With great interest in this matter, I have taken the time to follow most of the posts to try to understand the position of those who feel the higher importance in this matter is in obtaining copies of the recording of the SMD 5B04 meeting over sharing within the same posts what they heard was said/discussed in the meeting which looked to me was either their Zoning application or ABRA application or both, such as to:
1) the presentation made by the Brookland's Finest Bar & Kitchen;
2) inclusive of planned hours of operations;
3) due to the size of the building and potential occupancy of total seating of approx 90 people in and outside, what was their parking plan;
4) the size of their current onsite parking lot and the ability to accommodate additional parking without taking away from the residential community near the site;
5) the potential to adversely impact the immediate and some distance into SMD 5A03 (Commissioner Tiffany Bridge) and 5A04 and how they would negate such adverse impact (i.e., peace, quiet and order, parking, noise, drunkenness, litter, public urination, violation of private spaces, etc; and,
6) how does this establishment fit in with the approved Brookland/CUA Metro Station Small Area Plan framework which calls for to "add new retail and businesses to compliment 12th Street and provide needed services".
The 12th & Jackson Street NE area is included in the defined "Area South of Metro Station Sub-Area" which calls for "New residential and cultural uses woven into an improved neighborhood street fabric is the vision for this sub-area. Potential development could include 200 residential units, arts and cultural uses with 100 garaged parking spaces." How does this potential business establishment conform to this framework due to the scale of the proposed restaurant and its relationship to the arts and cultural uses?
In the prior posts, I also don't recall seeing what this 12th & Jackson St NE location was previously used for and if anyone knows what was its prior zoning and certificate of occupancy?
From an online article on this potential establishment, I see where two (2) of the owners have businesses already in operations in the recently redeveloped H Street NE corridor, which is having a tremendous adverse impact from 3rd St to 14th St NE in the residential neighborhoods. Though there is RPP in these areas, in the short distance residential areas there are problems getting the necessary parking enforcement as opposed to on H St and immediate blocks making it difficult for these residents to find parking near their homes. We already know what U St and 14th St parking is like today from the redevelopment.
The article also quotes the owner who stated, "The space will have room for around 55 seated inside and an awesome 25 person outdoor patio". "For the outdoor patio think Pearl Dive Oyster Palace and Cusbah that have the roll down window with their outdoor seating." (http://www.popville.com/categories/restaurants/brookland-neighborhoods/) There is no mention of the indoor and outdoor bar in this article.
The Cusbah South Asian Spice Bar is located at 1128 H St NE, is much larger in size (http://cusbah.com/). Their hours of operation are: Lunch Daily-11:30am-3pm, Dinner, Sun-Mon, 5pm-9pm; Tues-Sat-5pm-10:30pm; and, Bar Hours: Thurs to 2:00AM, and Fri-Sat to 3:00AM.
The Pearl Dive Oyster Palace is located at 1612 14th St NW. They have a brunch & and Dinner that runs from 5pm=10pm. They only list their hours for 'Happy Hour", 4pm-7pm.
As to the small area plan, we have witnessed or heard throughout redeveloped communities in the city about the parking issues. As quiet as it is kept, many know that developers of these residential properties are given subsidies which are taxpayer funds to building parking garages for the potential tenants/condo owners, etc, to limit the impact on
the communities. However, this subsidy is not passed on to the tenants who have found themselves faced with an additional expense of $200.00 a month or more to park in these underground and/or above garages, along with rents/fees running from $1300 to above $2,000.00 a month. These residents make the choice of RPP Street parking, or taking their chances if their cars are not registered in DC.
Another issue not shared in any of these posts was the fact that though I could feel the owners were honestly, possibly extending a courtesy to the SMD before going before the full ANC 5B Commission, they requested to be on the agenda for this meeting, even though they had not yet officially submitted their ABC license application to ABRA, which was done either this Monday or Tuesday. Then again, this could also be looked at from another perspective as I have been involved with in the past, in that the owners were using the ploy to gain as much immediate, nearby and far reaching community support as possible to go in with their application. I talked with ABRA and was told about the submission, however it was clearly stated that "any consideration to this matter is a long way off."
Again, I wasn't at the SMD meeting, but whoa, this raises another question for legitimate community concern. The owners have submitted for an ABC license, but have they submitted to the Office of Zoning their building plans for review and approval? If that's the case, isn't going for your liquor license first without going before the Zoning Commission first, putting the cart before the horse? I've experienced this before when a stipulated liquor license was requested before the zoning was changed for an already established eatery.
Though the ANC opposed the ABC license request, the ABC Board in the end after the hearing based on community protest still approved the license, stating that even though at the time the law stated that an ABC applicant must meet the zoning first, the zoning matter was not under ABRA review.
This seems to be a situation where a stipulated license is being requested in order to shore up funding for the entire project. Based on my observation of the location, with a plan to seat 45-50 people inside for meals; the need for a kitchen with enough size to accommodate offerings of coffee/a bar/and sufficient space to prepare meals/ with 16-18 seats, and the ability to serve lunch and dinner inside; and a 6-seat outdoor bar with a 25 person outdoor seating area another floor may need to be added to the current building. Or is it the plan to tear the current building down due to the longstanding neglect and damage to the current site? Note of importance, the outdoor seating will be on the Jackson St Side of the facility, where residents do live on that block. Another concern, will there be any live entertainment in the actual present plan submitted to ABRA or to be requested in the future?
There has been an extensive re-write of the ABC laws by a working group. Some sections were approved by the Council; others are still under Council consideration. With this re-write, the ABC Handbook must be updated. I was not able to locate it on ABRA's website. Previously, I believe that residents within 200-300 feet of the proposed location had standing in an ABC license application. I was told that ABRA now considers "any DC resident". Don't know how that can be justified, but it does explain hearing that there were residents from the H St, Benning Road corridor and other areas of the city at this SMD meeting in support of whatever was being presented on behalf of these potential owners from "The Pug", 1234 H St NE; "Solly's U St Tavern" and "Sova Espresso & Wine", 1359 H St NE.
Concerns cannot be avoided for those who could be immediately adversely impacted by this restaurant. These concerns should not be ignored because we again are confronted by those who just want to have it, especially since they would not be impacted. It is possible if appreciation is shown and given for/to the current neighborhood, the Brookland Small Area Plan and other factors, even if the facility has to be smaller that they perceive?
Further concern is that the 12th & Jackson St location is a block away from one of the boundaries of SMD 5B03, whose residents voices should also be heard in this matter.
There is no doubt or argument that throughout Commissioner Steptoe's tenures, which could be for at least 3 terms to date if not more, she has consistently had SMD meetings. Some residents attended, some did not. The boundaries have changed somewhat with the re-districting. Has there ever before been a request for a copy of her recordings of any of these meetings? One large project I can think of is the Colonel Brook's development project which should have been of some concern for residents. Did anyone request the related recordings?
For the request of the recordings, right up front since a question was raised on whether or not Commissioner Steptoe is required to share the recordings, Commissioner Steptoe asked the OAG to render a legal advice on the matter as it pertains to SMD meetings. It is only right to let the process work and wait for the response. Though some have cited from the DC Codes regarding governmental agencies, boards and commissions, the ANC's are unique. People are appointed by the Mayor to boards and commissions. Depending on the issue, the Council can also recommend appointments to Boards, Commissions, Special Task Forces, etc. ANCs are a part of the Home Rule Charter and differ from boards and commission in that Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners are elected and the ANC Commissions they serve on render decisions which must have a quorum to vote on matters and these decisions are required by the Home Rule Charter to be given "great weight" in the DC government administrative processes and in the courts if necessary.
I'm sure Commissioner Steptoe will share the OAG Legal Advice response no matter what the OAG determines. However, we must be mindful that this will be the OAG's interpretation of the laws. Other state/city/county levels Attorneys Generals also provide this service to their elected officials, residents and businesses just like DC. However, there is still the right to have the Court opine on the matter to assure compliance with the law(s) in question.
Hopefully, someone who attended the meeting will provide what went on in the meeting.
Please forgive any typos/grammatical errors.
Albrette "Gigi" Ransom
16th & Jackson St NE
From: brian.ions <brian.ions@yahoo.com>
To: jon townson <actor1is@hotmail.com>; Brookland@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 11:15 AM
Subject: [Brookland] Re: ANC 5B FOIA Request (and the arrogance of power)
This is America. No Brookland resident or stakeholder loses standing to complain EVER-- whether he/she votes or not, attends a meeting or not or eats his/her vegetables or not.
It is beyond arrogant for any politicos to be so dismissive and contemptuous of citizens' fundamental human rights of free expression in their civic affairs.
Sometimes we even hear of our local MPD police leadership similarly dismissing citizens seeking elementary police services as 'whiners' and 'complainers' too. But that's a level further still beyond arrogant.
brian/
Newton
--- In Brookland@yahoogroups.com, jon townson wrote:
brian, sometimes concerned parties can't attend meetings in person. a recording device (or notes taked during a meeting) are the only way of getting the info. a request for information doesn't sound to me like whining all over a listserve afterwards.
thanks,
jon
10th st.
CC: Brookland@yahoogroups.com
From: brianbradford42@...
Date: Wed, 1 May 2013 04:47:10 -0700
Subject: Re: [Brookland] Re: ANC 5B FOIA Request
From: tzugi46 <monroebrooklander@...>;
To: Guy Brandenburg <gfbrandenburg@...>;
Cc: <Brookland@yahoogroups.com>;
Subject: Re: [Brookland] Re: ANC 5B FOIA Request
Sent: Wed, May 1, 2013 11:10:27 AM
I would think, if nothing else, if a recording is made of a public meeting and the public official in charge of that meeting decides not to let the public have access to the recording, it should be noted on the flyer and other public information notifying people about the meeting. Since if a public meeting is being recorded by the official in charge and they announce they are recording the meeting, everyone thinks it is a public recording device. If announced in advance and at the meeting that the recording will not be available to the public, this would allow others who so desire to bring their own recording device.
This would also provide to eliminate 10 minute gaps in the tape or the tape being accidentally destroyed if a FOIA is made.
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:46 PM, Guy Brandenburg <gfbrandenburg@...> wrote:
Aren't there rules on recording public meetings, or non-public meetings?__._,_.___
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (26) Brookland Rocks !!!!MARKETPLACE
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment