Architectural Review Committee Report: June 2017

ARC Members attending: Christine Hobbs, Lois Orr, David Kay, Stefan Hurray, Danny Ince, Phil Eagleburger, Anne Weir, and Ron Ngiam.


3030 Macomb Street, NW

Owners: Robert Welp and Carmel Martin

Agent: Robin McGrew, Cunningham|Quill

Located on Macomb Street, facing Ross Place, the property is adjacent to the Tregaron Conservancy on the south. The original house was built in 1906 with a major addition added in 1999. The proposal includes the enclosure of a smaller side front porch which was added during the 1999 renovation and is located on the east side of the house. The proposal also includes the replacement of windows on the east, south and west sides of the house on the first floor, the addition of a rear screened porch on the lower level and new landscaping. The neighbors have been contacted.

The ARC has no objection to the proposal but suggests that horizontal elements be added to the new fixed glass panels particularly on the east side which is visible from the street.

The motion passed 8-0.


2938 Newark Street, NW

Owner: Judy Hubbard

Agent: Jane Treacy, Treacy Eagleburger

The house was built in 1923. The proposal includes the construction of an extension of the front porch roof on the front and east side of the house in order to extend the roof to the entry vestibule. Materials would match the existing materials. The neighbors have been contacted.

The ARC has no objection to the proposal.

The motion passed 7-0 with one recusal.


3225 33rd Place, NW

Owner: Matthew Offen

Agent: Henry Chuang, Thomson & Cooke

The proposal includes the construction of a new garage off the public alley that runs from 33rd Place between Macomb and Lowell and is parallel to both 33rd Place and Macomb Street. The proposed garage is 20 feet in height with the garage door being 9 feet in height and the structure would be 647 square feet in area. The prior garage was heavily damaged by a fallen tree. The proposed garage is significantly larger than the neighboring garages. Materials include brick and hardiplank. The neighbors have been contacted.

While the proposed garage is not visible from the street, the ARC finds the proposed structure to be too massive in size and height and encourages the owners to redesign a smaller structure more in scale with the existing alley structures.

The motion passed 8-0.


  Read More »

Architectural Review Committee Report: May 2017

ARC Members attending: Phil Eagleburger, Tina Mead, Danny Ince, Anne Weir, Ron Ngiam, Win Brown, Stefan Hurray, and David Kay. Also attending were Carin Ruff, CPHS Executive Director and Nick Netchvolodoff, CPHS Board President.

HPA 17-247: 3035 Rodman Street, NW

Concept/two-story rear addition (revised)

Owners: Federico Asch and Ana Barac

Agent: KUBE architecture

The house is a Sears kit house built in 1921. The proposal includes the demolition of several previous rear additions, the construction of new rear additions and deck, and new dormer on the east side. The siding on the front of the new second story dormer would match the existing siding. In the rear, hardieplank would be used. The neighbors have been contacted. This the second presentation of the proposal, which has been revised reflecting feedback.

The ARC commends the breaking up of the massing of the rear addition into stepped components of rear dormer, first floor addition, and base (basement) addition. Aligning the sides of the upper two components and having those placed symmetrically in plan on the rear massing of the house are also improvements.

The new east dormer, however, should precisely mirror the size, length, and profile of the existing west dormer. Its prominence and visibility from the front require deference to the pronounced symmetry of the Sears house’s original façade. As presented it extends too far to the east. (See note.) Although an argument could be made that the two dormers should be differentiated to distinguish new work from old, if the difference is too subtle, the ill-proportion dormer (the longer one) will be perceived as a “mistake” or bastardization of the original dormer. The better option is simply to match the original, if a dormer is to be added at all. The ARC feels that deferring to the symmetry of the original house is the overriding concern.

The motion passed 6-2.

Note: The previous ARC recommendation that the east dormer “be indented two feet to reflect the existing dormer,” was intended to do just that: literally reflect the existing dormer and it was expected that the two feet cited would achieve that. Somehow this did not achieve that intent but regardless, and as a possible clue to the confusion, it should be noted that there are numerous drafting errors on the current drawing package (4/28/17): Dwg#2 on A-117 incorrectly shows the intersection of the line of the NE roof hip, and the side of the proposed rear dormer; Conversely Dwg#2 on A-119 incorrectly shows the same condition (NW roof hip and side of rear dormer); Additionally on Dwg#2 on A-118 the existing west dormer (shown in the distance to the right of the rear dormer) is not consistent with what is shown on the west and south elevations – It appears to be shown too short in length, which may have lent to the “two feet” instruction noted above.

HPA 16-053: Tregaron, 3100 Macomb Street NW

Revised concept/construction of new classroom building and site alterations at Washington International School

Agents: Clayton Lewis, Head of School and Doug Bothner, Ziger/Snead

Several previous proposals have been presented by the school. (Please see previous ARC reports for brief background and proposal descriptions). The current proposal, Revision #4 (April 28, 2017), responds to previous criticism by reducing the footprint by ~30%; reducing the height from 31’ to 28’; reducing the building length by 39%, for a total length of 81’; and preserving most of the woodland slope behind the existing gym.

Approximately twenty concerned neighbors attended the meeting, primarily those who border the north side of the property, on Macomb Street. Those who spoke expressed various concerns, from disagreement with the style of the design, to disagreement with placement of any building in the proposed location. Several who spoke raised issues that are not within the ARC’s purview, such as construction management and parking demand management. ARC also received three letters, one supporting the project, and two against the project.

The ARC reviewed the project within the context of four major categories: siting, campus effect, massing, and materials.


Within the context of the historic house, landscape, and property, the ARC concludes that the placement of the proposed building on the edge of the north slope neatly conceals the addition from the important viewsheds of and about the historic house while at the same time addressing the haphazardness of the “backside” of the academic campus that has evolved over the years. The several iterations of the proposal have resulted in several reductions in size, to a point that the size of the current proposal is more in keeping with existing buildings on the campus.

One attendee pointed out that the current proposal no longer wraps the backside of the existing gym, leaving its haphazard side exposed. The ARC considered this, but concluded that the dense foliage that would remain under the current proposal mitigates the exposure of the existing gym. As noted in a previous review, the ARC thought that the insertion of the building in the proposed location was acceptable relative to the total acreage of the property and felt that the project represented a reasonable evolution in the usage of the property that was sufficiently respectful of the historic landscape.

Campus effect:

The ARC feels that the proposed building would lend unity and focus to the ensemble of historic buildings and help define them as a campus. It would improve the hierarchy of buildings and connections, both internal and external, producing a pleasing, thriving amenity that complements the Cleveland Park neighborhood as a whole.


The reductions in size and massing over the several iterations of the design have been notable. The ARC believes that the current massing is now quite comparable to that of the adjacent carriage house. The roof profile also fits with the existing higher buildings on the campus. Therefore, the proposed building appears to fit well with the existing group.

The ARC has one concern, however: the prominence of the tallest corner of the addition that is physically situated closest to Macomb Street. The removal of the previously-proposed portion of the building that was to have wrapped the existing gym exposed and made more prominent that remaining corner of the addition. This may or may not be a problem but it should be noted as an issue of concern to be addressed in the course of further development of the design.


The ARC agrees with the concept of reducing the variety of materials used to render the building. There is also general agreement among ARC members on the mix of glass planes, steel verticals, and silvery masonry base, and with the notion of a “pleated” look to the façade, and a contemporary character to the style of the building. Several public attendees registered negative views of these features, some preferring more receding or a more traditional style.

Additionally, there was some discussion at the public meeting about the path of the sun and whether it would or would not shine directly on the north façade. The proposed building does not face precisely due north (it is rotated somewhat to the east). Nevertheless, the ARC concludes that the low angle of the rising summer sun coupled with dense foliage of mid-summer would mitigate direct reflections.

The ARC concluded that the state of the design of the materials at this point is as yet not clearly resolved, and perhaps teeters between being terrific or being not good at all. One public attendee likened the look to a “shipping container.” Careful execution of the particulars of the exterior rendering of the building will be essential to avoiding too boxy an appearance and to the success of the intention to make the building disappear in the surrounding woods.

Related to the materials discussion is the question of whether foliage will completely conceal the building or not. There are differing opinions on what is possible or desirable in this regard. Some public attendees thought that the building should be totally concealed and believed that the collateral damage to trees from construction, coupled with the time required for new growth, was an untenable prospect.

The ARC acknowledges the concerns about limiting loss of trees and encouraging speedy new growth. However, in keeping with its architectural review mandate, the ARC is evaluating the proposal as a permanent addition to the ensemble of buildings within the landmark, in the context of a natural landscape that will be continually growing and changing around it. By that standard, the proposed building is a compatible addition to the historic estate and to the Cleveland Park Historic District.

The motion passed 8-0.

  Read More »

Architectural Review Committee Report: April 2017

Cleveland Park Historical Society Architectural Review Committee

Monday, April 10, 2017


ARC Members attending: Christine Hobbs, Lois Orr, David Kay, Win Brown, Stefan Hurray, Danny Ince, Phil Eagleburger, and Ron Ngiam.

Also attending was Carin Ruff, CPHS Executive Director.


HPA 17-298

3501 Newark Street, N.W.

Owners: Jim and Jane Manzi

Agent: Carolyn Brown, Donohue Stearns

The property is “the farmhouse” facing The Rosedale Conservancy to the south. The farmhouse is thought to be the oldest home still standing on its original site in Washington, DC, and the surrounding grounds with its terraced lawn have a history dating back to the 1700s. By the early 20th century, there appear to have been picket fences on the east and west sides of the house, but not across the front. The grounds of the Rosedale Conservancy are well used by neighbors and their dogs, as was intended at the time of the creation of the Conservancy. However, in recent years, neighbors and dogs have increasingly intruded on to the private property of the farmhouse. The owners wish to erect a fence along the south property line to block these intrusions. The proposal calls for an approximately 4 foot white picket fence.

The ARC sympathizes with the concerns of the home owners and supports the idea of a physical barrier between the “dog park” and the owners’ front yard. (The motion passed 7-1).

However, the ARC does not support the construction of a 4-foot high white picket fence. Such a fence would be too visible, solid and high. The ARC recommends a shorter, “invisible” fence, perhaps cable, combined with shrubs and landscaping to create a wide, not tall barrier; such a barrier would be more transparent and natural. (The motion passed 8-0.)

  Read More »

Architectural Review Committee Report: March 2017

Cleveland Park Historical Society Architectural Review Committee

Monday, March 13, 2017


ARC Members attending: Christine Hobbs, Lois Orr, Ana Evans, David Kay, Tina Mead, Stefan Hurray, Danny Ince, and Ron Ngiam.

Also attending was Carin Ruff, CPHS Executive Director.


3035 Rodman Street, N.W.

Owners: Federico Asch and Ana Barac

Agent: Richard Loosle-Ortega and Jorge Concepcion, KUBE architecture

The house was built in 1921. The proposal includes the demolition of several previous rear additions, the construction of a new rear addition and deck, and new dormer on the east side. The siding on the front of the new second story dormer would match the existing siding. In the rear, HardiePlank would be used. The neighbors have been contacted.

The ARC feels that the proposed addition does not defer sufficiently to the existing house and recommends that the rear addition be designed to balance with the symmetry of the front facade. The ARC also has concerns with the massing, especially since the northwest corner of the second floor will be visible from the street, since there is no house on the west side of the property. The proposed dormer should be indented two feet to reflect the existing dormer.

The motion passed 8-0.


3017 Rodman Street, N.W.

Owners: Susan Ratigan

Agent: Michael Bruckwick , Katinas Bruckwick Architecture

The house was built in 1921. The proposal includes the construction of two additional dormers in the front of the house and the construction of an additional dormer at the rear of the second floor. The materials will match the existing materials on the house. The neighbors have been contacted.

The ARC notes that the addition of front dormers constitutes a substantial change in the primary façade that is not consistent with past practices in the Cleveland Park Historic District. The ARC also had concerns about the massing in the rear. However, since no rear elevation was presented, the ARC was not able evaluate the proposal fully. The ARC requests that the missing information be provided.

The motion passed 8-0.

  Read More »

Architectural Review Committee Report: January 2017

Cleveland Park Historical Society Architectural Review Committee
Monday, January 9, 2017

ARC Members attending: Phil Eagleburger, Christine Hobbs, Stefan Hurray, Ron Ngiam, Lois Orr, Anne Weir.

Also attending were Carin Ruff, CPHS Executive Director, and Emma Hersh, ANC3C-05 Commissioner.

HPA 17-126
3700 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Concept/new construction of a single-family house
Architect: Dynerman Architects PC: Alan Dynerman, Bill Putnam
Owner: Donald Malnati, Murillo/Malnati Group LLC

The proposal is for a three-story house to replace the existing house. The new house would be clad in brick, with a main entrance on Connecticut Avenue and a secondary entrance on Rodman Street. The footprint of the existing house would be extended somewhat to the north.

The existing house was originally a 1920 bungalow like its neighbors on Rodman, but it was declared noncontributing by HPRB in 2006 because of the extent of changes it had undergone prior to the creation of the historic district. The property is subject to a National Park Service conservation easement dating to 1998 which limits any replacement structure to a single-family house, no more than 40 feet high, “substantially in the same location, type, and general dimensions” as the existing house. The design for any replacement structure is subject to the approval of the National Park Service. The owners intend to seek NPS approval after completing the HPRB review process.

The ARC previously saw plans for this property in February and March 2016. After reviewing the first version of the plans, the ARC requested that the applicants reconsider the Rodman Street entrance to provide a better transition from the house to the parking area. The ARC voted no objection to the revised design presented in March 2016. The current plans have been redesigned to reduce the massing somewhat, reduce the extent to which the new house would impinge on the Rodman Street driveway area in response to neighbor and ANC concerns, and simplify the design of the Connecticut Avenue entrance by straightening the stair in response to an HPO staff request.

The architect reports that the neighbor to the west on Rodman has been contacted and has expressed an intention to support the project.

The ARC has no objection to the project as presented. However, the ARC believes that the property’s setting in the Cleveland Park Historic District and on Connecticut Avenue demands high-quality materials and detailing. The ARC would like to see careful attention to these matters as the project is developed further following concept review.

The motion passed 6-0.

  Read More »

New Guide to Preservation Design Review

CPHS has published an updated procedural guide to preservation design review in Cleveland Park. Download the guide here, or view it as a web page.

If you are planning work on your historic district property or are preparing to present a project to our Architectural Review Committee, everything you need to know is there, including contact information for our ARC, ANC3C, and the DC Historic Preservation Office; sample project presentations; and links to Historic Preservation Office design guidelines.

  Read More »

Architectural Review Committee Report: December 2016

ARC Members attending: Ana Evans, David Kay, Danny Ince, Win Brown, Stefan Hurray, Anne Weir, Ron Ngiam, Tina Mead. Also attending was Carin Ruff, CPHS Executive Director.

HPA 17-78

3529 Ordway Street, NW

Concept/rear addition and garage

Architect: Chris Snowber, Hamilton Snowber Architects

The proposal is for a three-story (two stories plus basement) addition on the rear of a 1934 brick house, plus a new garage off the alley at the rear of the property. Because of the steep slope of the lot, the basement is above grade at the rear of the house.

The addition would be clad in brick on the basement and first level and HardiePlank siding on the upper level. A dormer in the front of the house whose wood siding is decayed would be reclad in matching material, and windows would be replaced in kind. There would be several changes to the fenestration on the side façades.

The ARC has no objection to the proposal. However, the ARC would prefer to see the existing fenestration retained on the second floor on the west side, in keeping with the Secretary of the Interior’s guidelines recommending against “Changing the number, location, size or glazing pattern of windows, through cutting new openings, (or) blocking-in windows,” and the HPO guideline, “Alteration of window openings on secondary elevations that are architecturally composed or contribute to the overall character and design of a property is discouraged.”

The motion passed 8-0.

  Read More »

Architectural Review Committee Report: November 2016

ARC Members attending: Christine Hobbs, Phil Eagleburger, Ana Evans, David Kay, Lois Orr, and Win Brown.

The following were present to observe the meeting: Nick Netchvolodoff, Tom Hester, Stefan Hurray, Abigail Porter, Myra Best, and Frank Swain, CPHS Board members; Steve Callcott, Deputy Preservation Officer, DC Office of Planning; and Carin Ruff, CPHS Executive Director.


Washington International School

Clayton Lewis, Head of School and Doug Bothner, Ziger/Snead

The Washington International School (WIS) is proposing to construct a two-story science and technology classroom building, and an underground parking garage at the Tregaron campus of the school. Included in the proposal, which situates the new building on the north slope of the Tregaron campus, are plans to repave and repair the entrance driveway and the stone gutters, remove invasive plants from the property, remove 27 trees to be replaced by new, smaller trees, and create a safer arrival space for students. Parking would become more consolidated and a new pedestrian plaza created by wrapping the existing Gym with the new building. The proposed building does not impinge on the historic structures on the site, including the Mansion.

Several previous proposals have been presented by the school. The current proposal, Design # 4, reduces the height of the building by 13 feet, resulting in a building that would be 29 feet above grade. The mass has been broken up into five “boxes” (20 x28 feet) and four hyphens (12 feet wide and set back four feet.). A Green Roof is also included and materials include weathered copper and brick.

The Washington International School is uniquely situated, surrounded by and sharing a cultural landscape with the Tregaron Conservancy. A country estate, originally built in 1912, Tregaron today is on the National Register of Historic Places and a contributing element of the Cleveland Park Historic District. WIS is also housed in several historic buildings on the site. A review of this project included several facets including the proposed building itself, its relationship to the existing historic structures, its relationship to the existing landscape and the visual impact of the proposal particularly on the north, Macomb Street side of the property.

WIS has held meetings with the neighbors. The Tregaron Conservancy and a number of nearby neighbors expressed concern about the project and its visual impact on Macomb Street. It should be noted that not all of the neighbors oppose the project.

The ARC vote was split 3-3 on the proposal project. All of the members of the ARC favored the architectural design and the improvements in massing from the earlier proposals. Those who voted to object to the proposal thought that the additional encroachment of the new building was not consistent with the preservation of the historic landscape and unreasonably impinged on the character of the immediate neighborhood; those who did not object thought that the encroachment was acceptable relative to the total acreage of the property and felt that the project represented a reasonable evolution in the usage of the property that was sufficiently respectful of the historic nature of the landscape.


3016 Rodman Street, N.W.

Owners: Ferrari & Tyson

Agent: Phil Eagleburger, Treacy & Eagleburger

The proposal includes a rear roof addition on a semi-detached house built in the mid-1920s. The house is one of six on the south side of Rodman Street. The addition would be tucked in behind the mansard, tile roof and a small balcony added in the rear. Several windows on the east and south side of the house would also be replaced. The addition would not be visible from across the street but slightly visible from the side yard. The existing front dormer would remain.

The neighbors have been contacted and support the project.

The ARC had no objection to the proposal. The motion passed 5-0; Eagleburger recused.

  Read More »

Solar Panels and a Garage Conversion

In September, the DC Historic Preservation Review Board with the support of our Architectural Review Committee approved two projects that will be of interest to many. Read more about them below. (Visit this page to read up on how projects in our historic district are reviewed.)

Solar panels on a foursquare: possible, but not everywhere; design and placement are crucial

The first case was a request for solar panels on the roof of a typical Cleveland Park foursquare on Newark Street. There is a lot of interest in going solar in our neighborhood and DC is encouraging solar energy. Historic Preservation Office guidelines, however, generally limit solar panels to roof surfaces that are invisible from the street. The reason for that is that an essential aspect of preserving the historic appearance of houses is preserving their character-defining roof profiles and materials. Solar panels have the potential to obscure both.

The solar-must-be-invisible standard makes it fairly easy to add solar to the flat roofs behind the main façades of typical DC row houses, which make up a large proportion of the housing stock in DC’s residential historic districts. Cleveland Park, of course, is low on row houses and rich in interesting pitched roofs with slopes, dormers, gables, and turrets. For houses with sloped roofs, HPO guidelines generally allow adding panels on rear roof slopes and on the roofs of additions that are not part of the main body of the original house, but preservation standards make it impossible to have solar panels on street-facing roof slopes, which means that in most cases houses on the north side of the street will not be able to have south-facing panels.

Rendering of solar panels on Foursquare roof

Rendering of how solar panels will appear on the west slope of 3215 Newark Street (Prospect Solar)

The applicants in the current case, whose house faces south, had originally proposed solar panels in 2012 and were denied by HPRB because the panels would have been too visually intrusive. They returned this fall with a proposal for a careful arrangement of west-facing panels. The panels proposed this time would be close in color to the roof shingles, kept well back from the roof ridge, set close (~3″-4″) to the surface of the roof, and matte in finish without the typical contrasting, shiny frame that makes many panels stand out. The side slopes of this house on which the panels will be mounted are either invisible or barely visible to a pedestrian on the street. Those features were the basis for the ARC’s support and HPRB’s approval.

In sum: we want to support solar panels where they can be implemented without damaging historic materials or altering character-defining historic roof lines. If you are interested in solar panels for your own house, start by contacting the Historic Preservation Office (Steve Callcott, 202-741-5247 or email) to discuss your individual case. HPO staff will let you know what might be possible given your house’s style and setting. And whether or not solar is possible for you, there are many ways to improve the energy performance of a historic house, on which HPO can also advise.

The first garage conversion under the new zoning code: Yes to exuberance!

September saw the implementation of DC’s long-awaited revised zoning code, which allows homeowners in single-family zones to add to their properties one accessory dwelling unit – either in their house or in a freestanding structure – as long as they occupy either the main house or the accessory unit themselves.

The first Cleveland Park application for historic preservation review under this provision of the new code was to rebuild an alley-facing garage at a Rodman Street property. The garage would become a freestanding “granny pod.” (Read more and see renderings in this Curbed DC blog post.) Over the summer, the ARC reviewed two versions of the proposal: one that would have largely retained the look of the existing garage, and one much more contemporary version with a reorientation of the roof, solar panels facing the alley, and a green roof.

Garage conversion at 3406 Rodman StreetGarage conversion at 3406 Rodman Street (archi-TEXTUAL)

The ARC preferred and strongly supported the more adventurous, more contemporary proposal. As the ARC wrote in its report, the ARC felt that the more conservative proposal was “not in concert with the goals and aspirations of the Cleveland Park Historic District. One of the most important tenets of the Historic District is to not stifle the type of exuberance that created the district to begin with. Of course that does not mean that anything goes, but it does firmly suggest that there is room for change and innovation within the historic context. As Kathy Wood wrote to the neighborhood when the ARC and the Historic District were new, ‘We want [the historic preservation review process] to encourage rather than discourage innovative architectural design.’ (Voices 1.1, Spring 1987)” The HPO staff, though they originally supported the more conservative version, ultimately agreed with the ARC, and the Historic Preservation Review Board unanimously approved the proposal illustrated above.

Note that such a complete remaking of a garage may be appropriate in a situation like this where the existing garage and the ensemble of garages of which it is a part are noncontributing (dating from after the period of significance and of no special historic importance) and the backyard/alley setting hide the accessory building from the historic streetscape. Preservation standards would not support demolition or substantial alteration of a garage that was original to the house, part of an intact ensemble of early garages, or, as is the case at many properties in Cleveland Park, an early garage that is at the side of the house and visible from the street.


  Read More »

Architectural Review Committee Report: October 2016

ARC Members attending: Christine Hobbs, Lois Orr, Phil Eagleburger, Anne Weir, and Danny Ince.

Also attending were Frank Swain, CPHS Board member and Carin Ruff, CPHS Executive Director.


3401 34th Place NW, HPA 16-680

Concept/add dormer window, enlarge existing bay; build retaining wall

The proposal includes modifications to both the house and the grounds. A new retaining wall is proposed along the sidewalk on both 34th Place and Newark Street. The side yard facing Newark would be leveled and a fence installed above the new retaining wall. The front steps would be rebuilt. The proposal indicates that brick would be used for the retaining wall and the steps.

A new third floor dormer is proposed for the south side of the house, to match the existing dormer on the front of the house. The skylights on both the south and north sides of the roof would be removed. Also on the south side, the first floor bay would be widened, with siding to match the existing and new wood steps added to the rear of the porch. On the north side, the areaway and steps to the basement would be enlarged, with new windows added at both the basement level and the first and second floors. It is proposed to excavate and expand the basement.

The neighbors have been contacted.

The ARC had no objection to many of the elements of this proposal but has the following comments:

Particular care should be taken to match the proposed third floor south dormer with the existing front dormer at both the roof and the walls.

While the ARC supports the construction of a retaining wall and the leveling of the side yard, the fence should not be placed on top of the proposed wall. The fence should keep its current location, so that it is set back from the wall. The use of vegetation should be considered instead of a fence, as should the grading of the yard between the wall and the fence. It is important that the yard maintain an open appearance to the street and that the wall match the streetscape in materials and design. With this in mind, stone may be a more appropriate material to use. The ARC requests additional information on the height of the wall at the east and west ends of the Newark Street property line.

The motion passed 5-0


3310 Ordway Street NW, HPA 16-628 (revised plans)

Concept/alterations and two-story addition to non-contributing building

The proposal to substantially alter and expand this non-contributing building was presented to the ARC last month. The house was built in 1955 and is one of three houses built at approximately the same time in this block of Ordway Street. While the first floor would be maintained, the existing second floor would be removed, replaced by a newly constructed second and third floors. The house would also be expanded to the rear. The new two-story side addition would also house a garage, accessed by a graded driveway

Last month, the ARC stated that even though the existing house is a non-contributing structure, the proposal will have an impact on the streetscape and the neighborhood. It is important that the structure relate visually to its neighbors and be compatible in scale, materials, and massing. Modern design, well executed, has a place in the Cleveland Park Historic District. The ARC found that last month’s proposal did not meet the criteria for new construction and that the quality of the design was lacking. The design was disjointed including the variety of window and roof styles and materials. The proposed structure did not connect to its neighbors in scale, materials and context. The ARC did not support the proposal presented last month.

The proposal has now been redesigned and much improved, with a redesign of the roof line, windows and materials, including the use of stucco.

The ARC has the following comment: While the design is much improved, the ARC remains concerned about the front wall and the retaining walls along the steeply graded ramp to the garage. The ARC requests more detailed drawings of the retaining wall, the front wall and the driveway.

The motion passed 5-0


3433 33rd Place NW (Cleveland Park Club), HPA 16-701

Concept/alterations, site work and deck

The building housing the Cleveland Park Club was built in 1900. The proposal includes repairs to the porch foundation wall, and replacing the existing brick front steps with wider, wooden steps as originally built. Also included in the proposal is resurfacing the existing pool deck and constructing a new deck and patio. There would also be a new ramp off of Ordway Street and repair of a failing stairway.

The neighbors have been contacted.

The ARC has no objection to the proposal as presented.

The motion passed 5-0.

  Read More »