Long-delayed Dog Daycare at Florida and 14th Moves Forward

A long struggle to open a dog daycare facility on the ground floor of the View 14 apartment building (2303 14th Street NW, at the corner of Florida Avenue) appears headed toward a successful conclusion. The aspiring proprietors had to engage in a multi-year struggle to change DC zoning. In addition, they also had a conflict over the name of the new establishment, which was very similar to a local pet care organization of long standing.

From Doozy Dog's submission to DC zoning authorities

The establishment has changed its name -- it will now be called "Doozy Dog". This name was arrived at after much research, the management team told a committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street. The research could uncover no establishment with this similar name, not only here in the DC area, but indeed anywhere in the US, a team from Doozy Dog told ANC1B's Zoning, Preservation and Development Committee on March 16.

Doozy Dog is the first branch east of the Mississippi for a Los Angeles-based chain of dog daycare facilities known elsewhere as Citydog! Club. When it first appeared before a committee of ANC1B over a year ago asking for zoning relief -- see SALM blog post of December 18, 2013 -- it used this name. Shortly afterward, a local business called City Dogs Daycare, Dupont Circle-based and open since 1999, objected to the new establishment's name -- see SALM blog post of January 6, 2014. The dispute seemed to lead to the decision to change the name of the local branch of the chain.

In addition to changing the name, the proprietors and their attorneys were involved in a successful effort to change DC zoning requirements regarding pet boarding, grooming, and care businesses. As a result, it is no longer required that such an establishment be at least 25 feet from a residence. Another revision to zoning regulations now allows pet care establishments to open in the basement of a mixed-use buildings as a "matter-of-right", that is, without needing any zoning relief.

In addition, the former requirement that such an establishment be in a "sound-proof building" was relaxed -- instead, the establishment must show it will produce no "noise objectionable to residential units" in the same building or nearby buildings. A similar relaxation of standards was made in regard to odor.

With all these problems solved, Doozy Dog is now ready to take the final steps. These involve obtaining an officially-blessed revision of a 2006 Planned Unit Development (PUD) agreement that allowed the View 14 building to be built in the first place. This revision will allow Doozy Dog to open without seeking further zoning relief.

Representatives of Doozy Dog allowed that applying for a revision of a PUD so long after the initial agreement was "unusual".

The ANC committee heard the case for the planned revision of the PUD. The proprietors and their attorney reviewed some details of their planned operation, including disposal of animal waste. Parking was also discussed -- there will be a 15-minute drop-off zone. No other parking mitigation is planned. The proprietors expected most of their customers would come on foot.

The committee voted unanimously to endorse the proposed revision to the PUD. The committee's recommendation will go the full ANC for approval. It will probably be on the agenda of the next scheduled meeting of the full ANC on April 2. The meeting will be at the Reeves Center (14th and U Streets) and is scheduled to start at 6:30pm -- 30 minutes earlier than usual.

A hearing before DC zoning authorities on this case is scheduled for April 20. There was no mention at the meeting of when Doozy Dog was planning to open.

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.

Recently-robbed LeDroit Market Gets Community Help, Committee Endorsement

LeDroit Market (1901 14th Street NW) is getting support from its neighbors after it was robbed. It also easily got endorsement for a regularly-scheduled renewal of its liquor license at a March 18 meeting of a committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street.

(Google Street View)

Liquor licenses come up for renewal every three years, timed so that each year a different class of license comes up for renewal. This year, it's "class A" liquor licenses -- that is, the licenses that allow liquor stores to operate -- and their application for license renewal must be filed before the end of March.

LeDroit Market seemed to be the first local establishment to file for renewal. At the meeting, Commissioner Brian Footer (district 01 -- also the location of LeDroit Market) told the committee the store had been "amazing" and an "absolute model" of an excellent community business, soliciting neighborhood opinion from the get-go.

The committee voted unanimously to endorse the application of LeDroit Market to renew its liquor license. The application will move next to the full ANC, which is scheduled to meet on Thursday, April 2, at 7pm, at a location to be determined.

Footer also reported LeDroit Market was robbed last weekend. A member of the MPD told the committee the robbers took about $400, but the market had "a good surveillance camera".

Footer told the ANC that LeDroit Park residents were organizing an event for next Wednesday, March 25, between 7 and 9pm. Local residents will make a special effort to go to the store and purchase items at that time in order to show support. The next day, a report of the same upcoming event appeared on the blog Left for LeDroit.

In addition to LeDroit Market, The ANC1B's liquor licensing affairs committee had a list of local liquor stores needing license renewals in its jurisdiction, which runs from U Street up to Columbia Heights and from 15th Street to Georgia Avenue.

Two other liquor stores, Bestway Liquors (2011 14th Street) and Fairmont Liquors (2633 Sherman Avenue) generated some discussion, which is the subject of a separate SALM post today.

A longer list of local liquor stores generated little or no discussion at the meeting, in part because no one from the public showed up to complain, and in part because they haven't completed their paperwork. These establishments include:

• Dove House Liquors (1905 9th Street)
• Florida Liquors (2222 14th Street)
• Gallagher & Graham (1939 12th Street)
• Harvard Liquors (2901 Sherman Avenue)
• Joe Caplan Liquors (1913 7th Street)
• Serv-u-liquors (1935 9th Street)

These will all probably be considered at next month's meeting after they officially apply for renewal of their license. The liquor licensing affairs committee normally meets on the third Wednesday of every month at the Thurgood Marshall Center (1816 12th Street) at 7pm -- next month, that will be April 15th. If you want to see a local liquor store change their behavior, this is an excellent opportunity to try to make it happen.

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)

Shaw Restaurant Wants Public Space, ANC Wants Security Cameras

Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 6E/Shaw endorsed a request for 50 seats of sidewalk seating for the Shaw branch of Beau Thai restaurant (550 7th Street NW, at the corner of P Street) at its regular monthly meeting on March 2. However, it included the stipulation that Beau Thai should install outdoor security cameras -- apparently not part of Beau Thai's plan or request.

Interior of Beau Thai Shaw (photo credit below)

Andrew Klein of Veritas Law Firm represented Beau Thai. He told ANC6E the request was for 750 square feet of unfenced sidewalk space with umbrellas. It is located on the P Street side of the mixed-use building where Beau Thai is located, between 7th Street and an alley. The space will close at 11am Sunday to Thursday evenings and midnight Fridays and Saturdays. Tables will be brought inside or secured once outdoor seating hours have passed.

The normal DC requirement for urban sidewalks is a ten-foot gap for pedestrians to pass between the edge of sidewalk space and the nearest obstruction -- in this case, a sidewalk tree box. The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) has the discretion to reduce it to as much as six feet.

In this case, Klein said: "We'll be asking them to reduce it to nine."

Klein told the ANC they had already received the necessary separate permission from DC's liquor licensing authorities to serve alcohol outdoors.

A Commissioner brought up the possibility of installing outdoor security camera, sighting the May 2013 case of a man to robbed two people sitting at the sidewalk patio of Pizzoli's Pizzeria (1418 12th Street NW) in Logan Circle. The establishments outdoor security camera caught the robbery, which led to the arrest and convicting of the hold-up man -- see SALM blog post of September 23, 2013.

"I'm sure [the owner] will consider it," Klein said.

The Commissioner said such camera were not expensive.

"Yes, they're only like about $200 apiece," said ANC6E chair Marge Maceda (Commissioner for district 05).

Commissioner Alexander Padro (district 01) made the motion to endorse the outdoor space request with the provision that security cameras be installed. The motion was approved unanimously, with two abstentions.

Beau Thai Shaw is in Padro's ANC district.

The initial liquor license for the Shaw branch of Beau Thai was the subject of an SALM blog post of September 18, 2014.

(Photo credit: the blog BadWolfDC. Used by permission.)

Darnell's Signs Agreement with U Street ANC, Protests Dismissed

Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner (ANC) 1B/U Street has signed a settlement agreement with Darnell's Bar (944 Florida Avenue NW), which will attempt to limit the noise coming from the establishment. As a result, the ANC withdrew its protest of Darnell's liquor license renewal as of March 11th, the date the agreement was officially recognized by DC's Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABRA).

Image of Darnell's from Google Street View

Protests by the ANC and other groups had threatened to close the establishment -- see SALM blog posts of October 22 and December 10, 2014.

Beside the ANC, three other parties were protesting the renewal. Two of these three protests were also dismissed on March 11th. One of the dismissed protest was that of a group of five or more neighbors. Any protest by a group of five or more is automatically dismissed when an agreement between the ANC and the establishment is signed, as set forth in Section 25-609 of DC Code.

The second dismissed protest was that of an abutting neighbor, who lives above the establishment. This neighbor's protest was dismissed because she failed to attend an ABRA hearing on February 18. Information gathered from an ABRA official transcript of the hearing indicates that the neighbor had gone "way down in Virginia" to visit family during the long Presidents' Day weekend immediately previous, and then was unable to return to DC due to a February 17 snowstorm that brought the area to a halt, closing schools and the federal government.

The third protesting party attended the hearing. He told ABRA about the upstairs neighbor's inability to make it back to the city, but said he had talked to the upstairs neighbor. She wished to remain a party to the protest.

He was asked if he had anything in writing that stated this.

"I couldn't get anything in writing. She left before the snow come," he replied.

He was asked if he had any email that stated this. He didn't.

"I'm not computer literate anyway and neither is she," he said.

According to the same transcript, the upstairs neighbor's protest was then dismissed. The neighbor who attended the hearing was advised that an appeal of the decision was possible if filed within 10 days of receiving notification. However, a March 11 ABRA document (page seven of an 18-page .pdf here) says that the neighbor's request for a reinstatement was unanimously denied. No reason for the denial was given.

On the same day, the protest of the upstairs neighbor was officially dismissed. See the order dismissing the protest here.

One protesting party remains -- a second abutting neighbor. This neighbor will get to make a case against Darnell's at the ABRA protest hearing, scheduled for April 8 at 1:30pm at ABRA offices at the Reeves Center (14th and U Streets).

The text of the settlement agreement between ANC1B and Darnell's can be seen as on the last page of the order dismissing the protest of the group of five or more here.

ANC1B voted to enter the settlement agreement with Darnell's at its regular monthly meeting in January -- see SALM blog post of January 12.