ADVISORY
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMISSION 3-C
GOVERNMENT OF THE
(202) 232-2232 FAX:
232-2232
Regular Monthly
Meeting Minutes
November 24, 2003
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Nancy MacWood called to order
Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3C (ANC 3C’s) regular monthly meeting for November
24, 2003 at 7:32 p.m. The meeting was held in the community room at the Second
District Police Station,
II. VERIFICATION OF
NOTICE
Chair MacWood verified that the
proper notice was published in the Northwest Current and posted on the
III. ESTABLISHMENT
OF QUORUM
Chair MacWood acknowledged that a
quorum (at least five members of the commission) was present.
IV. APPROVAL OF
AGENDA
The agenda was approved without
objection.
V. ANNOUNCEMENTS
Commissioner
Reeves stated that
Chair
MacWood asked if any community members had announcements. No one came forward.
a.
Chair MacWood
moved on to the first agenda item, consideration of an application to the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board for a tavern license with live entertainment
at the Kennedy Warren,
Chair
MacWood introduced Andrew Fine, the applicant’s attorney. Mr. Fine showed the commission pictures of
the planned club design. He stated that
there are three categories for an ABC license: restaurant, night club, and tavern. Due to the small amount of food the club
would provide, the appropriate license would be a tavern license. A restaurant license would require 45 percent
of the club’s sales to come from food service.
Mr. Fine stated that his client believes a number of residents will
support the concept.
Mr.
Fine introduced David Newton of B.F. Saul Co.
Mr. Newton stated that his company wants to offer residents a place to relax,
have a drink, and get to know their neighbors.
They came up with the idea of a lounge on either side of the foyer. The current design would create one 24-hour sitting
lounge on one side and one private resident lounge on the other side. The company contracted with RTKL for a comfy,
upscale room with minimal seating offering piano music, a bar, and light hor d’oeuvres.
Dan
Rigaux from RTKL introduced himself. He
stated that the most important point is that this lounge will be an amenity for
the residents of the Kennedy Warren only.
It will in no way be a for-profit venture and it will be underwritten as
amenity. He said there will be no
dancing or discos.
Commissioner
Reeves asked what would prevent outside people from using the lounge. Mr. Fine responded that the lounge would be accessible
to residents only and that there would be a membership plan somewhat like a
country club with an account and member ID.
Commissioner MacDonald expressed concerns of parking and rowdy guests
departing late at night. She stated that
it most likely won’t pose a problem if lounge access is limited to residents and
their guests.
Chair
MacWood asked why they chose not to apply for a restaurant or a club
license. Mr. Fine stated that there
would not be a full-scale kitchen, so it would be difficult to meet the 45
percent food requirement needed for a restaurant license. Chair MacWood pointed out that the application
they submitted stated that more than 45 percent of their revenue would be from
food. The application lists projected
revenues of $57,800 in food and $27,200 in alcohol sales, so that would be well
over 45 percent of gross sales. Mr. Fine
said that, while those may be the projected numbers, there is no way to guarantee
that the food ratio would actually be consistently that high. Mr. Newton said that the lounge would utilize
outside restaurants to provide food if necessary. Mr. Rigaux stated that the lounge would not
provide any menu.
Commissioner
Welsh asked why the projections would be stated as such if the plan is for
little to no food service. He asked
whether there is a provision in the restaurant license versus the tavern license
besides food that made the company apply for the latter. Mr. Fine replied that food was the only
consideration. Chair MacWood pointed out
that the difference between a tavern and the night club is the smaller dance
floor of a tavern. A restaurant serves
alcohol, wine, and beer and so does a tavern, and the hours are the same. With all of those similarities, why not apply
for a restaurant license?
Chair
MacWood also referred Mr. Fine to the section responding to questions about
appropriateness standards where the application says that there will be no
effect on parking because there is metered parking and parking lots nearby and also
that many patrons work and live in the area.
She asked why, if the lounge will be for residents only, does the
application refer to street and lot parking?
Mr. Fine stated that the lounge is intended only for building residents. Chair MacWood asked which parking lots the
application refers to. Mr. Fine asked
whether there were any lots in the area.
Chair MacWood replied that there are not. Mr. Newton stated that there are currently 200
– 210 resident parking spaces below the Kennedy Warren, plus extra visitor
spaces. He said they can also stack 150 additional
cars and that, while there would be spaces available, there should not be a
need for it. The lounge would only hold
30 – 35 people. Mr. Rigaux reiterated
that even if the lounge was at capacity, there would be very few people. Chair MacWood asked why the application lists
the available capacity as 225 people. Mr.
Newton said that the figure includes the ballroom for events that may require a
larger space. Commissioner MacDonald
asked how the garage would go about stacking 150 additional cars. Mr. Newton said they would be parked in the
aisles of the Kennedy Warren parking lot.
Mr. Rigaux stated that in those cases there would be attendant
parking.
Commissioner
Vorndran asked what the lounge’s hours would be. Mr. Fine said the plan is to keep it open
from 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and until midnight Friday and
Saturday. Commissioner Vorndran asked
whether the building has other active or inactive licenses. Mr. Newton stated that the Kennedy Warren
does not have its own license currently, but that there is a small convenience
store in the building with a license. Commissioner
Vorndran asked whether the ballroom’s bar has a permit. Mr. Fine stated that the bar would apply for a
one-day license as needed. Commissioner
Vorndran asked what the tavern license’s parameters would allow the company to
do if it decides to change course. Mr.
Rigaux asked Mr. Fine how long a license lasts.
Mr. Fine responded that it is valid for two years. Mr. Newton stated that the company has no
plans for the ballroom, but want the license to cover that larger space for
holiday parties or other use on a limited basis. Commissioner Vorndran pointed out that if the
company changed its mind about expanding, the license as written would not
prohibit that. Mr. Fine agreed it would
not, but said that it would raise security issues for the building and is
unlikely.
Commissioner
Vorndran asked how residents would go about accessing the lounge. Mr. Newton said there would be a soft guard
checking identification at the door. Commissioner
Vorndran asked whether the lounge would be dealing with cash. Mr. Newton said the lounge would use cash,
credit card, or club accounts with membership limited to the resident
base. Mr. Fine stated that there would
be no external marketing to attract outsiders.
Commissioner
MacDonald mentioned that past use of the Kennedy Warren ballroom led to cars
parked on the bridge with policeman directing them to park there. She requested that any overflow parking be
confined to the new parking garage. Mr. Newton
agreed that they would and reiterated that the company has no intent to expand
to the ballroom in the future and that it could not be used under this
license.
Commissioner
Vorndran asked how many units will be in the new wing. Mr. Newton stated that there will be 114 new and
317 existing units. Commissioner Reeves
asked how residents feel about the planned lounge. Mr. Newton stated that the plan was just
recently announced to residents and that the Kennedy Warren Resident Association
has given them positive feedback, stating that the lounge would be a well-used
and appreciated amenity. He conceded
that some residents are concerned about noise and the potential for regular
ballroom use, but that all the company can say is that they will try to limit
noise and do not plan to use the ballroom.
Commissioner Vorndran asked whether the resident association is a formal
citizens’ association. Mr. Newton said
it is.
Chair
MacWood asked Mr. Newton to explain the design.
He went over the pictures he had on hand. Chair MacWood stated that one concern she has
is that this license would allow the lounge to remain open from 8 a.m. to 3
a.m. with a capacity of 227 people. It
doesn’t require that the lounge be open only to residents. Therefore, the company could open to anyone
once it gets the license. Chair MacWood
stated that parking is also a major issue, as is noise, in the neighborhood. She asked Mr. Newton whether the company would
be willing to enter into a voluntary agreement to restrict the license according
to its actual plans. Mr. Newton stated
that it is the company’s intent to be true to their word and they would be
happy to sign a voluntary agreement.
A
community member and former ABC board member pointed out that the company’s presentation
to ANC 3C contradicts its application and wants to know why the application
wouldn’t reflect their true intention, especially in regard to hours of
operation. The community member
requested that the company clarify its planned hours in the application. She also asked whether they company would be
charging a membership fee to members of the club. Mr. Newton stated that there would be a minimal
membership fee of perhaps $5.00 per month or $25.00 per year. The community member stated that she was
curious as to why the company is applying for a CT versus a CX license. Mr. Fine stated that the lounge would not
meet the requirements of a non-profit organization.
The
community member asked whether the lounge would offer dancing. Mr. Newton replied that the lounge would not
have dancing, but there could possibly be dancing in the ballroom on special
events. Chair MacWood thanked the
community member for her comments.
Another
community member asked what the food requirement is under a tavern
license? Mr. Fine stated that there is a
requirement that food be available, but no minimum dollar requirement. Chair MacWood stated that chips and nuts
would satisfy the requirement.
Chair MacWood asked for the
parameters of the impacted area. Mr. Fine
said that the impacted area is within 600 feet of the lounge because the
company believes the residents would be those most interested in commenting. Chair MacWood pointed out that people living
beyond 600 feet could be impacted if the company opened the lounge up beyond
600 feet. Mr. Fine stated that in his 21
years of work, locality, portion, or section has never been an issue as a
practical matter.
Peter
Schwartz introduced himself as the representative of the Kennedy Warren Resident
Association. He stated that the
residents are generally positive about the planned lounge and that it could be a
lot of fun. He stated that there are
some concerns relating to the incongruities between the application and the
company’s stated intent. The Resident
Association would like the company to specify the following: 1) The lounge will be open only to residents
and accompanied guests; 2) the hours of operation; 3) restrictions on amplified
music and specific hours for certain types of music; and, 4) use of ballroom
area. He stated that, while the core of
the operation will be in the north lounge, the application encompasses the ballroom
area. Unlike the north lounge, there are
apartments above and adjoining the ballroom area so noise would be much more of
an issue if that area were in use. The Resident
Association would like a binding, voluntary agreement to address those
issues. Upon completion of the agreement,
the Association hopes to be able to actively support the application because
the general feeling is that tenants will make good use of the space.
Commissioner
MacDonald said that she was delighted to hear that and stated that it sounds
like the groups will be able to come to an agreement. She requested that Mr. Schwartz include
Woodley Park Community Association in further discussions. Mr. Schwartz stated that Commissioner Hahn
had offered his services to facilitate the agreement between the Kennedy Warren
and the Resident Association. Commissioner
MacDonald said that she would also be happy to be involved.
A
two-year resident of the Kennedy Warren offered his support of the planned
lounge, stating that he and his wife were attracted to the Kennedy Warren
because of its rich, cultural neighborhood and historic building. He stated that the lounge would be a boon to
the neighborhood’s cultural and community life.
Another
longtime resident who works as a cultural historian focusing on the period between
the two World Wars stated that a piano bar would allow her to “live her
dream.” She believes it would be a great
addition.
Another
community member said she lives directly over the construction site and stated
that residents with apartments facing
Chair
MacWood said that ANC 3C will consider a resolution on this issue at the December
meeting. In the meantime, Commissioner
Hahn will help to draft a cooperative agreement between various groups.
The
president of the Cleveland Park Citizens Association asked what the residents’ age
range is at the Kennedy Warren. Mr.
Newton said that it is changing and that while there are many older, longtime
residents, newer residents tend to be younger and have families. The CPCA president asked whether the lounge
is aimed at younger people. Mr. Newton said
that his company views the lounge as an amenity for any age. Commissioner MacDonald stated that places like
the
Lee
Cohen, the president of the Kennedy Warren Resident Association asked whether
the drink prices would reflect the fact that the owner is a non-profit
organization. Chair MacWood stated that
the company is a corporation, not a not-for-profit. Mr. Fine stated that the venture would not
make money. Mr. Newton said that drinks will
be sold at market price.
A 13-year resident of the
Kennedy Warren stated that the building attracts a variety of professionals who
benefit tremendously from meeting each other and networking. Prior to renovation, he said he could hear
residents playing the piano occasionally.
He believes residents would prefer an agreement reflecting the company’s
real intent that would limit loud, late music.
He believes the end result will be excellent.
Another resident stated that it’s
important to remember that the management of both the Kennedy Warren and B.F.
Saul Corp. have been very accommodating and do more than they need to do to
make it a warm, inviting living environment.
Chair
MacWood thanked Mr. Fine, Mr. Newton, Mr. Rigaux, and the residents for
attending.
b.
Chair MacWood
moved on to the next agenda item, consideration of a Board of Zoning Adjustment
special exception application filed by
Ms.
Talbott stated that the first phase touched seventy percent of the campus. They changed the flow of cars, added parking
spaces, moved the cottage, and added an implement building. Most of the first phase construction was done
on the east part of campus. This summer
they will take down the lower school, finish the new structure during the academic
year, and then use the building for classes next year.
They
have been talking to construction companies to find out the best way to
approach the construction. No
construction company has yet been hired for phase two, but the construction
site will be contained entirely on the west side of campus. The workers will park onsite rather than in the
neighborhood. The cottage will be walled
off and students will be kept away from construction area.
The
current scenario for trailer use is five trailers in the parking area northeast
of the front grassy area. Ms. Talbott
stated that the trailers will be used mostly as faculty offices and what were
offices in buildings will be used as student classrooms. At neighborhood meetings, local residents
agreed that the plan made sense. The
school will maintain parking and visitor spaces and the current flow of parking
will continue. The plan will mostly impact
faculty parking, but the school has secured offsite parking for faculty at St.
Sophia’s, which is a half-mile from campus.
Ms. Talbott stated that the faculty feel it’s a priority to have students
at the school and will move to St. Sophia’s to prevent adding 50-100 cars in
neighborhood. She reiterated that the parking
changes would not begin until fall 2004 and summer programs would be strictly
limited during construction to only a few sports and performing arts
camps.
Commissioner
Nord asked how many parking spaces would be needed at St. Sophia’s. Ms. Talbott said that the school would need 100
spaces. Commissioner Nord asked whether
the church would be able to accommodate that.
Mr. Walker stated that St. Sophia’s has 160 available spaces. Commissioner Nord said that she is concerned
that parking transferred to St. Sophia’s remain in their lot and not spread to the
neighborhood. Mr. Walker promised that only
faculty would park at St. Sophia’s and would then be bussed to school.
Commissioner
Welsh asked whether the school had considered arranging for a bus from the Woodley
Park Metro station for faculty. Ms. Talbott
replied that a number of faculty and students use Metro already and that the
school would continue to encourage them to use it. She said that the school tries to offer cost-effective
passes for faculty and students and actively encourage carpooling.
Chair
MacWood asked whether the school had planned the number of shuttle bus runs and
their schedule. She asked whether the
shuttle bus schedule would overlap with St. Alban’s boys arriving at school. Ms. Talbott
conceded that the school has not yet looked at the logistics, but faculty must
arrive at school between 7:00 and 7:30 a.m., which is earlier than both Maret
and St. Alban’s students. She said that
the evening shuttle schedule will be more complicated to arrange because some faculty
stay late to coach.
Commissioner
Nord asked about the duration of the off-campus parking. Ms. Talbott said it would be for the entire 2004
– 2005 academic year and no longer. Chair
MacWood asked whether the fence in front of the trailers would be 10 feet high. Mr. Walker said that it would. Chair MacWood asked how much taller the trailers
would be than the fence. Mr. Walker said
that they have not yet decided on the specific design of the trailer, but that
it most likely will peak in the middle and will certainly be higher than 10
feet.
Chair
MacWood asked whether the parking plans were already included on the original
special exception application. Ms. Talbott
said they were, but that the school plans to conduct another traffic study this
year just to make sure the current flow makes sense. The Building and Grounds Committee also plans
to keep watching the flow. Chair MacWood
asked whether there would only be one-way traffic? Ms. Talbott said that was correct. She stated that the former outlet and turnaround
will be blocked because neighbors prefer that.
Chair
MacWood asked where construction trucks would be driving. Ms. Talbott said that the school hasn’t hired
a construction company yet, but they plan to work with the neighbors to develop
a construction traffic plan. Chair
MacWood asked if Ms. Talbott knows where the trucks came from in 1999. Ms. Talbott said she did not. She stated that she would expect the only heavy
construction to be digging and that should be limited to the summer when there
tends to be less traffic. Chair MacWood
stated that construction trucks traveling on neighborhood streets can actually
be very hard during the summer. Dust and
uncovered debris causes problems, as does trucks coming from different
directions early in the morning and queuing on residential streets. Ms. Talbott said that if that happens, residents
should call the school and they will contact the construction company. She further stated that Davis Construction
worked with the post-fire reconstruction and were very good about keeping their
word. She said that offering onsite parking
should also help to contain vehicle overflow.
Commissioner MacDonald said that it is important that the school stay in
touch with the commission about construction companies driving down residential
streets in order to forestall problems.
Something as simple as a truck hitting a bump and shaking houses can be
a major problem. The trucks’ routes,
movement, dust, impact on houses, etc., are all issues that must be discussed.
Commissioner
MacDonald moved for support of the special exception with the wording currently
in its application. Commissioner
Vorndran seconded. Chair MacWood asked
if there was any further discussion.
Commissioner
MacDonald pointed out that the president of the Woodley Park Citizens
Association was in attendance. The WPCA
president stated that
Commissioner
Vorndran called the question. Resolution 2003-033 was passed by a
unanimous vote of 7 – 0.
c.
Chair MacWood
stated that the commission would not consider agenda item V.b., an HPRB
application for construction of a portico at
Chair
MacWood said she believes it is non-controversial, however she has not heard
from residents. The architects said that
they contacted the neighbors and they were had no objections to the planned
renovations. Chair MacWood asked if
there were any objections to deleting the item from the agenda. Commissioner Nord said she had no
objection.
d.
At the suggestion
of Commissioner MacDonald, Chair MacWood introduced a resolution concerning the
Alcoholic Beverage Control Board’s proposed new regulations and amendments
limiting the current ability of ANCs and others to influence licensing
decisions. She stated that the
resolution only addresses portions of the regulations that impact neighborhoods
and ANCs. The ABC board has recommended
amendments to the 2001 law to the D.C. Council.
Councilmember Ambrose announced that the committee would not consider
any amendments to the statute and would only look at regulations. Therefore, Commissioner MacDonald’s
resolution urges the DC Council to reject any amendments to its 2001 ABC
statute until persuasive evidence from all stakeholders can be presented that
such amendments are warranted; and to reject any regulatory changes that would:
1) undermine the ability of neighborhoods to achieve and enforce voluntary
agreements as currently provided by law; 2) change the notice requirements or
"appropriateness criteria"; 3) eliminate the ability of ANCs,
community associations, and residents to
participate in the determination of proposed license changes, or to
propose the geographic area concerning which evidence could be introduced in a
protest case.
Chair
MacWood stated that it was interesting to have the Kennedy Warren issue come up
because it illustrates how many issues must be considered by an ANC. For example, the geographic area for impact
on residents, traffic and parking plans, license changes, etc. Chair MacWood feels that community and ANC
input is crucial in the ABC Board licensing process. She moved that the commission pass the
resolution. Commissioner MacDonald
second and commended Chair MacWood for bringing forward the resolution. She noted that the Council members have
repeatedly emphasized how important community associations are, which seems to
imply that ANCs are less important. Commissioner
MacDonald feels that it is important to mention geographic area and
appropriateness issues as necessary for community input.
Commissioner
Nord asked what the regulations currently say about geographic boundaries. Chair MacWood said that they give the community
the right to recommend that the impact area be increased or decreased, with
three ranges from 600 feet up to 1800 feet.
The applicant makes a recommendation and the ABC board determines the appropriate
geographic range of impact. ANCs
currently have the right to weigh in. Chair
MacWood said the proposed amendments would have the applicant solely make the determination.
Commissioner
Vorndran stated that he had received many e-mails about voluntary agreements
and said that people are worried that as few as five people can enter into this
voluntary binding agreement. He believes
it is in the industry’s interest sometimes to get community input. Chair MacWood said that she could see one
potential issue when there is an application for a license change at a location
where a voluntary agreement is in place.
Under the new regulations, the board could decide that the license
change isn’t important and the neighborhood wouldn’t even be informed. The regulations have been designed to
maintain the status quo. Right now the board
looks at every voluntary agreement individually to make sure the criteria in
agreement are compatible in parameters of criteria (i.e., appropriateness
issues – noise, hours, parking, etc.).
Board has been sending voluntary agreements back to the ANCs if they
feel they are too expansive.
Commissioner
Vorndran said that it seems legitimate and substantial that community associations
and ANCs be allowed to comment. Chair
MacWood said that if three or four people have a complaint, there is no ANC or
community association involvement and people must go to the ABC directly. She said that ANC 3C has very few voluntary
agreements currently in place and they usually stay within parameters, but it’s
a very good tool to give communities and residents some control. Commissioner MacDonald agreed, stating that
voluntary agreements can be an equalizing tool because new applicants must
agree with past voluntary agreements so as not to compete in a way that would
hurt others already agreeing to, for example, not have live music.
The
WPCA president said that the problem with voluntary agreements is that permit
issuers don’t often know the agreements are there. ANC and community association heads come and
go. She cited an example early in 2003
where a building in
Chair
MacWood said that the agreement is supposed to be attached to the application. The WPCA president said that she was not
mentioning this as a business’s way of getting around things, but believes the
ANC should be careful. Chair MacWood
stated that voluntary agreements should be posted next to permits and included
with applications. She said that if the
ANC ensures that ABC inspectors have copies of the agreements, they have said
they will enforce them.
A
community member stated that he is concerned about voluntary agreements because
a regulatory amendment should be adopted to provide that permits themselves,
when issued in conjunction with voluntary agreements, should state on their
face that they are subject to a voluntary agreement from such-and-such
date. Chair MacWood said that she does
not know for a fact that the information isn’t currently on the permit. The community member suggested that the ANC look
into the matter. He said that BZA orders
do tend to state when there’s an attachment, but he was unsure about ABC. He further stated his concern that there us a
subverting of the ability of communities to use ABC licenses in the way they
want to. It is the only leverage the
community has on establishments that may cause community problems. If the board sends back agreements because
they are too expansive, that should be viewed with alarm. The board should not intervene and disallow
something too broad. There is very
little about an alcohol-serving establishment's activities that isn’t related
to its way of doing business.
Commissioner
Bartel asked the community member what he would say to a statute passed by the
Council that would state that a voluntary agreement in conjunction with an ABC
license switches the burden to the establishment. It would not be enforceable through a contract. Chair MacWood pointed out that there could be
an administrative show cause hearing. Commissioner
Bartel clarified that he was speaking in terms of nuisance. He said that Councilmember Fenty is very
interested in this. The community member
said he doesn't see a shift of burden because the burden is already on
establishment. Commissioner Bartel said
that if a resident takes a nuisance action and can show that a voluntary agreement
has been breached, the establishment should be required to show cause as to why
they’ve broken their “contract” with the ANC.
Chair MacWood said that one could file a nuisance claim in Superior
Court and present the agreement to support the allegation, but that the
voluntary agreement would only be enforceable through the administrative
process. Commissioner Bartel said that
he understands the ABC Board's point of view.
The
Cleveland Park Citizens' Association President stated that there was a strange
conversation at the D.C. Council hearing where Councilman Graham was talking to
the Adams Morgan’s ANC Chair and Graham seemed surprised that Adams Morgan
would present voluntary agreements to the ANC.
Councilmember Graham questioned the legitimacy of that action. The ANC Chair said that it was an informal
agreement and appeared defensive. The
CPCA President asked Chair MacWood whether there is something in the
regulations suggesting that a copy of the voluntary agreement has to come from the
ABC board. He stated that the question
raised by the Adams Morgan ANC Chair implied that it seems to be the normal way
to do it and others agreed. Once a voluntary
agreement is in place, should there be a complaint to enforce it. The discussion seemed to strike at the power
of ANCs to do what is natural and appropriate and neighborhood associations appeared
to be an afterthought in the process.
Chair
MacWood responded that she believes it varies across communities. In some places, the ANC takes the lead. In other places, community associations take
the lead because they have a long history and the ANC has a lot of turnover. Currently an ANC can negotiate a voluntary
agreement, have it signed, take it to the ABC Board, and then have ABC
determine whether it will include the agreement as part of an establishment's license. Other than the ABC Board chair stating that they
are looking at voluntary agreements individually, Chair MacWood said that she
has never heard of a voluntary agreement hat has not been approved or that has
met with a lot of controversy. The CPCA
president suggested that ANC 3C post voluntary agreements on its web site. Chair MacWood agreed.
A
community member asked whether there has been an instance of a voluntary
agreement which was found to be disturbing or improper that has prompted the
Board's move to amend its regulations.
Commissioner Bartel said there has been some concern in the real estate
arena that when business sells club or restaurant, it doesn’t disclose
voluntary agreements, so there’s a question as to whether voluntary agreements
could affect the sale value of a business.
The community member stated that the problem seems to go back to a need
for displaying the agreement on the license.
Commissioner Bartel offered a friendly amendment to the resolution stating
that the existence of a voluntary agreement should be printed on the face of ABC
licenses. Chair MacWood accepted the
amendment.
Chair
MacWood called the question. Resolution 2003-034 was passed by a unanimous
vote of 9 – 0 with one vote by proxy
from Commissioner Hahn.
e.
Chair MacWood
moved on to consideration of a resolution concerning the Historic Preservation
Review Board's proposed new regulations compiling all Historic Preservation
regulations in a new subtitle under Title 10 (A) & (B), Office of Planning,
subsuming all regulations currently contained in Chapters 25 & 26. Chair MacWood read the proposed
resolution. She stated that the proposed
regulations were published on November 14 in the D.C. Register and covers
almost 140 pages. The ANC was given only
30 days to comment, so it cannot wait until the next meeting.
Commissioner
Nord asked whether the HPRB is making substantive changes as well as compiling
things in one area of the DCMR. Chair
MacWood said that they are making substantive changes and that she has identified
ten sections in the proposed resolution.
First,
Section 101: Intent & Purposes.
Chair MacWood stated that that if HPRB is going to go so far as to
protect visitor’s attractions, it certainly ought to include residents. Commissioner Nord stated that the proposed
regulations seem to be quite substantive and very broad and she is not sure she
has a clear understanding as to what the parameters are. She said she recalled a Planning and Zoning
Committee meeting where the commissioners discussed whether historic
preservations include the back of houses.
Commissioner Nord said that she is uncomfortable with the words “inappropriate”
and “incompatible.” Chair MacWood stated
that “incompatible” is a defined term and “inappropriate” is not. She asked whether Commissioner Nord would like
to offer a friendly amendment to delete inappropriate? Commissioner Nord said she would and Chair
MacWood accepted the amendment.
Lindsley
Williams, a former Zoning Commission chair, stated that certain properties have
designated protected interiors. HPRB
focuses on that which is visible from public space, leaving internal issues
alone. Commissioner Nord said that she
wondered if Chair MacWood's resolution pushes the issue further into areas the
ANC has not well considered. Mr.
Williams said that the resolution states an objective, but doesn’t raise red
flags. It simply alerts the board that
there are other things they should look at and shouldn’t put on blinders when
it gets to the vantage point that can’t be viewed from public space. Chair MacWood stated that she did not want to
be overly specific because it would vary from space to space.
Commissioner Bartel asked
whether the word “insure” is in the current regulations. Chair MacWood said she did not know. She said that the words they use are “effect
and accomplish, safeguard, protect, enhance, promote, etc.”, and suggested that
the commission could adopt one of those.
Commissioner Bartel stated that he is concerned that “insure” has
financial or fiscal implications. Commissioner
Hogan proposed a friendly amendment to change the language to “provide”. NM accepted the amendment.
The
WPCA president said that when
Commissioner
Nord asked whether the purpose of the amendment is to make the point that
property owners within historic districts need to have their interests
considered. She asked whether the
commission could leave out the part about properties not being visible from
public space if the point is that property owners need to have a stake in it as
well. Chair MacWood stated that she
believes any place the ANC can reinforce its intention within the 140 pages, it
should.
Mr. Williams stated that when
someone raises an issue, the board may say that it’s not their problem if it
can’t be seen from the street. He suggests
that board should look at the effect of property change on a historic district
as a whole, including the backs of houses.
Chair MacWood said that it goes to the integrity of the historic
district. Commissioner Nord stated that
her concern is that the commission not make a substantive change to existing
law. Chair MacWood responded that the
D.C. Council cannot legally adopt a regulation that wouldn’t be supported by
the law. It wouldn’t be accepted or pass
through corporation counsel if it didn’t have a legislative basis. Commissioner Nord stated that the resolutions
suggests modified legislation, so it appears to her to be a substantive change. Chair MacWood stated that she believes the
ANC is merely articulating in a more specific way what is already in the
regulations. She believes it should be
brought front and center as one of the main intents and purposes. She told Commissioner Nord that if she looks
at the areas covered, somehow the individual property owner is not mentioned in
the regulations. The resolution does not
offer a substantial change. Commissioner
Nord said that property owners should clearly be considered and it’s a serious
oversight, but there appears to be confusion among community members about the
language on changes “not visible from public space”.
Commissioner
Vorndran asked whether “development” means only new construction or major
renovations. Chair MacWood said it meant
both.
A
community member noted that
The
community member suggested that 30 days is an unreasonable time period for
comment and suggested that the commission ask for an additional period of
consideration for such a massive reworking of the regulations. Chair MacWood
said that she did actually consider that the first resolve state that 30 days
is insufficient. Commissioner MacDonald
proposed a friendly amendment that the commission request a 90-day comment
period. Chair MacWood stated that she
feels uncomfortable that if the commission requests an extension and it’s
rejected, then they've missed an opportunity to comment. Commissioner MacDonald clarified that she
would like to comment in addition to asking for extension. She said that
Chair
MacWood suggested that Commissioner MacDonald's friendly amendment state that
pending a 90-day extension, ANC 3C offer initial recommendations. Commissioner Vorndran seconded. Commissioner Nord offered a friendly
amendment to put a period after 'development' and leave out “even if it is not
visible from public space.” She stated
that it wouldn’t take away from the notion that property owners be part of the
mix. Chair MacWood asked how the other
commissioners felt. Commissioner
MacDonald said she agreed. Commissioner
Vorndran said he doesn't think there is a consensus. Mr. Williams stated that there is an issue of
concern about vantage points and suggested that the commission communicate the
concern rather than offering the solution to the concern. Chair MacWood agreed to accept the friendly amendment
to put a period after 'development'.
Chair
MacWood moved on to Section 111, The Role of the Public. She stated that the old regulations contained
an entire section on party status and HPRH bas deleted it. She believes the section should remain consistent
with the Administrative Procedures Act. A
community member asked whether the lack of the language violate the law? Mr. Williams stated that the HPRB Director, Mr.
Boasberg, has testified about how difficult it was when the HPRB had to operate
under contested case procedures. Rules
and terminology lingered after the D.C. Council eliminated those contested case
procedures two years ago. There is a
process for streamlining the issuance of orders (i.e., a summary order) when
issues are not contested. If forced to
go back to a contested case format, Mr. Boasberg believes HPRB would get bogged
down. Mr. Williams disagree. Chair MacWood remarked that it is a huge
issue in the community and that residents have been horrified at their treatment
by HPRB. She stated that they should be
afforded same rights as applicants. In
terms of consistency, many HPRB cases go to the Mayor’s Agent and they do allow
party status. Chair MacWood said she
believes the HPRB is ignoring the rights of parties.
Commissioner
Nord asked who would be accorded party status.
Chair MacWood said that she does not remember the specifics, but that it
is listed in the Administrative Procedures Act.
One must be an interested party (e.g., people within 200 feet of
property, ANC, other individuals who can argue that they should have
status). Commissioner Nord asked whether
Chair MacWood's amendment would change that.
Chair MacWood said it would only require HPRB to follow the rules of
every other D.C. agency.
Commissioner
Bartel asked how this affects exhausting the remedies for the parties involved
and whether they would have to go through a huge process. Chair MacWood said it would simply give people
equal time to make their case and the ability to cross-examine. Commissioner Bartel also mention HPRB’s
inconsistencies in documenting facts. Commissioner
Nord offered a friendly amendment clarifying that the amendment would not give
anyone party status that is not already accorded it in the DCMR. Chair MacWood accepted the amendment. Commissioner Bartel asked whether it would
eliminate the need for Mayor’s Agent to be involved. Chair MacWood said it would not.
Chair
MacWood next covered Section 204 – Filing Fees and Section3301.2 – Application
Fees. She asked for an amendment
including ANCs as agencies not required to pay filing fees.
Chair
MacWood's amendment to Section 207 would require that HPRB send notice to the ANCs
just as the Zoning Commission does. In
Section 211(a), HPRB states that the staff will send it to any interested
person and Chair MacWood said she believes it should be automatic for
ANCs. A community member suggested
adding that it be mailed to single member district commissioners as well. Commissioner Hogan suggested a friendly
amendment changing the language to “per ANC law.” Chair MacWood accepted the amendment.
Under
Section 208, Chair MacWood would also like the ANC and appropriate SMD
commissioner to receive notice of any amendment to a filed application. A community member asked whether Chair
MacWood meant to also note any motion of withdrawal. Chair MacWood said she did and said she would
change the resolution accordingly.
Under
Section 306, Chair MacWood stated that the applicant should indicate the zone
of property and overlay districts included on site. She said that there has been a serious
problem with this in the past. DCRA said
they won’t grant any more permits, so applicants go to HPRB and ABC. Chair MacWood stated that there are a number
of items in HPRB regulations that pertain to zoning and it’s important that
people know up front whether there are any overlays. Commissioner MacDonald agreed and stated that
she would ask for a regulation in the future to extend the request because real
estate agents don’t currently tell homeowners about zoning rules, such as the
rule that single-family homes cannot have basement apartments. Chair MacWood also said that applicant should
include documentation to verify any claims they make rather than including them
only if requested.
Under
Section 322, Chair MacWood stated that she believes applicants should be told
they must appear before the ANC. Under
the current guidelines, it appears that HPRB thinks ANCs are
inconsequential. Commissioner MacDonald
stated that HPRB has told her they will notify applicants of their need to
contact ANCs “if they remember”. She
further stated that this is a case where the public is not notified and then
HPRB asked what the ANC thinks of their renovation plans and the applicant says
he didn't know he needed to consult the ANC.
The confusion leads to the process being moved back a month or
more.
A
community member stated that current ANC law does not specifically mention
historic prevention as one of the named subjects ANCs are supposed to work
on. He suggested that the next time
historic preservation law or ANC law is up for amendment, that provision should
be included.
Under
Section 329, Chair MacWood requested that final plans be submitted to the Department
of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs for inclusion in permit files.
A
community member said he hopes the commission will discuss the HPRB’s basic
statutory violation in that it allots its own authority through its staff. Final authority currently goes to the HPRB
staff. At a later date, he believes the
commission should consider recommending that all final plans must come back for
final approval to board, which would lead automatically to it being in the DCRA
record.
Under
Section 3206, Chair MacWood suggested using the standard ANC statute of 30
working days, not counting Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays. NM says that the
HPRB tends to give only 10 days notice.
Under
Section 3303, Chair Macwood requested that the HPRB consider accumulated rather
than single fines. A community member
said he would also like to suggest that the commissioner consider that the fine
process is extremely discriminatory in favor of developers and against private
residents. He suggested that the rate
should be a percentage of the assessment or something similar. Chair MacWood agreed to add language to the
resolution reflecting that.
Commissioner
Vorndran called the question. Commissioner
Reeves stated that the commission should tell HPRB about the community
confusion. Commissioner Vorndran moved
that the Chair invite someone to discuss the issue at her discretion. Chair MacWood said she would invite David
Catania. She moved for passage of the
resolution. Commissioner Vorndran
seconded. Resolution 2003-035 was passed by a unanimous vote of 8 – 0.
VII. COMMUNITY
FORUM
a.
Chair MacWood
moved on to the consideration of a resolution to convert a No Parking space on
29th Street in front of Oyster School and an area on Calvert Street
adjacent to the school to 15-minute parking weekdays from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Commissioner Vorndran stated that the Transportation
Committee walked through the area to examine the issue. He stated that they found very confusing
street signs and inconsistent parking enforcement. He further noted that, while there are no
parking spots currently in front of the Shoreham Hotel, the resolution would
add seven spots. The transportation
co-chair, Peter Espensheid, stated that he believes existing metered spots already
impede the right turn onto
Commissioner
Vorndran noted that since DDOT and other officials have easily parked in the no
parking area currently located in front of the Shoreham Hotel, that space
should be available to residents. He
stated that Oyster parents highly support the resolution and that the Transportation
Committee plans a walkaround next year to further study the issue. Commissioner Reeves stated that she spoke
with Colleen Smith at DDOT and was told that DDOT does not require a resolution
at this point.
Chair
MacDonald asked whether this resolution also involves the No Left Turn sign. She stated that when she recently drove by
g.The Woodley Park Community Association President
stated that during the meet meeting when
Chair
MacWood suggested that Commissioner Vorndran look into the parking area on
VIII. OFFICERS
REPORTS
a.
Commissioner
Welsh reported on the third quarter 2003 budget. Commissioner Welsh introduced a resolution to
pass the third quarter budget. Chair
MacWood seconded. Resolution 2003-036 was passed by a unanimous vote of 8-0.
b.
Chair MacWood
reminded the commissioners that ANC 3C has to respond to the audit by the end of
December. She stated that the commission
overall received a very clean bill of health, but that she would have to look
at the few issues raised and respond to them so the commission won’t be
severely docked. She stated that the
auditor needs additional information.
A
community member raised the question of whether the auditor can intervene with
administration of funds. Chair MacWood
stated that the auditor could intervene, but that the commission will discuss
that issue directly with the auditor.
c.
With minor
changes, the October 2003 minutes of ANC 3C were approved without objection.
d.
In the absence of
the Secretary, the Administrator reported on costs of Verizon voice mail. The commissioners agreed to order the basic
plan at $5.50 per month with a one-time $15.00 setup fee.
IX. COMMITTEE
REPORTS
a.
Commissioner
Reeves reported on behalf of the Transportation Committee. She stated that there would be a meeting with
DDOT on December 3 regarding the possibility of placing a bike lane on
b.
Commissioner
Welsh asked Commissioner Reeves about the planned meetings on
c.
Chair MacWood
stated that she would like to schedule the next Planning and Zoning Committee
meeting on December 8 at 7:30 p.m.
Commissioner Welsh said that he would bring a draft response letter for
the auditor to that meeting.
d.
Special
Transportation Committee Task Force co-chair, Lars Hydle, asked whether the
commission planned to extend the transportation task force to study
e.
Commissioner
Reeves requested that the commission schedule the January Planning and Zoning
Committee meeting. Chair MacWood set it
for Tuesday, January 20 in light of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Day holiday on
Monday, January 19.
X. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Nord moved for
adjournment. Commissioner Hogan seconded.
Without objection, the November 2003 meeting adjourned at 10:57 p.m.