Meet your neighbors and catalog trouble spots. LeDroit Park residents will gather at Anna Cooper Circle on Thursday, April 15, for an alleyway walk-through. The purpose is to alert our ANC Commissioner Myla Moss, Councilmember Jim Graham, and our accompanying MPD officer of any inadequate lighting conditions or other features that may attract crime to our alleys.

The organizer tells us, “while the safety walk has a serious purpose, it’s also a great way to meet your neighbors and find out more about LeDroit Park.”

LeDroit Park Safety Walk
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Meet at Anna Cooper Circle at 7 pm

On Thursday evening, Mr. Grant Epstein of Community Three Development presented his latest revision for his concept for 1922 Third Street.  Some of the more notable changes include the reduction of the rear addition (above), the reconstruction of a demolished fence wall beside the carriage house (above), and a reduction of the massing of the side townhouse (below).

ANC1B’s Design Review Committee— of which I am a member— carefully reviewed the original concept and recommended several specific design revisions to the developer to reconcile the needs of historic preservation with the economic viability of redevelopment.  After the committee drafted its recommendations, Mr. Epstein alerted the committee and ANC of his latest revision, which the committee found satisfactorily addressed the historic context concerns.

Despite the committee’s recommendation for approval of the latest concept, ANC Commissioner Myla Moss (1B01 – LeDroit Park) said that she wholeheartedly applauded Mr. Epstein’s diligence, but would withhold her support because the design was “not totally there.”  Specifically Ms. Moss wanted to know about a rear-yard zoning issue and how the proposed side townhouse would obstruct the view from the indented side window of the adjacent Thompson property.

Mr. Epstein seemed frustrated and one of the other commissioners asked whether it was appropriate for the ANC to consider any matter beyond historic preservation.  The ANC voted to take no further action and to let its existing opposition stand.

In an email to us, Mr. Epstein wrote

We found it very odd that the Commission chose to oppose the ANC Design Committee’s recommendation of approval, especially when the resultant collaborative effort provided a holistic resolution to a very complicated set of constraints on this specific site. In our experience, the Historic Preservation Review Board is looking for the ANC to comment about conceptual historic compatibility and the remaining issues raised by the assenting Commissioners seemed very detail-oriented. There are typically thousands of detailed issues that arise when renovating a historic structure, some we know about at this stage, yet many that don’t surface until later stages in the project. This is specifically why the process is designed as such – concept review first, then detail refinement.

Despite the ANC’s official opposition, the Historic Preservation Review Board will hear the concept proposal on Thursday, April 22 at 10 am at One Judiciary Square (441 Fourth Street NW), Room 220 South and will decide whether the concept is historically acceptable.

In the meantime, browse the concept floor plans:

Third Floor
Second Floor
Ground Floor

Meghan Conklin, the ANC commissioner for single-member district (SMD) 1B06 has resigned for health reasons. If you live within 1B06, bounded by Euclid, Fourteenth, Belmont, and Fifteenth Streets NW, you may want to consider running to represent your neighborhood.

View ANC1B in a larger map

At Thursday’s monthly meeting of ANC1B, the commissioners voted unanimously to oppose various cuts to Metro service. In fact the level of opposition was so high that the commissioners tripped over each other adding amendments to oppose specific cuts to service.  Specifically, the commission voted to

• Oppose all cuts to the Yellow Line all the way through Fort Totten (in Ward 5)
• Oppose ending service at midnight.
• Oppose closing the Tenth Street entrance to the U Street Metro station.

Noting the urgency of the cuts, the commission promised to formalize its opposition in a letter to WMATA the next day.

It’s reassuring to see that at least some local leaders recognize the important of Metro to life in the District.

On Thursday ANC1B will vote on the revised proposal for 1922 Third Street.  The new proposal, pictured above, modifies the scale of the proposed new townhouse (on the left).  This part of the project was by far the most controversial, as the previous design (its outline dotted above) called for structure taller and much deeper than the adjacent townhouses.

In fact this revised concept reduces the townhouse size significantly compared to the original concept (dotted below).  Another nice feature is the articulation added to the side of the townhouse.  Two bays extend out from the side, as does an ornate chimney, much like others in the neighborhood.

These elements combine to produce a structure less visible from the north side of the property on U Street.  The developer has shortened the rear addition to allow the historic carriage house to stand out more on its own.  The addition’s architectural style resembles that of the main house more closely than the previous design, which combined elements of both the main house and the carriage house.

The developer explained the changes in his own words:

We reduced the size, footprint, height, of the townhouse portion of the plan to address concerns about the mass of this portion in the original concept. The height of the townhouse has been reduced to match the height of the neighboring property and is now below the height of the main structure. The depth of this portion has also been reduced by approximately 30 feet. Further, the profile has been revised to step down towards the rear of the site to increase light to adjacent areas. The result of these combined actions have reduced the mass of the building by almost 40% and a mass of building that is drastically smaller than what would be allowed by-right on the adjoining parcels to the south.In addition to the reduced massing, we eliminated 2 units in the townhouse portion, thereby reducing the overall number of units from 14 to 12 total units.

The reduced number of units, with the provision of 4 parking spaces, has allowed for an increased parking ratio that is in line with other residential uses in the R-4 zone. This new ratio now eliminates the need for a historical parking waiver.

We have articulated the side of the townhouse portion to be more compatible with the surrounding urban character and to give more visual interest to the side elevation.

The addition to the main structure has been redesigned to be more compatible with the character of the existing building. In addition, this revision has allowed for greater views of the historic carriage house from all angles.

We have also learned that the current front porch of the existing building is not historically accurate and we have subsequently redesigned this element to more closely resemble the historic structure’s original porch.

Indeed the current front porch (first image below) is inconsistent with James H. McGill’s original design published in 1880 (second image below).

The developer will present this revision concept to the ANC on Thursday night at 7 pm on the second floor of the Reeves Building at 14th and U Streets.  After the developer’s presentation, the commission will allow the public to ask questions (you can always frame your comment in the form of a question) and will then vote to support or to oppose the project.  The ANC will forward its opinion to the Historic Preservation Review Board, which will hold a hearing on this revised concept on Thursday, April 22 at 10 am at One Judiciary Square (441 Fourth Street NW), Room 220 South.

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.

The trees at the LeDroit Park gate are budding and will soon bloom. It seems like only yesterday we were shoveling mountains of snow. In case you forgot all about that, here’s a cool video account of our recently departed winter:

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.

A few months ago we found this old photo at the Washingtoniana Division of the MLK Library.  The photo is an aerial view looking westward on the north end of LeDroit Park.  Griffith Stadium, now the site of Howard University Hospital, rests in the background; the stadium was demolished in 1965.  To its right (north) is the location to which the Freedman’s Hospital moved in 1869.  One will also notice that rowhouses stood on what is now the Gage-Eckington site.  Looking closely between V and W Streets, one will see that the Kelly Miller public housing apartments appear to be under construction, dating this photo to around 1941.

(If you’d like to zoom on the photo below, download it as a PDF)

We also found a Washington Senators fan site with a 1960 photo of the stadium in the midst of a game.

The Japanese Zelkova (Zelkova serrata) is one of the many species of trees regularly planted in DC

The District’s Urban Forestry Administration is responsible for planting street trees throughout the city. Just before Christmas we published a map (below) of the UFA’s 2010 tree planting list for LeDroit Park and Bloomingdale.

What a great joy it was to walk home Thursday night to spot a new Japanese zelkova (pictured above) taking root between the sidewalk and street beside our house.  A quick walk around the neighborhood revealed that the other trees had been planted, too.

View LeDroit Park-Bloomingdale Tree Planting Schedule in a larger map