27 New "Leaning Toward Condos" at 14th and U

Developers The Goldstar Group and Bonstra|Haresign Architects has unveiled a proposed design for a new nine-story mixed-used building at 1355/1357 U Street NW, a stone's throw from 14th Street. A committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street heard a preliminary presentation about the building on March 16. The development has not yet applied for historic preservation review or zoning relief -- the briefing was purely informational.

How the building (top left) might look from the Reeves Center

ANC1B's Zoning, Preservation and Development (ZPD) Committee heard Eric May of The Goldstar Group and Rob McClennan of Bonstra|Haresign tell of their September 2014 purchase of the property and the "somewhat arduous process" of meeting three times each with DC's historic preservation and zoning authorities since then. Any development on the property will require review by DC's Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) because it is located in the U Street Historic District.

Parking

The presenters have not officially applied at any government agency yet, but they told the committee they will probably apply for zoning relief for parking. The current design of the property provides three parking spaces, located in the rear of the building. Zoning would require nine. The presenters said the shape of the long, narrow lot would make an underground garage with a ramp a near-impossibility.

ANC1B chair James Turner (Commissioner for district 08) told the presenters the ANC would likely push for building to provide at least nine spaces as required. Turner is not on the ZPD Committee but attended the meeting.

The presenters' calculation of nine spaces was built on the assumption they would end up with 27 new residential units in the new building. At another moment, the presenters said they expected the finished building to have 25 - 30 residential units, and they were "leaning towards condos" as opposed to rental units.

Size

The proposed designs would preserve the existing buildings facing U Street to a depth of 34 foot from the sidewalk, which is their depth as originally constructed. Behind these original structures, there are newer buildings. These would be demolished so the new mixed-use building could be built on the land.

The original buildings facing U Street would be then integrated with brand-new construction to the rear to form one continuous space of 3000 square feet of retail space on the ground floor.

The presenters said they were considering both office and residential space for the second floor, extending from the old building facing U Street to the rear of the lot in the same manner as the ground floor. If they went with office space, the presenters said, they might have 4600 square feet of office space.

Starting on the third floor, the building facade would be set back 34 feet from U Street for a planned additional six stories of residential space, plus a "mechanical penthouse" (containing air conditioning units, elevator machinery, etc.).

The projected height of the building is 100 feet, which is still not as tall as a neighboring apartment building, The Ellington.

Affordable Housing

The development would also be subject to DC regulations about "inclusionary zoning", also known as affordable housing. The law would require eight percent of the total units -- perhaps two or three units, depending on how many total units the development had -- be set aside for housing available at less than market rates. These units would be considered affordable by families earning 80% of DC Metropolitan Area Median Income (AMI) -- about $70,000 for a family of four. In 2013, two-bedroom condos included in the inclusionary zoning program sold for about $200,000/year average, according to a DC government report here.

Turner said the ANC would push on inclusionary zoning and urged the developer to go beyond the minimum requirement and consider including some units affordable at less than 80% AMI.

One committee member said units at 60% AMI would offer "real benefit" to the community.

More generally, the presenters said they were considering putting four units on each floor -- two one-bedroom, two two-bedroom -- except for the top floor, which would have only two units total.

Other details

The presenters said they had talked to the neighboring Hamiltonian Gallery. The gallery was "fully supportive". The developers will offer compensation to the gallery for disruption that will occur construction. About a neighboring liquor store, the presenters said it had been unresponsive and "we cannot get past go."

Given the building's location, committee members asked the presenters to consider materials than absorb, rather than reflect, sound -- meaning, for example, less use of glass.

The presenters said they had not gotten to the point where they had settled on the details of the design (e.g., color and materials) but "we'd like to go very contemporary".

The property is the former location of the nightclubs Republic Gardens and State of the Union.

Goldstar and Bonstra|Haresign told the ANC they had presented the new building designs to the U Street Neighborhood Association the previous week -- see March 13 article from the blog Urban Turf.

(photo credit: detail from documents submitted to the ZPD Committee)

New Blagden Alley Construction: "I Envision a Restaurant" Next to Rogue 24

A team from Douglas Development unveiled a plan for a new building to be constructed in Blagden Alley at a regularly-scheduled monthly meeting of a committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2F/Logan Circle on February 25. The address will be 920 N Street NW. The building will abut Rogue 24 restaurant to the east. The space is currently a fenced-in empty lot which sometimes functions as a sculpture garden or a location for outside events.

Black building (right): Artist's conception of proposal

Paul Millstein of Douglas Development told ANC2F's Community Development Committee (CDC) told the committee the project was "a matter of right from a zoning perspective", meaning, it will not be necessary to seek zoning relief. However, the design, concept, and massing of the building must be approved by DC's Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) because the building is located in the Blagden Alley/Naylor Court Historic District. 

The black building on the right of the picture is the proposed new building.  The architect told the CDC the plan is for the building to have a two-story, 32-foot-tall building with a black brick veneer. It would be three feet taller than La Colombe coffee shop (left in photo), but still well within the zoning-dictated limit of 50 feet tall. Its design would "differ from [neighboring] historic buildings but have certain nods".

"We wanted to see the reaction to the brick," one of the presenters said.

The reaction to the color of the brick was not positive. Many members of the committee said they thought it should be changed. Some said it would not be possible to exactly match the color of the brick of the neighboring structures but recommended that the new building have "a similar color".

The new construction would also have access to an improved roof deck over neighboring Rogue 24.

Paul Millstein said there was no tenant committed to the space yet, but the building was built with food service in mind.

"I envision a restaurant," he said.

This lead to a discussion of practical aspects of a restaurant operating in the space, such as valet parking and trash collection. Millstein said he thought the future restaurant would have valet parking on 9th Street.

The committee voted unanimously to recommend the full ANC endorse the historical aspects of the new construction, with the provision that Douglas Development work with HPRB on the color of the brick.

The CDC's unanimous endorsement of this project will now move to the full ANC for approval. The case is on the agenda for ANC2F's next regularly-scheduled meeting on Wednesday, March 4, at 7pm at the Washington Plaza Hotel (10 Thomas Circle). In the case of unanimous committee endorsements, the full ANC in the past has often ratified decisions without much further debate.

(Photo credit: from documents distributed at the CDC meeting by Douglas Development)

2724 11th Street: Opposition to Zoning Relief Recommended

At a regular monthly meeting on October 20, a committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street voted to oppose zoning relief for the owners of 2724 11th Street NW, a rent-controlled Columbia Heights apartment building. The vote was unanimous, with one abstention.

2724 11th Street a few weeks ago

The motion said the committee would reconsider its opposition if the owners could show they had arrived at a "concrete agreement with the tenants" about how the renovation would proceed.

The matter was referred back to the Design Review Committee of ANC1B from the full ANC at its last meeting on October 2. The petitioners failed to provide the full ANC with promised drawings and documents to support their request in time for the previous meeting, so consideration of the request was taken off the agenda at the last minute. However, residents and neighbors who had come to the meeting in anticipation of a vote were allowed to tell the ANC about the state of advanced disrepair into which the building had fallen -- see SALM blog post of October 8.

The owners ask again for relief

The petitioners, lead by Martin Sullivan of the law firm Sullivan & Barros, appeared with drawings that more accurately reflected their revised plans. However, Sullivan didn't think the referral back to the Design Review Committee was necessary.

"I didn't think we needed to come back," Sullivan said.

The original proposal (see SALM blog post of June 23) added 11 new basement units to the 25-unit apartment building. The revised plan will result in a net gain of eight units. One above ground unit would be eliminated to create a trash disposal room, and nine units would be added to the basement. This revised proposal was first presented to the Design Review Committee last month -- see SALM blog post of September 17 -- without appropriate drawings.

The architect, presenting the September 17 proposal once again, said the new design created a "neighborhood-friendly" and "street-friendly" building.

"We plan to do rather a lot of landscaping," he said.

The architect said the proposed new basement units would be "more of a terrace unit" with direct access to the outside. The proposed new design would improve handicapped access, he said.

"It's a terrific way to save the building," he said. "It makes it economically feasible."

Attorney Sullivan then asked for committee endorsement on two zoning variances, the most significant of which is the requirement to add three addition parking space for the new units. The variance, he said, would qualify for zoning relief as it met the legal requirement of "no substantial detriment to the public good".

The tenants and neighbors testify

One tenant testified about the infestiation of rats, mice, and other vermin that the tenants have to deal with every day. He said that the owners had, last year, proposed a renovation and suggested that, if the tenants didn't agree, they should move out.

The tenant characterized the renovation as "a tool to try to push people out".

Speaking next, Janet Laskin, a student attorney representing the tenants, said the last year's deal referred to by the tenant above was part of a proposed condo conversion deal which was now "taken off the table".

Laskin said some repairs are now being done.

"Our legal team has just begin to speak with the owners," she said. "It's a bad, bad, bad situation."

One neighbor testified that an unauthorized renovation last year, started and then abandoned, left a big hole by the side of the building that filled up with water when it rained. This showed the owners had a bad track record on construction, she said.

Other neighbors concentrated on the effects the proposed variances might have on the neighborhood. One said the parking relief would create more cars wishing to find on-street parking where it was already very difficult to do so. Another said a proposed trash pick-up area on the rear alley would block the alley for service and emergency vehicles.

An owner responds

A woman who said she was a member of the family who owns the building had a chance to respond.

"There are so many untruths here," she said about the testimony of the tenants and neighbors.

"You may think we're rolling in dough, but we're not," she said.

About the renovation, she said: "We want to make this a beautiful building. You have drawings in front of you -- it could be a beautiful building."

Committee comments on the motion to deny

Committee member Joel Heisey made the motion to deny endorsement, and said there was "no compelling interest for the community".

"I agree this building needs to be renovated," Heisey said, but the owners were not entitled to "special treatment due to deferred maintenance".

Other committee members announced themselves against the motion, with one exception: Patrick Nelson.

"I'm at a total state of frustration," Nelson said. "For me, that's a lot of BS. There's stuff that's being brought in that has absolutely nothing to do with it [i.e., the zoning variance request]."

But others disagreed.

"Everybody wants to see the building renovated," committee member Tony Norman said. Norman commented on the testimony of tenants and neighbors: "I think all of this is relevant."

Norman also quoted ANC1B chair James Turner, who said that the tenants and neighbors should continue to come to the relevant meetings if they wished to influence the process.

Turner is commissioner for district 09, where 2724 11th Street is located.

The request for a zoning variance will probably be considered once again at the next meeting of the full ANC, which is scheduled for Thursday, November 6, at 7pm, at the Reeves Center (14th and U Streets). The zoning variance request for 2724 11th Street is on the calendar for consideration by DC's Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) on November 18 at 9:30am. The BZA holds open meetings at its offices at 441 4th Street (Judiciary Square).

Carriage Houses: Horizontal Pop-ups?

Summary: I believe DC's Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) is encouraging, when possible, those wishing to expand homes in historic districts to forego pop-ups in favor of constructing new "carriage house-like" buildings at the rear of their properties. Plan for these new buildings often trigger a review by DC's Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA), as the old and new buildings combined take up a greater percentage of the lot than is permitted by law. The BZA seems to be willing to go along with these rear additions. The small number that have been approved so far have not changed the profile or density of historic districts. If the trend continues, there may be negative consequences.

Homeowner a no-show at meeting

On Monday, July 21, the Design Review Committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street had a meeting. The only significant item on the agenda concerned 919 T Street NW. The owner sought ANC endorsement on a request to the BZA for a special exception to permit an addition at the rear of the property. The addition, the meeting agenda said, would serve as the primary residence of the owner.

919 T Street, as seen from 9-1/2 Street

There was a quorum of committee members, but owner did not show up. The chair of the committee called the owner. There was no answer. As there was no other business, the meeting disbanded. It is unclear whether the owner will be able to arrange another hearing with the committee and then with the ANC before a scheduled BZA hearing on September 9.

919 T Street is located in the U Street Historic District, so the owners got approval from the HPRB for their proposed new rear structure. The HPRB report characterizes the proposed new structure as a "two-story carriage house-like addition at the alley". (The alley is also known at "9-1/2 Street", and has 6-8 homes on it.)

The footprint of the proposed new building, combined with that of the original building, put the lot over the limit for "lot occupancy", which is why the project has to go before the BZA.

A pattern emerging?

This is the third "carriage house-like" rear structure that I've seen HPRB approve in the last two months -- see SALM blog posts for June 12 and May 30. (I also reported on one last October.) The properties are located in a variety of ANCs (1B/U Street, 2B/Dupont Circle, and 6E/Shaw) and historic districts.

In each of these cases, HPRB-approved rear structures (sometimes designed to look like long-demolished rear carriage houses) put the homeowner over the lot occupancy threshold.

In the cases reported on June 12 and May 30, the homeowner had been strongly discouraged by HPRB from pursuing a pop-up addition before receiving an approval for a rear addition. And, also in both of these cases, the homeowners subsequently received the zoning permission they sought from the BZA.

I don't know how many instances constitutes a trend, but there seems to be a pattern in HPRB, and subsequent BZA, approvals: more vertical living space -- no; more horizontal living space -- OK.

HPRB can be the good guy

This is probably a clever move for HPRB. Instead of being the agency that always says "no", they can be the agency that gives viable alternatives. It is then up to the BZA to be the bad guy if it turns down homeowners on the basis of lot occupancy, which could be perceived as an abstract, unimportant technicality.

So far, it seems like BZA is not inclined to be the bad guy, as evidenced by their approvals of lot occupancy exceptions.

Lot occupancy restrictions are, presumably, there for a reason. One DC Zoning Commission document from 2010 (21-page .doc download here) says the intent of lot occupancy restrictions to preserve adequate light and air to building residents. Another function is as a guard against excessive density. Yet more carriage houses (or alternately "out buildings" or "mother-in-law houses") on the rears of properties will surely increase density, and affect the light and air in the immediate area. Like popups, no one will mind the first carriage-house-like rear addition on a property, or maybe even the second. But what will happen when many houses on the block want them? Will the BZA continue to approve these requests?

More lot occupancy = more water runoff

More rear lot additions will also increase the amount of land in historic districts which is impervious to rainwater. DC Water is so concerned about impervious areas that it has instituted an "impervious area charge" on all customers. The impervious area charge is the single biggest component of this year's proposed 13 percent increase in water rate -- see SALM blog post of April 29.

The charge is based on how much impervious-to-water surfaces (such as rooftops, paved driveways, patios, and parking lots) a homeowner has on his or her property. Impervious areas contribute to groundwater runoff entering the District's sewer system. Popups, which by definition sit on top of existing buildings, do not increase the amount of impervious area on a lot.

More rear structures mean greater lot occupancy. Greater lot occupancy means more impervious area. More impervious area means more water runoff. More water runoff means more wear and tear on the sewer system, and also greater possibility of flooding during major rain events or hurricanes.

Solving one problem, creating another?

A few additional residential spaces by themselves are unlikely to cause more flooding, of course. But if a quick trip through the city bureaucracy becomes the norm for "carriage houses" and similar rear structures, the cumulative effect of hundreds of one- and two-story rear additions could be significant.

This may be a case of government agencies focused narrowly on their own briefs, to the exclusion of other considerations. HPRB's brief is the appearance of the exterior of properties in historic districts. The BZA's is to identify and prevent inappropriate and unsafe land uses. The knock-on effects of increased density are not an immediate concern to either body.

Will there be a time when we starting thinking that an attempt to control one problem (pop-ups) has opened the door to others?

See the latest HPRB document on 919 T Street here.

Documents concerning the request by the owners of 919 T Street for a special exception can be viewed by going to the BZA's Interactive Zoning Information System and entering case number 18810 in the search bar.

2724 11th Street: "...They Are Slumlords, and Everything Is Just a Smokescreen..."

An publicly-available email sent to D.C.'s Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) quoted a neighbor who said: "...they are slumlords, and everything is just a smokescreen, and a reason just to get residents out of the building."

2724 11th Street (Google Street View)

"If the building is not in good shape, it's your fault," a member of the Design Review Committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street told the owners of 2724 11th Street NW, and their representatives, at a regular monthly meeting on June 17.

"It is in desperate need of repair," said ANC1B Chair James Turner (Commissioner for district 09) at the same meeting.

The petitioners who came before the Design Review Committee in search of endorsement of two zoning variances are not getting a lot of love from the community, or the ANC.

Their BZA hearing is July 22nd. They had entertained the hope the committee would recommend endorsement to the full ANC, who would then vote on the matter at its next regularly-scheduled meeting (July 10, 7pm, at the Reeves Center, 14th and U Streets). But the committee decided to table the matter and asked for an improved design at the next meeting. Even if the new design is produced and approved at a July meeting, the full ANC would not vote on it until August, at the earliest.

The building was built in 1923 and is located at the corner of 11th and Girard Streets. It was said at the meeting that the property has been managed by the same family since 1958. The name of the management company today is Jefferson-11th Street, LLC. This company is, in turn, owned and managed by the family-owned Hartford E. Bealer Development Company, according to BZA documents. At the meeting, representatives of the owners said this was the first major renovation of this building in 50 years.

A 2003 obituary describes Hartford E. Bealer as a "prominent figure in the world of investment banking" and a co-founder and president of Chevy Chase Bank. Another web site says that, when Bealer died, his estate was worth more than $22 million.

However, at the meeting, a family member said: "We are not made of money."

"There have been some bad decisions," she said, especially by her 83-year-old father-in-law.

The desired variances

The building is a two-story building with 12 units on each floor. The owners wish to fill in and improve the unfinished basement and turn it into 11 additional units.

The zoning variances necessary to do this will be (1) permission not to provide at least 4 additional parking spaces, and (2) permission not to meet the requirement that residential units in this zoning category be at least 900 square feet.

Martin Sullivan of the law firm Sullivan & Barros led the team of petitioners. Sullivan proposed that, if the ANC was against the parking variance, ANC could endorse a request for a curb cut, which would allow tenant access to on-property parking.

"The community is outraged about the curb cut," ANC Chair Turner said. "They would rather have the parking variance."

2724 11th Street is in Turner's ANC district.

Payback time for the community

In addition to the comments quoted at the beginning of this post, there was plenty of other evidence that the petitioners had few friends in the community.
A renovation had apparently been started at the building in the recent past and then was abruptly stopped when it was discovered that the contractor had not obtained necessary permissions, nor notified the neighbors.

"Once we found out the contractor had no permissions, we fired him," Sullivan said.

A hole in the ground remains.

"It's an issue for me as a safety issue," said one committee member.

Referring to the abandoned project, another committee member said: "I have even less confidence in you if you can't do this correctly."

Sullivan defended the owners.

"It's subject to rent control," he said. "It's way below market rate for existing tenants."

Sullivan said, under rent control, a 10% increase in rent is only possible when a tenant leaves.

According to both information presented at the meeting and in the BZA application, the owners have submitted a "hardship petition" that will allow rents to rise by 31.5%. The owners were previously granted an 31.5% increase but "the notices didn't go out". They now must re-apply.

"All tenants will be hit with a 31 percent increase?" a committee member asked.

"Yes," Sullivan said.

However, according to a zoning application document signed by Sullivan, even if the hardship application is granted, the owners "will not realize anything near market value" on the existing units.

All of the proposed new units will be rented at market rate, after which they will also be subject to rent control.

Documents pertaining to this case, including the email quoted at the top of this post, can be accessed by going the BZA's Interactive Zoning Information System and entering case number 18790 in the search bar.

One of Dupont's Oldest Houses Aims for Renovation, Addition

"The house was built before there was even a road," said one of the owners of 1528 Church Street NW at the May 19 overflow meeting of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2B/Dupont.

The house abuts a parking lot (left)

The oldest part of 1528 Church Street was built around 1870 by owner William Jones for $800. A document from DC's Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) says: "The subject house’s relatively small size, flat-front façade, two-story height, modest Italianate detailing, and set back from the building line are all typical characteristics of this first wave of development along the 14th Street corridor."

Now the owners want to make it more liveable for a modern family. They are nearly at the end of a complicated trip through the DC planning and preservation bureaucracy. At the May 19 meeting, all the Commissioners present voted to endorse a request for a zoning variance and two special exceptions from D.C. Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA). If the BZA concurs with ANC2B, actual work should be ready to start.

The new owners of the home, with their architect, came up with two options to expand and improve the house after they bought it in 2013. They had to submit their plans first to ANC2B and then to the HPRB because 1528 Church Street is located in the 14th Street Historic District. An HPRB document characterized the options: "Option A (the applicants’ preferred alternative) calls for constructing a partial third floor atop the house and a separate two-story carriage house along the alley; Option B includes adding a three-story addition connected to the rear of the house."

The Zoning, Preservation and Development (ZPD) Committee of ANC2B liked both options (see SALM blog post of January 9) and the full ANC voted to send a letter to HPRB expressing approval of both options. However, HPRB staff disliked Option A, and chose Option B.

The homeowners will need zoning relief to make Option B a reality. For example, because the addition to the house will sit behind, instead of on top of, the existing house, the combined area covered by the new and old structures will be 68.3% -- above the 60% lot coverage allowed for this zone district. In addition, since the existing house sits farther back on the lot than construction done even 20-30 years later, the rear yard will be narrower than normally allowed. The owners propose a rear-yard setback of five feet, but zoning regulation require 12 feet. Finally, the rear carport will be located 10 feet from the center line of the alley behind the house, while regulations require 12 feet.

The calendar on the BZA website indicates the case of 1528 Church Street will be heard on June 10.

BZA records concerning this case can be viewed at the Interactive Zoning Information System of the DC Office of Zoning by entering case number 18773 in the search bar.

On-line records show this property was bought in November 2013 for $740,000.

St. Thomas' Parish Presents Revised Church and Residence Design

The leadership of St. Thomas' Parish Episcopal Church (1772 Church Street NW) with their architects rolled out a revised design for its planned expansion at the church on May 27. Representatives of MTFA Architecture and Hickok Cole Architects presented plans for the church and the adjoining apartment building, respectively. The plans had been altered in response to community input the project.

Proposed new design as viewed from 18th Street

About 80 people saw MTFA's James P. Clark and Hickok Cole's Laurence Caudle make presentations of the new design, which promised to reduce the impact of the project design, increase green space, minimize traffic impact, and connect to neighborhood character.

Original church plans had the proposed new church and the multi-story apartment building built all the way out to the property line on all sides of the property at the corner of 18th and Church Streets. The revised plan draws the design back a little, allowing a small stretch of green space in the front and side of the property, and more setback at the tops of both planned buildings.

The 18th Street side of the property will, according to the proposed new design, have green spaces flanking the church's front entrance. The dimensions on each side will be roughly ten feet deep by roughly forty feet wide, split by a walkway into the church. The green areas would be bordered on the property line by low stone walls, made from stone recycled from parts of the present building that will have to be demolished because they are structurally unsound.

The presenters also said that the church building will be drawn back three feet on the Church Street (north) side, and five feet from the abutting a row house on Church Street on the west side of the property.

Increased upper-story setbacks

There will be increases to the upper-story setbacks on both the church building and the residential building.

A topic which seemed to draw attention at the meeting was the proposal for a Montessori school in the new church building. This led to a great deal of discussion of the impact such a school would have on street parking. Neighbors asked if the church had done a traffic study. It had not. The discussion returned repeatedly to this topic, even though representatives of the church said there had been no final decision on establishing a Montessori school and it seemed unlikely the school could accommodate more than 25 students if it became a reality.  

General audience reaction

The reception to the new design was frequently positive.

"You've done very interesting things with the church," said one Church Street resident.

"You guys have done a really great job," said another.

Of course, not everyone was enthusiastic. For example, neighbors seemed concerned about density, as there was no change in the plans to have 50-55 residential units in the proposed apartment building

"I don't see much change," one man said of the new design. "In principle, I think they're the same."

Some of the audience were the same people who attended the meeting mobilizing opponents at the Keegan Theater the previous week -- see SALM blog post of May 27. However, some of the people seemingly most dead-set against the development were absent. Unlike previous meetings, no one suggested that the church abandon the plan entirely.

Next steps

The presenters laid out a timeline for getting approval for the project. There would be no further town meetings. The two parts of the project will move together through the next steps. The plan is to submit the paperwork for the project to the HPRB by June 20. In July, the project will be considered by the Dupont Circle Conservancy. In the same month, the project will be presented to the Zoning, Preservation and Development (ZPD) Committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2B/Dupont. If the ZPD approves, it will be presented to the full ANC for a vote at its regular July meeting. The project will then have a HPRB hearing in September.

The slideshow which accompanied the May 27 presentation is available here.

A copy of the flyer "Frequently Asked Questions about St. Thomas' Building Program", distributed at the meeting, is available here.

The complex backstory to this project is explained in part in an SALM blog post of February 28, and in stories from the same time on the blogs Greater Greater Washington and District Source.

(Photo credits: details from the architects' presentation to the meeting)

St. Thomas' Parish Church Watches Neighbors Organize Against It

The leadership of St. Thomas' Parish Episcopal Church (1772 Church Street NW) sat silently through a meeting of neighbors attempting to thwart its planned expansion. The May 20 meeting was organized Neighbors of St. Thomas Church, DC, a group critical of the expansion. It took place at the Keegan Theater (1742 Church Street).

Amid protestations of no ill feeling, nearly every speaker pronounced against the expansion. But there was a great difference of opinion on much else, especially how much the church was within its rights to go ahead with its development, and how militant the community should be in opposition.

The church plans to build a new church at the corner of 18th and Church Streets, as well as a six or seven-story apartment on Church Street. The income from the apartment building will fund the construction of the church. See an SALM February 28 blog post for previous coverage. 

Moderator Noah Bopp, Founder and Director of the nearby School for Ethics of Global Leadership (1528 18th Street) labored mightily, and nearly always successfully, to keep things civil.

A lot of people against the church

But, of course, the few very unreasonable voices make the best copy. One man said the apartment building would include "low income condos", which were a "scam". David Alpert of the blog Greater Greater Washington (and neighbor of the church) explained that less-expensive units in an apartment building were not a scam, but required under the "inclusionary zoning" requirements of DC.

Another critic said, more reasonably, that the project was "cost prohibitive" and the church's goal should be "community service". Yet another told members of the church present the project was "out of keeping with your responsibility for historic preservation."

"Can we find a win/win?" said one Church Street resident. "Personally, I am very skeptical."

Silverstein for the church

The only person seemingly willing to speak on behalf of St. Thomas' Parish Episcopal Church was Mike Silverstein. Silverstein is Commissioner for district 06 on Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2B/Dupont. Silverstein thanked the organizers and moderator, but he said some of the rhetoric he had heard before that night from anti-church partisans "bordered on hate speech", for example, terming the church "a failed franchise".

Such talk "damages what we as a community stand for", Silverstein said.

"We are a community and have to remain a community," Silverstein also said. He urged those assembled to "defend the rights of Christians like you defend the rights of anyone else".

Silverstein said the opponents of the church might find themselves on very shaky legal ground if they attempted to prevent construction of a church on land owed by that church. He recalled the case of the Third Church of Christ, Scientist, formerly located at 16th and I Streets in ANC2B. This case dragged through the courts for years as historical preservationists attempted to block demolition of a church that parishioners no longer wanted. This case resembled the case of the Third Church of Christ, Scientist, Silverstein said, in that any serious legal challenge to construction of a new church would likely involve both the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), both of which would work in favor of the church.

There would be a "very, very high threshold to stop the church", Silverstein said. 

Silverstein admitted those who wish to stop the development might find safer legal ground if they chose to block the construction of the multi-story residential building only.

Silverstein's remark brought some discussion of RLUIPA, its wording, and its precedents, which was eventually closed by Bopp when it threatened to get too deep in the weeds.

At the end of the meeting, organizers invited attendees to stay and participate in small working groups to further advance the community's opposition to the project.

The proposed expansion of St. Thomas' Parish Episcopal Church has also been reported by Greater Greater Washington and District Source.

1620 Q Street: Single-family House into Six Apartments -- Just Like Next Door

A committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2B/Dupont Circle heard a proposal on May 7 to convert a single-family row house at 1620 Q Street NW into six condo units. The planned development has much in common with the house-to-multiple condo conversion now taking place right next door at 1618 Q Street. For example:

1620 Q Street

• It has the same architectural firm, Workshop T10.
• It has the same presenter, Desiree Hollar.
• It is requires approval from D.C.'s Historic Preservation Review Board, because...
• It is located in the Dupont Circle Historic District.
• The basement will be excavated to enable conversion to living space.
• A third-floor pop-up will be added to the rear of the building.
• The third-floor pop-up will not be visible from Q Street.
• There will be two parking spaces in the rear of the building

It was reported at the meeting of ANC2B's Zoning, Preservation and Development (ZPD) Committee that the former owner of the house at 1620 Q Street was a man who had protested vigorously a few months to ANC2B against the renovation at 1618 Q Street. The man told ANC2B last December, for example, the proposed new roof deck on 1618 would look directly into his bedroom and "destroy my peace". The former owner was also concerned with damage to his home's foundation from the next-door renovation, and with noise.

There was no additional information at the meeting about the recent sale of the house at 1620 Q Street, or about the motivation for the sale. On-line information shows only that the house was sold to Abdollah Poozesh in 2003 for $680,000.

Robin Deiner of the Dupont Circle Citizens Association said the former owner had been "driven out of the neighborhood".

Workshop T10 told the ZPD Committee the basement of 1620 Q Street was currently 6 feet 8 inches high. There would be excavations so that the floors were nine feet below the ceiling.

Of the planned six units, five will be one-bedroom apartments. The other will be a two-bedroom apartment on the top floor. This apartment only will have access to a roof deck. 

Consulting the neighbors on this project is easy for Workshop T10. They are developing the building to the east. The building to the west is Hank's Oyster Bar. The developers had tried to get in touch with Hank's but had had no response. No one anticipated Hank's was likely to complain about the conversion.

There was no official vote on the project but the committee seemed favorably disposed toward the project. ZPD Committee Chair Leo Dwyer (Commissioner for district 07) indicated a resolution would be prepared endorsing the project.

ANC2B has a lot on its plate this month, so it has scheduled two separate meetings of the full ANC. 1620 Q Street will be considered at the second of the two meetings, which will take place at 7pm on Monday, May 19, 2014, in room 500 of the Berstein Office Building (1717 Massachusetts Avenue) of Johns Hopkins' School for Advanced International Studies (SAIS).

Grimke School Redevelopment Recommendations Throw Out by ANC1B

Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street voted last night (May 1) to throw out recommendations developed by a community group to guide the redevelopment of the Grimke School (1923 Vermont Avenue NW) and an adjoining property (912 U Street). The ANC then substituted less specific language of its own making.

The Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED) had asked for community input on a Request for Proposal (RFP) to develop the two properties. An ad hoc group of local residents, the Grimke Redevelopment Working Group, formulated a set of desired outcomes for the redevelopment. The Design Review Committee of ANC1B met on April 21 and voted to endorse the working group's recommendations -- see SALM blog post of April 23 -- and proposed they be adopted by the full ANC. Specifically, the committee voted to recommend the inclusion of three main points from the working group's document to the main body of the RFP, and the entire working group document be attached to the RFP as a guideline for potential bidders.

The discussion of the Grimke School redevelopment came at the bitter end of last night's meeting. The discussion started with the ANC praising the working group's efforts on the final document. Jeffrey Willis of Grimke Redevelopment Working Group spoke briefly in support of the proposals.

Dr. Frank Smith, Director of the African-American Civil War Museum, then addressed the committee. The African-American Civil War Museum currently operates in the Grimke School. As it stands now, the museum may receive a free-of-charge renovation and rent-free use of the land as a condition of the RFP. Smith seemed to be concerned that the RFP would create conditions that might ultimately mean his museum might have to pay $4 million to use the space -- money the museum did not have. He asked the full ANC to reject the recommendation of the Design Review Committee, that is, to exclude the recommendations in any form of the Grimke Redevelopment Working Group from the RFP.

The Grimke Redevelopment Working Group was not given a chance to reply. Willis raised his hand but was not acknowledged by the ANC. Willis was too polite to interrupt.

Commissioner E. Gail Anderson Holness (district 11) made a motion to exclude the recommendations of the working group. It passed by a vote of five to one, with three abstentions.

Commissioners voting to exclude the working group proposal: Marc Morgan (district 01), Deborah Thomas (district 04), Juan Lopez (district 07), James Turner (ANC Chair, district 09), and Holness.

Commissioner voting against: Zahra Jilani (district 12)

Abstentions: Sedrick Muhammed (district 03), Ricardo Reinoso (district 05), Mark Ranslem (district 08).

Absent: Jeremy Leffler (district 02), Dyana Forester (district 06)

ANC1B district 10 is currently vacant.

ANC Chair Turner made a motion to substitute language that made references to taking community concerns into account. I think the language sounded weaker and less specific than the working group proposal, but I cannot characterize it any further because it was read quickly and not very clearly by Turner. Community comment was not solicited on Turner's proposal -- it went quickly to a vote.

The motion to adopt the substitute language was passed unanimously with one abstention (Ranslem).

1738 14th Street: Renovation to Bring Eight Apartments near S Street

A planned renovation on 14th Street NW will bring eight apartments, retail space, and two parking spaces to a busy and popular intersection.

"Not a restaurant" here

Architects Andy Schiefer and Joel DeLeon of Architects Group Practice of Alexandria, Virginia, came before a committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2F/Logan Circle last night (April 30) to ask for endorsement of their concept and massing of a top-to-bottom, front-to-back renovation on the entire lot of 1738 14th Street NW.

Right now, the building that fronts onto 1738 14th Street is a historically-protected building, built in 1890. It recently housed a gym and a hair salon. Behind it were two newer shorter buildings, attached to the main building, that are not considered historically significant. The three buildings together take up nearly 100 percent of the lot.

The Community Development Committee (CDC) of ANC2F heard a plan to preserve and restore the building at the front of the property, and demolish the two rear buildings. After the renovation, the front building will have retail on the first floor. The presenters said they had an expression of interest from a real estate company --"not a restaurant" -- for the first floor space.

Above the retail space there will be a single dwelling unit each on the second and third floors. At the rear of the property there will be a separate, new building, which will have six "efficiency apartments". Of these, three will face the rear alleyway, and three will face a courtyard between the new and old buildings. This rear building will be accessed by a door and a flight of stairs from 14th Street, and a secondary entrance from the alley.

There will be two parking spaces, accessible through the rear alley.

The architects may have to seek zoning relief in the future, in which case they will most likely appear before the CDC again. But last night they asked the CDC to endorse the project so it can move to D.C.'s Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) for approval. Any major renovation of this building must be considered by the HPRB because the building is located within the Fourteenth Street Historic District.

The north facade of both the old and the new buildings would be completely exposed, because there is an empty lot currently used as a parking lot on the southwest corner of 14th and S. Rumor has it that the empty lot may someday house a 4- or 5-story building. If this is the case, the rear building at 1738 14th Street will not be visible from the street. But, for time being, both buildings and their northern facades will be plainly visible from 14th Street. HPRB told the architects "they want us to do something with the exposed facade" on the north side of the property.

The CDC voted unanimously to endorse the concept and massing from the 1738 14th Street project. It will now move onto the full ANC for approval at their next scheduled meeting, which will take place on Wednesday, May 14, at 7pm at the Washington Plaza Hotel (10 Thomas Circle).

Online records show 1738 14th Street was sold in November 2011 for $1.4 million.

2819 13th Street: How Tall Is It Really?

At its meeting of April 21, the Design Review Committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street delayed a decision on a proposed renovation and enlargement of a single-family house at 2819 13th Street NW, located between Girard and Harvard Street. The request for an endorsement of zoning special exceptions may be considered again at the next meeting of the ANC1B Design Review Committee, scheduled for Monday, May 19, at 6:30pm at the Thurgood Marshall Center (1816 12th Street).

2819 13th Street

There were a few issues with the proposed renovation. The committee wanted to see letters of support from neighbors. In addition, there was some inconclusive discussion about two other matters. One was if the improvements might cause the building to be taller than envisioned by zoning regulations. The other was whether a proposed penthouse on top of the house might require additional zoning scruntiny, due to height, setback, or both.

Presentation by the architect

Jennifer Fowler of Fowler Architects presented on behalf of the property owner, Robert Copyak. Fowler said the owner will live in the house while the renovation is in progress.

According to documents presented to the D.C. Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA), the existing third floor of the building will be expanded. There will be a one-story rear addition with a two-story covered porch above it. There will be a new rear deck on the roof and a neighboring enclosed mechanical area. The mechanical area would contain a staircase, a space for mechanical items like air conditioning, a closet, and a wet bar.  

The owner will seek at least two special exceptions at a BZA hearing in June. One is for lot occupancy. According to zoning regulations, the footprint of the house should not cover more than 60 percent of property. The proposed improvements would increase the house's lot occupancy to 66 percent.

The other exception is for the side yard. It is currently 3.5 feet wide. It will not change as a result of the renovation. However, zoning regulations say such a side yard should be at least 10 feet wide. Although it is already "non-conforming", the owner will need a special exception to this rule to go ahead with the renovation.

The owner and architect are looking for a favorable recommendation of the project by the Design Review Committee to the full ANC. The ANC would then consider a resolution to support the project. With the resolution in hand, the owner and architect could then move on to their BZA hearing.

The committee's reaction

The property is located in the ANC district 09, which is represented by ANC1B Chair James Turner. Turner was at the Design Review Committee meeting. He said he had heard from six nearby neighbors and one abutting neighbor, and "the neighborhood is supportive" of the project.

However, the support of the neighbors was not in writing. The Design Review Committee asked Fowler to return with letters of support from the neighbors.

Further zoning exceptions necessary?

The building is now 35 feet tall. If the planned renovations caused the building to exceed 40 feet in height, the owner would need additional permissions from the BZA. Supporting documents claim the renovation will raise the height of the building to 37 feet, 6 inches, but some members of the committee, after examining some of the drawings presented by the architect, said the addition of the structure on the top of the building would put it over 40 feet.

The committee brought up another issue: the setback of the rooftop structure. As currently designed, it goes up to the edge of the property. Zoning regulations say rooftop structures must have a setback equal to their height.

The owner and architect may have to demonstrate they are in compliance with zoning regulations on both height and setback before the Design Review Committee will endorse their request.

On-line information indicates the house was built in 1905 and the current owner and resident bought it in 2003 for $410,000. The owner has also bought at least three other properties in Columbia Heights and Petworth in the last ten years, according to publicly-available information.

This case was the first of two that Fowler presented to the Design Review Committee at its April 21 meeting. The committee was not sympathetic to Fowler's other case either. It voted to oppose her other case -- see SALM blog post of April 25.

The documents relating to this case can be seen by going to the Case Search Tool of Interactive Zoning Information System on the web site of the D.C. Office of Zoning, and entering case number 18774 in the search bar.

(Photo credit: Google Street View)

1248 Fairmont Street: One ANC1B Committee for, One Against

When Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street has its regular monthly meeting at the Reeves Center (14th and U Streets NW) on Thursday, May 1, at 7:30pm, it will be faced with an unusual situation. Two separate ANC1B committees have considered a request for the same project. One voted to approve it, the other voted to oppose it.

1248 Fairmont Street (Google Street View)

Jennifer Fowler of Fowler Architects and Brian Smith of Coldwell Banker are asking ANC1B to endorse a request for a curb cut on the street next to 1248 Fairmont Street. This is a one-family house on the southeast corner of 13th Street and Fairmont. It is being converted into five units "by right". The curb cut will allow access to the two spaces of enclosed off-street parking the developers are obligated by zoning regulations to provide.

On April 17, ANC1B's Transportation Committee voted to endorse the request -- see SALM blog post for April 21. The vote was 2-0 with one abstention. On April 21, ANC1B's Design Review Committee voted not to support the request. The vote of the Design Review Committee was 7-0 with one abstention.

Fowler presented to the Design Review Committee at the very end of a 3-1/2 hour meeting. She was told there was no community support for the project, only opposition.

ANC Chair James Turner (Commissioner for district 09) said he had sent an email requesting the developers do outreach to the neighbors about the planned expansion of the house. There had not been any outreach.

"Brian's been doing outreach," Fowler said. Smith was not present, and Fowler didn't know anything about what Smith might or might not have done.

Turner explained that, although the project itself is in the district of Commissioner Sedrick Muhammed (district 03), the neighbors across the street from the project were in Turner's own district. At the April 17 meeting, Smith said he had been in touch with abutting neighbors only -- implying Turner's constituents had not been contacted.

The committee also disputed the contention, made by Smith in his April 17 presentation to the Transportation Committee, that the curb cut would remove only one space from the street. With the addition of a two-car parking garage, this would result in a net gain of one parking space for the area.

The Design Review Committee maintained that, even though the curb cut might be the length of one car, legally-mandated no-parking areas on each side of the cut, plus the inexpert parking methods of the average on-street car parker, would mean that, in practice, two on-street spaces would be lost. On top of that, committee members said, it seemed likely that five units would bring more than two cars into the neighborhood.

Members of the committee further redefined the situation. What the developers were doing, they said, was removing two public parking spaces and making them private.

Fowler said it might be possible to design a garage with three spaces. 

A committee member also noted that the design for the ramp from the street to the enclosed garage included a five-foot-high wall on the property line. This meant that pedestrians and bicyclists coming down Fairmont Street would be invisible to drivers backing out of the planned garage, and visa versa. Fowler suggested the developers could put in a mirror.

A representative of the project may present some new ideas at the next ANC meeting on May 1, when the full ANC may try to reconcile to two conflicting recommendations.

CORRECTED: Recommendations for Grimke School Development from ANC1B

CORRECTION: Grimke Development Working Group calls for any daytime use, specifically including office use, not only retail use as previously reported.

Jeffrey Willis emails: "Goals call for any daytime use, specifically including OFFICE.  We already have two developers interested in this market, which remains strong, according to our research."

Apologies for the error.

The Design Review Committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street voted April 21 in favor of a set of community recommendations for the redevelopment of the Grimke School (1923 Vermont Avenue NW) and an adjoining property (912 U Street).

Three main points

If the full ANC approves the committee's recommendation, the full ANC will ask for three points from the proposal of the Grimke Redevelopment Working Group be included into D.C.'s future Request for Proposal (RFP) on the site. The recommendations are

The Grimke School (photo credit below)

• to limit the development of the Grimke School and associated buildings to the current "envelope"
• to mandate development on the property be mixed use.
• to develop daytime retail uses on the property

In addition, the committee voted to recommend that the entire working group document be attached to D.C.'s future RFP.

How the RFP will work

Reyna Alorro, Project Manager at the Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED), appeared at the meeting to brief on the state of project and to solicit community comment. She said the city will be sending out one RFP solicitation for the development of the two sites. DMPED will then make a short list of acceptable proposals and make them public. There will be a 30-day written comment period on the proposals. There will also be a community meeting. At the meeting, developers will present their proposals and members of the public will be able to question the developers. Members of the public will also be allowed to give their opinions, written and verbal, at the meeting. DMPED will select one proposal by the end of 2014.

The main school building is considered historic. It will be a requirement of the RFP that this building be renovated.

The neighboring building is former gym of the Grimke School. It is not a historic building, and is now home to the African-American Civil War Museum. The museum will continue to be located at the Grimke site. A significant part in the renovated buildings will be set aside for re-occupation by the museum. One member of the committee called the promise of a renovated home to the museum a de facto subsidy which had been granted without proper oversight.

The working group presents

Jeffrey Willis presented to the committee for the ad hoc Grimke Redevelopment Working Group.

"We had a lot of participants," he said. "We are asking you to embrace this statement of community goals. I hope you'll push your authority."

Willis advocated that the working group's proposals should be incorporated into the RFP, and articulated the three points that formed the basis of the Design Review committee's recommendations above.

During the discussion of the working group's document, it was made clear that "the envelope" did not only refer to the footprint of the current buildings on the ground, but also to the height of the buildings, which are shorter than what might be otherwise allowed according to zoning regulations.

Members of the community came out to voice their support for the working group's conclusions. During the meeting, it was asked how many members of the audience came to express their support of the working group document. Ten people raised their hands.

The motion to make the recommendations passed by a vote of 7-1.

ANC1B will probably vote on this recommendation at its next regular monthly meeting, scheduled for Thursday, May 1, at 7pm, at the Reeves Center (14th and U Streets).

The development of an RFP for the Grimke School was the subject of a March 17 report from the blog District Source.

(Photo credit: AgnosticPreachersKid/Wikipedia)

Dupont Underground: "If You Don't Have a Prominent Public Entry, It Just Won't Work"

The committee on design review for Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2B/Dupont Circle took a field trip to the tunnels under Dupont Circle on April 2. Down below, partisans of a redeveloped Dupont Underground told the Zoning, Preservation, and Development (ZPD) Committee their vision for the space. There was also a bonus tour of the urban caverns for attendees.

Julian Hunt presenting Dupont, underground

The project is a complex and ambitious operation with a lot of moving parts, involving numerous reports to and permissions from a bewildering variety of D.C. and federal government entities. The space will be renovated in stages, in the hope that revenue and experience from the first stage can help advance a second and third.

"Dupont Circle is not living up to its potential," said lead presenter Julian Hunt, Chairman of the Arts Coalition for Dupont Underground. Hunt is also an architect and founding Principal of Hunt Laudi Studio.

One of the many challenges facing the developers will be constructing and maintaining an entry to the proposed underground development. The current multiple narrow staircases to the space scattered around Dupont Circle are, at best, "very uninviting", to quote a characterization made by D.C. Councilmember Jack Evans (D-Ward Two) at the last ANC2B meeting.

"Every developer said: if you don't have a prominent public entry, people won't see you. It just won't work," Hunt said.

Hunt and allies have ambitious plans, but they'll have to move bureaucratic heaven and earth to make them happen. One example: the case of pie-shaped piece of land bordered by P Street, Massachusetts Avenue, and 20th Street NW, just west of Dupont Circle. The triangular east-pointing tip of this land, now containing a boarded-up entry to the underground tunnel, is owned by the D.C. government. A square-ish chunk of land on the western side, now containing a tiny brick building called the Dupont Resource Center (9 Dupont Circle), is owned by the National Park Service.

Proposed entryway to Dupont Underground

Hunt showed the committee a proposed design for the space (see photo). In order to make this design a reality, Hunt must have the cooperation of both parties, including permission from the National Park Service to demolish the building. The developer's task will not be made any easier by the fact that this building is used during the day as the offices of the Dupont Circle Citizen's Association, a group often objects to new construction in the neighborhood.

This is not the only highly-visible part of the Circle that the group wishes to transform. Another slide in Hunt's presentation depicted a "cap park" on a wide median between Dupont Circle and Q Street, created by covering over the Connecticut Avenue underpass. Yet another replaced the magnolia trees which bloom in concrete boxes on the center median of Connecticut Avenue just south of Dupont Circle with a long, gradual pedestrian ramp into Dupont Underground from the N Street intersection.

Hunt talked some about the unique difficulties mounting a project of this size in the district.

"This is something that would be kind of normal in a normal city," he said. "If we had a Senator who would say 'it's my project', it would happen automatically."

This project's above-ground problems are only a few of the many problems it will face. Hunt's subterranean talk to the ZPD Committee covered many, many other topics related to this ambitious development. Read a good report summarizing them (with great pictures) from District Source here.

More coverage of the development can be found on page one of the latest edition of The Dupont Current -- available as a 32-page .pdf here (click on "No. 14 April 02, 2014").

Assisting the presentation were Braulio Agnese, Managing Director of the Arts Coalition for Dupont Underground, and Patrick Smith, a developer who is seeking to bring a 41-unit "pod" hotel (rooms 180 square feet each) to the first phase of the project.

Also attending were ANC2B Commissioners Kevin O'Connor (district 02) and Leo Dwyer (district 07). Dwyer is also Chair of the ZPD Committee meeting.

1450 V Street (Portner Place): "We Don't Want to Be near Partygoers"

The entire board of the tenants' association of Portner Place (1450 V Street NW) turned out at the March 25 meeting of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street. They were there to tell the ANC the design of the proposed development was OK with them.

"We want to be on V Street," the President of the Portner Place tenants' association said. "We don't want to be near partygoers."

An image from the February meeting

Portner Place is now a group of garden apartments next to the Reeves Center (14th and U Street), on a piece of land that stretches from U to V Street. The proposal is to raze the garden apartments, and in its place build two separate high-rise buildings. Facing V Street would be 96 units of affordable housing. Facing U Street would be 270 units of "market rate" (i.e., much more expensive) housing. The buildings would share a common back wall but not a common entrance.

This design led a member of ANC1B's Design Review Committee to say the project "implied segregation" -- see SALM blog post of March 3.

But this is what the residents want

"Stop telling us what we are," a Portner Place tenants' association Board member said. "Let us tell you."

The five women of the tenants' association board made very clear that separate buildings was the design they wanted.

"We're happy with the amenities and support the massing," one said.

Board members said it was now very difficult to maintain security on Portner Place, and they looked forward to living in a building that was more secure.

"Portner Place is the building we deserve," a Board member said. "We've waited such a long time."

Presenting again

A team from Somerset Development Company, led by Principal Nancy L. Hooff, made an abbreviated presentation to the ANC. It was the second time this month Hooff and the team presented. The first presentation was at ANC1B's meeting of March 6, but the ANC could not vote on the matter because not enough Commissioners were present to establish a quorum -- see SALM blog post of March 10. ANC Chair James Turner (Commissioner for district 09) asked for an abbreviated presentation for the benefit of commissioners who had not attended the earlier meeting.

Commissioner Juan Lopez (district 07) asked where the residents will go during the construction of the high-rise.

"We own a lot of properties," Hooff said. "The idea is to find one or two buildings. We will master lease 47 units somewhere."

They need an endorsement now

Somerset Development was asking for ANC1B's endorsement before they pitched the project to D.C.'s Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB). The hearing at HPRB was scheduled for less than 48 hours after the ANC meeting. This meant the ANC would have to produce a document of support at faster-than-normal speed.

"We'd really appreciate something by tomorrow," Hooff said.

The ANC voted unanimously to endorse the concept and massing of the project.

"I hope we allayed your fears," Hooff said.

The blog District Source has reported on Somerset Development's subsequent appearance before the HPRB. The reception was generally favorable.

See the HPRB staff report on Portner Place here.

ANC1B Again Fails to Have a Quorum

For the second time in four months, Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street failed to have a quorum for its regular monthly meeting. Only five of 11 sitting Commissioners attended the meeting on Thursday, March 6. Six were necessary to have a quorum.

About 45 developers, architects, homeowners, businesspeople, and members of the community were left waiting, hoping an absent Commissioner would show up so the Commission could take binding votes on the matters on the agenda. The meeting, which began at seven, eventually broke up at 9pm.

Not enough for a quorum

The following Commissioners attended the meeting: Marc Morgan (district 01), Deborah Thomas (district 04), Ricardo Reinoso (district 05), James Turner (district 09), and Zahra Jilani (district 12).

The following Commissioners did not attend: Jeremy Leffler (district 02), Sedrick Muhammed (district 03), Dyana Forester (district 06), Juan Lopez (district 07), Tony Norman (district 10), E. Gail Anderson Holness (district 11)

Commissioner Emily Washington (district 08) announced her resignation at last month's meeting. She is moving out of her ANC district.

In December 2013, ANC1B also failed to have a quorum when a meeting was held on the same day as a Christmas party for ANC Commissioners -- see SALM blog post for December 9, 2013.

Recent attendance record of ANC1B Commissioners

Below is record of ANC Commissioners' attendance record for the last four monthly meetings, based on my observation. Just like airlines, I define "late" as arriving more than 15 minutes behind schedule. Meetings usually last between two and three hours.

• Morgan (01): Three present, one absent
• Leffler (02): Two present, two absent
• Muhammed (03): One present, three absent
• Thomas (04): One present, three absent
• Reinoso (05): Four present
• Forester (06): One present, two absent, one late*
• Lopez (07): Two present, one absent, one late**
• Washington (resigned, 08): Two present, one absent
• Turner (09): Three present, one absent
• Norman (10): Three present, one absent
• Anderson Holness (11): Two absent, two late***
• Zilani (12): Four present

* arrived 20 minutes late, left same meeting after 90 minutes
** arrived 25 minutes late
*** arrived 90 minutes late twice

March meeting: making the best of it

To productively fill the time while hoping in vain that another Commissioner would eventually arrive, ANC1B Chair James Turner asked newly-appointed ANC1B committee chairs to speak and take questions from the audience about their work. Alcohol-policy committee Chair Nick Baumann, Transportation Committee Chair Ben Klemens, and Design Review Committee Chair Lela Winston spoke.

This turned out to be a surprisingly effective use of time. The committee chairs outlined the responsibilities and current concerns of their committees. Members of the community spoke up to ask questions about how the process worked. Several people who seemed somewhat baffled by the proceedings received clarification. One urged the committee and community members to use fewer abbreviations and jargon, so novice members of the audience could more easily understand.

After that, several members of the community who had hoped to get ANC endorsement on various projects spoke up. The longest presentation was by the developers of Portner Place (1450 V Street NW), who sought ANC endorsement for their appearance before D.C. Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) later this month. The ANC Commissioners in attendance asked about the concerns raised when the developers presented before the Design Review Committee on February 26 -- see SALM blog post of March 3.

Members of the current tenants' committee of Portner Place spoke up in favor of the design and plans to move families out while construction went on. The commissioners in attendance seemed to approve of the development.

In addition, the aspiring proprietor of Peace Lounge (2632 Georgia Avenue) and a homeowner from the 1300 block of S Street also wished to tell the committee they needed ANC endorsement this month for their projects, because they would soon be appearing before various DC government bodies. Commissioner Turner suggested they could get letters from their ANC district representatives praising their projects and explaining why the ANC failed to vote. While this would not carry the "great weight" of a conventional ANC decision, Turner said, it might help.

At the end of the meeting, Commissioner Turner announced there would be a special election to fill the place of Commissioner Washington, and urged interested members of the public to pick up nomination papers from the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics. No date for the special election has been set.