All four candidates for the Ward One council seat will speak on Tuesday night at the Ward One Candidates Forum in LeDroit Park.  Candidates will speak to and take questions from the public.  Everyone is encouraged to attend.

The candidates for office are Jim Graham (D), Marc Morgan (R), Jeff Smith (D), and Brian Weaver (D).  Messrs Graham, Smith, and Weaver will compete for the Democratic nomination in September.  Mr. Morgan is running unopposed for the Republican nomination so he will face the Democratic nominee in November.

Ward One Candidates Forum
Presented by the LeDroit Park Civic Association
Tuesday, June 22 at 7pm
Basement of the Florida Avenue Baptist Church
623 Florida Ave NW – enter at the back on U Street

The LeDroit Park Civic Association meets tomorrow, Tuesday, May 25 at 7pm in the basement of the Florida Avenue Baptist Church.

• LeDroit Park-Bloomingdale Heritage Trail update.
• Columbia Elks Lodge #85, 1844 3rd Street NW—Application for renewal of Retail Class CX club license
• Gage Eckington Park update.

We hope to see you there.

1922 Third Street concept, east face on Third Street

At Tuesday’s LeDroit Park Civic Association meeting, the Mr. Grant Epstein presented his proposal for 1922 Third Street, the property we have written about before.  There appeared to be a mix of opinions at the meeting ranging from support to strong opposition.  The most contentious part is by far the proposed townhouse (middle of the picture above).  We’ve outlined most of the main objections before (massing, parking, use) so we won’t rehash them here.

Mr. Epstein estimated the renovation of the main house alone to cost $1.5 million and that the entire project would cost $5-6 million.  Each unit would average around 800 square feet with the additional space devoted to common areas (halls, stairs, etc.).

There was one interesting matter of zoning that needs clarification.  It is currently unknown if the north wall of the existing adjacent townhouse (left, picture above) sits entirely on its own property or if it is a typical party wall with half of the wall on one property and half on the other.

If it is indeed entirely on its own property (abutting, but not crossing, the property line), Mr. Epstein stated that his proposed townhouse would rest on its own wall just up to, and entirely within, his property line.*  If this the case, one neighbor told us that such an arrangement might violate the R-4 zone’s side yard requirement of an eight-foot setback from the side property line.  Are any zoning experts able to clarify this?

The zoning code appears unclear to us.  11 DC Code § 405.3 states

In R-2, R-3, R-4, and R-5 Districts, when a one-family dwelling, flat, or multiple dwelling is erected that does not share a common division wall with an existing building … it shall have a side yard on each resulting free-standing side.

If the existing side wall of the adjacent property is indeed entirely within its own property (even if abutting the property line), is it considered a “common division wall”?  If it can’t be considered such a wall, then this section requires a side yard for the proposed townhouse.  But later on down, § 405.6 states

Except as provided in §§ 405.1 and 405.2 [that both relate to single-family dwellings], a side yard shall not be required in an … R-4 … District.  However, if the yard is provided, it shall be at lease three inches (3 in.) wide per foot of height of the building, but not less than eight feet (8 ft.) wide.

The determining factor appears to be whether the side yard requirement actually hinges on the placement of the neighbor’s side wall— that is, abutting the property line or straddling the property line.

Anyway, one resident also thought it would be useful to color in the side view of the proposed townhouse.  We have replicated his method below (the side of the townhouse is in red, the rear addition in green)

View from U Street. The proposed townhouse in red and the rear addition in green.

Such extensive construction and renovation in a historic district means that the design and permitting process provide many opportunities for public input.  Even if you missed the first three presentations (grayed-out below) you have at least two more public opportunities to comment:

• ANC1B Meeting – Thursday, March 7
• ANC1B Design Committee Meeting – Tuesday, March 16
• LeDroit Park Civic Association – Tuesday, March 23
• ANC1B Meeting – Thursday, April 1 at 7 pm on the second floor of the Reeves Building, 14th & U Streets.
• Historic Preservation Review Board (tentative) – Thursday, April 22 at 10 am at One Judiciary Square (441 Fourth Street NW), Room 220 South.

What do you think?  Do you like the plan, oppose the plan, or does your opinion lie somewhere in between?  Leave your comments below; I’m quite sure the developer reads this blog and will be interested to know what you think.

* The developer has not actually bought 1922 Third Street yet.  He has a contingent contract to buy it.

Tomorrow (Tuesday) night is the monthly meeting of the LeDroit Park Civic Association. On the agenda:

• Park update
• 1922 Third Street presentation – Developer Grant Epstein will present his proposal for a third time.
• UNCF – UNCF’s CFO Early Reese and Four Points developer Steven Cassell will present the latest details on the development at the Shaw Metro station.

The meeting will run from 7 pm to 8:30 pm at the Florida Avenue Baptist Church.

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.

1922 Third Street concept, east face on Third Street

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.

1922 Third Street concept, north face on U Street

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.

Thanks to a wave of citizen pressure on the council, LeDroit Park narrowly avoided yet another delay in park construction.

Last night we learned that Councilmember Harry Thomas, Jr. (D – Ward 5), would offer a bill this morning to prevent the mayor’s office from re-appropriating $1.5 million to the park project here in LeDroit Park.  His stated reason for throwing a wrench in the process was that his bill was simply a “procedural matter to ensure that the funding source is constant with the Deputy Mayor['s] testimony that the funds will not be taken from other projects and that the funds are properly identified.”

As though a phone call within the Wilson Building wouldn’t have answered that question.  Threatening to further delay a much-needed construction project that the council and mayor had already promised may not be the most prudent way to stick it to the mayor’s office; Mr. Thomas woke the sleeping dragon.

Deluged with emails between residents, civic association leaders, Jim Graham (D – Ward 1), Kwame Brown (D – at large), and Mr. Thomas, himself, the council passed a revised version of Mr. Thomas’s bill, this time explicitly approving the re-appropriation.  Now there’s a u-turn!

Our thanks to all the residents who contacted the council to voice their disapproval.  Mr. Thomas admitted receiving an avalanche of 230 emails this morning on the matter.

And who said citizen democracy doesn’t work?

The LeDroit Park Civic Association meets tomorrow night, Tuesday, February 23, at 7:00 pm in the basement of the Florida Avenue Baptist Church.  (Enter through the back at U and Bohrer Streets)

This month’s agenda:

• Introduction to MPD Third District Commander Jacob Kishter
• Presentation on the Howard University Campus Plan
• Community survey
• Zoning variance request for Howard University Hospital
• Update on the forthcoming park—Jose Sousa, Office of the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development
• Civic Association Volunteer Opportunities

As always, all are welcome to attend.

It’s that time again.  The LeDroit Park Civic Association will meet on Tuesday, January 26, at 7:00 pm in the basement of the Florida Avenue Baptist Church.  (Enter through the back at U and Bohrer Streets)

This month’s agenda:

• Gage Eckington Park Update
• The GADGET Center (GEORGIA AVENUE DEVELOPMENT GROWTH ENTERPRISE TRANSFORMATION)
• Howard University Campus Plan
• 321 T street and reconstruction plans.

As always, all are welcome to attend.

This contrasts with some neighboring Shaw and Mount Vernon civic associations, which, as the blog The Other 35 Percent reports, have involved member blacklists, police-escorted ejections, membership schisms, and restraining orders.  Sounds like the plot of a novel!

The LeDroit Park Civic Association will meet tomorrow night at 7pm in the basement of the Florida Avenue Baptist Church.  Enter through the back entrance at U and Bohrer Streets NW and descend the stairs.

On the agenda:

• Representative from Florida Avenue Baptist Church on community involvement
• Gage Park Update on delayed construction
• Representative from North Capital Collaborative on the group’s activities
• Committee business
• Your updates, ideas, questions

Please join us, get informed and meet your neighbors. We hope to see you there!