[Mintwood-place] parking & alleys on Mintwood
matt forman
matthew.forman2 at verizon.net
Sat Jul 31 11:35:34 EDT 2010
What exactly is the objection about the "generous" exemption? I daresay that many Mintwood listers who purport to be liberal/progressive proponents of the environment, historic preservation, and affordable housing are actually conservative nimby-ists. Obviously, no parking can be provided in the absence of an alley, unless basement garages are somehow created, with driveways and curbcuts (which would reduce available street parking). So much for historic preservation. Or is the point that as long as no parking can be created, let's minimize the impact by permitting fewer units, i.e., more expensive ones? So much for affordable housing. Finally, does creating more units create more cars on the street, or does creating more parking spots do that? The supply of street parking spots is fixed. So would keeping supply constant increase the number of cars on the road or would adding to the supply with off-street parking? So much for the environment.
----- Original Message -----
From: Cynthia Pols
To: matt forman
Cc: mintwood-place at lists.mutualaid.org
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Mintwood-place] parking & alleys on Mintwood
Matt - The exception is not for buildings located in "historic districts" but rather for historic buildings or structures ("historic resource"). 1852-54 would have to be certified by the state historic preservation office as "contributing to the character of the historic district" in order to to classified as an "historic resource" and to qualify for the exception:
2120.2 For the purposes of this section, a historic resource is a building or structure listed in the District of Columbia Inventory of Historic Sites or a building or structure certified in writing by the State Historic Preservation Officer as contributing to the character of the historic district in which it is located.
The policy is as you surmise (" The Board of Zoning Adjustment may grant relief from all or part of the parking requirements of this section if the owner of the property demonstrates that, as a result of the nature or location of the historic resource, providing the required parking will result in significant architectural or structural difficulty in maintaining the historic integrity and appearance of the historic resource") so the question is whether 1852-1854 could be certified by the historic preservation officer.
The answer is probably yes since virtually all the buildings in the area were deemed to contribute to the character of the historic district in the 1987 registration form for the Kalorama Triangle Historic District. One does wonder, though, why such a generous exemption from the parking rules is available for such a large number of units when the only part of the building being preserved is the facade and the 2 side walls. It's a little perverse that it is the historic preservation rules that may make it possible for this developer to add another 10-15 vehicles to neighborhood streets.
--Cynthia
On Jul 30, 2010, at 8:17 PM, matt forman wrote:
The portion of the Little estate that is now Mintwood Place was sold to Lawrence Sands, who was apparently the husband of John Little's daughter, Margaret Little Sands. In 1884, Sands subdivided that parcel into the street itself and lots with no alleys. The lots he created on the south side of Mintwood immediately abutted the remaining Little estate that is now the park. I can only guess that the developer of the land north of the Mintwood lots (now Biltmore) decided to dedicate a portion of his subdivision to alley use to benefit the lots he was creating, which incidentally benefitted the north side Mintwood lots who would not have otherwise had an alley.
As to parking, see www.dcoz.dc.gov, chapter 21. The parking requirement is not limited to dwelling units. Many zoning uses require parking, including inns, retail, schools, churches, etc., so the inn may have had an waiver. But the addition of dwelling units does impose a parking requirement again. However, there is an exception permitted for historic districts. Presumably, the policy is that requiring parking might necessitate the altering of historic buildings, and that historic preservation outweighs parking.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Cloud
To: Denis James ; mintwood-place at lists.mutualaid.org
Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [Mintwood-place] some info on 1852-54 Mintwood project
Denis/Cynthia:
I'm just curious about the "parking waiver for 7 parking spaces". I would guess that long ago there was an alley or street behind Mintwood, since otherwise that whole line of townhouses would have lacked back access/tradesmen's entrances, etc.Presumably the alley "went away" in conjuction with establishing Kalorama Park? (Any idea, Kalorama Park historian-types?) By that federal/District action, does that mean that all the other houses on that side of Mintwood without parking also have waivers for parking spaces? Or does that rule/waiver of the rule apply only to new construction?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Denis James <denisjames at verizon.net>
To: mintwood-place at lists.mutualaid.org
Sent: Fri, July 30, 2010 2:00:08 PM
Subject: [Mintwood-place] some info on 1852-54 Mintwood project
Three members of the Kalorama Citizens Association Executive Committee (VP and Mintwood resident Bob Ellsworth, Treasurer Ted Guthrie and myself) visited the DC Historic Preservation Office yesterday and met with Architectural Historian Anne Brockett (if you have questions, contact her at: anne.brockett at dc.gov or (202) 442-8842) to view the plans for this project, which is located within the Kalorama Triangle Historic District.
We learned the following that may be of interest to neighbors:
It is a matter of right project and has already been approved by the DC Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB);
There will be 13 condo units built;
Though the developer will remove rear additions and then build on in the rear and add a partial new fourth story setback from the front so as not to be visible from the street, the building will still fall within the 60% lot occupancy requirement;
The floor area ratio (FAR) does not exceed that allowed by the zoning of Mintwood Place;
The developer has asked the Zoning Administrator for a parking waver for 7 parking spaces. Zoning regs require there to be one off-street space for every two dwelling units constructed. As there is no public alley on that side of Mintwood, the other row-houses essentially have the same “right” of not having to provide parking on their lots;
The new portions of construction in the rear will have a brick veneer;
The basements will be dug out to provide more headroom. This will require underpinning. The developer is obligated to inform neighbors with shared party walls of this element of the construction.
Denis James
KCA President
(202) 232-8829
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Mintwood-place mailing list
Mintwood-place at lists.mutualaid.org
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/mintwood-place
_______________________________________________
Mintwood-place mailing list
Mintwood-place at lists.mutualaid.org
http://lists.mutualaid.org/mailman/listinfo/mintwood-place
Cynthia M. Pols
1862 Mintwood Place, NW - # 304
Washington, DC 20009
202-328-0654
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mutualaid.org/pipermail/mintwood-place/attachments/20100731/9b0471db/attachment.html>
More information about the Mintwood-place
mailing list