LeDroit Park Market building owner seeks historic exception
The owners of the 1901 4th Street, which currently houses the new LeDroit Park Market, are appealing a denial from the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) to add a roof deck and exterior stair to the building.
The owners sought permission to add a 10′-by-14′ deck to the roof of the building, partly hidden by the parapet and gables at the roof’s edge. An exterior stair would be built above the garage, would be visible from 4th Street, and would connect the house to the roof deck.
The Historic Preservation Office (HPO) staff report summarized the project and recommended that HPRB deny the application for the following reasons:
- The exterior access stair would be visible from 4th Street and “would create a very prominent and modern intrusion into the character of the historic district.” Furthermore, the stair’s extension to four feet above the height of the roof would “alter the perceived dimensions” of the building and further obstruct the view of neighboring rowhouses.
- Though roof decks are sometimes permitted when they do not demolish historic features and are not visible from the street, HPO staff worried that this deck, placed close to the building’s edge, “cannot guarantee that the furniture, illumination and activity associated with a roof deck would also not be visible.” Furthermore, HPO staff noted that no contributing buildings in the LeDroit Park Historic District have roof decks (which is not entirely true).
At its September 18th meeting, HPRB voted to deny the application, following the HPO staff recommendation. The owners are appealing the denial to the Mayor’s Agent, a position created to review special historic preservation cases and grant exceptions to the rules under limited circumstances:
- If historic preservation rules would place an “unreasonable hardship” on the property owner.
- If the proposed project is “necessary in the public interest”.
- If the proposed project will deliver “significant benefits to the District of Columbia or to the community by virtue of exemplary architecture, specific features of land planning, or social or other benefits having a high priority for community services.”
Few appeals to the Mayor’s Agent ever succeed and those that do are typically public or public-private projects. In 2009 the Mayor’s Agent permitted the Third Church of Christ, Scientist, to demolish its brutalist sanctuary near the White House since the building’s upkeep was a financial burden to the church. In 2012 the modernization of a historic firehouse in Cleveland Park was deemed “necessary in the public interest” since modern firetrucks required the widening of the historic firehouse’s doors. In 1980 the Mayor’s Agent permitted the demolition of historic buildings to create the original convention center, deeming it a project of “special merit”.
The owner’s renovation of this historic property is certainly welcome. However, it is hard to argue that being denied a roof deck is an “unreasonable hardship” or that the construction of a roof deck is “necessary in the public interest” like a firehouse, or that a roof deck will deliver “significant benefits” to DC or the community like a convention center.
Nonetheless, the Mayor’s Agent will hold a public hearing on this case on Friday, February 27, 2015, at 9:30 am at the Office of Planning (1100 4th Street SW, Suite E650). Read these details if you wish to testify.
Here is the full HPO staff report:
New maps chart LeDroit Park’s architects and development history
The Historic Preservation Office’s newly released 2016 Historic Preservation Plan has some good maps about LeDroit Park’s historic architecture and development.
Architects
Though James H. McGill designed the neighborhood’s original eclectic country houses, architects A. H. Beers, George S. Cooper, N. T. Haller, and A. E. Landvoight designed much of the neighborhood’s subsequent housing. (Click any of the following maps for larger versions)
Builders
If you research your house’s original building permit at the Washingtoniana Division of the MLK Library, you will find that it lists both an architect and a builder. The builder typically hired the architect and arranged for the financing and sale or lease of the finished product. The McGill-designed houses were built by A. L. Barber & Co., but other builders included Barr & Sanner, W. R. Coon, George C. Hough, Harry A. Kite, and Thomas W. McCubbin.
Contributing Structures
Not every building in a historic district is historic or worthy of preservation. The National Park Service defines a contributing structure as one that “by location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association adds to the district’s sense of time and place, and historical development.” A non-contributing building can include “one where the location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association have been so altered or have so deteriorated that the overall integrity of the building has been irretrievably lost.” Also, buildings built within the past 50 years are typically considered non-contributing. (The “50-year Rule” is a common, if controversial, historic designation threshold.)
Date of Construction
The McGill houses were built between 1873 and 1883. After that other lots were sold off and developed as rowhouses. Some McGill houses were torn down and replaced with smaller rowhouses.
All of the above maps are from page 69 of the Historic Preservation Office’s report.
Food may return to the Wonderbread Factory next year
Plans for the dilapidated Wonderbread Factory are moving along. Last night at the ANC 1B Design Review Committee we heard representative from Douglas Development Corporation share their latest plans for the Wonderbread Factory at 621 S St NW.
Though apartment projects are the hot thing in Washington real estate right now, Douglas is sticking with its usual market of commercial tenant space. Their latest plan for the Wonderbread Factory includes a ground floor and basement floor for retail space, which they imagine may include restaurants or a microbrewery. The upper floors will include loft-like office space.
They are setting an agressive timeline to have the project finished in the spring of 2013 and they say they have had numerous inquiries about the space, especially from restaurateurs.
We first encountered Douglas Development’s proposal several months ago when the company had more rudimentary drawings for the site. The building, known as the Wonderbread Factory, is now under local historic preservation protection and Douglas Development has produced the latest renderings based on feedback from the Historic Preservation Review Board and the staff at the Historic Preservation Office. The designs are quite impressive.
Eastern elevation along Wiltberger Street (before and after):
Western elevation along the alley between the site and Progression place (before and after):
Rendering of what the front will look like:
Renderings of what the rear (northern end) will look like form Wiltberger Street and from the alley:
Rendering of what the new rear will look like:
Rear (northern) façade before and after:
[Update: I have added wording and link to note that the building is in the DC Inventory of Historic Sites, though it does not yet appear to be in the National Register of Historic Places]
1922 Withdrawn
Community Three Development withdrew its application for 1922 Third Street. As we wrote before, the developer proposed renovating and expanding the historic main house, renovating the historic carriage house, and constructing a new townhouse on the south side of the lot.
The proposal was set to go before the Historic Preservation Review Board last Thursday, but the developer, while at the meeting, withdrew his proposal and the board ended discussion on it.
In preparation for the board meeting, the Historic Preservation Office issued this staff report critiquing the proposal from a historic preservation standpoint. One of the most significant suggestions was that the developer remove the “hyphen” section connecting the main house with the proposed townhouse, a concept alteration that would require a zoning variance. Receiving a zoning variance is by design a costly and protracted process that’s not guaranteed to succeed.
In an email to us, the developer stated that due to these various issues, ranging from some neighborhood opposition to unresolved zoning issues, they could not proceed with their plan.
Regarding the politics of the proposal, the developer wrote:
[T]he economic and physical constraints inherent in the redevelopment of this site require all participants to contribute to a solution that benefits the greater whole, and in this case, we unfortunately found that certain stakeholders were unwilling to do so. We will potentially revisit this project when local pressures realign, but it may be very difficult for progress while these differences remain irreconcilable.
Through this process, we were surprised to the degree to which the developer reduced his ambitions, but ultimately the business of housing is a business driven by public tastes, local regulation, construction methods, and— above all— economics. If a proposal is financially impractical, it will not get built, unless it is built at a loss as a pet project of a wealthy financier.
Somebody will eventually buy the house, though maybe not soon. For it to remain a single-family house, as many want it, a potential owner must be able to afford replacing the roof, gutting the interior, building a new kitchen and bathrooms, replacing the wiring, replacing the plumbing, installing insulation, replacing many of the floors, installing a new furnace, replacing much of the drywall, fixing the foundation, and repairing the carriage house— renovations that will likely run near a million dollars, if not more, on top of the sale price.
A condo project with fewer units (and without a townhouse) could still succeed, but the reduced number of units will likely exclude an affordable housing component (only required of projects with 10 or more units). Furthermore, those fewer units will have to be sold at higher prices to justify the renovation costs.
The neighborhood opposition (far from universal, mind you) unwittingly set a new entry criterion for purchasing the property: if you want to live at 1922 Third Street, you must be a very wealthy person.
* * *
What do you think? Are you glad or are you disappointed that the proposal was withdrawn?
More Details on 1922 Third Street
At Thursday’s monthly meeting of ANC1B, Grant Epstein, president of Capitol Hill-based Community Three Development, presented his proposal for 1922 Third Street, a project we wrote about a few days ago.
His proposal calls for renovating the main house (top right) and carriage house (bottom right) and for constructing a connecting section as well as a new townhouse. Because the lot is 13,600 square feet, the R-4 zoning code permits multi-unit apartments with the maximum number of units set to the lot area divided by 900. Although Mr. Epstein proposes 14 units, the zoning code actually permits 15 units by right (13,600 / 900 = 15.1).
Since LeDroit Park is a historic district, most exterior renovations and all new construction within the district’s boundaries must undergo a review process that begins with the Historic Preservation Office (HPO), which is tasked with ensuring that such projects preserve, match, or enhance the historic character of the neighborhood. Ay, there’s the rub: historic character means different things to different people.
Even if the standards for historic preservation are themselves nebulous, the process itself is designed with a good deal of transparency. Mr. Epstein’s proposal must be approved by the city’s Historic Preservation Review Board, which holds a public hearing during which the applicant presents the plan, the HPO staff present their report, and ANC representatives, community groups, and interested citizens may testify either way on the plan. The board then approves the project, rejects it, or approves it with conditions.
Mr. Epstein stated that he has consulted with HPO staff to refine his proposal to satisfy their interpretation of historic preservation suitable for LeDroit Park. We say “their interpretation” not to be snarky, but rather to remind readers that what constitutes historically appropriate is often a subjective matter of taste and judgment. The past, much like the present, is a collection of different stories, styles, and attitudes. Sometimes there is no one right answer in preservation matters, especially in a neighborhood featuring the Victorian, Queen Anne, Italianate, Second Empire, Gothic Revival, and Spanish Colonial styles among others.
At the ANC meeting and in discussions with residents, we have gleaned the following concerns in addition to many thumbs-up.
Height
Commissioner Myla Moss (ANC1B01 – LeDroit Park), expressed concern that the proposed townhouse (the middle building in the drawing above) was too tall for the row of neighboring townhouses. Mr. Epstein replied that the added height of the building was in fact the suggestion of HPO staff. Their reasoning, Mr. Espstein stated, is that in Washington, end-unit rowhouses have typically been more prominent than the intervening houses. The prominence was typically marked by extra size, extra height, and extra ornamentation. The added height, Mr. Epstein asserted, is in keeping with an end-unit rowhouse. He also noted that many other buildings on the street are taller than what he proposes.
Parking
Others expressed concern that the addition of 14 homes on the site would overwhelm the adjacent streets with parked cars since the proposal includes only four parking spaces (one in the carriage house and three in the new adjacent structure pictured above). Mr. Epstein replied that he originally proposed five spaces, but HPO staff suggested that he reduce the number to four so as not to overwhelm a historic structure with an abundance of car parking. Since fewer people owned cars back then, historic architecture is less car-obsessed than today’s buildings— notice how few driveways and garages you’ll find in Georgetown compared to any neighborhood built in the last 60 years.
Mr. Epstein stated that a way to discourage new residents from owning cars was to reduce the amount of available on-site parking. There was at least one skeptical guffaw from the audience, though the reality will likely depend on a variety of factors. Mr. Epstein suspects the project will attract residents more inclined to live car-less.
Commissioner Thomas Smith (ANC1B09), an architect, asked what features besides reduced on-site parking Mr. Epstein would incorporate to discourage car ownership. Mr. Epstein had none, but was open to considering bike storage and car-sharing.
Use
One resident expressed concern that converting what was once a single-family house (before it became a rooming house in the 1970s) into a multi-unit condo building could itself contradict LeDroit Park’s original intent as a country suburb of single-family homes.
Other Details
In response to our question, Mr. Epstein stated that he intended to follow the city’s new inclusionary zoning regulations, which would translate to one of the fourteen units being set aside for a buyer of modest means.
We also noted to Mr. Epstein that though the rowhouse is intended to be an ornamental end-unit— an “exclamation mark” at the end of a row, as he put it— the side of the townhouse, as illustrated in his drawing above, lacks the adornment typical of end-unit rowhouses. Mr. Epstein stated that there was some debate on the issue, still unresolved, as to whether the side of the rowhouse should fully serve as the “exclamation mark” or serve as “canvas” upon which to view the original 1880s structure.
Mr. Epstein also explained the dire condition of the house and carriage house. The main house was entirely gutted of its original interior and years of neglect have left a damaged foundation and ample mold. The carriage house (pictured at the top of this post) is itself crumbling from the weight of the recent replacement roof. Both structures require a significant investment of money to rehabilitate. The investment of money required as well as the uncertain historic review process both make the project something that Mr. Epstein says few developers would touch.
* * *
As a tactical measure to postpone the HPRB’s review of the proposal, the ANC voted to oppose the concept until the developer could present his proposal to the LeDroit Park Civic Association and the ANC’s newly formed design review committee. The ANC will likely address the matter again at the April meeting.
If you’re interested in learning more about the proposal or expressing your concerns or support, feel free to attend any of the following meetings:
- ANC1B Design Committee – Tuesday, March 16 at 6:30 pm at 733 Euclid Street NW.
- LeDroit Park Civic Association – Tuesday, March 23 at 7 pm at the Florida Avenue Baptist Church, 6th & Bohrer Streets.
- ANC1B – Thursday, April 1 at 7 pm on the second floor of the Reeves Building, 14th & U Streets.
Recent Comments