479 Ridge Street: "Any Change Is a Huge Deal"

Some homeowners on Ridge Street NW do not want any houses on their block expanding.

(Google Street View)

That's the message the homeowners of 479 Ridge Street got when they presented a proposal to Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 6E/Shaw on April 7. The homeowners sought ANC endorsement on the project before they presented the concept for a three-story rear addition to their two-story house to DC's Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB). The project requires HPRB approval because it is located in the Mount Vernon Square Historic District.

An architect and the homeowners presented to the ANC. They said the rear addition would not be visible from the street. They wanted a staircase off the back of the present building to lead up to a master bedroom suite. The homeowners plan to live in the house.

The proposed addition would bring the height of the building up to 27 feet -- below the 35 feet the homeowners are allowed "by right" under zoning regulations. Similarly, after the proposed renovations, the house would be under 60% lot occupancy, meaning, the footprint of the house would not require zoning relief.

Commissioner Rachelle Nigro (district 04) said she had to oppose the request "because of the possibility it can be seen from the street". 479 Ridge Street is in Nigro's ANC district.

Nigro said she had spoken to or received emails from five Ridge Street residents in favor of the project, and eight against. The people in favor of the project, she said, were people who were seeking or thinking of seeking expansions themselves. Those against the expansions were uniformly people who had no interest in expanding their own homes.

For this latter group, Nigro said: "Any change is a huge deal."

Because of the desires of her constituents, Nigro said, she would have to oppose the expansion.

Three Commissioners then spoke up in favor of allowing the expansion: Kevin Chapple (district 02), Frank Wiggins (district 03), and ANC6E Chair Marge Maceda (Commissioner for district 05). 

Since the project is in Nigro's district, she was allowed to make the first motion on the project. Nigro moved to oppose the project. The motion died for lack of a second. The Commissioner Alex Padro (district 01) moved to approve the project. Padro's motion passed, five to one, with Nigro the sole vote against.

This is the second request in two months from Ridge Street that followed the same pattern: protesting neighbors, Nigro proposes a motion but fails to get a second, and then approval from the full ANC with Nigro against.

At the previous meeting last month, a Ridge Street resident told a homeowner and resident who wanted a rear addition to their house to either keep the house as it is or find somewhere else to live -- see SALM blog post of March 6. That homeowner, too, got approval from the full ANC.

This matter is on the agenda for HPRB's next set of meetings, the first of which is scheduled to take place on Thursday, April 23, at the Board's meeting room at 441 4th Street, Room 220 South (Judiciary Square metro). If all of the items on the agenda are not address, there will be a further meeting on April 30.

10th and O Streets: "Based on Past Experience, We Don't Have Confidence that We Will Like Your Final Product"

A tidy vacant lot at the northwest corner of 10th and O Streets NW will change from an unofficial dog park to three-story townhouse, if plans by Suzane Reatig Architecture are made reality.

Coming soon: one place fewer to walk the dog

However, a committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2F/Logan Circle said it will "recommend to not recommend approval" of the planned project at 1001 O Street because it is "not consistent with historic preservation guidelines, scaling and massing of elements". ANC2F's Community Development Committee (CDC) passed a motion against the plans as presented at its last meeting on February 25.

Megan Mitchell of Suzane Reatig Architecture led the team that made the presentation to the committee. 

"A significant amount of green will remain on the corner," Mitchell said.

She also said the proposed building would have two "likely to be" condo units with entrances at the front of the building. It will have two parking spaces -- only one is required. The plan is for the building to be "slightly under 40 feet maximum" -- taller than neighboring buildings but still not tall enough to trigger the need for zoning relief.

Mitchell said that corner buildings in DC are often taller than mid-block buildings.

Artists' conceptions of the building show a pink building with windows that wrapped around the front corner. Members of the committee asked if this color was what the finished product would actually look like. The presenter said no, that this color was used in the illustration to make the building stand out against its neighbors. Were there illustrations that would show how the finished building would look? No, a lot of those details hadn't been decided.

"Our understanding is that we don't have to present exact color and materials," a member of the team said. "We change things, we adjust things."

The architects would work with DC's Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) on the details, they explained.

This did not match up with the committee's idea of its own responsibilities, which included approving the materials. Members of the committee asked what materials the presenters were thinking of. A member of the team said ironspot bricks. See an example of a house fronted with ironspot bricks here.

"The committee needs to get guarantees that what is presented is what is built," one member said.

The committee also objected to what appeared, on the artist's conceptions, as an exterior staircase to the second floor, facing 10th Street, which would be on public space, meaning, over the sidewalk.

The architects said they were planning a building in a more modern style, as opposed to something that matched or recalled the styles of the older buildings nearby. The committee wasn't enthusiastic. A member of the team asked the committee if they hadn't ever, when in Europe, been in an old section of a city, and come upon "a little jewel, a little glass box" and been impressed with how beautiful it was? This line of argument failed to win over the committee.

Instead, the committee suggested the design should "pull something in from around it" -- meaning, it should resemble other buildings in the neighborhood.

Members of the committee asked the presenters if they had looked at the ANC's guidelines for presenters, which are posted online. The presenters had not.

"Every single time that firm presents there's confusion about the process," a committee member said after the architecture firm had left.

1232- 1234 10th Street (photo credit: BadWolfDC)

Community members also came to the meeting and cited previous works in Shaw by the same firm with disapproval. See 2012 blog posts about their work at 926 N Street on the blogs Preserving DC Stables and DCmud, and a 2014 post about their work on 1232-1234 10th Street (see photo) on the blog BadWolfDC.

"Based on past experience, we don't have confidence that we will like your final product," a committee member told the presenters.

This item is on the agenda for consideration by the full ANC at its the regular monthly meeting, scheduled for tomorrow, April 1, at 7pm, at the Washington Plaza Hotel (10 Thomas Circle).

St. Thomas Parish Church Gets Conditional Endorsement from Dupont ANC

"That was a little more civil than I've become accustomed to," said a supporter of St. Thomas Parish Episcopal Church (1772 Church Street NW) on the way out of the last regularly monthly meeting of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2B/Dupont Circle on March 11.

Proposed church design as seen from across 18th Street

The ANC had just passed a conditional endorsement of a design for both a proposed new church at the corner of 18th and Church Streets as well as multi-unit residential buildings next door. (A 39-page .pdf of the endorsed design is available for download here.) A series of SALM posts explaining the progress of the proposal since last February --  against stiff community opposition -- is available here.

Many of the points of disagreement about the project seemed to have been resolved -- as much as possible -- in numerous previous meetings between the interested parties, including, most recently, a meeting of ANC2B's Zoning, Preservation and Development (ZPD) Committee the previous week.

Presentation at the meeting

ANC2B Chair Noah Smith (Commissioner for district 09) opened the section of the meeting devoted to St. Thomas by asking for a shorter presentation that the one presented at the ZPD Committee meeting, with an emphasis on the outside of the structure.

Architect Laurence Caudle of Hickok Cole Architects seemed to think that it was necessary to see the inside to understand the outside. The ANC and roughly 80 members of the community in attendance saw some renderings for the inside as well the outside, all projected on a wall on the side of the auditorium at the Brookings Institution (1775 Massachusetts Avenue) where the meeting took place. Caudle explained the rationale behind both components (i.e., the church and the residential) of the project.

"We've really scaled down the building," Caudle said.

Commissioner Justine Underhill (district 07) then put forward the formal motion to approve the resolution as drafted and distributed at the meeting. (ANC Chair Smith apologized that the 75 paper copies of the resolution he had printed were slightly less than the amount needed for everyone at the meeting to have a copy.) St. Thomas is in Underhill's ANC district.

About the resolution, Underhill said: "This is something we have worked hard to craft."

"It is not a rubber stamp," she said.

"We're saying that [the project] does not necessarily echo the neighborhood," said Smith.

The resolution

The resolution states the ANC supports the proposal "if and only if" conditions stated in eight separate bullet-pointed paragraphs are met, including:

• Alterations to "the corrugation of the Church Street buildings' facades", "the rhythm of the Church Street buildings' roof lines", "the church and residential exterior", "the articulation of the residential bays", "the small, dark window panes", and "the horizontal terra cotta panels"
• the residential building should not appear to be taller than 59 feet, meaning, tests should be done to make sure any roof structure over this height is not visible from the street
• a setback or other solution to offset anticipated addition congestion caused by traffic coming and going to 33 additional parking spaces in a proposed underground parking garage with an entrance in an alley off 18th Street
• continued consultation with the community about zoning, "quality-of-life", and traffic

The text of the resolution is available about half-way down this page.

Commissioner and community discussion

Not everyone loved the newest compromise. Commissioner Mike Feldstein (District 01) called the design of the church "ugly" -- at which several members of the audience shouted "here here!" in approval. A member of the community, while supporting the ANC resolution, commented sarcastically on the church design: "If you google Best Buy, I'm concerned there will be copyright infrigement."

Another community member said: "This does not fit in."

A representative of the Dupont Circle Citizens Association (DCCA) said the residential component was "incompatable" with the area and "wholly inappropriate in the Dupont area or anywhere in the L'Enfant city". The DCCA asked the ANC reject the design completely.

Other commenters said the problems of the alley space were not yet addressed. Another commenter objected to "lack of green setback at the pedestrian level".

But more frequently the comments were summed up by one Church Street resident: "I don't like this resolution but I can live with it. That is the essence of the democratic process. I wish there were something more we could do with the church design."

Other former categorical opponents to the project came to the microphone and said they could live, however reluctantly, with the ANCs resolution on the design. Some thanked the newly-elected Underhill for her work.

The leadership and advocates of the church sat silently through the entire process. Finally, as the ANC was gearing up for a final vote, Smith asked if anyone from the church wanted to say anything. A man identifying himself as the chair of the church's building committee asked the ANC to support the resolution as written and thanked Underhill.

The vote

Commissioner Feldstein felt that two sentences recommending specific changes to the design and materials went into "too much detail". The ANC considered two separate motions by Feldstein, each to delete a sentence. His motion to delete the first of the two died for lack of a second. His motion to delete the second of the two sentences failed, two votes to seven.

After that, a motion to pass the resolution granting conditional endorsement to St. Thomas Project passed by a vote of seven to zero, with two abstentions. The abstentions were Feldstein and Commissioner Stephanie Maltz (district 03).

This endorsement now moves to DC's Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) for consideration. Assuming the historic preservation aspects of the project are eventually agreed on, the project will be back before the ANC, probably more than once. The ANC has agreed to help negotiate a memorandum of understanding about details of the construction project, like hours during which construction work will be permitted. In addition, the project will almost certainly require zoning relief, which will give the community and the ANC another opportunity to examine the project.

(photo credit: detail from documents presented to ANC2B by developer CAS Reigler)

"Either Stay in the Suburbs or Find Another Place to Live!"

CORRECTION (3/8/15): I listened to a recording of the meeting on ANC6E's Youtube channel after this blog post went live. The title is slightly inaccurate. The actual quote is: "Either stay in the suburbs or find another place in DC."

The owner of 440 Ridge Street NW needs zoning relief to expand her house back by 20 inches in the rear, and up in the rear by less than half a story. She eventually got Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 6E/Shaw to endorse an application for zoning relief for lot occupancy at its regular monthly meeting on March 3, but first she had to endure some abuse from a neighbor.

440 Ridge Street (Google Street View)

Her architect, Catarina Ferreira of Archi-Textural, Pllc., that the plan to expand the house a been through "a few revisions" and trips to the DC bureaucracy. Substantial changes to the house have to be approved by DC's Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB), because the building is located in the Mount Vernon Square Historic District. Most recently, a plan to add a third story seven feet in height, set back 16 feet from the front of the building, was passed by the HPRB with substantial modification, meaning the proposed roof addition had to be smaller and situated further to the rear of the building.

The HPRB decision occurred on January 29, 2015. See an unfavorable review of the project from HPRB staff, written before the January 29 meeting, here.

The owner of the building explained she had owned and lived in the building, and then moved to the suburbs after she got married and started a family. She retained ownership of the house and rented it out. Now, the owner said, the suburban traffic had grown intolerable, so she and her husband had made the decision to move back into the District with two children.

However, the house, which was built sometime before 1870, is a little cramped for a modern family of four. Therefore, they are attempting to expand it. Following the suggestions by HPRB, the architect and owner agreed on a plan that expands the building further back but not as far up -- a concept more likely to get historic preservation approval.

However, the 20-inch rear expansion will put the house over limit for percent of lot occupancy, so zoning relief is necessary.

The ANC had requested letters from the directly abutting neighbors saying they had no objection to the project, and also a written guarantee that work would not start before 8 am. The applicants supplied these.

ANC6E Commissioner Rachelle Nigro (district 04), in whose district the property is located, said that several neighbors had come to the meeting and wish to speak. They were allowed to do so.

One, who said he pushed for the historic district designation in 1998, expressed outright support for the expansion. Another remarked that the personal details of the family should not influence the decision, meaning, the zoning rules should be applied uniformly whether the applicant was a family or a developer.

The person who spoke the longest was against the application. She identified herself as a 37-year resident, and was later acknowledged to be a former Advisory Neighborhood Commissioner.

"I came to talk generally about how the neighborhood should be," she said.

The purpose of zoning, she said, was to maintain places for people to live. Ridge Street was one of the few places left in Shaw that people could afford. Now, people were coming and making the housing prohibitively expensive by building them out.

"Either stay in the suburbs or find another place to live," she said.

This remark created a commotion in the room. People shouted "Rude!" and "That's not nice!"

After the audience comments were finished, Commissioner Nigro made a motion that the ANC oppose the request for zoning relief, but it died for lack of a second.

Then Commissioner Alexander Padro (district 01) made a motion to support the request for zoning relief, which passed by a vote of 6 - 1. Nigro was the only vote against. 

2024 15th Street: ANC1B Facilitates Negotiations Between Neighbors about Pop-back

Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street successfully facilitated an agreement between the owner of 2024 15th Street NW and a neighbor, so that the building will be able to "pop back" into a residence that will have four or five residential units. ANC1B's Zoning, Preservation and Development (ZPD) Committee voted unanimously to support the project after representatives of the neighbor came to the meeting and said they were satisfied with the outcome. The vote came at the ZPD Committee's February 23 meeting.

The darker grey on the left is the rear addition to the house

The neighbor had originally written a letter of protest about the development, which must get the approval of DC's Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) because it is located between U and V Streets in the U Street Historic District.

Patrick Nelson, ZPD Committee chair, said he had made a site visit to the property three weeks before and had spent two hours on the telephone with the neighbor a few days previous, addressing the neighbor's concerns.

The neighbor was out of town on business, but the neighbor's spouse and mother appeared at the meeting to confirm that the neighbor was satisfied with the outcome.

"He was very happy that someone took the time," Nelson said.

The neighbor was initially concerned about trash collection at the building once the expansion was complete, as well as a part of the proposed new construction which, the neighbor felt, would block light and air. The parties developing 2024 15th Street took the concerns on board and made changes.

"The modifications were not the ideal," the owner of 2024 15th Street told the committee.

The applicants told the committee they were planning to appear before the HPRB in three days' time, on February 26. This would be too soon to get approval from the full ANC, but the applicants were hoping to go to the HPRB with the committee's approval only.

The historic preservation aspects of the project were approved by the HPRB at its February 26 meeting. The HPRB staff report on the project (available here) calls the rear addition compatible with the historic district as a whole. It notes that it will not be visible from the front and is similar to rear additions to nearby houses already in place.

The rear additions will not increase the building's height, and the building will still have two parking spaces as required by zoning. The project does not require any zoning relief, so now that the HPRB has signed off on it, it can go ahead.

See the architectural drawings submitted to the HPRB here.

Weather permitting, ANC1B's regularly monthly meeting is scheduled for tonight, March 5, at 7 pm at the auditorium of the DC Housing Finance Agency, 815 Florida Avenue. This matter is not on the published agenda, which is available about half-way down this page.

(Photo credit: detail from applicant's HPRB submission)

New Blagden Alley Construction: "I Envision a Restaurant" Next to Rogue 24

A team from Douglas Development unveiled a plan for a new building to be constructed in Blagden Alley at a regularly-scheduled monthly meeting of a committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2F/Logan Circle on February 25. The address will be 920 N Street NW. The building will abut Rogue 24 restaurant to the east. The space is currently a fenced-in empty lot which sometimes functions as a sculpture garden or a location for outside events.

Black building (right): Artist's conception of proposal

Paul Millstein of Douglas Development told ANC2F's Community Development Committee (CDC) told the committee the project was "a matter of right from a zoning perspective", meaning, it will not be necessary to seek zoning relief. However, the design, concept, and massing of the building must be approved by DC's Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) because the building is located in the Blagden Alley/Naylor Court Historic District. 

The black building on the right of the picture is the proposed new building.  The architect told the CDC the plan is for the building to have a two-story, 32-foot-tall building with a black brick veneer. It would be three feet taller than La Colombe coffee shop (left in photo), but still well within the zoning-dictated limit of 50 feet tall. Its design would "differ from [neighboring] historic buildings but have certain nods".

"We wanted to see the reaction to the brick," one of the presenters said.

The reaction to the color of the brick was not positive. Many members of the committee said they thought it should be changed. Some said it would not be possible to exactly match the color of the brick of the neighboring structures but recommended that the new building have "a similar color".

The new construction would also have access to an improved roof deck over neighboring Rogue 24.

Paul Millstein said there was no tenant committed to the space yet, but the building was built with food service in mind.

"I envision a restaurant," he said.

This lead to a discussion of practical aspects of a restaurant operating in the space, such as valet parking and trash collection. Millstein said he thought the future restaurant would have valet parking on 9th Street.

The committee voted unanimously to recommend the full ANC endorse the historical aspects of the new construction, with the provision that Douglas Development work with HPRB on the color of the brick.

The CDC's unanimous endorsement of this project will now move to the full ANC for approval. The case is on the agenda for ANC2F's next regularly-scheduled meeting on Wednesday, March 4, at 7pm at the Washington Plaza Hotel (10 Thomas Circle). In the case of unanimous committee endorsements, the full ANC in the past has often ratified decisions without much further debate.

(Photo credit: from documents distributed at the CDC meeting by Douglas Development)

1508 Caroline Street: If Visible from Street, Then No

On January 29, DC's Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) rejected for a second time a proposed renovation of a brick duplex at 1508 Caroline Street NW in the U Street Historic District.

The property in November 2014

Caroline Street, just south of U Street between 15th and 16th Streets, is a row of identical duplex houses built around 1880. The group of houses have remained largely unmodified. The exception to this is the duplex home connected to 1508 Caroline Street, which got a third-story addition in 1888. The owner of this adjoining home bought 1508 Caroline Street and hoped to be able to add a pop-up to match the third story addition on the existing home (on the left of the photo).

The pop-up addition was endorsed by Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2B/Dupont Circle (see SALM blog post of November 19, 2014). The HPRB rejected the plan as represented to the ANC in November. Last week's rejection was of a modified version of the plan, somewhat less visible from the street.

"Even this amount of visibility is not compatible," said HPRB member Nancy Metzger.

The original design called for a two-story rear addition, a one-story side addition, and a basement entrance, as well as the third-story pop-up. HPRB staff accepted all elements except the pop-up -- see November 2014 staff report here. The Board accepted the staff report in a 4-3 decision, reported on page two of a four-page document here.

The owner and designer tried once again to get some addition to the height of the building approved. The new version of the design was set back 21 feet from the front and 4 feet from the side of the building. However, because this building (and all of the buildings on Caroline Street) are detached from their neighbors, the addition will still be visible from the street in front of the house. This did not seem to bother the architect designer.

"I think this won't really effect the aesthetic of the neighborhood," he told the board.

The HPRB asked the architect designer if he had conducted a "flag test" (see description on page three of document here), in which the applicant for HPRB approval sets up flags on the top of a building to demonstrate the dimensions of a proposed expansion and then invites HPRB staff to view the flags. The architect designer had not.

The board voted unanimously to accept a new staff report, which (like the November 2014 staff report) found the project to be "incompatible with the historic district". The Board told the owner and his architect designer that, should they decide to come back again, they were more likely to receive approval if they performed a flag test which demonstrated that planned modifications of the house would not be visible from the street.

I did not attend this meeting. I gathered the information for this report by watching a portion of the archived video of the January 29 meeting at the HPRB web site here. The portion of the meeting dealing with this property starts at time 1:41:23.

1330 Vermont Street: Single-family Logan Circle Home Pops Back to Five Units

A proposal that would allow a developer to convert a single-family row house at 1330 Vermont Avenue NW, a stone's throw from Logan Circle, to a five-unit building got endorsement from a committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2F/Logan Circle on January 29. ANC2F's Community Development Committee (CDC) unanimously approved the historical preservation elements of the concept, which would expand the building to the rear. No height would be added to the building.

The rear of the building now

If approved by the full ANC, the proposal will move on to DC's Historical Preservation Review Board (HPRB) for approval of concept. Jim Foster of Arcadia Design (1737 Johnson Avenue) told the committee the a DC official reviewed the project and found it is "by right", that is, it needs no zoning relief. (Foster did not yet have a letter to this effect from the DC government, he said, but he planned to get one soon.) If the historical preservation aspects of the expansion are approved, it needs no further consideration by the DC government.

"If you give approval, you won't see us again," Foster said.

Foster said the client for this project was DC developer John Casey.

Forster told the committee the expansion would add under 1,000 square feet to the building, which currently is about 4,000 square feet in size. As currently envisioned, the finished project would have two basement apartments, one ground-floor unit that with an entrance in the rear of the building from a small backyard, a single front-entrance unit with space on the ground and second floors, and a fifth unit which would be located on the third floor plus a mezzanine.

The fifth unit only would have access to a large roof deck. Forster characterized this unit as "the money unit" of the expansion. He said there would be a small elevator installed in the building to access this unit.

1330 Vermont from the front

The present rear wall of the property will be moved back, but there will still be space on the rear of the property for two parking spaces, which is the minimum required by zoning.

The committee asked if the abutting neighbors had been contacted. Foster said the abutting neighbor to the north had been contacted but the neighbor to the south had not been contacted. There was no mention of contacting the neighbors to the rear, whose houses face onto the 1300 block of Rhode Island Avenue but will look on the proposed expansion from the rear.

The committee urged Foster to show evidence of contacting the abutting neighbors when presenting the project to the full ANC.

The illustrations submitted to the committee made it look as if the expansion would be mostly covered in light blue aluminum siding. Foster reassured the committee that it would not be. First, Foster explained, the color ink that the printer used on the illustration did not accurately represent how the proposed project would look. Second, Foster said, the siding would be wood (perhaps pine or cedar) or "essentially wood", depending on how much the developer decided to spend.

ANC Commissioner Pepin Tuma (district 03) asked what "essentially wood" meant. Foster explained "essentially wood" meant something called "hardie plank siding" (called "hardie board siding" when explained here), which are cement boards artificially given the texture and color of wood.

Tuma is not on the CDC, but the proposed project is in his ANC district.

The expansion requires HPRB review because the building falls within two different historic districts -- the Logan Circle Historic District and the Greater Fourteenth Street Historic District.

The matter is on the agenda for the next meeting of the full ANC, scheduled for Wednesday, February 4, at 7pm, at the Washington Plaza Hotel (10 Thomas Circle). Matters approved unanimously by the CDC are normally passed by the full ANC without much further debate, barring unexpected appearance at the meeting of opposition from the community.

Consideration of this project was the only item on the CDC agenda for this meeting.

1618 14th Street: "That Wall Could Collapse at Any Point Right Now"

A structural engineer testified to DC's Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) on December 18, 2014, that the south wall of 1618 14th Street NW "represents a significant safety hazard" and "bracing should have been installed quite a while ago".

"That wall could collapse at any point right now," said Nathan Hicks of Robert Silman Associates, a Georgetown-based structural engineering firm, in testimony concerning the owner's application to knock the building down.

"I have severe concerns about the integrity of that wall and the potential for its collapse," said HPRB Chair Gretchen Pfaehler at the same meeting.

The building sits on the corner of 14th and Corcoran Streets. The unsafe wall under discussion was the wall that runs along the Corcoran Street side. As of three days ago, when I last saw the building, there was no visible exterior bracing, nor was there any indication to passing pedestrians that the building was potentially unsafe.

Stephen Jaffe, owner of 1618 14th Street

HPRB against raze of the building

After hearing testimony both for and against the raze, the HPRB voted 7-2 to reject the owner's application. Many board members made statements opposing the application.

"We've protected and preserved buildings in far worse condition," said Joseph Taylor.

"We need to preserve this building," said Robert Sonderman.

"I'm not convinced that the owner is not partially responsible for its condition and he hasn't been very aggressive about remediating it," said Maria Casarella.

Building owner testifies

Stephen Jaffe, the owner of the building, testified in favor of the demolition. He told the HPRB he had bought the building in the year 2000, but he had no idea it was structurally unsafe until the year 2012, when the interior dry wall was taken down and the extent of the damage to the building was made clear.

Jaffe also told the HPRB of his intentions concerning the size of a successor to the present two-story building -- should he ever get permission to knock it down.

"We're thinking that it's going to be the same or possibly a three-story building," Jaffe said. "But basically the same style to fit in with the neighborhood. We're not looking to make a big change in this building."

At another point in the hearing, Jaffe told the Board he owned two other buildings in DC historic districts -- one of which is the building which houses Le Diplomate restaurant, one block away on 14th Street.

Other testimony at the meeting detailed the building's history as the location of first an African-American-owned tailoring business, followed by a high end photo studio. A sex club took residency in part of the building in 1991, according to testimony, and eventually expanded to the entire building. The club allegedly made unauthorized changes to the building's interior walls and was the scene of a fire in 2005. The sex club was finally closed in 2009 after a man fell to his death there. 

The request to raze the building was conditionally endorsed in November, 2014, by a committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission 2F/Logan Circle (see SALM blog post of November 21, 2014). The committee's decision was ratified at the December 2014 meeting of the full ANC.

I did not attend this meeting. This report is based on viewing the archived video of the meeting, available here, starting a time 1:11:34.

(photo credit: screenshot of HPRB video of the meeting)

1504 Swann Street: Residence Expansion Domino Effect

On December 1st, a committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2B/Dupont Circle voted to support the expansion of 1504 Swann Street NW. Architect Julian Hunt, Founder and Chairman of Arts Coalition for Dupont Underground, is supervising the renovation and expansion of this home, which he has owned since 1998 and lives in. In a publicly-available zoning document, Hunt has said that one of the purposes of the renovation is "to adapt the house by going up to recapture the light and air."

Second floor to go on top of 1504 Swann Street

In the same document explains Hunt and his wife Lucretia Laudi (also an architect) had been living in the house for 14 years when "the adjacent house to the south was sold and an enormous addition (pop-back) was built in 2012 and completely closed off all the air and light..." for Hunt's property. Ironically, this expansion was made possible after the adjoining home had been downzoned, a process that is supposed to make expansion of homes more difficult. However, in this case, Hunt explained, downzoning removed Floor-to-Area Ratio (FAR) restrictions, which enabled the neighbor to expand the footprint of the structure on his property, and, as Hunt put it, erect a "monster" expansion.

The Zoning, Preservation and Development (ZPD) Committee of ANC1B heard the case on December 1. They voted to support both the historic preservation and the zoning aspects of the expansion of the house. I was not present for this portion of the meeting. In an email, ANC2B Chair Noah Smith (also Commissioner for district 09, where this property is located) gave the following reasons for ANC endorsement:

The support is based on the unique circumstances created by a neighbor's previous addition, which eliminated light and air for this property to the south. Swann Street is a beautiful and well-maintained historic street and this project will enhance it while adding an interesting, but not out of place, façade.

The proposed addition will add two additional stories, or about 20 feet, over  the structure in the picture above. On top will be a roof deck. According to drawings submitted to zoning authorities, the completed structure will be roughly as tall and as large as the neighbor's expansion. The new structure will contain a rental apartment, which the owners plan to use for income. This, they said in zoning documents, would allow them to "age in place" with "the security of a small income from the rental".

The expansion requires zoning relief because the building, built around 1870, is not in compliance with 1958 zoning regulations. It covers 100% of its lot, but zoning allows only 60%. In addition, zoning requires a rear yard, which is clearly not possible since the house covers the whole lot.

The historic preservation aspects will have to be reviewed by DC's Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) because the house is located in the U Street Historic District.

Endorsement of historic preservation and zoning aspects of this renovation is on the agenda for the next meeting of the full ANC, scheduled for Wednesday, December 10, at 7pm, at the Brookings Institution (1775 Massachusetts Avenue).

The plans for the expansion of 1504 Swann Street, along with other documents, are available from DC Interactive Zoning Information System here -- put in case number 18897 into the search bar.

Hunt's initial appearance in June before ANC2B in support of this project was the subject of the SALM blog post of July 1.

941 S Street: Planned Renovation for Long-time Vacant and Blighted Building

On November 17, the Design Review Committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street endorsed the historic preservation and zoning elements of a proposed renovation at 941 S Street NW. This building has been vacant for many years and was designated a vacant or blighted building by the DC government as of March 2012.

945 S Street on the left behind tree

This item is on the agenda for the meeting of tonight (December 4) of the full ANC. The meeting is scheduled for 7pm at the Banneker Recreation Center (2500 Georgia Avenue).

Online information says this building was built in 1885 and was sold in July 2014 for $985,000. At the November 17 meeting, the tale of this building unfolded bit by bit. It became vacant after the 1968 riots. The city acquired the property through tax liens. It stood empty for a long time -- "at least 10 years", according to one member of the Design Review Committee. The same member recalled trying unsuccessfully to buy the property "20 years ago".

This property is located in ANC1B district 02, which is currently vacant. It has fallen to the recently-elected (but not-yet-officially-seated) Commissioner for this district, Ellen Nedrow Sullivan, to do some research and other spadework that a sitting Commissioner might ordinarily do. Sullivan reported to the Committee. She said that, after the 2011 earthquake, the nearby Westminster Neighborhood Association, of which she had been member, had determined who in the DC government had the authority to sell the long-vacant building. There had been a successful push over a long period by the neighbors and the Association to get it sold.

Unsurprisingly, the Westminster Neighborhood Association also supports the request for the necessary approvals from DC's Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) and zoning authorities so the building can stop being an eyesore and start being somebody's home.

The property falls under HPRB's jurisdiction because it is located in the U Street Historic District.

There will be a new rear roof deck addition to the house. This addition will not be visible from the street, and will not put the property over 60% lot coverage, so no zoning relief is required for this particular aspect. The sole zoning relief required will be for a side court on the property. The Committee supported this unanimously and members said that this type of zoning relief was granted in 99% of the cases. 

The committee also endorsed the historic preservation aspects of the renovation but suggested that cement not be used as a material. However, a member of the committee who objected to cement said if HPRB could live with cement, it was OK with him.

The owner and his architect said the renovation included painted brick and "all new windows to historic standards". There would also be a green roof, they said.

Both the HPRB and zoning aspects of this renovation received unanimous endorsement in separate resolutions.

(Photo credit: Google Street View)

St. Thomas' Parish Church Tries Again

St. Thomas Parish Episcopal Church (1772 Church Street NW) was back before a committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2B/Dupont Circle on December 1. Their representatives presented a revised design for a controversial plan to expand the church and construct multi-story residential units at the site on the corner of 18th and Church Streets.  The revised plan dropped more than 1000 square feet from the previous iteration of the building.

It would not look as tall from the street (photo credit below)

Some neighbors attending the meeting of ANC2B's Zoning, Preservation and Development (ZPD) Committee complimented the new design, but there were also attendees who were determined to object to any construction on the site. A representative of developers CAS Reigler called these objectors "the elephant in the room".

Laurence Caudle of Hickok Cole Architects presented the new plan. He said Hickok Cole had "taken over" the project. Previously, the project had two architects -- one for the residential portion, another for the church. Hickok Cole had been in charge of the residential portion of the project and MTFA Architecture had been in charge of the church portion. It seemed like MTFA Architecture had left the project -- but the name of the firm was never mentioned at this meeting, and did not appear on the latest plans for the project.

"We switched design teams in midstream," said Kevin Reigler of CAS Reigler.

Size is the issue

Laurance Caudle, presenting the revised plans, said the new design was "less of a block". The total area of the residential building is between 1,000 and 1,200 square feet less than before. The upper stories were set back further from the street, so that a person standing on the sidewalk on the far side of Church Street would not see any stories above the fifth story (see example in photo above).

"This breaks it down to essentially a five-story building," Caudle said.

"We've effectively lowered the mass of the building one story," Caudle said at another point.

However, the rear side of building, facing an alley, still looks like a seven-story building, as the neighbors were quick to point out. One Church Street resident said that DC's Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) had recommended a larger church and a smaller residential component, but this revised design did not follow this recommendation.

"You say that it's 50 feet [tall] when it's really 80 feet," the neighbor said.

Ramon Estrada, President of the Dupont Circle Citizens Association, said: "The project still looks too big, too massive, too tall."

"If the HPRB says shave this further, you're prepared to come back?" Estrada asked.

The presenters answered that they were.

The plans are a "moving target"

The presenters said they met with a committee of neighbors three times in the last month, and had sent to the interested neighbors a set of revised plans shortly before Thanksgiving, i.e., about 4-5 days before the meeting, as they had promised. The neighbors came to the meeting prepared to comment on these plans. However, the plans that were presented to the ZPD Committee were further revised, that is, they were not the same as the pre-Thanksgiving plans sent to the neighbors. There seemed to be suspicions that somebody was trying to get away with something.

"I am becoming less and less sympathetic to this concept of evolving plans. We were presented with a different set of plans," said Noah Smith, ANC2B Chair and Commissioner for district 09.

"We're simply trying to respond to comments," said Kevin Reigler.

"I'm very concerned with this moving target," said Commissioner Mike Silverstein (district 06).

The presenters' goal, they said, was to get an agreement on the "massing" of the building (meaning, the general shape and size) before moving on to matters like the materials used on the exterior, the design of the rear loading area, traffic patterns, shape and size of the windows, and so on. The presenters said that massing was the only issue the neighbors wanted to talk about so far.

After a lot of discussion, the ZPD Committee decided they would review the newer version of the plans, and said ANC2B would publicly post them. This promise has already been kept -- see a 39-page .pdf file of this version of these plans here.

Members of the committee will review the documents and prepare a draft resolution ready for the next full meeting of ANC2B, scheduled for December 10, at 7pm, at the Brookings Institution (1775 Massachusetts Avenue). The resolution would address the concept and massing of the building only. It would be worded to make clear that any approval of the concept and massing should not be construed as approval of other aspects of the design, e.g. the materials or colors.

See the full agenda for the December 10 meeting of ANC2B here.

(photo credit: detail from a drawing presented by Hickok Cole to the ZPD Committee)

1918 11th Street: Restoration, Renovation, Addition

On November 17, the Design Review Committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 1B/U Street unanimously endorsed the historic preservation aspects of a planned renovation at 1918 11th Street NW, on the west side between T and U Streets.

1918 11th Street (photo credit below)

From the project description submitted to the Design Review Committee: "This project includes the restoration, renovation and addition of an existing 2-story + cellar building. A 3 story addition will be constructed at the rear, and the new building will be converted into a residential flat...."

According to Design Review Committee records, Eric Gellman of Bonstra Haresign Architects presented.

There will be a total of four parking spaces under the new design -- two official, "legal" parking spaces at the rear edge of the property, plus two "tandem" parking spaces. The latter means the parking spaces will be inside the legal parking spaces, so cars in the tandem parking spaces could not leave unless the car in the legal parking space was first moved.

There will also be a new spiral staircase at the rear of the building, which would allow direct access to the new apartment at the third floor rear. The third floor addition would not be visible from the street. There would be a roof deck on the third floor as well, toward the front of the building, to the rear of an newly-added skylight.

The windows, roof, and interior of the building would also be renovated.

This matter will probably be on the agenda of the next meeting of the full ANC. Unless someone shows up at the meeting with a serious objection, it will probably be approved without much further discussion.

The ANC meeting is scheduled for Thursday, December 4, at 7pm, at the Banneker Recreation Center, 2500 Georgia Avenue NW. It will then move on to the HPRB for final approval.

The renovation requires HPRB approval because the property is located in the U Street Historic District.

Online information shows this home was sold for $625,000 in May 2014.

(photo credit: from documents submitted to the Design Review Committee)

9th & L Street PUD: "You'd Have an Attitude Too If It Were Your Money"

A committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2F/Logan Circle, the developers of a large parcel of land at 9th and L Streets NW, and various community members took a first crack at hammering out some sort of deal at its November 19 meeting. The deal would take the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), in which the developers would give money to certain community and school groups in the vicinity of the planned development. In return, the developers would be able to forego the long and uncertain process of applying to the DC government for many individual instances of zoning relief.

Artist's conception of the development (photo credit below)

It will be difficult to come to an agreement that pleases all parties, if the lengthy discussion at the last meeting of ANC2F's Community Development Committee (CDC) is any indication. From the summary of the meeting on ANC2F's website: "Several members of both the Committee and community rebuked what they felt was a closefisted $15,000 in financial support..."

The developers did not think they were closefisted. A leader of the development team -- Robert Knopf, Senior Vice-President of the Quadrangel Development Company -- said: "I think we've gone out of our way to accommodate everyone's request."

A few minutes later, a committee member told Knopf had an "argumentative attitude".

"You'd have an attitude too, if it were your money," Knopf shot back.

Jockeying for a piece of the PUD

PUDs are complex animals governed by a bewildering variety of laws, regulations, and customs. Lawyers get paid handsomely to understand them. My understanding, by comparison, is rudimentary.

However, I believe that the money or other benefits that developers are supposed to hand over to the community as part of a PUD are in theory supposed to defray or help repair damage that the proposed development will cause. For example, this development may render one or two small parks nearby (specifically, 10th Street Park and Samuel Gompers Park) less inviting during construction and more in need of cleaning up after the construction is finished. 

So, groups of "friends of" these parks came forward to ask for a contribution to upkeep and improvement as part of the PUD. At the meeting, a representative of the developers said that a group that supports one of the parks asked for an annual contribution of $500. The developers consulted with DC zoning officials and discovered they don't like open-ended commitments of money. So the developers are now offering a one-time payment of $2,500 to each park. The supporters of Samuel Gompers park have accepted the offer, the developers reported. But there was some confusing talk later in the meeting about whether this was really the case.

The developers seemed less enthusiastic about supporting other groups who wished to claim some PUD benefits. In one case, a community association in Logan Circle wished to get a contribution toward the maintenance of streetside tree boxes. Discussion at the meeting indicated the developers considered supporting this request until they discovered the tree boxes would not be anywhere near the site of the development, and therefore would not compensate for damage to the community. In at least one case, they said, the tree boxes to be beautified would be in front of a competing hotel. The developers cut this project out of its proposal.

Another group pursuing financial support from developers was from Thompson Elementary School (1200 L Street). This request seemed to greatly raise the ire of Robert Knopf of Quadrangle Development, because the school asked for $2,500 to fund a ski trip for the school. He said at the meeting that a ski trip was an inappropriate use of PUD money. Some members of the community reminded Knopf that some of the children who go to the school reside very near the site of the construction. In addition, the ski trip is a opportunity to get urban-dwelling kids out of the inner-city. Knopf gave no indication he was convinced by these arguments.

After much debate, CDC Chair Walt Cain (Commissioner for district 02) asked the developers to consider what was said at the meeting. He said the developers should come back with their "best and final offer", identify specifically what public benefits are on offer, and show comparisons with other projects with PUDs.

"We're giving you an opportunity to take the feedback and respond to the feedback," Cain said.

See explanations of the PUD process -- one by the U Street Neighborhood Association here and another by the blog Greater Greater Washington here.

This project has already cost developers more than anticipated (they said at this meeting) as they are obliged to partially salvage, renovate, and integrate a handful of historic buildings into the city-block wide development. The developers made an unsuccessful attempt to get permission to demolish one historically protected building on L Street. This was the subject of SALM blog posts on September 30, October 21, and October 28.

(Photo credit: from publicly-available documents of DC's Office of Planning. Please note that the image is not the latest iteration of the design, specifically, it does not include historic buildings that were originally slated to be torn down but now will be preserved.)

Sex Club Building Conditional Demolition Endorsement from ANC Committee

A committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2F/Logan Circle voted unanimously to give conditional endorsement to a request to raze 1618 14th Street NW. For years until 2009, the building was the site of the gay sex club "Men's Parties", which was closed after a man fell to his death on premises.

1618 14th is at the corner of Corcoran (Luis Gomez Photos)

The support for the demolition of the building is "strictly contingent" on the retention of the 14th Street facade of the building, according to the resolution passed by the Community Development Committee (CDC) of ANC2F.

The request to the committee was made by the "personal attorney since 1989" of Stephen Jaffe, the owner of the building. A NBC4 report about the lawsuit by the DC government following the 2009 death says the building was owned by 1618 14th Street LLC, "a company listed at 9464 Newbridge Dr. in Potomac, Md., the home of Stephen and Pirjo Jaffe."

The case for the raze

Accompanying the attorney was Peter Neubauer of Neubauer Consulting Engineers.

The attorney began his presentation by warning the committee the discussion and vote should be about the demolition only, and not "what comes after".

The attorney and the engineer detailed recent study of the building. The building has been "fully vacated" since December 2010. An architect retained in 2011 recommended facade repairs and full interior demolition. In May 2012, an internal demolition of the building received official approval and was done. The true condition of the building was revealed. Moisture at ground level had rotted the floorboard and led to termite infestation according to Neubauer.

A June 2013 raze request met objections from ANC2F and DC's Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB). There has been some further study since then.

The building is in terrible condition and some of the walls are bowing. It is structurally unsound, Neubauer said. In order to restore the south wall facing Corcoran Street, for example, the original bricks in the wall would have to be removed individually or in groups and then replaced. Some of the wall would be lost in the process.

"The brick is failing," Neubauer said.

Three sides of the building (south, west, north) are unsound in part because the bricks are only two-deep. However, the east wall is three-deep (the usual standard). The engineer said in response to committee questioning that the east wall (facing 14th Street) was not structurally unsound.

Historic Preservation attends the meeting

The new raze request seems to have the support of HPRB, although that support is not yet official. Steve Callcott of HPRB appeared in support of the raze request, waiting patiently for over two hours while the CDC considered other matters.

Callcott said the building dates from the 1870s.

"It probably wasn't intended to last this long," he said. "It's significant for that reason. It's a nice reflection of the earliest period of the neighborhood."

However, as the structural integrity of the building is failing, the building may no longer be considered a contributing building to the 14th Street Historic District, in which it is located. 

New ANC Commissioner responds

This building is located in ANC2F district 01. Katherine Gordon was elected earlier this month to be the Commissioner for this district after running unopposed. Her term will start in January.

Gordon told the committee she had spoken to neighbors and the building has been a problem since 2001. (Jaffe bought the property in 2005.) The building owner has not listened to neighbor complaints about the condition of the building since he owned it.

"It has been demolition by neglect," Gordon said.

"I've been expecting this," the attorney replied.

Jaffe only became aware of their concerns after "the 2009 horrific event".

"The neighbors never voiced concerns." the attorney said. "My client was unaware of their concerns."

"If my client had been aware of concerns," the attorney said, "my client would have responded."

The attorney said the building owner now addressed graffiti and vermin problems "weekly".

The raze application resolution will now move to the full ANC for approval. The next meeting of ANC2F is scheduled for Wednesday, December 10, at 7pm, at the Washington Plaza Hotel (10 Thomas Circle).

All requests (like this one) to demolish contributing buildings in a designated historic district must be heard by the Mayor's Agent in the DC Office of Planning.

1508 Caroline Street: ANC Says Popup OK, Just This Once

Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2B/Dupont Circle voted unanimously to endorse a request to add two additional stories on a residence on Caroline Street NW, one of which will be visible from the street. The unanimous endorsement occurred at the ANC's regular monthly meeting on November 12.

The aim is to make it symmetrical-looking from the street.

At the meeting, and in the resolution subsequently approved by the ANC (see text halfway down the page here), it was emphasized that this property had a unique situation and the approval of additional stories should in no way be construed as setting a precedent for the neighborhood.

Caroline Street is runs one block from 15th Street to 16th Street, just south of U Street. With the exception of 1508 Caroline Street, it is made of matching pairs of two-story houses, constructed at the same time in the 1880s.

A third story was added on 1508 Caroline Street sometime before 1900. This makes it the only three-story building on the block, and the only building on the block which does not match its next-door neighbor.

The new owner of 1508 Caroline Street has also owned 1506 Caroline Street next door since 1989. He told the ANC he had meet with neighbors two weeks ago to brief them on his plans for the renovation and expansion. It includes a complete interior renovation and the removal of the chain link fence in front of the house, which the owner believed was the last chain link fence in the neighborhood.

HRPB placarding on the property

The owner said the basement will also be excavated to create a basement apartment. The apartment will have a side entrance which will not be visible from the street.

On top of the new third floor, built to match its neighbor, there will be a fourth floor, set back nine feet two inches from the front of the third floor.

Tom Bauer, President of the Dupont Circle Conservancy, testified that his group intended to endorse the "unique semidetached" project. The renovation would make the pair of buildings look more consistent and historic.

"This third story should not set a precedent," Bauer said.

The owner of neighboring 1510 Caroline Street asked about the time of day when construction would take place. The owner said construction work would generally take place during normal working hours with "rare" weekend work.

Since the building is in the U Street Historic District, the renovation and expansion must get the approval of the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB). Consideration of the project on the HPRB's agenda for its next pair of meetings, the first of which is on November 20.

However, the proposed matching third-story popup on the front of 1508 Caroline Street has not been viewed favorably by HPRB staff -- see report here. The rest of the project, including the two-story rear addition and the basement alterations, raised no objections.

Online records show this building was last sold in July 2014 for $725,000.

Historic Preservation Moves to Fix Website Reboot

DC government offices has fixed some of the broken links and other problem created by the migration of the Office of Planning (OP) to a new web platorm -- see SALM blog post of October 20. However, hundreds of links to official documents from this blog and other web sites are still broken, and are likely to remain that way for an indefinite period.

(logo from OP website)

The Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) and its staff at the Historic Preservation Office (HPO) are part of the Office of Planning. OP and HPRB officials say that fixes have been made and continue to be made, and a back catalog of official documents will be reposted. But it is not certain if all of the documents which were posted on the HPRB website in its previous incarnation will eventually return.

The following problems have been remedied:

• Google searches for "HPRB" or "Historical Preservation Review Board" now lead to the agency's home page, instead of a broken link.
• On the OP's default "404 - page not found" page, the non-working "link" to the non-existent page (named, "www.op.dc.gov") has been replaced with a working link to "planning.dc.gov".
• The abbreviated URL (tinyurl.com/887zoy8) that HPRB posts on its mandatory public placarding now leads to HPRB's home page, instead of a "404" page.

Other problems remain to be addressed.

The old HPRB site contained meeting agendas and HPRB actions documents going back to 2010. As of this writing, the current site only has these documents for the last two months, that is, October and September 2014. In an email, Tanya Stern, OP's Chief of Staff, said: "We will post Agenda and HPRB Actions documents for each HPRB before September 2014 back to October 2010 starting with the most recent meetings first."

Prior to the website migration, HPRB also had many staff reports about historic buildings online. These reports were from the same period -- 2010 to 2014. Concerning re-posting these documents, Stern said: "...we are determining the timeframe for how far back the new site will host older reports.... [T]he new site is a new platform; we are still learning its capabilities for hosting the large volume of OP content."

Stern added that reports not found online could be requested individually.

There are -- ballpark guess -- 1,400-1,500 HPRB staff reports from this period which could be reposted. Stern said: "OP has a small number of staff who are trained on how to post web content on this platform..."

She continued: "I don't have a timeframe for when we will make a decision about how far back older content will be available online..." However, Stern estimated the decision would be made in the next few months.

About the possibility of creating automatic redirect pages, so that this blog (and a dozen more like it, as well as ANC pages, local historic preservation interest sites, and others) will not have to comb through its back catalog and re-assign old links, Stern said: "Given the huge volume of OP content online -- we are told ours is one of the largest District agency sites in terms of volume of content -- I doubt it will be possible to create automatic redirect pages for each page."

Thank you to Bruce Yarnall and Tanya Stern of OP for answering my emails.

See 2013 snapshot of HPRB's previous site from the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine here.

"Endangered" L Street Building to Be Retained, Moved

A part of 911 L Street NW in Shaw, a historically-protected Civil War-era building that made the DC Preservation League's 2014 "Most Endangered Places" list, will saved from the wrecking ball, preserved, and moved down the block. This was announced at an October 23 public hearing of the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB).

911-913 L Street (DC Preservation League, by permission)

The raze of the building, along with the building next door at 913 L Street, was endorsed by a committee of Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 2F/Logan Circle on September 24, and then by the full ANC on October 1, before it appeared on the "Most Endangered Places" list, published on October 8.

Steve Callcott of HPRB staff said that the "transitional Greek revival townhouse" at 911 L Street was "a rarity" and "arguably the more important of the two" buildings, owing to its age. In a deal approved by the DC Preservation League and the developers of a complex of hotels and residences slated to go on the block where the building is located, the building will be retained "to a depth of 16 feet" and moved down L Street until it is adjacent with another historically-protected building. The facades of the buildings will be preserved, and the interiors renovated.

Screenshot of planned development from HPRB video archive

The picture on the left is a the architect's photoshopped vision of what the preserved building will look like as part of the completed hotel and apartment complex. The preserved and renovated version of 911 L Street is the three-story building with the black roof in the lower center.

913 L Street is still slated for complete demolition, however. The fate of both  buildings will probably remain on the November agenda of J. Peter Byrne, the Georgetown University professor of law who is also the Mayor's Agent for historical preservation. The Mayor's Agent has to approve the demolition of any building in a designated historic district. 911 and 913 L Street are located in in the Shaw Historic District.

The demolition of these buildings is a small part of a large land-use deal which  is part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). See a short explanation of PUDs here and 21 pages of official PUD regulations here. The PUD is on the agenda for tomorrow's meeting of ANC2F's Community Development Committee, scheduled for 7pm at the Washington Plaza Hotel (10 Thomas Circle).

HPRB live-streams its meetings and then preserves them in a video archive. The discussion of the deal to preserve part of 911 L Street can be seen by going to this page and clicking on the link for the October 23 meeting, then clicking the tab labelled "Shaw Historic District".