St. Thomas' Parish Presents Revised Church and Residence Design

The leadership of St. Thomas' Parish Episcopal Church (1772 Church Street NW) with their architects rolled out a revised design for its planned expansion at the church on May 27. Representatives of MTFA Architecture and Hickok Cole Architects presented plans for the church and the adjoining apartment building, respectively. The plans had been altered in response to community input the project.

Proposed new design as viewed from 18th Street

About 80 people saw MTFA's James P. Clark and Hickok Cole's Laurence Caudle make presentations of the new design, which promised to reduce the impact of the project design, increase green space, minimize traffic impact, and connect to neighborhood character.

Original church plans had the proposed new church and the multi-story apartment building built all the way out to the property line on all sides of the property at the corner of 18th and Church Streets. The revised plan draws the design back a little, allowing a small stretch of green space in the front and side of the property, and more setback at the tops of both planned buildings.

The 18th Street side of the property will, according to the proposed new design, have green spaces flanking the church's front entrance. The dimensions on each side will be roughly ten feet deep by roughly forty feet wide, split by a walkway into the church. The green areas would be bordered on the property line by low stone walls, made from stone recycled from parts of the present building that will have to be demolished because they are structurally unsound.

The presenters also said that the church building will be drawn back three feet on the Church Street (north) side, and five feet from the abutting a row house on Church Street on the west side of the property.

Increased upper-story setbacks

There will be increases to the upper-story setbacks on both the church building and the residential building.

A topic which seemed to draw attention at the meeting was the proposal for a Montessori school in the new church building. This led to a great deal of discussion of the impact such a school would have on street parking. Neighbors asked if the church had done a traffic study. It had not. The discussion returned repeatedly to this topic, even though representatives of the church said there had been no final decision on establishing a Montessori school and it seemed unlikely the school could accommodate more than 25 students if it became a reality.  

General audience reaction

The reception to the new design was frequently positive.

"You've done very interesting things with the church," said one Church Street resident.

"You guys have done a really great job," said another.

Of course, not everyone was enthusiastic. For example, neighbors seemed concerned about density, as there was no change in the plans to have 50-55 residential units in the proposed apartment building

"I don't see much change," one man said of the new design. "In principle, I think they're the same."

Some of the audience were the same people who attended the meeting mobilizing opponents at the Keegan Theater the previous week -- see SALM blog post of May 27. However, some of the people seemingly most dead-set against the development were absent. Unlike previous meetings, no one suggested that the church abandon the plan entirely.

Next steps

The presenters laid out a timeline for getting approval for the project. There would be no further town meetings. The two parts of the project will move together through the next steps. The plan is to submit the paperwork for the project to the HPRB by June 20. In July, the project will be considered by the Dupont Circle Conservancy. In the same month, the project will be presented to the Zoning, Preservation and Development (ZPD) Committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2B/Dupont. If the ZPD approves, it will be presented to the full ANC for a vote at its regular July meeting. The project will then have a HPRB hearing in September.

The slideshow which accompanied the May 27 presentation is available here.

A copy of the flyer "Frequently Asked Questions about St. Thomas' Building Program", distributed at the meeting, is available here.

The complex backstory to this project is explained in part in an SALM blog post of February 28, and in stories from the same time on the blogs Greater Greater Washington and District Source.

(Photo credits: details from the architects' presentation to the meeting)

1815 Riggs Place: "Adding More Ugly Isn't a Nice Thing to Do"

Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2B/Dupont Circle voted to endorse a one-story pop-up on a two-story apartment building at 1815 Riggs Place NW. The vote took place at ANC2B's regular monthly meeting of March 12.

 At present (Google Street View)

ANC2B Commissioner Leo Dwyer (district 07), introducing the matter to the ANC, called the building "fairly nondescript". However, the building is located within the Dupont Circle Historic District, so changes to the exterior must get the blessing of D.C.'s Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB). Dwyer said the building is "non-contributing" to the historic district, meaning, it has no particular architectural merit.

Dwyer said he had solicited comments about the project from its neighbors.

Schneck presents an image of the addition

"The majority of the comments is that this building is ugly," he said.

Dwyer is also chair of ANC2B's Zoning, Preservation and Development (ZPD) Committee.

Architect Ronald Schneck, principal of Square 134 Architects, presented to ANC2B. This project is on the HPRB's agenda for its next meeting, and Schneck sought ANC2B's endorsement.

"Everyone can agree this is a non-contributing building," Schneck said.

At the same time, Schneck was also hoping to get endorsement for zoning variances before an April hearing with D.C.'s Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA). The building as it stands now is not zoning compliant because it occupies too much of the lot it stands on, and because the rear yard setback is not big enough. The architect's proposal does not add additional non-compliant elements.

The developer's HPRB proposal had been considered by the ZPD Committee, but its BZA proposal had not. The ANC voted to approve its HPRB application, but asked the architect to return to the ZPD Committee for a separate presentation on its BZA proposal.

Commissioner Stephanie Meltz (district 03) also reminded Schneck of her request, made the previous week, to reach out to her constituents who lived across the street from the building and have concerns about the effects of the addition on both light and parking.

Tom Bauer of the Dupont Circle Conservancy (DCC) told the committee his organization will support the massing of the building before the HPRB but will oppose certain aspects of the design. Specifically, it objects to the use of metal seams on the exterior, and would prefer to see brick and limestone.

"We think it's ugly but adding more ugly isn't a nice thing to do," Bauer said about the building.

Read another article about this project from the blog District Source here.

I am Asked to Leave a Meeting of the Dupont Circle Conservancy for Blogging

Minutes after I arrived last night, January 14, I was denied permission to observe a meeting of the Dupont Circle Conservancy (DCC). The reason given was that I am a blogger. I left the meeting as requested, without argument.

A representative of the DCC approached me a short time after I arrived and told me the meeting was not open to me. I protested that I was an interested member of the public. The representative told me I was a blogger and I could not attend the meeting. It seemed clear that further objecting would not do any good, so I left.

I have previously attended two meetings of the DCC. The first meeting I attended was on October 8, 2013. I openly took notes. Based on these notes, I published the SALM blog post of October 15 about the proposed development of the single-family home at 1618 Q Street NW.

In November, I again attended a meeting of the DCC. At that time, the same representative as above approached me and asked me what my interest was. I told him that I wrote a blog. The representative said interested members of the public were welcome but he did not want me to write about meeting. I agreed to make no notes and write nothing about the meeting. I was allowed to observe the entire meeting. There is no blog post about the November meeting.

On its web site, the DCC describes itself as "an all volunteer membership-based non-profit 501c(3) educational organization". I am not a lawyer and I don't know what rights and obligations this status gives them. Particularly, I do not know if they have an obligation to have open meetings and/or are allowed to limit the purpose or behavior of people who attend.

This is the first community organization that I have been asked me to leave. I have previously attended meetings of two other local community organizations (the Dupont Circle Citizens Association and the Shaw Dupont Citizens Alliance), and even published articles based on what I saw and heard at these meetings, without interference.

I was at the last night's meeting long enough to notice that it was also attended Commissioner Abigail Nichols, representative for district 05 on Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2B/Dupont. Nichols was just winding up a short presentation to the DCC when I arrived.

I also saw other presenters waiting at last night's meeting to appear before the DCC. These presenters have previously appeared before ANC2B and its committees, and I have written about their projects on this blog. The properties in question are 1618 Q Street and 1528 Church Street.

1618 Q Street: 7 Units from Single-family Home

There are plans in the works to convert the two-story, single-family home at 1618 Q Street NW into a three-story, seven-unit apartment building. The Dupont Circle Conservancy heard an initial presentation from the Workshop T10 design studio at its regular monthly meeting on October 8.

1618 Q Street today

The design would require an additional 18 inches of excavation in the basement.
There would be two basement apartments, two apartments each on the first and second floors, and a pop-up structure at the rear of the house. The pop-up would contain one complete apartment, and the upstairs bedroom for the second-floor front apartment.

The largest apartment would be 772 square feet, and the average apartment would be 570 square feet. The design envisions maintaining the front double-doors as the primary entrance, with an additional entrance in the rear.

The third-floor pop-up would not be visible from Q Street, the presenter said. It would be 13 feet tall at its highest point and be set back 33 feet six inches from the front facade of the building.

The pop-up would be visible from Stead Park, which the building abuts in the rear.

There would be two parking spaces behind the building.

No projected prices or rents for the apartments were mentioned, nor did the participants discuss if the units would be rentals or condos.

Desiree Holler Pollard of Workshop T10 made the presentation.

The Dupont Circle Conservancy is an all-volunteer non-profit organization, dedicated to historic and architectural preservation in the Dupont Circle Area. Its members frequently hear presentations from homeowners and developers who wish to get official blessing for major building improvements. The Conservancy's opinion is regularly heard and treated very seriously by Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2B/Dupont Circle and DC's Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB), so can stop or delay renovation projects.

The presenter and the Conservancy promised to be in touch. No decision was made immediately.