would be holding the Preservation Café on October 15th. The meeting will be held in the downstairs
Community Room at the Ebenezers Coffeehouse at 2nd and
Resolution – Barracks Row Parking Lot Fence
The Chair stated the Commission had received a letter from the Barrack Row Main Street Economic Development Board regarding this issue.
Mr. Damon Harvey, Manager of the Citywide Parking Program with the Department of Transportation, stated he was present to discuss the parking situation under the Southeast/Southwest Freeway and the removal of the fencing surrounding the parking area.
Mr. Harvey stated he was also the Program Manager for the Parking Performance Pilot Program in the District, which includes areas within both ANC 6B and 6D. Mr. Harvey informed the audience of DDOT’s plans for a community meeting on the pilot sometime the 2nd or 3rd Wednesday in November. Once the meeting date has been firmed up he will notify the Commission of the specific date and time. Additionally, Councilmember Wells has requested that a committee be established to look at the impact of Performance Based Parking and he would like to have one member from each of the impacted ANCs. Therefore, Mr. Harvey asked the Commission to determine who would represent the ANC on the committee. The Commission appointed Commissioner Dave Garrison as their representative on the committee.
The main purpose of the meeting is to give the affected community a chance to tell DDOT where the money from the pilot parking program should be spent. Mr. Harvey stated he will provide the Commission with the amount of revenue that has been generated over the past 5 months. At the beginning of the year DDOT will determine how to spend those funds with input from the community. Mr. Harvey cautioned everyone that the numbers are not huge, but in the 5 months they have made more money that they did in almost half of last year from the meters in ward 6. Mr. Harvey added that the money, 20 percent of the total amount generated, must be spent on transit type issues such as buses, mass transit and etc.
Regarding the parking lot under the Southeast/Southwest Freeway at the corner of 8th and I Street, SE, the property is owned by the District. After 9/11 the Federal Highway Administration added requirements on how space below interstates can be used. Thus, in order for DDOT to open up this space for public use, DDOT has to go through a very exhaustive review process with the Federal Highway Administration. Mr. Harvey stated he has nearly completed the process and at this time the Federal Highway Administration has told him that DDOT may open up a parking facility under the Interstate. However, there were a couple of hurdles DDOT needs to cover before it can move forward.
Previously, the US Marines had the approval to park under the freeway based upon a Memorandum of Understanding, but now that agreement has lapsed. Mr. Harvey stated he has spoken with the Marines and they do not want to continue with the agreement. After the Marines leave, DDOT will allow the public to park in the space. The DDOT will install parking meters, which he hopes will be multi-space meters, and night lighting. Additionally, DDOT is looking to install bike racks at the facility.
Mr. Harvey stated DDOT is now at a decision point regarding
the removal of the fence surrounding the parking on the
To address security in the parking area, DDOT has secured $140,000.00 of local tax dollars that will be used to install high-intensity security lighting under the highway surface (roof of the parking area), which will be installed the first week in November. Currently, at night the parking area is dark and dangerous, which is not conducive for public parking. Whether the fence comes down or not, DDOT is moving forward in converting this area into a public parking lot by the first of the year.
A constituent asked if the meters to be used in the parking lot would be limited to a maximum of two hours. Mr. Harvey stated that with the new multi-space parking meters DDOT will have the ability to change the number of hours a vehicle can be parked in the lot, which can vary by special events. Mr. Harvey initial plan is to have the parking time set at 4 hours. The intent is not to make this a place for commuter parking but to allow commercial patrons adequate time to transact their business in the area.
A constituent asked how many parking spaces will be available in the lot. Mr. Harvey stated it will be approximately 60 and 70 spaces depending upon exactly how the lot is configured and other security features that would be installed.
A constituent asked how many entrances and exits will there be for the parking lot. Mr. Harvey stated currently there is one entrance/exit point. Mr. Harvey said it is his opinion, based upon his personal experience and from speaking with security experts, that it would be more dangerous to have a lot of exits and entrances to the lot, which would make it much more difficult to control the safety in the area. However, if people can devise a way to have entrances and exits at different points in the lot that are acceptable to safety standards, that would be fine with him. But once he starts modifying the fence he will have to remove the fence completely. This would mean the entire parking area would be open, which the security experts advise against. Additionally, if the fence is removed and in the future the Commission decides it wants the fence replaced, he will not be able to guarantee that he will be able to replace it within the next 12 months or with the same height and quality of fencing because he does not currently have the funds to do so. Mr. Harvey stated it would not make good business sense to remove a perfectly sound fence and then only a few months later spend precious funds to replace it with an inferior product. Additionally, Mr. Harvey mentioned that there have not been any security problems since the fence surrounding the parking area was originally installed.
Commissioner Green asked if it would be possible to delay the decision regarding the removal of the fence until 6 months or so after the security lighting has been installed. Mr. Harvey responded that it would be possible and he liked this idea because it would be easier for DDOT to stage the lighting installation while the fencing is still in place.
Commissioner Hill asked if it would be possible to have an exit gate where an individual could walk through and it would lock from the inside. Mr. Harvey stated he was not familiar with that type of arrangement, but he would go back and look into it and get back with Commissioner Hill. However, he does believe there would be a possible liability for the District if such an opening was installed.
Commissioner Jarboe then asked Mr. Harvey what would be the liability of keeping the fence up when someone get trapped inside the fenced in area. Mr. Harvey responded that if there was a gate that locked after a patron entered the fenced in area and was harmed or injured the District would be liable. Commissioner Jarboe stated he did not think Commission Hill was speaking about a locking gate but more of a turnstile entrance. Mr. Harvey responded that DDOT could do something like that, which would be a good way to start the operation. Mr. Harvey added that he personally would feel safer with the one entrance/exit because if the parking area is open on all sides someone would have too many places to enter, hide and escape once the offense was committed, which is what the safety experts said. Commissioner Jarboe asked Mr. Harvey if he had any statistics regarding the likelihood of an assault in a parking garage as compared to an open lot. Mr. Harvey responded that he did not. Commissioner Jarboe added that he has a number of female friends who will not enter parking garages for fear of their safety.
Commissioner Olson stated that after their meeting at the parking area a few days earlier, one of the marine who was present voiced his concern about individuals being trapped inside with an assailant who was already inside or followed them in. The women in attendance felt the concern for safety fell along gender lines. Commission Olson stated that since that meeting she has spoken with lot of people including the businesses along Barracks Row about this. There are a lot of people who feel that the penitentiary type fence around the parking area makes them not want to park there. Commissioner Olson continued by saying the businesses along Barracks Row definitely wanted patrons to be able to park in the lot. Commissioner Olson then stated that she personally will not park there if the fence is still in place because of her safety fears.
Commissioner Campbell stated he supported Commissioner Green’s idea of installing the security lighting and holding off for about 6 months on the removal of the fence. Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Harvey what would be the efficacy of putting in panic alarms such as you see in some of the college parking garages. Commissioner Campbell added that he had taken his wife down to the parking area for her input and she would prefer to keep the fence in place because by limiting the entrance and exit to the area to one location it would be safer. Adding the panic alarms would help notify the marines across the street or the police in the area that someone was in need of immediate assistance. Commissioner Jarboe stated the marines will not come because they are there to protect the Barracks and there is a concern that if something else happens and they go rushing off to that location the bad guys could sneak in back behind them. Commissioner Campbell stated that he thought some type of agreement can be reached with the marines to assist in given situations that may arise. Additionally, Commissioner Campbell stated he was under the impression that the marines monitored the entrance/exit with their video camera located at the corner of 8th and I Street, SE, so if there is a panic button in the parking area that will help address the security issue.
Commissioner Oldenburg stated the Commission has been copied
on a letter from
Mr. Harvey responded that DDOT could remove the fence, but currently there are no funds available to replace the fence with a different type of fencing. Mr. Harvey added that if replacing the fence for aesthetic reasons with a different type of fencing is the point then security really is not the issue with the current fence.
Commissioner Garrison asked if the parking lot was going to
be used by the employees of the businesses on
Commissioner Oldenburg stated that putting a couple of additional exit points in the fence will not change the perception of the safety issue. If the fence was a regular 8 feet chain link fence she would not have an objection to the fence being in place, but it is not.
The Chair stated a couple of business owners were present, who happened to be female, and she invited them to speak.
The owner of Homebody stated she was of the opinion that the fence should be removed because it does project the image of area that is not very safe and inviting to park one’s car.
The owner of Lola’s Bar & Grill stated he also believes the fence should be removed because by limiting the exit to the parking area to one spot the potential assaulter could wait outside the entrance for a person to enter to park or to retrieve your car and then follow that person on in. Additionally, if the fence is removed it would make the lot area more attractive and it would also afford the potential victim various routes to escape an attacker.
Commissioner Olson stated she has represented a portion of
the area adjacent to the parking lot for a number of years, and she believes
retaining the fence will in fact send the wrong signal to the community that it
needs to be protected by this 20 foot high fence. Commissioner Olson added that when she was at
the community meeting at the parking lot and was standing inside the fenced in
area during the daylight, she felt like she would definitely not want to park
in the lot. She was confident the patrons of
Commission Olson made the motion to support the removal of
the fence and to support the
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund 5K Run – “Race to Remember”
Officer Marcello Muzzatti who is with the Metropolitan Police Department’s Homeland Security Department and is the Administrative Assistant to Chief Pat Burke addressed the Commissioners and community regarding the upcoming National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund 5K Run “Race to Remember”, to be held on October 19th. Officer Muzzatti apologized for coming before the Commission at such a late date seeking its support. Officer Muzzatti provided the Commissioners with information on the race route. The purpose of the race is to show appreciation for the service and sacrifice of law enforcement officers, to benefit the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund and to build the first-ever National Law Enforcement Museum. Officer Muzzatti anticipates there will be approximately 300 runners in the race.
Commissioner Garrison stated the race would be held this coming Sunday morning and will be completed by 10:00 am. Commissioner Garrison pointed out a slight discrepancy in Officer Muzzatti’s route map regarding a non-existing street, which Officer Muzzatti acknowledged and said would corrected on the map. Commissioner Garrison noted that ANC 6B will only be impacted on one block by this race.
Commissioner Jarboe stated he would support the race, but he wanted to be on record that the next event that comes before the Commission less than a month prior to it, he will vote against on principle. However, he does understand the circumstance Officer Muzzatti was operating under at this time.
Commissioner Garrison made the motion to take no position on the race. Commissioner Jarboe asked to make a friendly-amendment to say “the action is being taken because of the lack of prior notification.” Commission Garrison accepted the friendly-amendment. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Green. The Chair asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (8-0).
Planning and
Zoning Committee
The Chair turned the meeting over to Commissioner Campbell the Chair of the Planning and Zoning Committee to make his report.
PS # 41009, Locanda Restaurant,
The applicant did
not appear at the Planning and Zoning Committee meeting on Tuesday night;
however a representative is present tonight.
The representative
for Locanda Restaurant stated his client is seeking to have 4 tables, 8 chairs,
and 2 umbrellas with the stanchions aligned with the other establishments on
the block. The Commissioners reviewed
the diagram of the sidewalk layout.
Commissioner
Oldenburg asked about the distance between the stanchions and the treebox. The representative stated it was
approximately 6 feet and that the Public Space Committee was happy with that
distance and had approved the application.
The Chair questioned how the Public Space Committee could have already
approved the application when it is just coming before this Commission. The representative corrected himself and
stated the case will be coming before the Public Space Committee on October 23,
2008. Only the staff reviewer at Public Space had given an okay to move
forward.
Commissioner
Garrison stated he and Commissioner Oldenburg have been working together to
make sure sidewalk cafes are abiding by consistent rules and regulations
regarding the distance between the outside seating and the nearest barrier to
pedestrian passage. Commissioner
Garrison noted that there is often only 2 feet of clearance in front of some of
the establishments along the 600 block of
Commissioner
Oldenburg asked what type of material would be used in creating the
stanchions. The representative stated
the applicant had not made a final decision at this time.
Commissioner Jarboe
stated that planter boxes are not very desirable because they are taking up too
much space and sometimes end up not being on the inside of the seating
line. This often means that more space is
taken from the pedestrian walking area.
Commissioner Jarboe urged the representative to look at using something
other than planter boxes as stanchions.
Commissioner
Campbell asked about the possibility of public space placing permanent marks of
some type on the sidewalk itself to indicate where the line should be drawn to
separate the café area from the pedestrian walk space. This would facilitate the enforcement efforts
of DDOT regarding sidewalk cafes encroachment onto the pedestrian walking
space.
Commissioner
Campbell made the motion the Commission support the application with the
condition that some type of mark be made to denote the limit of the seating
area to insure that the 6 feet clearance is maintained for the pedestrian walk
space. Commissioner Olson offered a
friendly amendment to say that the Commission approved this public space
application as long as the 6 feet clearance between the treebox and the
pedestrian walk space is maintained.
Commissioner Campbell accepted the friendly amendment. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Wright.
The Chair called for
the vote and the motion passed unanimously (8-0).
PS # 41111, Lola’s Barracks Row,
Mr.
Commissioner Campbell asked Mr. Cervera if there was any new
information. Mr. Cervera responded there
was not. Mr. Cervera stated he had
spoken with the representative from ABRA who informed him he did not have to
have stanchions. Since his
establishment caters to an older crowd, he will have only two small tables and
will not be using stanchions. However,
if in the future he runs into a problem regarding the crowd in the sidewalk
area, he will install something to control the area.
Commissioner Jarboe
stated for the record that the Commission in both public space cases was not
voting on an ABC issue, but instead with only voting on the Public Space
application for a sidewalk café.
Commissioner
Garrison recommended that the P&Z Report be amended to show in both public
space cases that the approval be conditioned upon the fact that the distance
between the treebox of 6 feet and 10 feet from the curb be maintained for the
sidewalk café area. The Commissioners agreed
with the change.
The Chair stated this comes before the Commission as a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Committee no motion or second is needed. The Chair asked for the vote and the motion passed unanimously (8-0).
BZA # 17834, 715 E. Capitol
Street, SE – Special exception to allow two-story rear addition to existing
one-family dwelling
This case was withdrawn at the owner’s request.
BZA #17844, 801 Virginia Avenue, SE – Variances from court requirements and off-street parking to allow construction of new commercial office building with ground floor retail in the Eighth Street Overlay.
John Edwards presented along with Karen Phillips, the owner. Applicants are seeking variances for parking and court requirements owing to factors in building adjustments and market trends. The building was presented to the ANC before as a mixed residential and commercial venture. Applicable permits were approved and secured from DCRA as well as applicable construction permits. Copies are attached in the application.
Owing to a market downturn the owner, who was approved for a residential condo building with retail space on the first floor, elected not to construct the residential building and entered into a contract to sell the property and architectural plans to the contract purchaser.
The proposed commercial project and building is identical in size, configuration and design to the earlier residential project. Since the original conceptual plans for the building were approved by HPRB, the applicant’s submission notes that “although the use of the building has changed from primarily residential and retail to office and retail, its design has not changed. Thus, no further HRPB review will be necessary”.
In the applicant’s submissions, the encroachment of an
adjourning two-story building located on the east side of the site is
described. The encroachment is
approximately 1.47 feet on the
Because this site was formerly a gas station, two practical concerns exist for the excavation that would be necessary to provide the 30 parking spaces as required in the regulations. First, measurable subsurface water was encountered in all borings generally at an approximate depth of 21.5 feet below existing site grades. Further, “surveying engineers observed that soil on the property had a petroleum-like odor and advised that excavated material may be impacted,” requiring special handling and disposal of contaminated soil.
Second, the irregular shape of the property and requirements for the location of the garage space, ramps and drive aisles present practical difficulties in complying with code requirements. Considerations include the need for sufficient space for adequate turning clearances, and the prohibitive cost of having to provide more than one level of parking. There is also a limited choice of where curb cuts could be located with likely options forcing the location of the entrance to the structure to the least desirable location on the property
The building code requirements for ingress and egress from the lower and upper floors, staircases and elevator requirements consume a sizable percentage of the available floor area for the garage. These constraints as well as the other practical difficulties associated with the site make the application of the regulation prohibitive.
The applicant submits that granting the requested variances will not create a detriment to the public good or the zoning plan. The close proximity of two Metro stations (Eastern Market and Navy Yard) and “measures to encourage the occupants of the property to use mass transit and alternative commuting options” provide a suitable alternative for employees and visitors needing to reach the building.
Finally, the applicant states in the proposal that “the strict application of the Zoning Regulations would result in a peculiar and exceptional practical difficulty… The requested variances will not result in substantial detriment to the public good or the zone plan…The proposed building is compatible with the Capitol Hill Historic District and will develop a currently vacant lot.”
The Committee notes that the applicant does not yet own the property. The applicant was also not able to explain the property’s recent inclusion on the city’s list of tax delinquent premises. The Committee asked the applicant to provide more information on both of these matters when the case comes before the Commission on October 14.
If these concerns are satisfactorily resolved, the Committee would recommend this project, based on the applicant’s submissions, to the full ANC for approval.
Commissioner Campbell noted that the applicant has provided additional information. The applicant provided a statement by ICP Partners stating that they own the property. In addition, the applicant has provided a statement from the Board of Taxes clarifying the tax status of the property, certifying that the tax lien listed in the newspaper was a mistake.
Commissioner Jarboe noted that the original proposal was for condos and now that it is for Commercial use, and asked what will be the number of parking spaces. The applicant responded that it will continue to have 17 parking spaces; as for the earlier condo project, it would have required 13 parking spaces. Commissioner Jarboe stated that this situation highlights the problem the Commission has with current parking regulations, but not in the way that the Office of Planning wants to fix it. Commissioner Jarboe continued by saying that he thinks it is absurd that the zoning requirements require more parking for an office building than for a residential building. In his opinion it should be just the opposite. What you want to do is to encourage people to leave their cars at home, which means you need to provide parking for them in the residential area and discourage them from driving to the office building. In this case, according to the zoning regulations, if the Commission does not approve this variance, we would be encouraging people to drive to this building. Therefore, he will support this application wholeheartedly.
The Chair stated this comes before the Commission as a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Committee no motion or second is needed. The Chair asked for the vote and the motion passed unanimously (8-0).
ZC # 08-06-5, Comprehensive Zoning Regulations Rewrite:
Commercial Zones
The
Committee is awaiting further detailed information regarding this matter. Therefore, no action was taken on this case.
Commissioner
Jarboe stated the recommendations were put online a couple of days ago. It is a complicated set of recommendations by
the Office of Planning that would change the way that retail areas are zoned in
the District. In many cases the
proposals include changes that the Commission has pushed for in the past for
various types of overlays. For example,
the new proposals would require ground floor retail such that is could be
configured for large or small retail use.
OP is proposed to cap the amount space available for individual retail
establishments in certain situations in order to protect access by small retail.
However,
there are two areas that concern Commissioner Jarboe. The first is that OP wants to drop the
standard commercial zoning categories (C2.1, C2.A, C2.B, and C3) and instead
treat every retail corridor as a unique zoning area. Commissioner Jarboe added that he does not
see how this Commission would be able carry out its responsibilities regarding
the several commercial corridors in 6B where each one had its separate zoning
treatment. The concept of flexibility in
the application of zoning rules is a good idea, but in practicality it may be
hard to administer the sort of approach OP suggests.
Secondly,
OP wants to collapse all the uses into some generic categories, such as food,
entertainment, and retail. There are
over 200 categories of uses that would have to be collapsed in this
manner. The problem he sees is that the
Commission likes some of the fine gradations among food establishments which
permit us to differentiate between an ice cream parlor, a fast food restaurant
and a sit down restaurant. Simply
lumping those all together will not allow the Commission to get the result it
seeks. There is also a suggestion by OP
that the same approach should be taken as regards residential uses. That would lump all residential uses into one
category, putting high rises with townhouses, for example.
Commissioner
Jarboe said the problem is that this case is coming up before the Zoning
Commission very quickly on October 23rd and yet there are issues we
need to discuss. Unfortunately the
documentation was just made available the Commission which means we will not
have adequate time to discuss these matters.
Commissioner
Garrison agreed there are a number of questions that need to be answered and he
does not believe the Commission itself can answer these questions alone. Instead, we would need to have a discussion
with OP staff present before the Commission could render a full informed
decision.
The
Chair stated that one of the Commissioners would need to go down to the hearing
to represent the Commission in this matter.
Commissioner Jarboe stated he would be willing to do and to make the
process argument on the Commission’s behalf.
Commissioner
Jarboe agreed with Commissioner Garrison’s assessment and made the motion that
the Commission oppose the case based upon inadequate notice and respectfully
request a minimum of a 30-day delay in hearing this case to allow the
Commission to thoroughly evaluate the case.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Garrison.
The Chair called for the vote and the motion was approved unanimously (8-0).
New
Mrs.
Muehllehner reviewed the school sign design and their latest concept for
improving the playground and the area in front of the school’s front entrance
along
Commissioner
Campbell stated the Committee did not make a recommendation regarding this case
pending the re-write of the support letter that was submitted by Mrs.
Muehllehner. Commissioner Campbell added
that the problem the Committee had with the original letter was that it was too
specific in supporting one particular group.
Commissioner
Campbell then read the draft of the rewritten letter by Commissioner Garrison
regarding the Brent Elementary School Beautification Project:
“Advisory Neighborhood Commission 6B covers the southeastern
portion of
At the Commission’s October 2008 meeting, the Brent
Elementary Schoolyard Greening Committee presented its latest concepts for
improving the playground and the area in front of the school’s front entrance
along
The
Chair told Mrs. Muehllehner there were a number of e-mails being sent around
last week in the community regarding concerns about the plans for the sign to
be installed at the school. However, the
Chair believes Mrs. Muehllehner had satisfactorily answered those
concerns. The Chair noticed that
Commissioner Garrison had not put anything in the letter specifically regarding
the sign. Commissioner Garrison
responded that this was true. The main focus of the letter was on the
schoolyard. Additionally, looking at
some of the e-mail traffic and discussions, it appears the Commission might
have issues with the signage and the proposed wall mural, It seemed to him that at this stage of the
Commission’s involvement in the process this letter would be sufficient for the
purpose of helping secure funding for the improvement project. If further action by the Commission is needed
it can be considered at a later date.
The
Chair informed Mrs. Muehllehner that she will still need to come back before
the Commission for the signage matter.
Mrs. Muehllehner stated that signage had been approved 6 months ago and
has been reviewed by the U.S. Commission on Fine Arts (CFA). The CFA recommended “no objection”. Since
this property is part of DC Public Schools, signage approval goes through CFA
instead of HPRB.
The
Chair made the motion to add in the letter of support one small change that the
Advisory Neighborhood Commission 6B covers the Southeastern portion of
The
Chair asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (8-0).
HPA #08-443,
Mr. Cheoly Cha, the Project Manager, represented Mr. Kahn Iftijkhar, the owner. Mr. Cha presented plans for a proposed new second story build-out and a third story addition on the existing Aatish restaurant for the purpose of creating a rooming house facility for employees of the restaurant. Both the second and third floors would have five rooms with baths. The plans show common hallways on both the second and third floor but no plan for a second ingress or egress (the internal staircase being the only route in and out). The plans are unclear about the location of the existing windows and lack clear definitions of entrance/exit doorways to the restaurant and/or existing second floor.
Although the rooming house addition may be a matter-of-right, there is a question of the number of parking spaces required. There also exists a number of questions for the Commission regarding accuracy in the renderings, defining entrance and exits clearly. There are possible code issues regarding fire control, ingress and egress strategies. Until these and other questions and concerns can be addressed, the Commission cannot recommend this project for approval.
Commissioner
Campbell stated that his review of the DCMR indicates that buildings must be
over four stories to be required to have a fire escape. Regarding new construction, the code
stipulates that must have clearly defined entrances and egresses noted by
signage. The Committee’s concern was
that even though the applicant’s plans show a common hallway on the 2nd
and 3rd floors addition, they do not show the connections between
the 1st floor and the 2nd and 3rd floor
hallways. The third story addition being
proposed shows the windows that will be placed on the side of bedrooms No. 8
and 9 on the second floor are situated in such a way as to allow for escape in
the event of an emergency, which makes this issue a matter-of-right.
Commissioner
Jarboe asked when it stipulates there has to be a common area of egress, does
it stipulate that there has to be more than one. Commissioner Campbell responded that it does
not. The code only stipulates that there
has to be a common hallway.
Additionally, because the windows are of standard size they can also
serve as exits. Commissioner Jarboe
added that according to the applicant’s drawings the stairway leading up to the
2nd and 3rd floors from the front is completely separated
from the rest of the first floor.
Therefore, other than the windows there is only one exit (doorway) from
the building from the second and third floor because the rear exit is not
accessible to the people on the 2nd and 3rd floors. Does this conform to the fire code? Commissioner Campbell responded that
according to his reading it would.
Commissioner Campbell added that he wonders whether this project will be
considered as new construction or the renovation of an existing structure. If it is considered new construction there
are regulations that requiring sprinklers, fire extinguishers, hardwired alarm
systems and additional exits, At this
point he has not been able to resolve this question.
The
Chair stated that the issues Commission Campbell brings up are important zoning
issues, but the Commission’s focus tonight is limited to HPRB issues. Commissioner Jarboe added the question is
whether or not this case should even go forward to HPRB because of these other
related zoning issues that need resolution, including parking issues as well as
those outlined by Commissioner Campbell.
There
was further discussion between Mr. Cha and Commissioners in an attempt to
resolve the various issues. In the end, since
this case would not be coming before HPRB until next month, it was decided that
it would be in the best interest of the applicant to request a one month delay
from HPRB.
The
Chair stated that what is before the Commission is a motion to oppose this
project. Commissioner Jarboe stated he
was not willing to prejudice the final outcome by disapproving the project at
this stage. He would be happy with a
postponement. Commissioner Campbell made
the motion to postpone this case for at least one month to allow the applicant
more time to resolve the outstanding issues.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jarboe.
The
Chair asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was unanimous (8-0).
Hawk’n Dove Restaurant –
Mr.
Paul Meagher, General Manager for the Hawk’n Dove Restaurant is seeking the
support of the Commission to extend their public space permit hours of
operation until 2 a.m. on week nights and 3.m. on weekends and to use their
public space area for the full twelve months of the year, which currently
stands at 6 months. Mr. Meagher stated
the Hawk’n Dove was the first restaurant in the 200-300 blocks of
Mr.
Meagher is requesting that the Commission issue two letters of support, one
regarding the extension of the hours of operation and the other for the
extension in the number of months. The
Chair informed Mr. Meagher that the Commission could write one letter to DDOT
(Public Space) outlining its support of both issue, which would be the normal
process of the Commission.
Commissioner
Jarboe made the motion that the Commission writes a letter of support to DDOT
(Public Space) supporting the extension in the operating hours of the sidewalk
café area as requested and the extension in the number of months the Hawk’n
Dove can operated the sidewalk café as requested. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
Campbell.
The
Chair asked for the vote and motion was approved unanimously (8-0).
ABC Committee
Zack’s, Inc., Lic # 74926, 305 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE – Substantial Change Liquor License to extend sidewalk café hours – Sunday thru Saturday 11:00 am – 2:00 am
Mr. James Nash, co-owner of Zack’s, Inc. appeared before the Commissioner and stated that during his original application to extend the restaurant’s operating hours and its entertainment endorsement, he inadvertently wrote in the incorrect hours for the sidewalk café area. Zack’s sidewalk café currently closes at 10:00 p.m. However, the restaurant is open until 2:00 a.m. during the week and 3:00 a.m. during the weekend.
Mr. Nash has made application with the ABC Board to extend the sidewalk hours to coincide with the overall restaurant closing times (a “Substantial Change”). The ABC Board has set a hearing date of November for the case. Mr. Nash is seeking the Commission’s support for the extension of his operating hours of his sidewalk café and for a stipulated license to operate the sidewalk café during the hours requested until the ABC Board makes it final ruling.
Commissioner Jarboe made the motion to approve the Stipulated Application for the extended hours. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wright.
The Chair asked for the vote and the motion was approved unanimously (8-0).
Commissioner Jarboe made the motion to approve the application for Substantial Change, with the signing of a revised Voluntary (Cooperative) Agreement. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Hill.
Commissioner Garrison offered a friendly-amendment to modify the Voluntary (Cooperative) Agreement to add the requirement that there be clearance of 6 feet space between the treebox and curb, and the customer eating area.
The Chair asked for the vote and the motion was approved unanimously (8-0).
Eastern Market
Committee and Resolution
Commissioner Jarboe submitted the following report, which included the 7th Streetscape Working Group Report by Commissioner Wright:
The following is my report on Eastern Market, based on the EMCAC meeting of September 24 and subsequent activities.
EMCAC update:
EMCAC elected the following set of officers for the next year:
Donna Scheeder, Chair
Chuck Burger, Vice Chair
Larry Gallo, Treasurer
Monte Edwards, Secretary
EMCAC passed a resolution authorizing the raising of funds to replace the Market Christmas decorations. Over the course of the construction, the old decorations (valued at $15,000) have disappeared. EMCAC is also looking into the issue of who may be liable for the loss of that material.
Status of construction:
Scaffolding is down around the South Hall and work is progressing in the interior. The current schedule calls for completion of the interior by June 2009. The contract for the North Hall roof is before the City Council for approval. Once that occurs, work can begin. Scaffolding will be placed around the North Hall on an as needed basis.
WASA has completed its work on the storm drains. The
In response to a number of requests, DDOT met with
representatives of EMCAC, the
The city received a $2 million grant from the US Economic Development Administration and the Capitol Hill Community Foundation has made a grant to undertake the Conservation Report for the North Hall and Center Hall similar as to what was done for the Market Master’s Office.
Market manager:
Earlier this month, the DC auditor released a strongly worded audit of Eastern Market - criticizing both Office of Property Management (OPM) and Eastern Market Ventures (EMV) - the market manager. The audit found a number of problems, including that "EMV did not comply with applicable District laws and its District corporate charter was revoked." One of the recommendations is the "The District’s OPM Director should immediately terminate EMV as Market Manager."
Subsequently, OPM has sent a notice of default to EMV. In return, EMV has filed a notice of default against the city. EMV has an “opportunity to cure” in which to respond. The process of responding to these notices is ongoing.
The deadline for response to the RFP for the market manager was 2 pm today.
A number of responses were received.
The current market manager EMV has filed a protest with the Contract Appeals Board to halt the issuance of the RFP. However, the RFP process appears to be moving ahead.
Under DC contracting regulations, the review of the proposals will be carried out by the city. The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) will be made up of city officials from OPM and the City Administrator office. The panel will also include one outside expert: David O’Neil from Project for Public Spaces, who authored the earlier report on the market management process.
EMCAC, because of its specific statutory duties, will conduct its own review, under provisions of confidentiality and conflict-of-interest restrictions. EMCAC’s recommendation will be given to the TEP before they make their final determination.
Because this is a contract procurement, there are no public hearings or meetings, unlike the previous process of picking a market manager. I have asked the city to prepare a memo city explaining the regulations and the difference between the procurement process and the land disposition process used to development projects. That memo should be available in a few days. As was discussed at the ANC 6B Executive Committee in February, the role of the ANC is to provide guidance on the drafting of the RFP, but plays no role in the review process.
However, the ANC member of EMCAC will be able to participate in the review process. As that member, I would like to offer the attached resolution to guide my deliberations.
Working Group 7th
Streetscape
Prepared by
Commissioner Wright
Next meeting 10 a.m., October 21, at
Meetings will be held every two weeks to discuss the baseline schedule with a two-week look ahead. The prime contractor is Anchor Construction.
Phase 1 (
Tentative Timeline: December 1, 2008 – February 8, 2009
1. Remove and Replace Catch Basins and Fire Hydrants
2. Install Electrical Manhole and Conduits
3. Remove and Install Stone Curb and Brick Gutter
4. Install Crosswalks and Handicap Ramps
5. Remove and Install Brick Sidewalk
Phase 2
Same as Phase 1 (
Tentative Timeline: February 9, 2009 – April 29, 2009
Phase 3 (
Tentative Timeline: April 30, 2009 – August 16, 2009
1. Remove and Replace Catch Basins and Fire Hydrants
2. Install Streetlights and Conduits
3. Remove and Install Stone Curb and Brick Gutter
4. Install Crosswalks and Handicap Ramps
5. Remove and Install Brick Sidewalks
Phase 4
Tentative Timeline: August 17, 2009 – September 14, 2009
1. Road Surface
2. Pavement Marking and Permanent Signage
3. Landscaping (including Trash Receptacles and Bike Racks)
Since the market is heading into the holiday season and it’s the busiest time of the year for vendors, concerns were raised about the timing of Phase 1 and Phase 2. Implementing Phase 1 at the direct site of weekend vending will immediately affect an already waning business. DDOT will explore the possibility of switching Phase 1 with Phase 2.
Since PEPCO and WASA representatives were not in attendance, it was strongly suggested that their schedule coordinates with the rest of construction. Tree protection will be a priority.
Commissioner Jarboe stated that in regards to ANC 6B’s participation in the review process of the RFP he is presenting a Resolution to the Commission for its approval as to what his overriding principles should be as a member of the review team, because he sits as the ANC member of EMCAC.
RESOLUTION
Review of proposals for Eastern Market Manager
Whereas, the
Whereas, the
Whereas, ANC 6B has exercised its responsibilities by commenting by letter of February 29, 2008 to the Office of Property Management on the terms of the Request for Proposals; and,
Whereas the ANC 6B member of the Eastern Market Citizens Advisory Committee (EMCAC) will sit on the EMCAC review of the proposals and will represent the views of the ANC as expressed in that letter and during the discussion at open ANC 6B Executive Committee meeting of February 26, 2008.
Therefore be it resolved that the ANC 6B member of EMCAC will be guided during the review of the proposals by the following two principles:
1) that the market manager must have on-site day-to-day presence and undertake continuing day-to-day oversight of the market as well as provide long range leadership; and,
2) that the vision, strategy and operations of the market manager preserve and enhance Eastern Market’s three fold character of an indoor food market, and outdoor farmers market and an outdoor arts & crafts market; and,
Be it further resolved that the ANC 6B member of EMCAC reserves the right to refer any issue concerning the review of the proposals to a closed Executive Session of the ANC which will deliberate in accordance with the required confidentiality and conflict-of-interest provision of DC procurement regulations.
Commissioner Jarboe added that in the Executive Committee Session the Commission would have to adopt the same confidentiality non-conflict-of-interest that everyone in the Executive Committee would be bound by. This can be done under the Commission’s By-laws because the Commission is allowed to vote in a closed Executive Session in cases like this. Commissioner Jarboe added that he does not necessary anticipate having to come back to the Commissioners, but if there is something there that makes him uncomfortable on going forward, it does provide him with the option of coming to the Executive Committee for further instructions.
Commissioner Garrison asked Commissioner Jarboe what was the significance of the focus on both the day-to-day and the long-term. Commissioner Jarboe stated he was attempting to distill a lot of the issues that were voiced over the concerns about the current market manager and how that process works. One issue is that there needs to be a market manager who is a day-to-day manager and not someone who just comes in to make sure the bills are paid and then leaves. This is because there are issues that pop up each day, especially on the weekends. Thus whoever is the head manager is not just a part-time manager but an on-site day-to-day operations manager. The other issue is to address past proposals where people come in with other visions of what the market should be and there is always a concern that another market manager may come in and say “well yes we have X, but the market is really this.” Therefore part 2 is designed to reinforce the idea that the market really is a three-fold entity. Commissioner Jarboe added that there is a requirement in the legislation that the market manager must support this vision. The concern is to not get a new manager who thinks of the market as simply a food mall and does not know anything about the outdoor crafts or the farmer’s line and who fails to think about the entirety of the market.
Commissioner Oldenburg stated she would like to propose adding to the resolution the phrase “that the market manager preserve and enhance”, She does not believe the idea should be for the market to remain static operation. Commissioner Jarboe stated he would accept that as a friendly-amendment.
Commissioner Jarboe then offered the modified resolution to the Commission for consideration. The Chair asked for the vote and the motion was approved unanimously (8-0).
FY 09 Interim
Budget
The Chair turned the meeting over to the Treasurer, Commissioner Green.
Commissioner Green stated that in the new interim budget she
added 10% to the expense items and reduced the allotment by $1,700.00 only
because it is her understanding that the District has a 30 million dollar
shortfall for FY’09 and she is assuming the Commission will be cut some way,
but she not sure exactly how much.
Additionally, Commissioner Green had added in rent for 9 months, to
provide for office space when the renovations begin on the
Commissioner Jarboe stated the Commission is still in limbo
regarding a move date, but he met with OPM and was informed they are moving to
do an Access Agreement with the Foundation to allow them to get inside the
Commissioner Green stated that is the interim budget and the numbers presented will be the ones used until the Commission has been informed as to exactly what the city’s allotment to the Commission will be. Commissioner Green made the motion the interim budget be approved as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jarboe.
The Chair asked for the vote and the motion was approved unanimously (8-0).
Approval of
Minutes
The Chair turned the meeting over to the Secretary, Commissioner Garrison.
Commissioner Garrison stated the Commissioners have reviewed the minutes for the Special Call meeting on September 23, 2008 and June 10, 2008.
Commissioner Garrison made the motion that the June 10, 2008, minutes be adopted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jarboe.
The Chair asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was 7-0-1.
Commissioner Garrison made the motion that the minutes of Special Call meeting of September 23, 2008, be adopted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jarboe.
The Chair asked all in favor of the motion to raise their hands. The vote was 7-0-1.
Adjournment
There was no further business and Commissioner Hill made the motion that the meeting be adjourned until its next meeting date of November 11, 2008. The motion was seconded, and the vote was 8 to 0.
Meeting Adjourned.
Prepared by
Attested: