Carriage Houses: Horizontal Pop-ups?

Summary: I believe DC's Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) is encouraging, when possible, those wishing to expand homes in historic districts to forego pop-ups in favor of constructing new "carriage house-like" buildings at the rear of their properties. Plan for these new buildings often trigger a review by DC's Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA), as the old and new buildings combined take up a greater percentage of the lot than is permitted by law. The BZA seems to be willing to go along with these rear additions. The small number that have been approved so far have not changed the profile or density of historic districts. If the trend continues, there may be negative consequences.

Homeowner a no-show at meeting

On Monday, July 21, the Design Review Committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street had a meeting. The only significant item on the agenda concerned 919 T Street NW. The owner sought ANC endorsement on a request to the BZA for a special exception to permit an addition at the rear of the property. The addition, the meeting agenda said, would serve as the primary residence of the owner.

919 T Street, as seen from 9-1/2 Street

There was a quorum of committee members, but owner did not show up. The chair of the committee called the owner. There was no answer. As there was no other business, the meeting disbanded. It is unclear whether the owner will be able to arrange another hearing with the committee and then with the ANC before a scheduled BZA hearing on September 9.

919 T Street is located in the U Street Historic District, so the owners got approval from the HPRB for their proposed new rear structure. The HPRB report characterizes the proposed new structure as a "two-story carriage house-like addition at the alley". (The alley is also known at "9-1/2 Street", and has 6-8 homes on it.)

The footprint of the proposed new building, combined with that of the original building, put the lot over the limit for "lot occupancy", which is why the project has to go before the BZA.

A pattern emerging?

This is the third "carriage house-like" rear structure that I've seen HPRB approve in the last two months -- see SALM blog posts for June 12 and May 30. (I also reported on one last October.) The properties are located in a variety of ANCs (1B/U Street, 2B/Dupont Circle, and 6E/Shaw) and historic districts.

In each of these cases, HPRB-approved rear structures (sometimes designed to look like long-demolished rear carriage houses) put the homeowner over the lot occupancy threshold.

In the cases reported on June 12 and May 30, the homeowner had been strongly discouraged by HPRB from pursuing a pop-up addition before receiving an approval for a rear addition. And, also in both of these cases, the homeowners subsequently received the zoning permission they sought from the BZA.

I don't know how many instances constitutes a trend, but there seems to be a pattern in HPRB, and subsequent BZA, approvals: more vertical living space -- no; more horizontal living space -- OK.

HPRB can be the good guy

This is probably a clever move for HPRB. Instead of being the agency that always says "no", they can be the agency that gives viable alternatives. It is then up to the BZA to be the bad guy if it turns down homeowners on the basis of lot occupancy, which could be perceived as an abstract, unimportant technicality.

So far, it seems like BZA is not inclined to be the bad guy, as evidenced by their approvals of lot occupancy exceptions.

Lot occupancy restrictions are, presumably, there for a reason. One DC Zoning Commission document from 2010 (21-page .doc download here) says the intent of lot occupancy restrictions to preserve adequate light and air to building residents. Another function is as a guard against excessive density. Yet more carriage houses (or alternately "out buildings" or "mother-in-law houses") on the rears of properties will surely increase density, and affect the light and air in the immediate area. Like popups, no one will mind the first carriage-house-like rear addition on a property, or maybe even the second. But what will happen when many houses on the block want them? Will the BZA continue to approve these requests?

More lot occupancy = more water runoff

More rear lot additions will also increase the amount of land in historic districts which is impervious to rainwater. DC Water is so concerned about impervious areas that it has instituted an "impervious area charge" on all customers. The impervious area charge is the single biggest component of this year's proposed 13 percent increase in water rate -- see SALM blog post of April 29.

The charge is based on how much impervious-to-water surfaces (such as rooftops, paved driveways, patios, and parking lots) a homeowner has on his or her property. Impervious areas contribute to groundwater runoff entering the District's sewer system. Popups, which by definition sit on top of existing buildings, do not increase the amount of impervious area on a lot.

More rear structures mean greater lot occupancy. Greater lot occupancy means more impervious area. More impervious area means more water runoff. More water runoff means more wear and tear on the sewer system, and also greater possibility of flooding during major rain events or hurricanes.

Solving one problem, creating another?

A few additional residential spaces by themselves are unlikely to cause more flooding, of course. But if a quick trip through the city bureaucracy becomes the norm for "carriage houses" and similar rear structures, the cumulative effect of hundreds of one- and two-story rear additions could be significant.

This may be a case of government agencies focused narrowly on their own briefs, to the exclusion of other considerations. HPRB's brief is the appearance of the exterior of properties in historic districts. The BZA's is to identify and prevent inappropriate and unsafe land uses. The knock-on effects of increased density are not an immediate concern to either body.

Will there be a time when we starting thinking that an attempt to control one problem (pop-ups) has opened the door to others?

See the latest HPRB document on 919 T Street here.

Documents concerning the request by the owners of 919 T Street for a special exception can be viewed by going to the BZA's Interactive Zoning Information System and entering case number 18810 in the search bar.

Average Monthly Water Bill Likely to Rise by 12 Percent This Year

George S. Hawkins, General Manager of D.C. Water, said on April 22 the average monthly residential water bill will rise this year by 12.3 percent under a proposal to be voted on by the DC Water Board of Directors in July. Hawkins spoke to an audience of about 40 at a Ward One town meeting, held in the auditorium of Benjamin Banneker High School (800 Euclid Street NW). The meeting was one of eight such town meetings -- one for each ward -- held during the month of April to discuss "how rates are set and what is funded by ratepayer dollars".

If approved, the increase in water rates will take effect October 1, 2014 -- i.e., the beginning of Fiscal Year 2015.

Many of the individual line items on a water bill are staying the same or increasing less than 12 percent. For example, the average residential bill will see DC Water Retail Rates -- the largest single component of the bill -- increase 7.3 percent, from $53.56 in FY 2014 to $57.67 in FY 2015.

However, the Clean Rivers Impervious Area Charge will jump more than 40 percent on the average bill -- from $11.85 in FY 2014 to $16.75 in FY 2015.

The Impervious Area Charge is based on the estimated amount of water runoff from a property. According to the DC Water website, it is designed so "owners of large office buildings, shopping centers and parking lots will be charged more than owners of modest residential dwellings".

Homeowners may be eligible for a discount on the Impervious Area Charge if they implement improved stormwater management -- see explanation here.

Why is the bill going up so much?

Hawkins explained why this increase was necessary.

"The bulk of the cost is deferred maintanence," he said. The median age of water main pipes in DC is 79 years old. There are also 7000 miles of unlined cast iron pipers with a median age of 96 years old. Some of them date to the 1860's.

The Clean Rivers Impervious Area Charge will fund a project mandated by law under a consent decree signed by DC and federal government authorities in the 1990's. Its aim is to reduce pollution in Rock Creek, the Anacostia and Potomac Rivers, and Chesapeake Bay.

This project to reduce pollution is getting minimal assistance from the federal government -- almost all of the funding will come from D.C. ratepayers. Hawkins termed it "an unfunded mandate" by the federal government.

The project has many large and expensive components, including the construction, 100 feet underground, of a storm-water tunnel 26 feet in circumference and 13 miles long from Shaw and Bloomingdale to the Blue Plains Advanced Water Treatment Plant. The construction of the tunnel will result in street lane closures in Shaw and Bloomingdale -- see SALM blog post of April 15.

This will probably not be the last year of substantial increases in D.C. water bills.
A November 2013 DC Water document predicts continued increases in the average water bill -- 10 percent and 7.9 percent for FY 2016 and 2017, respectively (see page 25 of a 39-page .pdf available here).

Audience reaction

A member of the audience asked if it was possible to get more funding from the federal government for the project. Hawking said it was not likely.

People were, unsurprisingly, not happy to hear their water bill would be increasing. They complained about the increase but they seemed to understand Hawkins was not to responsible for the increase and there was no point in blaming the messenger. One community member called DC Water "the city's only unregulated utility" and suggested closer supervision might be necessary.

The eight ward-wide meetings are over, but there is one more chance to comment on the proposed rate hikes. The DC Water Board of Directors will hold a public hearing on the proposed rate increases. The hearing will be held on Wednesday, May 14, 2014, beginning at 6:30pm. The location will be DC Department of Employment Services (first floor community room), 4058 Minnesota Avenue NE.

Long-term Street Lane Closures in Shaw Starting 2017

Good news first: a massive DC Water project will ease chronic flooding in Shaw, LeDroit Park, and Bloomingdale. Bad news: to complete the project, it will be necessary to close traffic lanes for periods of 18 to 36 months on and near Rhode Island Avenue NW, starting 2017.

(from DC Water web site)

One closure is in Shaw. The other is very near Shaw and will severely affect east-west traffic in Shaw.

Want to know more? DC Water will hold a Ward 6 town meeting tonight (Tuesday, April 15) at 6:30pm in the Multipurpose Room of Eliot-Hine Middle School, 1830 Constitution Avenue NE. The meeting will address all aspects of the DC Water project, including street and lane closure both in Shaw and elsewhere in D.C. This meeting is part of eight ward-wide town meetings DC Water is holding this month.

If you can't get to the town meeting

DC Water presented the outlines of the ambitious project to Advisory Neighborhood Commission 6E/Shaw at its regular monthly meeting on April 1.  The street lane closures are only a small part of the plan to build the Northeast Boundary Tunnel, a hole 23 feet in diameter, located 100 feet underground. The tunnel will not only reduce flooding but also is necessary under a 1998 multi-party consent decree designed to clean up water in the Anacostia River and beyond. The district ratepayer is footing the bill for the project.

The projected closure in Shaw will be one lane for 24-36 months around the perimeter of Cooper Park (a "pocket park" made from a triangular patch of land bounded by Rhode Island Avenue NW, 6th Street, and R Street). The projected closure near Shaw will be two lanes at Florida Avenue and Third Street NW (near Rhode Island Avenue) for 18 months.

Some work at the Florida Avenue site should have started already. The plan is for this work to be completed by April 21. Later, DC Water will also have to drill holes in the ground at this site. There is no projected date to begin, but, once begun, work will take "two to three months", according to the presenters at the ANC meeting.

The presentation said the final design and construction phase of the project will start in December 2016.

Cooper Park

Cooper Park (left) at RI Avenue, seen from 6th Street

Since the Cooper Park site is in ANC6E, it got the more attention at the April 1 meeting. Like the Florida Avenue site, DC Water will, at some uncertain date in the nearish future, drill some holes in the ground at Cooper Park. This work is exploratory and there will not be any lane closures. This phase of the work will take two or three months.

During the 2017 construction phase, the park will be used as a staging area. The complete restoration of the park is included in the budget for the project. DC Water has hired a landscape architect and has a conceptual design for the park restoration. It solicited comment from the Commissioners on this point. ANC6E Commissioner Alexander Padro (district 01) suggested public art for the new space, and asked DC Water not to forget a water source in the park. Commissioner Marge Maceda (district 05) asked DC Water to include "playable art".

It is difficult to drive across town now. The lane closures will make it even more difficult. Padro worried about the impact the closing of a lane on R Street at Cooper Park. R Street carries a lot of crosstown traffic, Padro noted, and cannot be completely blocked.

"You must have some carrying capacity there or all hell's going to break loose," Padro said.

Padro also asked about the piles of sandbags around the vent on the median of Rhode Island Avenue at 7th Street, next to the Watha T. Daniel Library (1630 7th Street NW). The sandbags are there to prevent flooding on Metro's Green Line. Padro would like to see the sandbags removed. DC Water said the removal of the sandbags was not part of the DC Water project.

ANC6E videos its meeting and puts the videos on YouTube in 30-minute chunks. The presentation by DC Water can be view by following this link, starting at the beginning of the video, which is part two of the meeting. However, you cannot see the accompanying slideshow presentation. I was unable to find a copy of the slideshow presentation on DC Water's web site.

The Committee unanimously voted to send a letter to DC Water summarizing its concerns as articulated at the meeting.