Transcript Slide 1

DC Zoning Review
Low/Moderate Density Residential
Working Group
Meeting Three: May 5, 2008
DC Office of Planning
Zoning Review Process
OP Goals for Zoning Review:
• Clarity
• Relevance
• Ease of use
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Goals of Working Group
• Identification of problems with the current regulations.
Determine how what we have now is not working.
• Identification of what works with current regulations.
Identify what currently works with the regulations.
• Identification of gaps with current regulations.
Determine what is missing in the current regulations.
• Determine means by which problems and gaps and
Comprehensive Plan Action Items can be achieved.
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Overview
• Last meeting introduced concepts of:
–
–
–
–
Density: Building, Dwelling Unit & People
Building Configuration
Unit Typology
Building Typology
• Staff research exercise: use concepts to develop measurements of
blocks throughout the city
• Purpose 1: draw qualitative observations related to neighborhood
character and consistency
• Purpose 2: Develop hypotheses about usefulness of existing
regulations in achieving Comp Plan’s objectives
• Goal: Obtain information that can help in developing and calibrating
tools that will help us achieve Comp Plan objectives (but we’re not
there yet!)
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Methodology
• Selected 8 block faces from throughout the city
• Pairs chosen from 4 different zoning districts
(R-1-B, R-2, R-4, R-5-B)
• Used GIS to obtain lot and building
measurements
• Satellite imagery-based tool to estimate height
• Field visits to establish unit density and draw
additional qualitative information
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Methodology
• Obtained minimum, maximum, and median
measurements for each variable
• Compared measurements of existing lots and
buildings to existing standards (and noted gaps
where no standard exists)
• Selected specific buildings for more in-depth
analysis
• Result: qualitative observations about matches
between regulations and “what’s on the ground”
(problems, gaps, and successes)
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Assumptions
• Height: measured from grade to highest
point on structure (excluding chimneys)
• Stories: focused on visible from the front
• Half-stories: a livable attic that did not
appear to equal a full story but was clearly
more than storage area
• Building (and accessory building) area:
footprint
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Assumptions
• Gross Floor Area: footprint × number of stories
• Lot coverage: includes main building and
accessory structures
• FAR: GFA of main structure ÷ lot area
– Assumes no basement
– Intended to reflect “possible bulk” on the street
• Unit density: gross, calculated as dwelling units
per total acreage (including public space/ROW)
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Caveats
• Although we have some good numbers, this
should still be considered a qualitative analysis
• Examples are not necessarily representative of
the entire city, or the zoning districts, or even
their neighborhoods
• Height measurements should be treated with
caution
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Block Overviews: Tenleytown
Yuma St NW: b/t 44th St. on the W and 43rd St on the E
•
•
•
•
Zoning: R-1-B
Future Land Use: Low Density
Unit Typology: 2 - 3 BDRM
Building Typology: Detached House
•
•
•
•
•
Unit Density (Du/acre - Gross):
Land Area (Acres): 4.82
Units: 26
Du/acre: 5
Regulated: 6
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Block Overviews: Mount Pleasant
Park Rd. NW, b/t 16th St. NW and 17th St. NW
•
•
•
•
Zoning: R-5-B
Future Land Use: Mod-High Density
Unit Typology: 3 BDRM to SRO
Building Typology: Apartments, Rowhouses, Semi-detached.
•
•
•
•
•
Unit Density (Du/acre - Gross):
Land Area (Acres): 4.93
Units: 331
Du/acre: 67
Regulated: N/A
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Block Overviews: Shepherd Park
9th St NW, b/t Hemlock St on the S and Juniper St on the N
•
•
•
•
Zoning: R2
Future Land Use: Low Density
Unit Typology: 1-2 Bedroom
Building Typology: Semi-detached Houses
•
•
•
•
•
Unit Density (Du/acre - Gross):
Land Area (Acres): 2.89
Units: 33
Du/acre: 11
Notables: Regulated: 10
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Block Overviews: Fairfax Village
34th St SE between Alabama Ave/Suitland Parkway to the S, and U Street to the N
•
•
•
•
Zoning: R-1-B
Future Land Use: Low Density
Unit Typology: 2 - 3 BDRM
Building Typology: Detached Houses
•
•
•
•
•
Unit Density (Du/acre - Gross):
Land Area (Acres): 8.06
Units: 41
Du/acre: 5
Regulated: 6
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Block Overviews: Brookland
14th St NE, between Varnum St/Michigan Ave on the S and Webster St/S Dakota Ave on the N
•
•
•
•
Zoning: R2
Future Land Use: Low Density
Unit Typology: 2-3 Bedroom
Building Typology: Semi-detached Houses, Triplex, Detached House
•
•
•
•
•
Unit Density (Du/acre - Gross):
Land Area (Acres): 4.76
Units: 34
Du/acre: 7
Regulated: 10
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Block Overviews: Capitol Hill
Constitution Ave NE b/t 6th & 7th Streets NE
•
•
•
•
Zoning: R-4
Future Land Use: Moderate Density
Unit Typology: 3 BDRM to SRO
Building Typology: Rowhouses, Apartments, Semi-Detached Houses
•
•
•
•
•
Unit Density (Du/acre - Gross):
Land Area (Acres): 4.22
Units: 92
Du/acre: 22
Regulated: 34
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Block Overviews: Petworth
8th St. NW, between Webster and Varnum
•
•
•
•
Zoning: R-4
Future Land Use: Moderate Density
Unit Typology: 3 BDRM to SRO
Building Typology: Detached Houses, Rowhouses, Apartments
•
•
•
•
•
Unit Density (Du/acre - Gross):
Land Area (Acres): 2.74
Units: 29
Du/acre: 11
Regulated: 34
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Block Overviews: Adams Morgan
Biltmore St NW: b/t 20th St. & Cliffbourne Place NW
•
•
•
•
Zoning: R-5-B
Future Land Use: Moderate Density
Unit Typology: 3 BDRM to SRO
Building Typology: Apartments, Rowhouses, Semi-detached
Houses.
•
•
•
•
•
Unit Density (Du/acre - Gross):
Land Area (Acres): 5.93
Units: 153
Du/acre: 26
Regulated: N/A
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Problems – Lot Widths
• Existing minimum lot widths in R-1-B and R-2 blocks are
consistently under the minimum required (40 – 50 ft. in
R-1-B examples, 16-30 ft. in R-2 examples)
• Under R-2 standards, most of the Brookland block could
be built today (just barely)
– Shepherd Park could not
• Generally, the minimum lot width standard is inconsistent
with what exists (R-1-B, R-2 and R-4).
– This is highly prohibitive in facilitating redevelopment (e.g., Ward
7)
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Problems - Lot Area
• In R-1-B examples, there are some outliers, but
generally within a range
– Small lots are significantly smaller than required
minimums (2600 < 5000 sq. ft.)
• Same issue with R-2 examples (1556 < 3000 sq.
ft.)
• Reduced lot area minimums could make more
lots in these blocks conforming, with little or no
harm to existing character
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Problems - Height
The standard currently permitted
in R-1-B and R-2 (3 stories
and 40 ft.) could significantly
change/be inconsistent with
character of the block
• The largest examples are
consistently around 30-34 ft.
and 2 stories, with prominent
corner buildings at 2.5 stories
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Problems - Height
How we measure the height of a
building can have a substantial
impact on the final building
“character”
• Should a house in Tenleytown
with a pitched roof be measured
differently than a house in
Shepherd Park with a flat roof?
Tenleytown
• What about the difference
between a pitched roof that
slopes toward its sides vs. a roof
that slopes toward the front and
back?
Shepherd Park
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Problems – Consistency in
Building Density
Tenleytown Existing
• Standards could effectively
allow double (R-2) or triple (R1-B) what currently exists,
given existing controls.
(Tenleytown)
• Interplay among lot
characteristics (mainly lot
coverage, height and stories)
results in wide range in
development potential. (e.g.,
Brookland: wide range in lot
depths results in wide range in
development potential)
R-1-B Allowed
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Problem – Side Yards
• Consistently non-conforming in Tenleytown (by 2
ft.)
• All over the place (including 0 lot line) in Fairfax
Village
– But, distance between buildings falls within consistent
range
• Question: by applying the existing standards, are
we getting the consistency we want?
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Problem/Gap – Rear Yards
• Wide range in Fairfax Village (some
nonconforming)
• Wide range in Brookland (due to lot depths)
• Why have a rear-yard with an accessory
structure? Why doesn’t it have to comply?
• Question: what is purpose of rear yard? Is it
neighborhood consistency or something else?
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Gaps – Front Yards
• Not currently regulated
• Extremely consistent in Tenleytown; moderate
range in Fairfax Village
• Also consistent in Capitol Hill (at the lot line)
• May relate to public space regulations or private
covenants – needs research
• Conclusion: could be an effective regulatory tool
to replicate/maintain consistency. Including both
a minimum and maximum may allow some
flexibility
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Gaps – Front Yards
Fairfax Village
Tenleytown
Capitol Hill
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Problem/Gap – Aesthetics
• Nothing speaks to the
aesthetic of a
neighborhood (e.g.,
Petworth)
Petworth incongruous structure
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Problems – Building Typology
• Regulations that tie unit type to building
type limit flexibility – problem for policy
implementation
• Different building types can serve the
same household type
– A rowhouse or a detached dwelling can both
serve a family
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
General Problems
• Alley dwellings are currently
recognized in the regulations, but lack
consistency with a policy directive —
results in confusion.
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Gaps
16th St NW
• Where an effective unit
density standard does not
exist (e.g., Mt. Pleasant
R-5-B), there is no
predictability or ability to
plan. R-5-B quite openended
• Lack of regulation
regarding building-tostreet interaction (Mt.
Pleasant)
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Successes
• Consistency of building typology to zoning
district (R-1 to R-4)
• Consistency of unit density to zoning
district (R-1 to R-4)
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Conclusions/Hypotheses
• Some tools utilized are not necessarily bad tools – they
are just being applied improperly (e.g., lot width
standards and height)
• Certain tools are being used that may not be achieving
desired ends (e.g., lot coverage to establish final building
size)
• Application of other conventional tools does not
necessarily result in greater consistency or fairness (e.g.,
FAR)
• Some tools are missing to deal with some issues, e.g.,
consistency of building depth, consistency of front
building line, interaction with streets
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Conclusions/Hypotheses
• Certain areas/zoning designations have few effective
tools. Having any assurance of what may result is highly
improbable (e.g., Mt. Pleasant)
• Existing regulations don’t account for geographic
specificity; i.e., everything is applied the same way
across an entire zoning district no matter what the local
context (e.g., height)
• Over-packaging of tools is a major cause of problems.
Current regulations are an oversimplification of individual
neighborhoods and the city as a whole
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Next Steps
• More data and analysis
needed to develop
framework for controls on
configuration
• Next meetings will focus on
uses
Future Meetings
•
•
•
•
•
May 14
May 21
June 4
June 11
June 18 – Final Meeting
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
May 5, 2008
Discussion &
Questions?
Zoning Review 2008
Website: www.dczoningupdate.org
CLARITY
Travis Parker, AICP
(202) 741-5243
[email protected]
Laine Cidlowski, LEED AP
(202) 741-0817
[email protected]
Dan Emerine
(202) 442-8812
[email protected]
EASE OF USE
Michael Giulioni
(202) 442-8813
[email protected]
RELEVANCE
Low-Moderate Density Residential Working Group
Stephen Varga, AICP
(202) 741-5244
[email protected]
May 5, 2008