Florida Avenue Improvement Project Delayed Until 2016

A long-planned improvement of Florida Avenue NW between U Street and Sherman Avenue will be delayed until April 2016, according to Richard Kenney of the District Department of Transportation (DDOT). Kenney made the announcement during the latest regularly-scheduled meeting of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street on April 2.

(From October 2014 DDOT presentation)

According to a presentation made by DDOT on October 27, 2014, the Florida Avenue project was to start construction in October 2015.

The delayed project will eventually bring bike lanes and sharrows to this stretch of Florida Avenue. It will also improve drainage, provide a traffic light at V Street, widen sidewalks, and add wheelchair ramps. There will also be additional green space, Kenney said. 

Kenney told the ANC that "outstanding issues were putting the project on hold" including one involving District Department of the Environment (DDOE) storm water management regulations and another involving curb cuts along Florida Avenue which need to be closed before work could start.

In addition, a separate project will soon begin nearby on Georgia Avenue, Kenney said, and DDOT does not want to have two projects in close proximity in progress at the same time, since both will obstruct north-south traffic.

The Georgia Avenue project will bring dedicated bus lanes. The October 2014 presentation said construction would start in February 2015. At the meeting last week, Kenney said the start of the Georgia Avenue project was "imminent".

ANC Commissioner Ellen Nedrow Sullivan (district 02) asked Kenney if, since the project was delayed anyway, whether new street lights for the 1900 block of 9th Street could be incorporated. Much of the neighborhood has received new street lights with an elegant, retro look to replace utilitarian-looking street lights used before -- see a examples of the two styles in this SALM blog post. But the 1900 block of 9th Street has not yet benefitted from this upgrade.

See a September 2012 post from the blog Greater Greater Washington about this project here. This post references 2011 input (see here) from ANC1B.

Tropicalia Assault Case Report: No Blame on Club

The owner of the dance club Tropicalia (2001 14th Street NW) gave a freshly-minted official report to a committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street on March 18. This report, the owner said, exonerated his club of any wrong-doing concerning two alleged cases of assault by club bouncers against women customers -- see SALM blog post of January 22.

Tropicalia is in the basement of this building at 14th and U

Jesse Cornelius, Public Affairs Specialist at DC's Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration (ABRA), said in an email the report (see copy here) states that ABRA "took the matter under consideration and decided to take no further action."

The chair of the liquor-licensing affairs committee, Nick Baumann, began the discussion as a part of the committee's regularly-scheduled committee meeting. Baumann had invited both the customers and the club ownership to the meeting to discuss the incident, and both sides were present.

"It's not our role to rule on the facts," Baumann said.

Baumann then said ABRA had not yet ruled on the case. It was at that moment that Tropicalia owner Amanollah Ayoubi first informed the committee of the ABRA report's existence. Ayoubi said the report had been issued that day and had "dismissed the case". He gave the committee a copy of the report.

Ayoubi was given the floor and disputed much of the customers' version of events as presented to the committee in January. The owner's version of events largely agrees with that presented in the ABRA report. For example, one customer stated at the January committee meeting she had been assaulted by the nightclub bouncer. However, the report says the only assault that occurred at that time was when the woman struck the bouncer after refusing to leave.

The owner also said there was no video of the incident. The club keeps surveillance camera video for two weeks. They were notified by ABRA of the investigation 17 days after the incident took place, the owner said.

The owner also accused the customers of waging an unfair campaign against the club on social media.

ANC Commissioner John Green (district 12 -- where Tropicalia is located) asked if the bouncer involved in the incident was still working at Tropicalia.

Another member of the management team said the bouncer involved in the incident had left -- "for unrelated reasons".

The customers who had made the allegations and their allies sat silently while the owner talked to the committee. When he was finished, Baumann asked if they wished to say anything. One of them took up his offer.

"The reason I came before this body was to give you a heads up," she said.

She said she had been "attacked and injured" at the club and a report had been "filed with the prosecutor". However, she said, she understood the owner's perspective.

"I want to prevent that from happening again," she said.

Barring further developments, this seems to be the end of the case. The committee did not take any action or any vote on this matter at the meeting.

(Photo credit: Google Street View)

Problem Liquor Stores at 14th and U and in Columbia Heights Seek Liquor License Renewal

This is the second of two articles published today about renewals of liquor store licenses -- more specifically, about the renewals that the liquor licensing affairs committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street discussed at its March 18 meeting. All DC liquor stores have until the end of March to file applications to renew their Class A liquor licenses.

Many of the applications seemed routine and generated little or no discussion. The two cases below were exceptions.

Bestway Liquors

The owner of Bestway Liquors (2011 14th Street) attended the meeting and reported that his mandatory placard about the renewal application has been up in the window of his store for about a week. Commissioner John Green (district 12 -- also the location of Bestway Liquors) reported "positive and negative remarks" via email about the store. He read the emails to the meeting about the store, which is located on the east side of 14th Street just north of U Street. Some emails said the store "attracts unsavory people", that there were "people loitering", and "drunks passed out" in front of the store.

Bestway Liquors and placard on March 19

The owner of the store said he tried to do everything possible to limit people from congregating in front of his store, but the space was after all a public sidewalk as well as a bus stop. He said it was particularly difficult to get people to clear out of the bus stop, which had a bench. Police had told him not to shoo people away from the store -- he should call the police, because anything on the sidewalk was police responsibility.

The owner and his attorney showed the ANC several "certificates of compliance", which is what liquor stores get when DC authorities attempt a "sting" to get the store to sell liquor to underage or obviously drunk patrons, and the store (complying with the law) refuses to do so. The owner also showed several "barring notices" -- official documents that allow an owner to refuse to sell to specific individuals who have been a problem. On some occasions, the owner says he observes, on the store's security cameras, barred individuals sitting at the bus stop persuading others to buy liquor on their behalf. When the owner sees this, he said, he refuses the sale.

The owner also said he does not sell malt liquor or "singles".

A police officer at the committee meeting said the MPD had a new additional police officer assigned to that stretch of U Street and hoped the officer would reduce the problems in front of Bestway Liquors.

The committee voted to take no action. If there are no official complaints to DC's liquor-licensing authorities, the store will probably have its license renewed.

Fairmont Liquors

"It draws a huge crowd of Howard students," said one committee member of Fairmont Liquors (2633 Sherman Avenue).

"They come in six, seven, ten at a time," the owner of Fairmont Liquors told the committee.

(Google Street View)

The committee noted three cases of selling liquor to minors. In November 2014, Fairmont Liquors was fined $8000 and ordered closed for 15 days for selling to underaged individuals who were probably Howard students -- see SALM blog post of December 9, 2014.

"The problem is a fake ID," the owner said. "They [meaning, the ID cards] come from many states, not just Virginia, Maryland, but Alaska, many states."

The owner told the committee he had gotten a booklet from DC's liquor-licensing authorities to help him distinguish genuine out-of-state IDs from not-so-genuine.

"We need to take a serious look at the record," said ANC1B Chair James Turner (Commissioner for district 08). Turner noted there were occasions when there was no ID check.

"Is that a good community neighborhood establishment?" Turner said.

During the discussion it was also noted there had been a homicide at the liquor store sometime during the last three years. However, the homicide was unconnected with the store, except for the fact that it took place there, and no one suggested the owner was in any way culpable.

A member of the committee asked if the establishment had security camera. The owner said he had one inside camera and was planning four cameras outside.

The liquor license renewal application for Fairmont Liquors has not started its placarding period yet, so there was no vote at the meeting. The committee expects to take up the case at its next meeting. The owner was advised to prepare as much as possible in order to make a strong case for renewal when he comes before the committee.

Many other liquor stores in the area between U Street and Columbia Heights are coming up for renewal -- see the bottom of today's other post for a list.

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)

Who Can Serve Alcohol in DC without a Liquor License?

DC's Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration (ABRA) decided on January 21 to schedule a hearing on the issue of whether WeWork is required to obtain a liquor license, according to a January 26 email from Jessie Cornelius, an ABRA Public Affairs Specialist. A date for the hearing has not been scheduled.

Detail from last year's letter to the Hamiltonian Gallery

WeWork, which located in the Wonder Bread Factory (641 S Street NW) in Shaw, is a multi-city company that provides office space for start-ups and small companies. It provides beer free of charge to its tenants, along with water, coffee, tea, and soft drinks.

In a separate SALM post today, it was reported, on the same day as the ABRA decision, WeWork got the endorsement of the liquor-licensing affairs committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street for both a temporary liquor license (effective sooner) and a permanent liquor license (takes a while to obtain).

A team of representatives from WeWork explained the events which had led to their appearance before the committee. In an effort to comply with the law after a visit by ABRA enforcement staff, WeWork applied for a category CX liquor license. A CX liquor license, according to the ABRA web site, "[p]ermits multipurpose facilities including theaters, museums, sports facilities, passenger-carrying ships and trains to sell and serve beer, wine and spirits." This category license would cost $1,950 and expire on March 30, 2016. It was reported at the meeting that ABRA then told WeWork it would need a category CT, or tavern, license, which could cost up to $3,120 and expire on September 30, 2016.

Committee member Joan Sterling suggested a liquor license was not necessary. (Sterling is also President of the Shaw Dupont Citizens Alliance.) Sterling said there was new liquor-license-related rulemaking in the works which would make clear that businesses in this circumstance do not need a liquor license.

Sterling also said a similar set of circumstances existed last year when the Hamiltonian Gallery (1353 U Street) was visited by ABRA staff who informed the Hamiltonian it would need a liquor license to serve complimentary glasses of wine and beer at receptions that occurred once every six weeks -- see SALM blog post of July 22, 2014.

ABRA, Sterling said, decided that the Hamiltonian Gallery did not need a liquor license. A note on page 15 of a 28-page .pdf document here confirms that, on October 1, 2014, ABRA "determined no license was necessary". A transcript of the October 1 meeting (see page 17 of another 28-page .pdf here) shows DC liquor-licensing authorities voting unanimously that a liquor license was not necessary in this case "provided they [i.e., the Hamiltonian Gallery] comply with DC Code Section 25-102". ABRA spokesperson Cornelius confirms in his email that the Hamiltonian Gallery had received a letter signed by ABRA Director Fred Moosally stating a liquor licensing was not necessary.

Cornelius also explained in his email that DC ...

... laws and regulations provide that an entity—not a restaurant, tavern or other establishment that serves food, non-alcoholic beverages and/or provides entertainment—does not need to obtain a liquor license to provide alcoholic beverages gratuitously. A temporary liquor license or a caterer’s liquor license would still be needed for any event at a facility where:

(1) Alcoholic beverages are being sold or not provided gratuitously to guests;
(2) There is a cost, such as a cover charge or a requirement to purchase tickets to attend the event;
(3) The facility is being rented out for compensation;
(4) A caterer or bartender has been hired or is being paid to serve alcoholic beverages; and/or
(5) Non-alcoholic beverages, food, or entertainment are being sold or being charged for at the event.

At the January 21 ANC1B committee meeting, Sterling moved the ANC write a letter to ABRA stating the ANC does not believe a license is necessary. The motion was passed, and will be probably considered at the next meeting of the full ANC, scheduled for Thursday, February 5, at 7pm, at the Reeves Center (14th and U Streets) -- unless ABRA first makes a decision which renders the point moot.

CORRECTED: Assaults by Staff at 14th and U Club Alleged at ANC1B Committee Meeting

CORRECTED: After publication, I received an email from one of the woman mentioned below with a list of corrections. As I result, I rewrote parts of this article. I have tried to indicate edits with strikethrough for deletions and italics for additions. Also, I am adding the text of the email at the end of the article.

Two women came before the liquor-licensing affairs committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street last night (January 21) to allege that they had been assaulted inside the dance club Tropicalia (2001 14th Street NW).

"He dragged me down to the floor," one woman said. "He slammed me to the wall trying to drag me out."

Tropicalia is downstairs from the Subway at 14th and U

Although both of the women identified themselves (and their attacker) by name at the public meeting, I am not printing any of the names out of an abundance of caution, even though one of the women specifically gave me permission to print her name. After the meeting ended, I asked permission from both of the women to write a story about their testimony. They both agreed without hesitation.

One of the victims identified herself as a 24-year-old woman. She went to Tropicalia on New Year's Eve in early December, but neglected to take identification. She was allowed into the club, but was marked with a black "X" on her hands to indicate that she could not drink in the club. Nevertheless, she managed to obtained a drink from a performer. When the staff member saw the woman with the drink, he told her to leave the club approached her. She attempted to talk to him, and put the drink down and apologized. The staff member then assaulted her without warning, in the manner quoted above, she told the meeting. She also said the incident took place in front of five witnesses, one of whom was punched in the face.

The other woman said her incident took place on New Year's Eve, and did not detail what happen to her at the club, but she said she was injured and had to go the hospital. She also said the incident took place in front of five many witnesses, two of whom gave statements to the police.

"It's hard enough for me to talk about this," said the second woman.

The woman said she was in the club and felt a man touch the small of her back. She told him not to touch her there. She told him to say "excuse me" when trying to get by, instead of touching. The man grabbed her, picked her up bodily, crushing her ribs while walking her around. He told the woman he could touch her wherever he wanted.

Both women have reported the incidents to the police and have police reports.

One of the women The 24-year-old woman said the owner of the club had called to apologize. The owner also said the employee would be removed. But when the woman went to Tropicalia to meet with the owner, she said, the owner was absent but her assailant was present. The assailant told her that he would not be losing his job, that he had never actually touched her, and there was no footage of the incident from security cameras.

She also told the committee the assailant said: "Bitch, I'm not going anywhere."

"I'm astounded and I'm shocked," said one committee member, himself a liquor licensee.

The same committee member told the women that they might wish to press the owner on the matter of security footage because, according to DC law, licensees were only obligated to hold onto security footage for 30 days. By the end of the month, the liquor licensee would be able to legally destroy the video of the New Year's Eve incident.

Members of the committee told the women that this matter was one to be brought before DC's Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration (ABRA). They also advised the women to make sure that ABRA got a copy of the police reports. Committee Chair Nick Baumann said the incident would certainly come up when the liquor license came up for renewal in 2016, but there was a feeling at the meeting that it was a long time to wait.

"People need to be accountable for what they do," a committee member said.

Baumann said he would ask the licensee to come to the next meeting of the liquor-licensing affairs committee, scheduled for February 18. Would the women be willing to return and talk with owner in front of the committee?

They would, they said.

Committee members called up public records at the meeting which indicated that there had been an alleged assault at the club in 2014, but ABRA declined to take any action against the club in relation to the event.

(Photo credit: Google Street View)

UPDATE: Below is the text of the email from one of the women, correcting the record:

quote

I would correct the following inaccuracies:

Woman #1

·       This occurred in early December
·       She did not buy a drink, the performer passed one to her
·       The staff member did not tell her to leave the club, he simply approached her
·       She put the drink down and said sorry before he assaulted her, without saying anything
·       At least 5 witnesses, one of whom was punched in the face
·       When she went back and was surprised he was not fired as the owner had promised, the security staff told her, “Bitch, I’m not going anywhere.”

Woman #2 (me)

·       31 years old
·       New Year’s Eve
·       I felt hands on the small of my back from a random person walking through the crowd. I told the man, “Don’t touch me there.” I told him he could say excuse me when trying to get by, instead of putting his hands on my body. He got aggressive, grabbed me, put me in a bear hug, and crushed my ribs while lifting me up and walking me around, telling me “I can touch you however I want.”
·       I only found out when I talked to the police that he was the head of security.
·       Many witnesses, 2 of whom were with me and have given statements to MPD
·       Owner called me to apologize, but this is disingenuous; he already knew about this particular staff member assaulting women, because he knew about what happened to woman #1.

end quote

Two Longtime Dupont Restaurants Seek Change to Tavern Licenses

At the regular monthly meeting of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2B/Dupont Circle on November 12, two liquor licensees asked to have their liquor license category changed from CR (restaurant) to CT (tavern).

The two establishments are Recessions (1823 L Street NW) and Selam Restaurant (1524 U Street), both of which have been operating for more than 15 years.

Restaurant licenses are cheaper than tavern licenses, but in order to maintain a restaurant license, the licensee must meet several requirements. They include: the licensee must keep the kitchen open until at least two hours prior to closing, the licensee must meet certain minimum standards of revenue from food sales, and the licensee must emphasize food in its advertising. In addition, the licensee must apply separately if it wishes to have dancing or entertainment. See a summary of DC liquor license categories and endorsements from the blog Barred in DC here.

At the November 12 meeting, owner Mohammed Haji appeared on behalf of Recessions, which has been operating on L Street for 18 years. Haji told the ANC that, in recent years, the appearance of food trucks have taken a significant bite out of the revenue he gets from food sales. Haji seeks a tavern license so he will be freed from the obligation of minimum revenue from food sales.

Since the establishment is in the downtown business district, there seemed to be no residential neighbors who might object to the possibility of increased late-night noise or drunkenness. The ANC decided to take no action, meaning, it will neither endorse or oppose the application to change liquor license category. Barring other objecting parties, the change will probably be granted.

Recessions' application for a license category change will get an initial hearing before DC's Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration (ABRA) at 10am on December 1, at ABRA's offices at the Reeves Center (14th and U Streets), 4th floor.

Selam Restaurant is at the other end of ANC2B and has been operating since 1997. It backs onto Caroline Street, which is residential. It has good relations with their residential neighbors.

(From Borderstan.com, used with permission)

"Their close neighbors seem to love them," said ANC2B Chair Noah Smith
(Commissioner for district 09). Selam Restaurant is in Smith's ANC district.

However, Smith said he could not support the license change yet because he had not completed consultations with neighbors. He moved that the ANC protest the proposed change on the grounds of "peace, order, and quiet", with the provision that the protest would be withdrawn if the ANC's concerns were resolved. Smith emphasized that he hoped the ANC would withdraw its protest, barring an unexpected appearance of unhappy neighbors who up until now had been silent.

"We don't want you to move," Smith told the owners of Selam Restaurant.

The motion was passed unanimously.

See a copy of a 2008 settlement agreement Selam has with ANC2B and a group of neighbors here.

Tale of Two U Street Liquor Stores: One Approved, One Not

The cases of two U Street liquor stores came up at the regular monthly meeting of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street on September 4. The locations are one block from each. Each sought an endorsement for a liquor license. One sailed through the ANC without a problem. The other did not.

Gallagher and Graham's future home

Eleven Market's present home

The first case discussed was that of Gallagher and Graham Fine Spirits (1939 12th Street NW) -- previously reported in the SALM blog post of July 17. The second case was that of Eleven Market (1936 11th Street), which proposes to change its name to U Street Wine and Liquor -- see SALM blog post of June 24.

Both will require a Class A liquor license, which allows liquor stores to sell wine, beer, and hard liquor.

Gallagher and Graham Fine Spirits is named after the cousins who will be the joint proprietors. Tucker Gallagher, one of the aspiring proprietors, spoke briefly to the ANC at the meeting. The proprietors have already reached a settlement agreement with the ANC through its liquor-licensing affairs committee. Settlement agreements normally deal with such matters as store opening hours, sanitation, noise, and security. The discussion of the matter was brief. The ANC unanimously voted to approve the settlement agreement as negotiated and endorse the request for a liquor-license.

The case of Eleven Market generated more discussion. Eleven Market has operated in the neighborhood for 15 years with a Class B liquor license, which allows it to see wine and beer. It wants to have a Class A license instead.

The proprietor of the establishment was present as were several members of the community who opposed the license. ANC1B Chair James Turner (Commissioner for district 09) said he had received numerous emails both supporting the license and expressing concern about it. Jeff Jackson, a former investigator for the DC liquor-licensing authorities, represented the owners.

There had been some difficulty negotiating a new settlement agreement for the establishment. At the outset of the negotiations, the proprietor agreed to a clause in the agreement that prohibits the sale of malt liquor and single cans of beer. Since then, the proprietor also agreed to improve the appearance of the front of the building, including planters in the front courtyard (see photo above), with the intended effect of decreasing loitering in front of the liquor store.

Turner mentioned that the ban of sales of single cans of beer in much of the city (but not in Ward 1, where Eleven Market is located) had caused the appearance of "doubles", that is, two cans of beer sold together. Jackson said the store was not planning to sell doubles.

"Is it fair to say you're moving to a more upscale liquor store?" asked Turner.

"Yes," Jackson replied.

Nick Baumann, chair of ANC1B's liquor licensing affairs committee, reported on the progress of talks with Eleven Market. Negotiations on a settlement agreement had begun, but not all the details had been nailed down. Some of the wording in connection with the nature of the improvement to the front courtyard was vague. The agreement said the improvements should be "satisfactory" -- what did that mean exactly?

"The definition of 'satisfactory' is up to you folks," Baumann said, meaning members of the ANC. He urged elected Commissioners to get more involved in the negotiation, but no one present seemed willing to volunteer to take the lead.

Some members of the audience urged the ANC officially protest the application until a settlement agreement was signed.

Commissioner E. Gail Anderson Holness (district 11) made a motion that the ANC accept the settlement agreement in its current form, but the motion died for lack of a second.

Commissioner Ricardo Reinoso (district 05) made a motion that the ANC protest the application for a liquor license conversion on the basis of peace, order, and quiet. It was second, and the motion passed, 7-1, with Holness the vote against.

According to a notice here, Eleven Market will have an initial hearing before DC liquor-licensing authorities on September 29. The offices are located at the Reeves Center (14th and U Street).

DC Inspector Tells Hamiltonian Gallery to Get Liquor License

Paul So, founder and director of the Hamiltonian Gallery (1353 U Street NW), received two visits in six weeks from inspectors of DC's Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration (ABRA). The inspectors told him he needed a license to serve complimentary glasses of wine and beer at his gallery. As a result, So was at a meeting of the liquor licensing affars committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street July 16 to ask for endorsement on a liquor license request.

So told the committee he had been in the neighborhood five years. The gallery hosts receptions once every six weeks, at which wine and beer are served -- but not sold. He said the gallery is not planning to sell alcohol of any type in the future.

"I'll take you at your word that you won't do that," said committee chair Nick Baumann.

Baumann also said the facility would probably need a class D/X license, which "[p]ermits multipurpose facilities to sell and serve beer and wine," according to ABRA's web site. A D/X category license costs $650 and expires on March 31, 2016.

There was evidence of support from the community also, so the committee quickly voted unanimously to make a recommendation that the full ANC support the Hamiltonian's application.

So was present at the beginning of the committee meeting. Since he was not a familiar face, Baumann asked him why he had come. When the committee found out the reason, they moved his application to the top of the agenda. The debate and vote took less than 10 minutes, after which the committee wished So the best of luck, and he left.

The first ABRA hearing on the matter will be held on September 8.

"High End Liquor Store" Proposed for 12th and U Streets

Tucker Gallagher, a 28-year resident of the U Street area, plans to open up a "high end liquor store" near the corner of 12th and U Streets NW. Gallagher came before the liquor licensing affairs committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street last night (July 16) to give a preliminary briefing on the project.

1939 12th Street

Gallagher told the committee he had "reached an agreement" with the landlord of 1939 12th Street, a few steps south of U Street. The planned store will open in a vacant storefront next to a Menchie's Frozen Yogurt shop.

The store will sell locally-sourced beers and liquors, including bourbons, vodkas, and ciders. It will also sell organically grown wines.

The liquor store will require a Class A license from DC's Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration (ABRA). Class A licenses are for liquor stores and wholesalers.

There was some discussion about whether Gallagher might have trouble getting a liquor license due to a perceived "overconcentration" of liquor stores in the area. The nearest Class A licensee is located on 14th Street, just north of U Street, across from the Reeves Center.

There is a Class B liquor licensee, Eleven Market, on 11th and U. (Class B licenses allow grocery stores and wholesalers to sell beer and wine only.) Eleven Market briefed the ANC liquor liquor licensing affairs committee last month (see SALM blog post of June 24) on plans to convert to a liquor store with a Class A license.

ABRA told Gallagher that Eleven Market had not yet submitted their application for a conversion to Class A license. If there is a determination that there is an overconcentration of liquor stores in the area, it is possible that the later of the two licensees (i.e., Eleven Market) will be the one to lose out.

Gallagher told the committee he has no experience with a business that required a liquor license. Online information shows that Gallagher was the marketing manager at the national office of AARP, a realtor, a blogger, and an unsuccessful candidate for ANC1B.

Gallagher said he plans to employ staff with experience, including someone who had worked at Archibald's (1520 K Street).

An official placard announcing the request for a liquor license has not appeared at the proposed location of the store. Once a placard appears, there is a 45-day waiting period for public comment and protest.

Gallagher's presentation was purely informational. There was no request for ANC1B support at this time.

Eleven Market to Become 11th and U Wine and Spirits

The proprietor of Eleven Market (1936 11th Street NW) came before the liquor-licensing affairs committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street on June 18 to announce her intention of changing the store from a convenience store that sells beer and wine to a liquor store. The planned name for the store is 11th and U Wine and Spirits.

1936 11th Street has a large front courtyard

The store will need a change in liquor license class. The store has a Class B license, which permits grocery stores to sell beer and wine. The store will need a Class A license, which permits liquor stores to sell beer, wine, and spirits.

The proprietor was present at the meeting, but she let her representative, Jeff Jackson, do most of the talking. Jackson is a former investigator with D.C.'s Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration (ABRA) who now consults on liquor-licensing matters.

Jackson said Eleven Market had been a good neighbor. It had had only three ABRA violations in 15 years, he said.

On-line records show Eleven Market paid $750 in fines in 2013 in regards to two charges stemming from the sale of rolling papers in violation of a settlement agreement it had with ANC1B.

In exchange for support for a liquor-license conversion, Jackson offered the committee a guarantee that 11th and U Wine and Spirits will not sell single cans of beer. (The sale of single cans of beer is illegal in a large portion of D.C., but not in Ward 1, where the store will be located. The single-beer ban has led to the appearance of two-packs of beer in D.C.)

Some of the committee was not impressed with the offer, and felt the establishment should deal with other issues.

"The concession is pretty weak," said a committee member. "The perception is there are a lot of public safety issues."

Specifically, the property has a large open area in the front.

"This property has a tremendous setback. It looks like a patio," said ANC Chair James Turner (Commissioner for district 09)

Loitering in the front area is a problem, a committee member said.

Jackson didn't think there was any way the establishment could prevent people from congregating in front of the store.

The proprietor said the building was located in the Greater U Street Historic District. As a result, it is impossible to get permission to make the changes to the exterior of the building that would, for example, allow the store to move up closer to the front property line.

The proprietor plans a renovation to the interior of the store. She told the committee about it. But committee members were more interested in the exterior front. They wanted to talk about steps the store could take to make it less "inviting".

"Would you consider putting up something less comfortable?" one asked.

Someone advocated increased security lighting, like other liquor stores in the area have.

Another committee member mentioned that ANCs have a grant program. It might be possible for the store owner to apply for a ANC grant to defray the cost of increased security lighting.

The proprietor has not yet completed the application, so there was no motion or vote on the matter at this meeting. The proprietor did not specify when she thought she would return for ANC endorsement.

As the petitioners gathered up to leave, a committee member again asked the proprietor to consider some steps to "mitigate some of the loitering issue."

"You haven't heard anything saying we are against small business," said ANC Chair Turner. "There are lots of reasons why they can't do anything about the loitering."

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).

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)

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.

UPDATED: Neighbor Attempts to Put Pal the Mediterranean Spot Out of Business

UPDATE Friday, February 21: The neighbors have dropped the appeal today -- see document 22 of case 18716, accessible through the Interactive Zoning Information System of Office of Zoning.

Yesterday, the D.C. Attorney General said the appeal should be dismissed -- see document 21D on same page.

I do not imply this blog post influenced the outcome. The outcome was clearly caused solely by events prior to this post's publication. 

Thanks to U Street Buzz for this information.

Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street will support the management of Pal the Mediterranean Spot restaurant (1501 U Street NW) in a struggle with an abutting neighbor to the north over whether their space is zoned for restaurant operation.

The northwest corner of 15th and U

The case of Pal the Mediterranean Spot will come up before D.C.'s Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) on March 4. According to publicly-available BZA documents, the abutting neighbors who are bringing the appeal are Christina and Mark Parascandola. They will attempt to prove that the restaurant's certificate of occupancy to operate a 50-seat restaurant was issued in error.

ANC1B voted unanimously to send a letter to the BZA opposing the appeal. The vote took place during ANC1B's regular monthly meeting on February 6.

At the meeting, ANC Commissioners noted the neighbors had recently lost a long struggle to deny Pal the Mediterranean Spot a liquor license. A decision, documented in a D.C.'s Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board order of January 22 (available here), grants Pal the Mediterranean Spot a liquor license for restaurants and also permission to operate a sidewalk cafe until 11pm, Monday - Thursday, and midnight Friday and Saturday. Another ABC Board document (287-page .pdf available here) is a transcript of the October 16, 2013, hearing on the matter.

Having lost the liquor license battle, the neighbors are now attempting to show that the restaurant does not have the right to operate, ANC Commissioners said. An on-line DC zoning map confirms 1501 U Street is zoned R-5-B. This zone is for single-family dwellings and apartment buildings. Its abutting neighbors to the west on U Street are zoned to allow commercial use.

ANC Commissioners at the meeting characterized the restaurant as a Mom-and-Pop operation, run by immigrants who could ill afford the lawyers it needed to defend themselves against the continuing legal actions.

"It's a tragedy and we need to look into this," one said.

This is not the first time zoning regulations have been used to attempt to thwart prospective or current liquor licensees. In July 2013, it was used in an attempt to derail the opening of Compass Rose (1346 T Street).

None of the parties involved identified themselves as present at the meeting.

Documents relating to Pal the Mediterranean Spot's BZA case can be viewed at the Interactive Zoning Information System of Office of Zoning by entering case number 18716 into the search bar.

(Photo credit: Google Street View)

1324 W Street: Renovation Shorter, Less Visible

Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street voted at its February 6 meeting to endorse a planned pop-up and rear expansion on a row house located at 1324 W Street NW. The original proposal (reported in an SALM blog post of November 20, 2013) was modified after the local community and D.C.'s Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) expressed concerns.

1324 W Street in 2013

The pop-up will be 15 inches shorter than originally planned and not visible from the street. The HPRB in its latest report on the project pledged to conduct pre-construction tests to make sure the pop-up would not be visible from the street.

The same report noted the planned front basement entry had been removed. The size of planned rear balconies had been reduced as well, so that they no longer wrap around the back of the building.

Jim Shetler of Baltimore-based Trace Architects told ANC1B the building will still have four apartments, as originally planned, on three stories and a cellar. There will be 4000 square feet, Shetler said.

The Meridian Hill Neighborhood Association and U Street Neighborhood Association have both approved the project.

Shetler sought ANC1B endorsement before returning to HPRB for final approval.

He will need to return to ANC1B for a separate endorsement of his application for a special exception from D.C.'s Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA). The proposed modification requires BZA approval because the renovated building will have a floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.2. D.C. zoning regulations say buildings in this district should not have an FAR of more than 1.8.

ANC1B's Design Review Committee recommended that the full ANC endorse the renovation as modified.

The vote was 6-1 with two abstentions.

Commissioners voting in favor: Marc Morgan (district 01), Juan Lopez (07), Emily Washington (08), James Turner (09), Tony Norman (10), and Zahra Jilani (12).

Commissioner voting against: Ricardo Reinoso (05).

Abstentions: Jeremy Leffler (02) and Dyana Forester (06).

Commissioner E. Gail Anderson-Holness (11) arrived too late to the meeting to vote on this project.

Commissioners Sedrick Muhammed (03) and Deborah Thomas (04) were not present at the meeting. 

1324 W Street is located in the ANC district of Commissioner Thomas.

Reeves Center Swap Deadline Missed

Representatives of D.C.'s Department of General Services (DGS) told a public meeting January 2 the deadline had been missed for assembling a complex land swap that would open the way for D.C. United to build a new stadium at Buzzard's Point. According to the terms of the agreement between the team and the D.C. government, D.C. United may now choose to "exit the transaction".

D.C. United play Real Madrid in 2009 (Wikipedia)

DGS public outreach coordinator Kenneth Diggs and Chief Operating Officer Scott Burrell briefed Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street on the state of the land swap. The pair told ANC Commissioners that the promise had been to complete the deal by the end of 2013, but it had not been.

The end-of-December deadline was still being championed as late as December 17 by D.C. City Administrator Allen Lew, while at the same time the City Administrator's office was promising to send an agreement to the City Council before Christmas.

This is of great interest to ANC1B and local residents because, according to the proposed terms of the deal, the city will swap land at Buzzard's Point in Southwest Washington for the city-owned Reeves Center at 14th and U Streets NW. Commercial real estate developer Akridge may have to make a cash payment as well.

DGS testimony

In spite of the missed deadline, the deal still seemed to be in the works. Diggs and Burrell told ANC1B about the plans for disposal of the Reeves Center, should the deal go through. Three independent assessors would determine the worth of the Reeves Center, and "money would exchange hands". The plan now was to close the swap in "early to mid-2014" and then lease back the building to D.C. for three years so the agencies in the building would have time to find other accommodations.

At times, it seems like the DGS had astonishingly little information about the building they proposed to swap.

Commissioner James Turner (district 09) asked about the average maintenance budget for the Reeves Center.

DGS didn't know.

Turner then asked about the "book value" of the property.

DGS didn't know.

How many jobs would be moved? he continued.

All of them.

How many jobs was that? Turner asked.

DGS didn't know.

When pressed, the pair speculated that 70-80 percent of the jobs now in the current Reeves Center might move to the proposed new building, also to be called the Reeves Center, in Southeast Washington. The rest of the jobs might remain in the neighborhood, some perhaps at the office space above the Green Line metro station at 1250 U Street. The DGS currently rents space in this building.

Public reaction

The fate of the Reeves Center was the subject of a public hearing on December 17, 2013. At that time, to quote the Washington Post:

The dozens who spoke at the meeting were nearly united in their desire to see the Reeves Center replaced not with luxury apartments, as is almost certainly the most profitable use of the site, but with office space or other uses that would generate daytime commerce in a neighborhood that is increasingly dominated by nightlife businesses.

Members of the public who spoke at the January 2 meeting expressed similar sentiments.

One woman said: "We need daytime foot traffic. We don't need more high-priced condos."

"The community has a different definition of the efficient use of this space," one man said.

"It's offensive to the community to find our that you're giving away a community asset," another woman said. "We should have been part of the process."

"Maximizing profits shouldn't be the main goal," a resident of W Street said.

A woman who identified herself as a local resident since 1988 said: "Two thousand people work here. If you move them away, our area will lose daytime traffic. Businesses will close."

Brianne Nadeau, former ANC1B Commissioner and candidate for the Ward 1 seat on the D.C. City Council, spoke at the meeting and distributed a flyer calling on Mayor Vincent Grey and the D.C. Council

to specify commercial and community space as the primary designated uses for the building and lot, reserving office space within for entities such as the Office of Latino Affairs, the LGBT Center, the DOES Career Center and the U.S. Post Office...

Nadeau has set up an online petition in support of this initiative.

ANC1B unanimously passed a motion to hold another briefing about the fate of the Reeves Center with DGS and other appropriate agencies before the next ANC meeting in February.

1324 W Street: Single-family House to 4 "Probably Condos"

The Design Review Committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street has heard a proposal to turn a single-family house at 1324 W Street NW into a four-unit residence. The presentation took place at the Design Review Committee's regular monthly meeting on November 18.

1324 W Street was built in the mid 1890's.

Jim Shetler of Baltimore-based Trace Architects made the presentation, in search of ANC approval before he takes his project before D.C.'s Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) for a concept review. Trace Architects must seek HPRB approval because 1324 W Street is in the U Street Historic District. In addition, the project will need review by D.C.'s Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA).

Not so fast

"The clients are going to be in a hurry," Shetler said.

The clients are going to be disappointed. Design Review Committee Chair Tony Norman (Commissioner for district 10) told Shetler he was going to call HPRB to request the hearing on the project be postponed six weeks, until late January 2014.

Shetler had plainly stated there had been no attempt to contact nearby residents or groups.

"We need to notice it," Norman said, meaning the ANC had to inform the community that the Design Review Committee, and later the full ANC, would have public meetings about the presentation.

"The neighbors were not informed," Norman said. Norman then suggested Shetler start by speaking to the U Street Neighborhood Association, who had a representative in the room.

The proposal 

The house would be converted into four units, Shetler said. They would be "probably condos".

The view of the red-brick rowhouse would remain the same from W Street, but an addition would be added to the rear of the building. From the rear, the new addition of the second and third floors, and a new fourth floor, would be visible. The walls would be made of fiber cement panels with metal-clad wood windows and doors. There would be decking in the rear, supported by steel tube columns and protected by a wire mesh guardrail. There would be a top floor roof deck.

The ground floor would be excavated and a portion of the cellar would be removed to create two parking spaces. Parked cars would be partially protected by the ground floor deck.

In response to committee questioning, Shetler said HPRB recommendations included lowering the height of the proposed addition, reducing the depth of the balconies, and using alternate cladding.

"Have you decided to do those changes?" Norman asked.

"The only issue is the height," Shetler responded.

Norman said the proposal could be considered again at the next meeting of the Design Review Committee, which is scheduled for Monday evening, December 16, at 6:30pm at the Thurgood Marshall Center (1816 12th Street).

Norman is also the chair of ANC1B as a whole.

See a two-page .pdf document containing HPRB's staff report on the proposed renovation here.

1324 W Street was sold in July 2013 for $1.15 million, according to online records.

ANC1B Liquor License Roundup

Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street made relatively short work of a long list of liquor license renewals during its regular monthly meeting on November 7. The meeting clocked in at under two hours, an astonishing achievement given ANC1B's previous practice.

ANC1B meets at the Reeves Center (14th and U)

A few licensees received the majority of the committee's attention.

Indulj

Indulj Restaurant and Lounge (1208 U Street NW) testified at the meeting in the hopes of overturning the recommendation of ANC1B's liquor licensing affairs committee (reported in the October 23 SALM blog post) to protest the application to renew.

The general manager of Indulj testified that, in the wake of a high-profile shooting in December 2012, Indulj had acted quickly to provide police with Bevidence from the establishment's security camera. This evidence showed the shootings took place outside the establishment, using guns taken from cars after the participants exited Indulj.

The vote was 5 - 0, with three commissioners abstaining, to endorse the application for liquor-license renewal.

Climax

ANC1B voted unanimously to protest application of Climax Restaurant & Hookah Bar (900 Florida Avenue) for a renewal of its liquor license.

According to official documents, Climax was fined $2000 in September as for operating an outdoor "summer garden" without a license. The summer garden was found operating in June 2012 by an investigator from D.C.'s Alcoholic Beverage Regulation Administration (ABRA). Other documents show that, in February, Climax was fined $500 for a separate instance of the same charge of operating an unauthorized summer garden.

Also in September, ANC1B missed a chance to protest an application by Climax to make its outdoor summer garden legal because the ANC's representative missed a mandatory meeting with D.C.'s Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Board about the matter.

No representative of Climax attended the ANC meeting.

Chuck and Bill's Bison Lounge

At the previous meeting of ANC1B's liquor licensing affairs committee, it was reported that Chuck and Bill's Bison Lounge (2718 Georgia Avenue) had received five liquor license-related citations in the last three years, including citations for sale to a minor and interfering with ABRA investigation. There had also been a homocide in January near the club, and an incident of groping in September. The committee recommended no action on the liquor license renewal request until further community discussion.

At the meeting of the full ANC, it was reported that the operator of Chuck and Bill's Bison Lounge had agreed to install cameras and meet with police. The operator of the establishment was expected to sign an agreement with the ANC the following week.

ANC1B voted unanimously to protest the liquor license renewal, with the provision that the protest would be dropped if the agreement was signed.

Town

ANC1B agreed to lift its protest of a substantial change to the liquor license for Town Danceboutique (2009 8th Street). The proprietor appeared before ANC1B with a scale model showing the improvements he had made to mitigate noise coming from the club.

Town Danceboutique is working with architects and Polysonics Acoustic & Technology Consulting on this project, which features sound-absorbing walls 10 feet tall and 5.5 deep, of the type used to absorb noise from airport runways.

Town Danceboutique also had letters of support from its neighbors.

Routine approvals

About 30 other liquor licenses were on the agenda, all the subject of little or no discussion. On many of them, ANC2B chose to take no action. In a few others, ANC2B voted to endorse the request for a renewal of their liquor license. In either case, it seems the licensees won't have a problem renewing their licenses.

Establishments in this category include: DC9 (1940 9th Street), Dodge City (917 U Street), Ben's Next Door (1211 U Street), Bar Pilar (1833 14th Street), Mockingbird Hill (1843 7th Street), Bohemian Caverns (2001 11th Street), Lost Society (2001 14th Street), Cafe St. Ex (1847 14th Street), and many others.

Of the twelve Commissioners on this ANC, three were absent for this meeting: ANC1B Chair Tony Norman (district 10), Commissioner Sedrick Muhammed (district 03), and Commissioner Deborah Thomas (district 04). In Norman's place, Vice-Chair E. Gail Anderson Holness (district 11) presided. Anderson Holness said her practice when presiding was to vote only to break ties. She did not vote about any liquor-licensing matters.