06 Recap

Posted By Si Kailian, 10/10/06 1:20 PM

Meeting was held at the Chinatown Cultural Center 616 H Street NW 6:30pm

Treasurer's Report - balance of 1315.15 was reported, report approved 3-0

Sept. 2006 minutes approved 3-0

Latrena Owens/Geraldine Gardner from Deputy Mayor's Office of Planning & Development announced the Neighborhood Investment Fund & upcoming deadline, Nov. 1, for grant applications in Shaw. For info go to dcbiz.dc.gov or call 202.478.1355

Garrett Preis from Gould Property presented additional design refinements for 600 Mass. Ave NW including awnings, sidewalk, streetscape and public garden on Mass. Ave, & conceptual building design elements. Gould was scheduled to appear before the HPRB on Oct. 5th. The ANC voted to approve the design contingent upon a written agreement between Gould & the Chinatown Steering Committee 4-0.

Jeff Utz/John Epting from Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman LLP requested approval of a Zoning variance for Yale Laundry at 437 NY Ave NW. They are seeking an 8 ft elevator projection above the roof of the historic laundry. ANC tabled this until they meet with MVSNA (we plan to have them in November. They will also present to ANC 6C in November. They are due before the zoning board in February.)

Commissioner Thorpe affirmed that the ANC 2C had voted last December to not support the development at 801-809 7^th St NW.

ANC voted 3-1 to keep Bundy Field as open green space and disallow dogs.

ANC voted 3-1 to support the transfer of a park on the 600 block of N Street NW (south side) to United House of Prayer. Brenda Hall, property manager for UHOP, stated that they do not have any final plans for the space.

Categories: ANC, Meetings | Comments (5) | del.icio.us | Linking Blogs

Comments

Si,

Thanks for the recap...but I have one question. Can the ANC approve/disapprove the transfer of public land to a private entitity? Was there any discussion about this?

Posted By BSmith / At 10/11/06 2:44 PM

here's a message from john epting from Pillsbury:

First, we are seeking a special exception and not a variance. Our Board of Zoning Adjustment hearing is February 6, 2007. A letter is forthcoming to MVSNA and the 6C zoning committee providing information about our request, with meetings scheduled with MVSNA and ANC 6C in November. We are also contacting Ms. Barbara Curtis with ANC 2C and will thereafter go back to ANC 2C.

Zoning permits a penthouse of 18'6' above the roof; it must be of a uniform height. However, because Yale Steam Laundry is an historic landmark, the owner sought to reduce the height as much as possible and provided a lower penthouse of 12' 2 with a uniform height. The owner has a permit to build in this manner. They did this by essentially sinking the floor of the elevator into the building. Thus, to get to the roof deck, which is required as part of the project's residential recreation space, one has to walk up via ramps to get from the lower elevator deck to the roof deck. This creates issues for all future users of the roof deck and is an inefficient use of residential recreation space, and may result in drainage issues at the base of the ramps. We are also concerned about accessibility issues and seeking to make the roof deck more easily accessible. For these reasons, the owner decided that this situation was not optimal. After studying various options, the owner decided to seek BZA relief for a slightly different roof structure scheme.

What are we requesting: a penthouse with a portion rising to 14 6.5above the roof (almost 4 feet less than the maximum allowed by zoning) to accommodate a full height elevator and the remainder and vast majority of the penthouse lowered to 8 8.75 feet above the roof to minimize the penthouse's overall appearance. In this scheme, the floor of the elevator will be level with the roof deck and the ramp system can be omitted. While this approach minimizes the penthouse's appearance, has less overall impact than the penthouse that has been permitted, and is well below the maximum roof structure height permitted by zoning, the 2-height penthouse violates the uniform height requirements.

Thus, we are seeking special exception relief. We are seeking no other relief. If the special exception relief is denied, the developer will continue as the project has been permitted.

I hope this is helpful. Please let me know if you have any further questions. We are available to answer any questions, and looking forward to the upcoming MVSNA and ANC 2C and 6C meetings.

Thanks,

Posted By richard / At 10/11/06 6:24 PM

um, how can they transfer property that isn't available?

Posted By richard / At 10/12/06 10:23 AM

Richard - thanks for posting this, i'm waiting for the mail. We shall see in November exactly what they are proposing to do.

BSmith - this item was not on the agenda. However there was discussion, most of it in support of UHOP's good RE work. The rep from UHOP said that they do not have any specific plans for the land yet but they are seeking to acquire it. (I asked C. Brooks about UHOP intent about a week prior to the ANC meeting. She responded "housing or parking") During the comment period I was not called upon. Also Felicia S., who has been trying to get a renovation effort going for that park, tried to speak but was gaveled out by C. Thorpe. A vote was taken but I think it was largely symbolic. The land is under Dept. of Parks & Rec. (with a concrete box owned by metro) and is not deemed surplus. They cant just sell it. Jack evans sent an email last july indicating that he would introduce legislation to allow the sale to UHOP but he has not yet. I dont know what the status of his position is, he hasnt gotten back to us. there is a meeting with DPR tonight, 6:30pm, kennedy rec center WARD 2 Parks "Speak Out"...I encourage everyone to come, our parks still have no lights!

Posted By Si Kailian / At 10/12/06 10:29 AM

I had a LONG conversation about this with a neighbor and one of the candidates last night. It is very problematic that the ANC is rubber stamping the transfer of property to an entity that does not pay taxes on it's real estate and frankly I cannot comment on how UHOP keeps their property but if it is anything like Shiloh...I cannot believe Chairman Thorpe (and Leroy if you read this feel free to email me off line to discuss) gaveled folks who simply wanted a say.

For too long it has been the newcomers versus the churches and this type of stuff just causes more problems for both sides. I personally do not have a dog in this fight as I live in upper Shaw but the precedent really scares me.

Posted By BSmith / At 10/12/06 11:07 AM