Public hearing
I attended the meeting that was scheduled on 27 October 2011 at 6.30 PM. It was held at the Office of Zoning Hearing Room, situated at 441 4th Street, N., Suite 220-South Washington, D.C. 20001. The meeting, involved “Per Star M Street Partners, LLC. “; its case number was: Z.C. Case No. 07-21B. The theme of the meeting was Per Star M Street Partners, LLC-PUD Modification at Square 50. We were informed that the reason for the hearing -the matters tabled for discussion by the applicant- were discussions for modifications to an authorized Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Lot 87, which previously were Lots 82, 84,813 and 816, and that is located in Square 50. The following is information about Square 50: it covers 15,588 ft2 and it covers the area from CR Zone at the intersection of 22nd and M streets, N.W.; Square 50 is hemmed in by M, 22nd, N and 23rd Streets, N.W.
The organizers informed us that in an approval dated 12 May 2008 titled Z.C. Order No. 07-21, a 122,235 ft area inclusive of 148 to 170 hotel rooms, under-grade parking, a spa, the landscaped outside space and ground floor restaurant spaced had been approved for a PUD by the Zoning Commission. The organizers informed us that the maximum height approved, albeit exclusive of roofing, was 110 feet. To shed more light on the PUD, we were informed that the Zoning Commission also authorized the forty-two off-street parking slots, with a maximum of seventy-two parking spaces and an 7.84 FAR authorized density and that would be accessed via a vehicular elevator.
The organizers informed us that in an approval Case Z.C Order No. 07-21A, made on date 10 May 2010, the project had been allowed a two-year extension in a way that the request for the permit deadline was due in for 27 June 2012 and that of starting the construction due in for 27 June 2013 subsequent to which PUD modification approval would be retracted.
We were informed again of the applicant pursuance for the approval of the PUD modification. To erase any doubt to the many curious blows me inclusive-for the second reason for the pursuance of the PUD modification approval- we were told that purposely, the Applicant wanted to redesign the building to new dimensions (Hood et.al, 2011). I couldn’t understand it and when I was on the verge of asking for further clarifications, the speech maker of the meeting, and as if could read my mind, said that the Applicant wanted an increment (the request by the presenting party)on the hotel rooms to 238 up from 170; a decrement of the building height to 107 feet up from 110 feet; cater for fifty-three stripped off-street parking slots instead of the aforementioned forty-two and accessed by ramp rather than a vehicular elevator; and the density of the redesigned project being 7.99 FAR: that’s dependable as per the relevant CR Zone in accordance with the PUD instructions.
The hearing was concluded by organizers on the evening of 27 October 2011. Consequently, the organizers of the meeting gave us a conclusion of the hearing by informing us the outcome of the whole process. We were told that the Zoning Commission did grant a party status in siding with both the West End Citizens Association and Foggy Bottom Association while in the meantime objected a party status to the West End Friends. In the meeting we were informed that a condominium was tabled for a party status opposing it but hadn’t the privilege to be granted the same motions. The record, for specific requests, wasn’t closed and was left open (DDOT to reply re: the lay by issue; the Applicant to advise which of the ANC conditions it agrees to; and the Applicant to give a public space design) as of 3.00 P.M on 3 November.
To sum all it up, in the hearing, we were informed that the parties’ replies are due by 3.00 P.M on 10 November. Conversely, the organizers of the hearing informed us that the draft findings and the deductions of the Law are due by 3.00 P.M on 17th November. We were told that there is expectation that the Zoning Commission will reflect on the intended action of this case in the next meeting that is due by November 28th.

Reference
Anthony J. Hood, Konrad W. Schlater, Peter G. May, & Michael G. Turnbull ——– Zoning Commission For The District Of Columbia, by Jamison l. Weinbaum, Director & By Sharon S. Schellin, Secretary To The Zoning Commission (2011). Zoning commission for the district of Columbia. Retrieved on 16 November 2011 from http://app.dcoz.dc.gov/content/schedule/ViewFile.aspx?fileId=427&fileName=PHN%2007-21B%20(10%2027%2011).pdf