Monday, June 16, 2014

Bloomingdale Civic Association votes to oppose the pursued zoning variance for the 143 Rear W Street NW development project

So tonight the BCA voted down the zoning variance for the 5-unit residential development project in the lot bounded by W St NW, 2nd St NW, Adams St NW and Flagler Pl NW>
Miller Development is on the agenda of the Tuesday, 06-17-2014, ANC 5E meeting to discuss its 30-foot-wide alley zoning variance.


Citizenalpha said...

Can anyone who was at the meeting provide details?

Unknown said...

The large majority voted it down based on the following:
1. Developer doesn't meet the required "burden of proof"
This provision has three main tests that must be proved by the applicant.
1). The physical characteristics of the property:
a. makes it difficult for the owner to use the property in compliance with the Zoning Regulations (area variance) – ie. shape and size of the property, unusual topography or slope, soil problems, etc.
b. creates financial hardship for the owner in using the property consistent with the Zoning Regulations (use variance) NOTE: Developer already made back his investment on this lot by renting it out for parking.
2). Granting the application will not be of substantial detriment to the public good – ie. traffic, noise, lighting, etc. (Fire concerns, large building blocking sun, etc)
3). Granting the application will not be inconsistent with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Regulations and Map.

Concerns about the precedent this development will set for other mid-block lots such as W/1st/V/Flagler and Crispus Attucks Park.
Concern about fire & safety (there was a fire on that block about a year ago and firetrucks had trouble getting to back of buildings as the alley is too narrow for trucks.
Concern over density and height of the buildings and high cost.

Recognition was given to Robby Miller (Developer) for his extensive community outreach and major adjustments to his plan in response to community concerns. His company is one of the rare respectable developers that are swooping through our community.

It is unclear if the community would ever support a much less dense plan.

Currently, zoning allows for parking, artist studios, etc.

Hope this helps. Others can add anything I missed.