Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICE OF PLANNING Office of the Director Memorandum TO: District of Columbia Zoning Commission FROM: Harriet Tregoning, Director Office of Planning DATE: March 2, 2007 SUBJECT: Preliminary Report and Pre-Hearing Statement – Zoning Commission Case 07-XX Proposed Text Amendment to modify court and side yard requirements for existing buildings This report serves as the Prehearing Filing required by 11 DCMR § 3013 as a prerequisite to the advertisement of this proposed text amendment. PROPOSAL The Office of Planning (OP) proposes a text amendment to the Zoning Regulations to modify Sections 403, 405 and 406 of 11 DCMR to ease court and side yard requirements for existing situations and modify the lot occupancy requirements and calculations for R-3 and R-4 districts RECOMMENDATION The Office of Planning believes that the proposed text amendment will help prevent the non-compatible renovation of historic and existing buildings. The Office of Planning recommends that the Zoning Commission setdown for public hearing the proposed zoning text amendments to 11 DCMR. BACKGROUND Historic Preservation staff see a large number of requests for sensitive additions to historic buildings that trigger variance relief for side yard, courts, or lot occupancy because of side yards or courts. In general, homeowners are faced with spending six months to a year receiving BZA approval of these variances or changing plans to do less compatible and more significant additions. Currently, side yards and closed courts of less than five feet cannot be extended without a variance. Homeowners are left with the choice of setting the addition back eight feet, which often does not leave enough for space for a viable structure, or building the addition to the lot line, which can create further non-conformities. Sometimes the only matter-of-right solution is to fill in the entire court or side yard. While this accomplishes the zoning goal of eliminating non-conforming situations, it often causes a serious conflict for historic structures where the existing situation must be maintained. 801 North Capitol Street, N.E., Suite 4000, Washington, D.C. 20002 202 -442-7600, fax 202-442-7637 or 7638 Proposed Text Amendment Minimum Lot Dimensions in R Districts Page 2 A second issue arises from lot occupancy calculations. Two areas of the existing regulations create conflict for building additions. The current definition of building area, used to calculate lot occupancy, includes courts and side yards less than 5 feet in the calculation. With this area already counted as lot occupancy and extensions of existing situations similarly counted, the regulations create an incentive to fill in existing courts and side yards, often to the detriment of the character of the original home. A more powerful incentive is created to fill in side yards by the discrepancy between the allowable lot occupancy for row dwellings and all other dwellings in the R-3 and R-4 zones. Row dwellings in these zones are allowed 60% lot occupancy. This term is defined as a one-family dwelling with no side yards. Any homes with existing side yards automatically fall into the “all other structures” category for R-3 and R-4 districts, giving them only 40% lot occupancy. The result of this difference is that any home in these districts limited to 40% lot occupancy can be built to 60% as a matter of right if the owner builds to the lot lines, thus creating a “row dwelling.” This situation can encourage the building of incompatible additions to existing buildings. OP, with the guidance of Historic Preservation staff, has worked to draft language that would address these conflicts. ANALYSIS There are four separate areas that need to be addressed by this text amendment: 1. Allow the extension of existing side yards in historic and/or pre-1958 buildings. 2. Allow the extension of existing courts in historic and/or pre-1958 buildings. 3. Change the definition of lot occupancy to exclude all courts and side yards. 4. Eliminate the discrepancy in lot occupancy between row dwellings and other dwellings in the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts. 1. Allow the extension of existing side yards in historic and/or pre-1958 buildings. The existing subsection 405.8 allows for the extension of pre-1958 side yards of five feet or more. Discussions with Historic Preservation staff have concluded that this provision does not cover a large percentage of row house district situations. These discussions have determined that the minimum side yard that would be passable and maintainable while including the vast majority of existing historic structures would be 2.5 feet. Amending Section 405.8 to include reference to historic structures and lower the threshold to 2.5 feet would prevent a large number of variance situations and allow compatible additions to older buildings. 2. Allow the extension of existing courts in historic and/or pre-1958 buildings. Section 406 governing courts in residential districts does not have any section equivalent to the side yard provision of 405.8. OP would propose to add a subsection with matching language to 406 that would allow the extension of existing courts to a minimum of 2.5 feet in width. This would have the same effect of preventing needless variances on historic buildings and promoting positive renovations. Proposed Text Amendment Minimum Lot Dimensions in R Districts Page 3 3. Change the definition of lot occupancy to exclude all courts and side yards. The existing calculations for lot occupancy include open courts and side yards less than five feet in width and closed courts less than six feet in width. Regardless of the original intention of this definition, it is not something that is easily understood by most homeowners determining their lot occupancy and it affects the decisions made by homeowners doing renovations to buildings with these situations. Often the provision can lead to a variance requirement or the elimination of courts on contributing historic buildings. OP proposes removing the reference to side yards and courts in the definition of building area and therefore removing them from calculations of lot occupancy. 4. Eliminate the discrepancy in lot occupancy between row dwellings and other dwellings in the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts. The existing regulations for R-3 and R-4 districts provide 60% lot occupancy for row dwellings and flats, but only 40% lot occupancy for all other uses. This means single family dwelling owners with one or two side yards that want to add on have an incentive to eliminate their existing side yards. The elimination of side yards for any single family dwelling make it, by definition, a row dwelling and therefore gives a matter of right lot occupancy increase to 60%. By making the lot occupancy for all dwellings in the R-3 and R-4 districts 60%, the incentive for filling in existing side yards would be eliminated while each property owner would have increased matter of right options for improving his or her property. PROPOSAL The following text amendments are recommended: 1. Amend Section 405.8 as follows: 405.8 In the case of a historic landmark, a building certified as contributing to a historic district, or a building existing on or before May 12, 1958, with a side yard less than eight feet (8 ft.) wide, an extension or addition may be made to the building; provided, that the width of the existing side yard shall not be decreased; and provided further, that the width of the existing side yard shall be a minimum of two feet, six inches (2.5 ft) five feet (5 ft.). 2. Add Section 406.5 as follows: 406.5 In the case of a historic landmark, a building certified as contributing to a historic district, or a building existing on or before May 12, 1958, with a court less than six feet (6 ft.) wide, an extension or addition may be made to the building; provided, that the width and area of the existing court shall not be decreased; and provided further, that the width of the existing court shall be a minimum of two feet, six inches (2.5 ft). 3. Amend Section 199.1 for Building Area as follows: Building Area – the maximum horizontal projected area of a building and its accessory buildings. The term “building area” shall include all side yards and open courts less than five feet (5 ft.) in width, and all closed courts less than six feet (6 ft.) in width. Except for outside balconies, this term shall not include any projections into open spaces authorized elsewhere in this title, nor shall it include portions Proposed Text Amendment Minimum Lot Dimensions in R Districts Page 4 of a building that do not extend above the level of the main floor of the main building, if placed so as not to obstruct light and ventilation of the main building or of buildings on adjoining property. 4. Amend Table in Section 403.2 as follows: ZONE DISTRICT AND STRUCTURE R-1-A, R-1-B, R-2 Church or public school MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE OF LOT OCCUPANCY (square feet) 60% R-1-A, R-1-B, R-2 All other structures 40% R-3 Row dwelling, church, or public school 60% R-3 All other structures 40% R-4 Row dwelling, church, or public school 60% R-4 All other structures 40% R-4 Conversion to multiple dwelling None prescribed R-5-A Church or public school 60% R-5-A All other structures 40% R-5-B All other structures 60% R-5-C, R-5-D, R-5-E All other structures 75% Proposed Text Amendment Minimum Lot Dimensions in R Districts Page 5 COMMUNITY COMMENTS RECOMMENDATION This clarification of the zoning ordinance language is necessary for improved protection of historic structures and to provide for consistent and compatible building additions in row house districts. OP supports this modification and recommends that it be setdown for a public hearing. HT/tp