Please note: In addition to the text and vote counts of the official actions taken by the Commission, these minutes may contain

summaries of comments that were made and discussions that took place at the meeting. Such summaries are not intended to be a

verbatim account of the meeting.

 

 

 

Advisory Neighborhood Commission 1C

Adams Morgan

Minutes of April 2, 2014

 

 

I. Call to Order and Introduction of Commissioners

A regularly scheduled meeting of Advisory Neighborhood Commission 1C was held on April 2, 2014 at Mary’s Center.

Chair Simpson called the meeting to order at 7:03 pm. Approximately 28 members of the public attended. In

attendance were Commissioners Brian Hart (1C01), Martis Davis (1C02), Ted Guthrie (1C03), Gabriela Mossi

(1C04), Elham Dehbozorgi (1C05), Billy Simpson (1C06), Wilson Reynolds (1C07), and Jimmy Rock (1C08).

 

II. Officers’ Reports

a. Chair’s Report

Chair Simpson acknowledged former ANC1C Commissioner Olivier Kamanda who was present in the

audience.

 

b. Secretary’s Report

Secretary Guthrie moved for approval of the minutes for the February 5, 2014 and the March 5, 2014

ANC1C meetings. Commissioner Hart seconded the motion which passed by a vote of 6 to 0

(Commissioners Mossi and Dehbozorgi had not yet arrived).

 

c. Treasurer’s Report

Treasurer Dehbozorgi reported that the ANC1C financial report for the first quarter had been filed. (This

report followed Public Announcements/Comments.)

 

III. Commissioner Announcements/Comments

 Commissioner Davis reported on progress on a survey for Envision Adams Morgan that will ask

residents about their own vision for Adams Morgan. He said that the DC Office of Planning had

promised to help with this project going forward.

 Commissioner Hart reported that there would be a Ward 1 town hall meeting with DC Water and

Council Member Jim Graham on Tuesday, April 22 at Benjamin Banneker High School from 6:30 pm to

8:30 pm to discuss water projects impacting the community.

 Commissioner Hart also announced that the next ABC and Public Safety Committee meeting would be

held on Wednesday, April 9 at the Kalorama Recreation Center at 7 pm and that the Committee would

be discussing Operation Adams Morgan – a joint initiative for public safety that will take place again this

summer – and legislation to address promoters that cause issues with nightlife in Adams Morgan.

 Commissioner Guthrie announced that there would be free paper shredding on April 26 at the Mount

Pleasant Street plaza.

 Commissioner Guthrie reported on the status of the Historic Preservation Review Board consideration

of the condo development at 1835-1837 Wyoming Avenue. He said that the Board again asked the

developers for new plans after a third hearing.

 Commissioner Rock announced that the HPRB has a new historic preservation plan and he asked that

it be added to the ANC1C website.

 Commissioner Reynolds reported on a meeting to discuss the bioswale project at Kalorama Park.

IV. Public Announcements/Comments

 Kristen Barden, Executive Director of the Adams Morgan BID, announced that Unity Park at the triangle

formed by Columbia Road, Champlain Street and Euclid Street will once again be a pit stop for Bike to Work

day on May 16, 2013. Breakfast will be served between 7:30 am and 9:30 am and City Bikes will offer

prizes.

 Kristen Barden also announced that an outdoor movie series will be offered this summer at the Marie Reed

soccer field in May and June in conjunction with Marie Reed Parent Teacher Association.

 Former ANC1C Commissioner Olivier Kamanda spoke about the Wayhome Campaign that provides support

for the homeless with a goal of ending chronic homelessness in the District by 2017. He provided a sheet for

volunteers to sign up to get involved while housing funding is being considered for the DC budget.

 Ernest Springs announced that the Reed-Cooke Neighborhood Association would be meeting on April 10

and that a neighborhood spring cleaning would take place in conjunction with the opening of the fountain at

Unity Park.

 Maria Gomez, president of Mary’s Center, announced that local restaurants will participate in Taste of

Adams Morgan on April 29 benefitting Mary’s Center.

 

V. Upcoming Meeting Agendas for March

Chair Simpson announced that the agendas for ANC 1C committee meetings in April could be found on the reverse

side of the ANC agenda.

 

Commissioner Hart, Chair of the ABC and Public Safety Committee had noted his Committee’s agenda items during

Commissioner Announcements/Comments.

 

Commissioner Rock, Chair of the Planning, Zoning, and Transportation Committee, added discussion of the

th

proposed bus lane on 16 Street to the committee agenda for April 16.

 

Commissioner Davis, Chair of the Public Services and the Environment Committee, said his committee would be

looking at the draft survey for Envision Adams Morgan and would give the community a chance to weigh in on it.

 

 

 

VI. Scheduled Business

a. Public Services and the Environment

i. Jubilee Jumpstart grant request

Commissioner Davis reported that the Public Services Committee had approved a grant to refurbish the

playground at Jubilee Jumpstart early childhood education center that is currently unusable. He introduced

Stephanie Thompson, development manager at Jubilee Jumpstart, who spoke about their grant request.

Commissioner Davis moved a resolution to issue a $1,000.00 grant to Jubilee Jumpstart for its playground.

The resolution did not require a second, because it was approved in committee. Commissioner Dehbozorgi

said she would need a copy of the letter granting the organization 501(c)(3) status and said the check would

be issued when the organization is ready to spend it. Those conditions were added to the resolution without

objection. Commissioners spoke favorably about the value of this organization and its projects then passed

the resolution by a vote of 8 to 0.

 

ii. Update on grant to Adams Morgan Basketball Association

The representatives from Adams Morgan Basketball Association were not present, so this discussion was

moved to the May meeting.

 

b. Planning, Zoning, and Transportation

i. AMPBID Summer Concert Series

Commissioner Rock moved to send a letter to the District Department of Transportation in support of the

Adams Morgan Partnership BID Summer Concert Series. Kristen Barden of AMPBID spoke about the concert

 

 

2

series that will be held on the plaza in front of the BB&T bank on Saturday evenings in May and June.

Commissioner Rock’s resolution was reported out of committee and so did not require a second. The

resolution passed by a vote of 8 to 0.

 

ii. Update on construction schedule at 1827 Adams Mill Road NW

Representatives from development at 1827 Adams Mill Road (the former Exxon lot) gave an update on the

construction project. They said they now have permits from the DCRA and the DDOT and excavation will

begin in the next few weeks. Jay Eichberg of Eichberg Construction described erosion control and a stabilized

entrance that they will use to keep the area contained during construction. He asked the public to report any

noise or time ordinance violations they notice. In answer to questions from the public the developers said the

construction is expected to take about 14 months and that an independent surveyor will record any cracks that

may occur in surrounding houses as a result of the construction. The developers also agreed to come to

monthly ANC meetings to give updates. There were questions from the public about traffic on Lanier Place

and in the side alley and suggestions for offsite parking for the work crews.

 

Commissioner Reynolds asked how many parking spaces would be lost on Lanier Place during construction,

and whether the alley would be closed during construction and if so whether people would be alerted. The

developers said four parking spaces on Lanier may be lost during construction for a temporary curb cut and

they agreed to alert the public when the alley would be blocked.

 

Commissioner Dehbozorgi asked whether there would be any soil remediation during the project. The

developers said that the underground tanks from the Exxon station had been leaking and the soil is being

tested for contamination. They are working with environmental consultants and the District Department of the

Environment to follow the correct protocol. Commissioner Dehbozorgi also asked about potential retailers in

the building. The developers said they are currently talking to a mid-range restaurant, a coffee shop, and a

pet store as possible tenants.

 

iii. Jubilee Housing occupancy – 2720 Ontario Road and 2448 18th Street

Commissioner Rock introduced Jim Knight and Marty Mellet from Jubilee Housing to provide background on

the affordable housing and services offered at Jubilee Housing. They described the two homes where they

provide a structured, supervised transition for those being released from incarceration – one for men and the

other for women – and asked ANC 1C to support their request to expand the limits on who they can serve at

these homes. Commissioners asked about the average length of the program for the residents, the curfews,

and how the residents support themselves. The directors said it takes about a year to get stabilized with a

job, health care, and a network of peers; residents are expected to be home for dinner and afterwards; and

residents do not pay rent until they have income and then it is set at 30 percent of what they make.

 

Maria Gomez from Mary’s Center said this would be a great opportunity to support a program that could

become a model for the city. Patty Odell, executive director at Joseph’s House, spoke in support of the effort

and noted that current residents of the transition homes have been welcomed by their neighbors and there

has been no violence associated with residents or those who visit them.

 

Commissioner Simpson said the Jubilee programs are well-run and he fully supports this project and their

request to serve a broader range of people. He noted the need for such programs in part because as a

country we incarcerate more people than any other country in the world. Commissioner Guthrie spoke in

favor of the program and said that prisons become a revolving door if there aren’t transition programs like this

to get people stabilized in a regular living situation. Commissioner Mossi agreed that we all have a role to play

in this effort.

 

Commissioner Dehbozorgi said she voted against this request in committee because the change would now

allow former felons in the homes. She said she had reached out to residents about this and those who have

children are concerned, although they have not noticed any problems.

 

 

 

3

A neighbor said she has a daughter who goes to day care across the street from one of the homes and she

has faith that Jubilee housing will do what it takes to make the program safe.

 

Commissioner Rock moved to adopt a resolution informing the Board of Zoning Appeal of ANC 1C’s support

for the requested changes in use that would permit Jubilee Housing to offer housing and services to a broader

range of men and women returning from incarceration. He spoke in support of the project and the good job

they are already doing at Jubilee Housing. Since the resolution was voted out of committee it did not need a

second. The resolution passed by a vote of 7 to 1.

 

 

ANC 1C RESOLUTION SUPPPORTING BZA APPLICATIONS NOS. [ ]:

CHANGES IN USE TO OPERATE ADULT REHABILITATION HOMES

 

WHEREAS, the Planning, Zoning & Transportation Committee of ANC 1C, as well as ANC 1C as a

whole, have reviewed the application and supporting materials of Jubilee Housing, Inc. (“Jubilee

Housing”) for special exceptions to operate and use the following properties as Adult Rehabilitation

th

Homes:2448 18 Street, N.W. and 2720 Ontario Road, N.W.; and

 

WHEREAS, Jubilee Housing has a long and admirable history of providing affordable housing in

Adams Morgan; and

 

WHEREAS Jubilee Housing has developed a full program of services it intends to provide to potential

th

residents at 2448 18 Street, N.W. and 2720 Ontario Road, N.W. as part of its Reentry Housing

Initiative, and is already providing housing and services under that program to residents at 2720

Ontario Road, N.W.; and

 

WHEREAS the requested changes in use would permit Jubilee Housing to offer housing and services

to a broader range of men and women returning from incarceration;

 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that ANC 1C supports the Board of Zoning Adjustment granting

Jubilee Housing the requested special exceptions to operate and use the following properties as

th

Adult Rehabilitation Homes: 2448 18 Street, N.W. and 2720 Ontario Road, N.W; and

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that these recommendations be transmitted and presented to the Board of

Zoning Adjustment by the Chair of ANC 1C and the Chair of the PZT Committee as soon as

possible following adoption.

 

 

 

 

iv. Zoning Regulations Rewrite

Chair Simpson reported that ANC 1C held a special forum on March 25 on the DC Zoning Regulations

Rewrite at which representatives from the Office of Planning were in attendance to answer questions. He said

Commissioners prepared resolutions based on what they learned and there would be time for the public to

add any issues that may have been overlooked. Commissioner Guthrie introduced four resolutions he

prepared with the help of Larry Hargrove to address four particular concerns.

 

Residential Flat Zones

Commissioner Guthrie offered a resolution that would eliminate commercial uses in the new residential flat

zones; limit the number of units allowed; and, specify a floor-area-ratio. Commissioner Simpson seconded the

motion.

 

Commissioners asked about the potential burden on property owners, what type of nonprofit use would be

allowed, and what the benefits of the new RF-4 and RF-5 zones would be. Commissioner Hart made a motion

to strike the provision on page 3 of Commissioner Guthrie’s resolution that would have urged the Zoning

 

 

4

Commission to eliminate the nonprofit office use in large historic buildings from the two new rowhouse zones

RF-4 and -5. Commissioner Rock seconded the motion that then passed by a 4 to 3 vote. Commissioner

Guthrie’s resolution as amended then passed by a vote of 6-0-1: six in favor, none opposed, and one

abstention.

 

Resolution of Advisory Neighborhood Commission 1C Concerning the Ongoing Review of the

DC Zoning Regulations

 

Subtitle E – “Residential Flat” Zones

 

1. ANC 1C notes that the District of Columbia’s Office Planning (OP), following the 2006 adoption of a

revised Comprehensive Plan that is required by law to guide land-use policies including zoning,

undertook a comprehensive Zoning Regulations Review (ZRR), and that OP has now submitted its

final draft of proposed new regulations to the Zoning Commission for consideration and action.

 

2. Concerning Subtitle E of that draft, “Residential Flat Zones”, ANC 1C notes the following:

 

A. Subtitle E proposes new Zones RF-1, -2, and -3 to replace the current R-4 zone, and, in

response to a mandate in the Comprehensive Plan, two new rowhouse zones RF-4 and -5.

 

B. the new RF-4 and -5 zones are intended principally to make it possible for areas like Adams

Morgan to replace current R-5-B and higher R-5 (proposed A-=2 and higher) zoning in neighborhoods

having larger rowhouses with zoning more compatible with the physical character and general

ambience of those neighborhoods.

 

C. As a result of the overly permissive development standards applicable in the existing R-5-B and

higher zoning in Adams Morgan, including in particular the absence of any limitation on the number of

units that may be located in a building, Adams Morgan is increasingly threatened by often grotesque

multi-unit “pop-ups” and other over-redevelopment of its rowhouses both within and outside of its

historic districts.

 

D. The current R-5-B and higher zoning is itself an historical anomaly, in that the Lewis Plan, on

which the 1958 code was based, envisaged a lower density residential zoning -- R-4, which has a limit

of two units per rowhouse -- for Adams Morgan and much of Dupont Circle, but that position was

changed by the District Commissioners under the then-prevailing view that these neighborhoods as

built were blighted and could usefully be demolished to the extent needed to make way for the Inner

Loop Freeway and the Adams Morgan Urban Renewal Plan. (Both of these projects were

subsequently defeated, but R-5 zoning was left intact.)

 

E. The two new zones, by revising development standards, including height and lot occupancy,

limiting the height of roof structures and number of stories and imposing a limit on the number of

dwelling units that a building may contain to 3 and 4 units respectively for RF-4 and -5, would go a long

way in areas of larger rowhouses toward eliminating the unsightly pop-ups, ruined facades and bulging

rear additions that have resulted when developers cram six or eight or more units into a row house.

 

F. There is substantial interest among homeowners in Adams Morgan in exploring the possibility of

downzoning appropriate areas either to RF-1, with its two-unit limit, or to RF-4 or -5, with their limits of

3 and 4 units.

 

3. However, the proposed Subtitle E would present three obstacles to that downzoning, which the

Zoning Commission should correct:

 

(1) Non-residential uses in residential neighborhoods.

 

 

 

 

5

Subtitle E would authorize in all the RF zones a wide range of new commercial and other non-

residential uses under the rubric of “corner stores”, as well as making it possible for large historically-

designated apartment buildings to be taken over of non-profit office use.

 

In Subtitle F, OP properly eliminated these non-residential uses from R-5-B and higher (A-2 and

higher) residential neighborhoods, in view of the specific characteristics of those neighborhoods and

the resulting inapplicability of the stated rationale for so-called “corner store” uses (as outlined in a

separate ANC 1C resolution on subtitle F).

 

These are the same R-5 neighborhoods where the two new rowhouse zones are principally intended to

be considered for future mapping. Therefore, for the same reasons, these commercial and other non-

residential uses should be eliminated from the two new rowhouse zones RF-4 and -5 as well as from

any RF-1 district resulting from a future downzoning from R-5.

 

(2) Allowing conversion of row houses to “apartment houses”

 

Proposed §E- 600, carrying forward a provision in the existing regulations, enables conversion of

houses to apartment houses, which by definition contain 5 or more units, so long as the lot has 900

square feet of area per unit. – notwithstanding the two-unit limit.

 

§E- 600 limits such conversion to RF-1, -2 or -3, excluding the new rowhouse zones RF -4 and -5. But

a conflicting provision -- §E-504.4 -- appears to envisage conversion of houses to apartment houses in

the two new row house zones as well. Since this latter provision is apparently rendered without legal

effect by E-600, and since in any event it would flatly negate the purpose of the RF zones to limit the

number of permissible units per house, it should be deleted.

 

The existing provision that §E-600 would carry forward has resulted in much damaging over-

redevelopment in R-4 areas with large lots, most notably in Mount Pleasant, and to that extent negates

the stated purpose of the present R-4 and the proposed RF-1, -2 and -3 zoning to limit the number of

permissible units to two per building,. It should therefore be deleted altogether.

 

(3) Omission of limit on allowable floor area for rowhouses in the RF-4 and -5 zones

 

Proposed Subtitle E has omitted “floor area ratio” (FAR) limits for row dwellings in RF-4 and -5 (as well

as detached and semi-detached dwellings), while setting a 1.8 FAR limit for all other structures –

which is the same as the current FAR limit for R-5. Limitations on total allowable floor area are very

important in controlling pop-ups and other bulging re-development projects, and 1.8 FAR should be the

rule for all structures at least in these two RF districts.

 

4. Therefore it is resolved that ANC 1C

 Welcomes the proposed two new rowhouse zones RF-4 and RF-5,

 Urges the Zoning Commission to

□ Eliminate the proposed commercial and other non-residential uses, as well as non-profit

office use in large historic buildings, from the two new rowhouse zones RF-4 and -5 as

well as from any RF-1 district resulting from future downzoning from and R-5 district.

□ Strike §E- 504.4,

□ Strike §E- 600.

□ Set an FAR limit of 1.8 for the proposed RF-4 and -5 zones.

 

 

 

Apartment Zones

Commissioner Guthrie made a motion to commend the Office of Planning’s decision to drop a proposed

allowance for commercial and office uses in residential apartment zones. Commissioner Simpson seconded

 

 

 

6

the motion which then passed by a vote of 5 to 0. (Commissioners Dehbozorgi, Davis, and Reynolds had left

at this point.)

 

 

Resolution of Advisory Neighborhood Commission 1C Concerning the Ongoing Review of the

DC Zoning Regulations

 

Subtitle F – “Apartment” Zones

Protection of Adams Morgan’s Residential Neighborhoods from

Intrusion of New Commercial and other Non-residential Uses

 

1. ANC 1C notes that the District of Columbia’s Office Planning (OP), following the 2006 adoption of a

revised Comprehensive Plan that is required by law to guide land-use policies including zoning, is

engaged in a comprehensive Zoning Regulations Review (ZRR), and that OP has now submitted its

final draft of proposed new regulations to the Zoning Commission for consideration and action.

 

2. Regarding Subtitle F of that draft, designated “Apartment” zones, ANC1C notes:

 

A. The predominately row house residential neighborhoods of Adams Morgan and similarly situated

areas now zoned R-5B Residential or higher would no longer be denominated “Residential” as in the

current Zoning Regulations but would be designated “Apartment” districts,

 

B. In previous OP drafts a wide variety of new commercial and other non-residential uses were to

be allowed in “Apartment” districts as a matter of right or by special exception, all uses falling under the

general categories of “retail”, “service”, “eating and drinking establishments”, and “arts design and

creation”, and including, among many other examples listed in the proposed Subtitle B: pawn shop,

beer and wine carryout, appliance repair shop, grocery store, bank, yoga center, travel agency office,

fast food establishment, delicatessen, dry cleaner, real estate agency office, shoe repair shop,

recording studio, metal working shop and sales, café, and any other uses that the Zoning Administrator

might be persuaded to find to be suitably “compatible” with like permitted uses;

 

3. Beginning in 2009, OP and/or the Zoning Commission heard opposition to this change, on the basis

of considerations such as the following:

 

• Adams Morgan has a decades-long history of struggle to preserve its residential areas and resist

intrusion of commercial uses into its residential neighborhoods, as exemplified by its opposition to

freeways and urban renewal proposals, the Zoning Commission’s 1980 ban on hotel expansion into

residential neighborhoods (which emanated from Adams Morgan), the Reed-Cooke overlay that

replaced industrial zoning for that neighborhood, the home occupation regulations, and the prosecution

of various individual zoning cases;

 

• OP’s commendable stated objective in advancing its proposals for R-5 and other districts on this

and other subjects has been to promote environmental sustainability by creating “walkable

neighborhoods” and reducing reliance on cars,

 

• Adams Morgan’s residentially zoned areas lie in close proximity to commercial areas along

th

Columbia Road, 18 Street, Florida Avenue and U Street as well as Connecticut Avenue and portions

of Calvert Street, Adams Mill Road and Kalorama Road that provide walkable access to a wide variety

of commercial establishments, including convenience stores that have long been allowed, and under

the proposed new regulations would continue to be allowed, in the substantial number of large

apartment buildings that are interspersed among Adams Morgan rowhouses,

 

 

 

 

7

• OP’s own research shows that Adams Morgan already has a number of holdover nonconforming

and other commercial uses located within its residential areas,

 

• OP’s own research shows that Adams Morgan ranks among the city’s best neighborhoods as

regards “access to healthy living”, considering the ready availability of grocery, pharmacy and certain

other facilities in its adjacent commercial areas,

 

• For these reason Adams Morgan residential areas are already eminently “walkable

neighborhoods” having no need for new rules allowing commercial establishments to take over living

space in their midst;

 

• By contrast to provisions that would allow non-resident commercial operators to displace

residents and take over residential space, the Zoning Regulations have long allowed, and would

continue to allow, Adams Morgan residents to pursue certain “home occupations” in their own

residence, under conditions that maintain and respect the residential character of the neighborhood,

 

• Converting space in residential buildings to commercial and other non-residential uses, other

than as authorized “home occupations” operated by residents in their own home, would both degrade

the character of Adams Morgan’s residential neighborhoods and erode the residential base on its

which schools, commercial strips and community activities depend.

 

• Such conversion would also create gratuitous competition for existing businesses in Adams

Morgan’s commercial strips and for owners seeking productive use of their commercially zoned

properties, which would be especially damaging at a time of sluggish economic recovery.

 

• The desire of non-residential users to modify buildings to accommodate commercial or other non-

residential enterprises would add one more incentive to deface Adams Morgan residential row houses

and apartment buildings.

 

• The District’s Comprehensive Plan contains numerous provisions intended to preserve the

integrity of residential row house neighborhoods and contains nothing that would justify the proposed

commercialization of Adams Morgan residential neighborhoods.

 

4. Additionally, OP’s earlier drafts would have carried forward an anachronistic provision allowing

conversion of large historically designated apartment buildings in “Apartment” districts such as Adams

Morgan to office use by non-profit enterprises; opposition was also expressed to this provision, which

would make possible the conversion of entire apartment buildings in Adams Morgan’s historic districts

to non-residential use.

 

5. Accordingly, OP’s final ZRR draft now before the Zoning Commission omits the provisions that

would have allowed new commercial and other non-residential uses, as well as the provision allowing

non-profit office use of large historic apartment buildings, in Adams Morgan and other “Apartment”

areas.

 

6. Therefore it is resolved that ANC 1C

 Commends OP for having dropped the proposal to allow new commercial and office uses to

intrude into residential neighborhoods under the new “A” zoning,

 Urges the Zoning Commission to reject any suggestion that those uses be reinstated in whole

or in part,

 Notes, however, that in other respects, the “A” zoning is inadequate to protect those rowhouse

neighborhoods from “pop-ups” and other grossly excessive over-redevelopment, and should

be considered for downzoning in appropriate areas.

 

 

 

8

Roof Structures

Commissioner Guthrie moved to request that the Zoning Commission limit roof structures in apartment zones

and mixed-use zones to a height of 10 feet, and require that roof structures comply with the setback

provisions in the general rules in Subtitle C. Commissioner Hart seconded the motion which then passed by a

5 to 0 vote.

 

Resolution of Advisory Neighborhood Commission 1C Concerning the Ongoing Review of the

DC Zoning Regulations

 

Subtitles F (Apartment Zones) and G – (Mixed Use Zones)

Protecting row houses from excessively permissive roof structure height and setback

provisions

 

1. ANC 1C notes that the District of Columbia’s Office Planning (OP), following the 2006 adoption of a

revised Comprehensive Plan that is required by law to guide land-use policies including zoning,

undertook a comprehensive Zoning Regulations Review (ZRR), and that OP has now submitted its

final draft of proposed new regulations to the Zoning Commission for consideration and action.

 

2. In connection with the height by which roof structures may exceed the allowable height of the

building on which they are located, ANC 1C notes the following:

 

A. For many zone districts in Subtitles F (“Apartment”) and G (“Mixed Use”) zones, including those

applicable in Adams Morgan, the maximum height of a roof structure under the proposed regulations is

18.5 feet.

 

B. For a large eight or ten story building, this constitutes a small proportion of the overall height and

may well be hardly noticeable, but in a neighborhood of rowhouses mainly 40 feet or less in height

such as Adams Morgan, an 18.5 foot box looming over the building is proportionately a very big and

visually intrusive increase in the building’s height and mass, and

 

C. Presumably in recognition of this fact, the roof structure maximum height in the special Capitol

Hill A district (presently R-5-B) and in the RF zones (presently R-4), also predominantly rowhouse

areas, is 10 feet, and there is no perceptible reason why this limit should not also apply in rowhouse

areas in all the proposed Apartment and Mixed Use zones.

 

3. In connection with the distance by which roof structures must be set back from the exterior walls of

the building , ANC 1C notes the following:

 

A. For many zone districts in subtitles F (Apartment) and G (Mixed Use), in order to reduce their

visual impact, roof structures must be set back from the front wall by a distance equal to their height

and from a side wall by a distance equal to half their height, but no setback is required form a side wall

adjoining another building, on the theory that in this situation the adjacent building would substantially

shield the roof structure from street view.

 

B. As can be seen in Adams Morgan and elsewhere, this theory does not hold where the adjacent

building is significantly lower than that on which the roof structure is located: in this situation a roof

structure flush with the side of such a building can be quite intrusive visually.

 

 

 

 

9

C. The Comprehensive Plan contains a provision specifically intended to deal with this problem by

1

requiring that party walls of row houses be regarded as exterior walls, but it has not been

implemented in the roof structure setback provisions in the Apartment and Mixed Use zones mentioned

above.

 

D. Additionally, these roof structure setback provisions in the Apartment and Mixed Use zones are

in conflict with the formula for roof structure setback provided in Subtitle C (“General Rules”) §505.2(e),

which requires set back by a distance at least equal to the height of the roof structure from “any wall

abutting a lot line and being taller than the greater of the adjacent building’s existing or by-right height.”

 

E. Both the problem of internal inconsistency in the proposed regulations and the problem of

inadequate protection against visually intrusive roof structure would be solved by substituting the

formula provided in C §505.2(e) in place of the corresponding setback formula in the roof structure

provisions for the A(Apartment) and M (Mixed Use) zones,

 

4. Therefore it is resolved that ANC 1C urges the Zoning Commission to

 Limit the height of roof structures in the A and M zones to 10 feet, and

 Apply the side-wall setback formula provided in C §505.2(e) in place of the corresponding

setback formula in the roof structure provisions for the A and M zones.

 

 

 

 

Mixed Residential and Non-Residential Use

Commissioner Guthrie moved to request that the Zoning Commission restore the 60% and 80% lot occupancy

maximums, require a rear yard setback, and eliminate any increase in permissible non-residential floor-area-

ratio for M-4, M-5, M-33, and M-34 zones. Commissioner Simpson seconded the motion which passed by a 5

to 0 vote.

 

Resolution of Advisory Neighborhood Commission 1C Concerning the Ongoing Review of the

DC Zoning Regulations

 

Subtitle G – Mixed Use Zones

Maintaining the integrity of mixed

residential-nonresidential zoning in Adams Morgan

 

1. ANC 1C notes that the District of Columbia’s Office Planning (OP), following the 2006 adoption of a

revised Comprehensive Plan that is required by law to guide land-use policies including zoning,

undertook a comprehensive Zoning Regulations Review (ZRR) , and that OP has now submitted its

final draft of proposed new regulations to the Zoning Commission for consideration and action,

 

2. Regarding Subtitle G of that draft, concerning Mixed Use Zones, ANC1C notes:

 

A. The mixed used zones applicable to Adams Morgan, including Reed-Cooke, as adopted in 1958

and first amended were such as to encourage demolition, high-rise development and straight

commercialization,

 

 

 

1

Action LU-2.1.B: Amendment of Exterior Wall Definition

Amend the city’s procedures for roof structure review so that the division-on-line wall or party wall of a row house or

semi-detached house is treated as an exterior wall for the purposes of applying zoning regulations and height

requirements.

 

 

 

 

10

B. The present configuration of these zones is a result of three cases before the Zoning

Commission initiated by Adams Morgan citizens that significantly remedied these conditions by

lowering the C-2-B height limit from 90 to 65 feet, eliminating the possibility of straight

commercialization of individual buildings (in the “Article 54” case), and doing away with industrial

zoning in Reed-Cooke (through the Reed-Cooke overlay),

 

C. At present Adams Morgan’s commercial strips are zoned for mixed residential and non-

residential use – C2-A and C2-B, which prescribe a limit on the floor area that can be devoted to

commercial or other non-residential use, namely, 1.5 FAR out of a total allowable of 2.5 for C2A and

2

3.5 for C2B,

 

D. Genuinely mixed-use zoning is an integral part of the diverse fabric of the Adams Morgan

neighborhood,

 

E. Subtitle G of the proposed regulations proposes certain changes that would have the effect of

downgrading and diminishing the residential component of these mixed use areas, including

 

3

• eliminating the existing 60% and 80%maximum lot occupancy maximums, a principal

function of which is to ensure light and air to residentially-used portions of a building, while at the

same time providing that the 15-foot rear setback is to be measured from the center of the pubic

4

alley, with the result that a building can occupy the entire lot except for a narrow setback at the rear,

thereby degrading the residential use and increasing the likelihood of alley congestion in the course of

deliveries and trash collection;

 

• providing a matter-of-right increase of permitted non-residential FAR, from 1.5 to 2 for

5

buildings on lots of 10,000 square feet or less in areas -- the great majority of mixed-use buildings in

Adams Morgan – constituting a further gratuitous creep toward predominant commercialization of our

mixed-use areas, especially by already over-concentrated restaurant and tavern ABC licensed

establishments,

 

3. ANC 1C believes these changes to be unwarranted and harmful to Adams Morgan’s special diverse

character,

 

4. Therefore it is resolved that ANC 1C requests the Zoning Commission, as regard at least zones

M-4, M-5, M-33 and M-34, the mixed use zones applicable to Adams Morgan, to

 

• restore the 60% and 80% lot occupancy maximums,

• provide for rear setback from the rear lot line for all portions of a building, and

• eliminate any increase in permissible non-residential FAR.

 

 

 

 

A member of the public asked what the next step is for the resolutions that the ANC passed and how the

public can support them. Commissioner Mossi said members of the public can attend hearings, send letters

and email, and submit comments for the record. Commissioner Simpson noted other ANCs and Council

Members will also be submitting comments and resolutions on the zoning regulations review.

 

 

 

1

See G-301.1 and G-901.1.

2

See G-301.1 and G-901.1.

3

See G-305.3, 305.4, 905.3 and 905.4.

4

See G-303.2 and 903.2.

 

 

11

Resolution Concerning Overlays

Commissioner Simpson observed that the draft regulations rewrite would affect the Reed-Cooke overlay by

separating commercial lots and residential lots into different subsections. He said that developers are already

trying to ignore the overlay and that the proposed rewrite will make it harder to keep track of the applicable

regulations. He moved to request that the Zoning Commission place overlays within a separate Subtitle so as

to ensure that separate zones within an Overlay remain structurally connected with the Zoning Regulations

Rewrite. Commissioner Rock seconded the motion that then passed by a vote of 5 to 0.

 

Proposed Resolution Concerning Overlays

 

Resolved that ANC1C recognizes that the Reed-Cooke Overlay District came into existence as the

result of laborious grass-roots efforts by local resident volunteers. Resolved that ANC1C

recognizes that other Overlay Districts within the city share a comparable history, and accordingly

feels that the special status of Overlay Districts should be reflected in the organizational structure of

the Zoning Regulations. Resolved that ANC1C calls on the Zoning Commission to preserve the

existing Zoning Overlay Districts in a separate Subtitle within the Zoning Regulations Rewrite.

Within such Subtitle, there could be one Chapter for each of the current Overlays. Overlays that

contain multiple zoning districts, could then have Sub-Chapters for each of those zones. In that

manner, readers would still be able to refer to just a single Chapter (or Sub-Chapter) for all of the

information pertaining to the lot they are interested in. But at the same time, it would remain clear

that the characteristics of their lot is tied to the characteristics of other nearby lots based on their

common history as part of an Overlay.

 

 

 

Proposed Resolution Concerning Inclusionary Zoning

Commissioner Simpson introduced a resolution calling on the District to strengthen its inclusionary zoning by

(i) establishing improved formulas for determining the amount of a building that must be set aside for

inclusionary zoning and (ii) lowering the area median income (AMI) threshold for inclusionary zoning.

 

A member of the public spoke in support of the resolution noting that the current AMI is unrealistic.

Commissioner Guthrie seconded the motion. Commissioners Hart and Rock spoke in support of the resolution

and asked whether the formulas need to be consistent with federal programs. Commissioner Simpson said

the federal government sets minimum standards but local governments can go beyond the minimum

requirements. Commissioner Mossi suggested coordinating with community development groups on this

issue. The resolution passed by a vote of 5 to 0.

 

Proposed Resolution Concerning Inclusionary Zoning

 

Resolved that ANC1C calls on the District to strengthen its inclusionary zoning regulations by (i)

establishing formulas for determining the amount of a building that must be set aside for

inclusionary zoning that would make the District a leader in the nation, and (ii) lowering the

thresholds of Area-Median-Income to which inclusionary zoning units must be accessible so as to

take account of the fact that the Area-Median-Income figures for the District are unusually high due

to the atypical concentration of high-income-earning residents who live in the surrounding

metropolitan area.

 

 

 

 

VII. Adjournment

Commissioner Guthrie moved to adjourn at 10:26 pm. Commissioner Rock seconded the motion which passed by a

vote of 5 to 0.

 

 

 

12