NEWS: Zoning, Preservation & Development Committee Meeting 9/6/11 (UPDATED 9/12/11)

Open Meeting of the Dupont Circle ANC’s Zoning, Preservation & Development (ZPD) Committee
Tuesday, September 6th
7:00pm – 9:00pm
Dupont Hotel


(1) Development by First Baptist Church at 17th & O Streets NW: “concept design” application to HPRB [full file] & zoning requests to BZA [full file]
(2) Restoration/Renovation of Triangle Park between Q Street NW, 20th Street NW, and Conn. Ave. NW

UPDATE (9/12/11):

Thanks to everyone who joined the Committee meeting on September 6th and provided comments by e-mail before and after the meeting.  The attached motion will be on the table for discussion at Wednesday’s ANC meeting.

2 thoughts on “NEWS: Zoning, Preservation & Development Committee Meeting 9/6/11 (UPDATED 9/12/11)

  1. Kay Marlin

    Did the Zoning committee decide on whether to make a recommendation about the Baptist church project to the full ANC at the Sept 14th meeting?

    Thanks for your reply.


  2. Jack Jacobson

    Thoughts I shared today with my fellow commissioners:

    I have a couple of questions/comments on the motion as presented on our website —

    “Whereas, ANC 2B also appreciates that the applicant has committed orally to reduce the number of efficiency apartments planned for the building;” My question: Why do we appreciate that lower-income earners will be less likely to afford to live here? At age 25 I could not afford a 1 bedroom, but could an efficiency. I would object to this “Whereas” as it’s discriminatory based on economic class and could not support a resolution that seeks to reduce the number of efficiency units.

    “Whereas, the ANC is deeply concerned by the many objections of the nearby neighbors about the project and the zoning relief requested;” Why are we ‘deeply concerned’ about this? It seems to go farther than it needs to. I’ve heard from as many who support the project as presented than as oppose it. If we’re supporting the project, as it appears, it doesn’t seem to make sense that we’re “deeply concerned”.

    Last general comment — we seem to both support and oppose the project in this resolution. It’s kind of back-and-forth regarding concerns and support. If we don’t have to say anything about the variences until our October meeting, why not just table the issue until the applicant has gotten us the revised designs, particularly if the BZA hearing isn’t until November? It seems we would then have time to put forth a single resolution of one mind, rather than an “if this, then that” back-and-forth resolution.

    Or am I missing something important?


Comments are closed.