Minutes for CFA Meeting — 20 April 2006

The meeting was convened in the Commission of Fine Arts offices in the National Building Museum, 401 F Street, N.W, Washington, D.C. 20001, at 10:05 a.m.

Members present:
Hon. Earl A. Powell, Chairman
Hon. Pamela Nelson, Vice-Chairman
Hon. Diana Balmori
Hon. John Belle
Hon. Michael McKinnell
Hon. Witold Rybczynski

Staff present:
Thomas E. Luebke, Secretary
Frederick J. Lindstrom, Assistant Secretary
Sue Kohler
Jose Martínez
Kristina N. Penhoet
Susan Raposa
Tony Simon

National Capital Planning Commission staff present:
Gene Keller
Marjorie Marcus
Jonathan McIntyre


Approval of the minutes of the 16 March meeting. The March minutes had been circulated to the members in advance of the meeting. The Commission approved the minutes upon a motion by Ms. Nelson and second by Mr. Powell.

Dates of next meetings. Mr. Luebke presented the regularly scheduled dates for upcoming Commission meetings: May 18, June 15, and July 20. There were no objections.

Publication of submission requirements for direct applicants. Mr. Luebke reported that the staff had sent a list of suggested submission requirements to approximately sixty frequent applicant agencies, in response to a request by Commission members. The list addresses concept and final submissions, and it is posted on the Commission's website.

Submissions and Reviews

Consent Calendars. Mr. Luebke introduced the three appendices for Commission action. Drafts of the appendices had been circulated to the Commissioners in advance of the meeting.

Appendix I — Direct Submission Consent Calendar There were no changes to the draft appendix listing seven projects: interim pre-screening facilities at the Pentagon; an antenna at the Department of Homeland Security's Nebraska Avenue campus; security cameras submitted by the General Services Administration for the Federal Triangle; temporary security screening facilities at the State Department; relocation of a guard booth at the Marine Corps Barracks; artwork at the Dupont Circle Metrorail station north entrance; and a stormwater pollution abatement project at the National Arboretum. The Commission adopted the appendix without objection.

Appendix II — Shipstead-Luce Act Submissions Ms. Penhoet reported that there were several changes to the draft appendix. Several negative recommendations were removed when the projects were withdrawn; three negative recommendations remained, two of them due to insufficient submissions. She noted that one applicant had requested a full review by the Commission for a proposed fence at 1653 North Portal Drive, N.W. The applicant was not present so Mr. Powell suggested proceeding with the appendix, which was adopted without objection. (The project on North Portal Drive was subsequently discussed.)

Additional submissions under the Shipstead-Luce Act were considered later on the agenda.

Appendix III — Old Georgetown Act Submissions Mr. Martínez reported that there were several changes to the draft appendix. One project was withdrawn; one case was added for 1078 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.; and one recommendation was revised to be favorable based on supplemental drawings. Upon a motion by Ms. Nelson, with second by Ms. Balmori, the revised appendix was adopted.

Additional submissions under the Old Georgetown Act were considered later on the agenda.

Department of Defense

CFA 20/APR/06-1, The Pentagon. Arlington, Virginia. The Pentagon Memorial for the Victims of September 11, 2001. Revised concept. (Previous: CFA 19/JUN/03-3.) Mr. Luebke introduced the project, which the Commission had seen in 2003 after the design was selected in a 2002 competition. The Commission had approved the concept with some concerns about durability, accessibility, and maintenance. The new submission included further development of the design. He introduced Ms. Jean Barnak of the Pentagon Renovation and Construction Program Office in the Department of Defense.

Ms. Barnak said that the project team has grown since the 2003 review, and there has been further research on the design elements. Her office has entered a design-build contract with Centex Lee, a partnership which includes the landscape design firm Lee and Associates; the original competition winners are subcontractors on the team. The Pentagon Memorial Fund was responsible for fund-raising, and the pace of design work had been determined by the availability of funds.

Ms. Barnak gave an overview of the project site, approved by the Commission in 2002, on the southwest side of the Pentagon along Route 27. The public would reach the site from the Pentagon Metrorail Station, approximately a five- to six-minute walk; from a bus drop-off area at the memorial's entrance; from a proposed light-rail system along Columbia Pike, with a station serving the Pentagon Memorial and the Air Force Memorial; and from parking in Pentagon City, approximately a six-minute walk using a pedestrian route beneath Interstate 95. An adjacent bicycle and jogging path would also provide access. Some handicapped parking was also being considered through an interim reconfiguration of the adjacent portion of the Pentagon's south parking area, until further plans are developed for the redesign of this area. She then introduced designer Keith Kaseman of KBAS, the winning team from the design competition, and Jeff Lee of Lee and Associates.

Mr. Lee gave the background of the memorial's design, beginning in November 2001 with the involvement of the victims' families. Mr. Kaseman explained that the design was intended to combine the individual and collective meaning of the event. The memorial would spread across the two-acre site in a pattern derived from organizing lines, parallel to the airplane's route, corresponding to the victims' ages which ranged from three to seventy-one years. Each victim would be represented by a "memorial unit" placed along the corresponding age line, with the exact location determined by the birthday. The configuration of the memorial unit would indicate whether the victim was on the plane or in the building. Each memorial unit would include a cantilevered bench and a pool of water. The sensory experience of materials was important: the ground surface would be gravel that would produce a sound from footsteps; the maple trees would provide seasonal color; and the water would provide reflections.

Mr. Lee and Mr. Kaseman explained the memorial's context and the proposed design of the memorial's entry area, which had not been discussed in the 2003 submission. A gateway area was now proposed as a way of gathering visitors arriving from different directions; as a result, the site area would expand to three acres. There was a new requirement to secure the memorial site during the hours it would not be open to the public. As a result, a wrought-iron fence surrounding the Pentagon reservation would enclose the site; there would not be any need for fencing between the memorial and the Pentagon facade. A sliding gate was proposed to secure the entrance to the memorial; when the gate was open, there would be no visible obstruction to the entranceway. The threshold into the memorial's age lines would be marked by limestone used for the Pentagon's facades. A gathering area was proposed for groups, particularly school groups, to assemble; this "Children's Bench" area would be located along the age lines for the younger victims.

Mr. Lee said that tree types had not all been selected, but there would be a variety of trees as well as climbing roses. Due to the varying health and longevity of trees, they would not be positioned to correspond precisely with each memorial unit, but would be generally scattered across the site. The varied ground materials would include gravel, paving, and tall grasses. A continuous perimeter bench would extend along two sides of the memorial. An "age wall" along one side of the memorial would gradually rise above the perimeter bench to correspond to the progression of age lines. The age wall's height would be lowest near the entrance area to provide visitors with an initial uninterrupted view of the memorial; the taller part of the wall would help to screen the memorial from the adjacent highway. The original material proposed for the benches was aluminum, but the design now called for stainless steel to improve durability. The water circulation in each memorial unit's base would be controlled by a central mechanical system. The site would be prepared with a "bridging layer" of compacted gravel that would support tree growth while avoiding differential settlement. Structural slabs for the memorial units would be on top of this layer. The ground surface would be gravel laid within a plastic cellular mat.

Mr. Kaseman described the materials in more detail and showed samples to the Commission. The basins would be pre-cast concrete. The surface of the age lines would be cast stainless steel. The water would reach each memorial unit through a channel in the concrete; it would then be released as a thin water sheet across a stainless steel surface, and then pass through a filter box and drain. The bench in each memorial unit would be a stainless steel structure with a sitting surface of epoxy polymer concrete; the concrete would be designed to have the same thermal expansion properties as the steel.

In response to Ms. Nelson, Mr. Kaseman acknowledged that the gravel might occasionally spread across the age lines, but the overall perception of the lines would remain apparent. Ms. Balmori asked if the uneven wearing of the gravel would cause the steel edges of the age lines to protrude, creating a tripping hazard. Mr. Kaseman explained that the mat beneath the gravel would be only a quarter-inch below the metal edge, so the potential variation would be slight. In response to Ms. Nelson, Mr. Kaseman said that extra gravel would be reserved and stored for future replenishment of the memorial, and the quarry had a sufficient supply of the granite for long-term needs. Mr. Belle asked if weeds would grow in the gravel surface; Mr. Kaseman said that a filtering fabric would prevent plant growth from occurring.

Mr. Rybczynski noted the complexity of the memorial's components and suggested a mock-up for the Commission's review. Mr. Kaseman said that a prototype memorial unit would be constructed, incorporating the technical improvements that were continually being developed during the research process.

Mr. Powell asked whether the water would freeze in winter. Mr. Kaseman explained that freezing would be prevented by keeping the water in continuous circulation, and by passing the water across a heat-generating light as it enters the open pools. During the winter the lights would likely be kept on around the clock; in other seasons the lights would be on only at night.

Mr. Powell asked if the leaves, particularly the small maple leaves, would clog the water filtration system. Mr. Lee explained that the filter design included a trough and wire basket to catch debris; the troughs would be emptied manually, with more frequency during the autumn. Mr. Belle asked which agency would be responsible for maintenance. Mr. Lee and Ms. Barnak explained that maintenance would be handled by Pentagon staff, with the cost to be covered by a permanent maintenance endowment of $10 million that was part of the memorial's fund-raising goal of $42 million.

Ms. Balmori raised a previous Commission concern about the small size of the proposed paper-bark maple trees, noting that they might not survive and their low branches might obstruct pedestrian circulation. Mr. Lee responded that the landscape contractor was searching for the largest available specimens of the proposed tree types, and they would be carefully pruned before and after installation. Ms. Balmori asked why a larger species wasn't chosen; Mr. Kaseman explained that the paper-bark maple was a rare tree that would add special interest to the memorial; it had a resilience that would improve its likelihood of survival adjacent to the highway; and its unusual bark would provide visual interest when the leaves were gone.

Mr. Rybczynski praised the thoughtfulness of the design but cautioned that its technical complexity and novelty required extensive research and testing. Mr. Powell concurred and reiterated the Commission's desire to see a mock-up of a memorial unit. The presentation concluded without a formal motion and the members urged the designers to continue to consider the concerns expressed in the current and previous reviews.

CFA 20/APR/06-2, The Pentagon. Arlington, Virginia. Pentagon Central Courtyard. Replacement building for the Center Court Café. Revised concept. (Previous: CFA 19/JUN/03-6.) Mr. Lindstrom explained that the project had been revised and simplified since the Commission's 2003 review. He introduced Joe Sacco of the Pentagon Renovation Office to present the design; additional details were offered by Jeff Keppler, business manager of the Pentagon's concessions committee.

Mr. Sacco explained that the project had been delayed while awaiting Congressional approval, which had recently been received. The project would be built with a design-build contract that would be awarded this summer; some design parameters would be specified in the contract, but further design information would be part of a later submission. The new café would be a year-round facility in the center of the Pentagon's courtyard, replacing the existing café building that has only been used seasonally. The new café would keep the pentagonal plan of the existing facility but would be substantially larger, as previously shown to the Commission. It would be sited within the existing concrete apron at the center of the courtyard, with ample room remaining for pedestrian circulation. Two sides of the café would have retractable glass walls that could be opened in warm weather, facing an existing ceremonial stage in the courtyard; two additional sides would have fixed windows; and the fifth side, a service and delivery area, would face an existing service road that connects to the courtyard. The solid exterior surfaces would be concrete with a rusticated pattern, matching the existing walls of the courtyard; the roof would be green slate to match the existing visible Pentagon roofs. Mr. Sacco presented a proposed section but acknowledged that it was only a suggested concept since the design-build team was not yet involved.

Upon a motion by Mr. Rybczynski, with second by Ms. Nelson, the Commission approved the proposed concept. Mr. Powell suggested that review of the final design be handled by the staff.

Following a brief recess and before the next agenda item, Mr. Powell reported that the applicant for 1653 North Portal Drive, N.W., had arrived and then departed, so there was no need to reconsider the Commission's earlier approval of Appendix II which included the staff recommendation on this project. He suggested that further discussion of this project could be scheduled for a future meeting if necessary.

National Park Service

CFA 20/APR/06-3, Georgetown Waterfront Park Project, Phase III. Shoreline Pedestrian Promenade along the Rock Creek and Potomac Parkway between the terminus of Virginia Avenue, N.W. and the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts. Concept. Mr. Martínez introduced the project, involving a segment of the Potomac riverfront southeast of Georgetown. He introduced John Parsons of the National Park Service to present the project.

Mr. Parsons explained the various phases of the Georgetown Waterfront Park: Phase I that was approved; Phase II which would soon be submitted for concept review; and Phase III, currently submitted. The anticipated completion of the House of Sweden at the eastern edge of the Georgetown Waterfront emphasized the desirability of improving the waterfront connection between Georgetown and the Kennedy Center. The existing six-foot-wide recreational path would be replaced by separate bicycle and pedestrian paths. Benches and lights would be installed, and special planting and a cobblestone median would be used where the paths came close together due to the narrowness of the site. Mr. Parsons said that the National Park Service was working with Kennedy Center staff on a possible future connection directly from the park to the Kennedy Center deck; several designs for this had been proposed in recent years. In response to Mr. Belle, Mr. Parsons said that none of the proposals for a Kennedy Center connection would obstruct pedestrian access along the waterfront.

The project would also include rehabilitation of the existing bridge across Rock Creek, serving pedestrians and service vehicles. The bridge would be widened by one foot, retaining the existing piers. Lights and a new railing would be installed.

Mr. Powell said that bicyclists and pedestrians often travel off of the paved path and damage the grass; Ms. Balmori noted that runners sometimes want a softer surface. Mr. Belle questioned why a curb was being installed on the bridge; Mr. Parsons said that the bridge is used by trailers carrying racing shells to the Thompson Boat Center, sometimes backing in, so the curbs were useful. Ms. Balmori asked why the groupings of trees did not include shading for the benches. Mr. Parsons agreed that this could be improved and he offered to add trees on the west side of the paths. With this understanding, the Commission approved the concept upon a motion by Mr. Belle with second by Ms. Balmori.

American Battle Monuments Commission

CFA 20/APR/06-4, World War II Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial. Omaha Beach, Colleville-sur-Mer, France. Inscriptions and signs for new visitor center. Final. (Previous: CFA 15/SEP/05- 6.) Mr. Lindstrom introduced the project, noting that the Commission had previously approved the building design; the current submission was for the inscriptions, signs, and interpretive panels. He introduced Elsa Santoyo, an architect from SmithGroup, and three representatives of the American Battle Monuments Commission: William Lesczynski, Executive Director; Michael Conley, Director of Public Affairs; and Thomas Sole, Director of Engineering and Maintenance.

Mr. Leszcyzynski reported that construction of the visitor center was underway, with opening scheduled for the summer of 2007. He introduced two representatives of the graphic design firm Gallagher and Associates to present the signage details: Greg Matty and John Forty. Mr. Matty explained that most of the inscriptions would be engraved in the rough granite walls, similar to the inscriptions at Washington's Franklin D. Roosevelt Memorial. He explained the graphics for an orientation pavilion at the end of the visitor center plaza closest to the parking area. The orientation pavilion would have several quotations engraved in the stone walls and two engraved stainless steel panels providing overall information about the site, including descriptive text in French and English and a site map with walking times to orient visitors to the cemetery and nearby Omaha Beach. The visitor center building would have inscriptions on the exterior and interior, written in either English or French corresponding to the language of the speaker; translations would be available in the visitor center. An inscription identifying the building would include text in both languages. A 21-foot-wide outdoor interpretive map depicting the entire Normandy invasion would be etched and sandblasted into polished granite panels on the ground beside the reflecting pool, providing a simultaneous view toward the English Channel.

In response to Ms. Nelson, Mr. Forty said it was not yet determined whether the orientation pavilion's site map would include the walking time to the beach. Ms. Nelson commented that it was a very long walk to the beach, so visitors should be informed of the distance.

Ms. Balmori questioned the size of the smaller lettering on the information panels and suggested that the designers consider the legibility more carefully. Mr. Forty also explained that the French text on the information panels would be in an italic font to differentiate it from the English. Ms. Nelson commented that the italic font could be difficult to read and was unnecessary since people would readily recognize the language; Ms. Balmori concurred.

Mr. Belle asked why the two descriptive panels were not adjacent to each other on the orientation pavilion. Mr. Forty explained that the intention was to give visitors overall site orientation first, and then provide them with text giving further information on the American Battle Monuments Commission as they move toward the visitor center.

Ms. Nelson praised the project and asked if the trees on the site would be preserved. Mr. Conley said that only the trees on the actual building site had been removed. The visitor center would be readily visible from the parking lot but not from the cemetery due to the existing trees. Upon a motion by Ms. Nelson, with second by Ms. Balmori, the Commission approved the proposal.

Department of the Army / Institute of Heraldry

CFA 20/APR/06-5, Global War on Terrorism Civilian Service Medal for the Department of Defense. Obverse, reverse, ribbon, and lapel pin designs. Final. Mr. Simon introduced Charles Mugno, the director of the Institute of Heraldry. Mr. Mugno explained that the Institute, although a part of the Department of the Army, serves the entire federal government. The proposed medal was part of a relatively new tradition of civilian service medals dating from the Vietnam War. The medal was also related to several military service medals honoring those involved in the war on terrorism.

Mr. Mugno explained the design and symbolism of the ribbon and medal. The medal would be a bronze disc with a triangular emblem that would incorporate the suspension lug needed at the top of the medal for attachment to the ribbon. The obverse of the medal would depict the Capitol's Statue of Freedom, various pikes and branches, and five stars representing the five military services that are supported by the civilians. The reverse would have a polestar and arrowheads on a circle, symbolizing the worldwide nature of the fight against terrorism. The lapel pin design would be derived from the ribbon colors.

Upon a motion by Mr. Rybczynski, with second by Ms. Nelson, the Commission approved the design.

At this point the Commission departed from the order of the agenda for two projects to accommodate the travel schedules of the architects.

District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs

Shipstead-Luce Act

S.L. 06-056, Lafayette Tower, 801 17th Street, N.W. New eleven-story office building. Revised concept. (Previous: 16 March 2006.) Ms. Penhoet introduced the project which had been reviewed the previous month and was being resubmitted with some modifications and alternatives. She introduced the architect, Kevin Roche of Kevin Roche John Dinkeloo and Associates.

Mr. Roche gave an overview of the site at 17th and H Streets and the proposed building of 225,000 square feet. It would be separated from adjoining buildings by an alley that would be improved as part of the project. He was unable to determine if the project would be visible from the White House, but he presented photographs from Lafayette Square that showed the building's impact would be minimal. Because the building's presence would be stronger when viewed from along H or 17th Streets in the context of other commercial buildings, one design goal was to relate well to this context. Another goal was to include many corner offices to appeal to professional firms as potential tenants. The design intent was to create a simple strong building without using classical detailing.

The volume of the building would have a series of indentations to generate additional corners and relate to the height of nearby buildings. Mr. Roche showed several alternative configurations for the indentations, with views showing how the indentations related to the adjacent building on the east. He also showed renderings of the street level that were more developed than the previous month's drawings, with depictions of retail storefronts to either side of the 17th Street entrance lobby. He showed alternatives for the ground floor including various indentations and the possibility of stone cladding, which he did not recommend. He commented that the building's retail activity would provide more street life than other nearby buildings, particularly the federal buildings. He showed details of the curtain wall which would be all glass with no structural expression on the exterior. Of the four building configurations and the cladding alternatives, he preferred scheme "D" which had additional recesses at two corners, without the use of stone at the base.

In response to Ms. Balmori, Mr. Roche said the building would have a green roof. Mr. McKinnell recalled his previous suggestion for the massing of the top story and agreed that Mr. Roche's solution was preferable. Ms. Nelson asked if the top-floor indentation should be included at the northwest corner as well as the southwest and southeast, but Mr. Roche said the balconies were a gesture only for the south facade to relate to the building on the east. Mr. McKinnell praised the developer for pursuing high-quality architecture for the project; Ms. Balmori and Mr. Belle concurred. Upon a motion by Ms. Balmori, with second by Ms. Nelson, the Commission approved the concept of scheme D.

S.L. 06-063, 51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. New 10-story office building. Revised concept (materials selection). (Previous: S.L. 06-027, 17 November 2005.) Ms. Penhoet explained that the Commission had previously approved the design concept for the ten-story addition to the existing Acacia Building. The primary purpose of the new submission was to obtain comments on exterior materials; the entire project would be submitted for final review at a later date. She introduced attorney Richard Nettler, representing the project's developer, and architect Dennis Austin of the Richard Rogers Partnership, to present the project.

Mr. Nettler explained that the project was moving forward, with demolition of the existing parking garage underway to clear the site. There was a minor design modification to move an egress door along First Street; otherwise, only the exterior materials were being newly presented.

Mr. Austin showed a model and renderings for orientation as he presented the material samples. The new north building would adjoin two existing buildings and allow the creation of a new atrium that would become the central focus of the entire complex of buildings. The atrium roof would be supported by a "tree" system that would branch out to include trusses; the exposed steel would be brightly colored. The floor of the atrium would have a paving pattern related to the ceiling structural system. One corner of the atrium would extend toward the sidewalk to provide a new main entrance for the complex. The exterior of the ten-story north building would be a glass curtainwall with dark aluminum channels at each level; the channel would be larger at the 10th floor as it intersects with the atrium roof structure. The glass on the lower two floors would have a horizontal fritting to provide some privacy for the office workers.

Ms. Balmori asked about a triangular area shown in the plan of the entrance plaza. Mr. Austin explained that it was a landscape feature in conjunction with an air intake for the new underground parking. The air intake would be surrounded by a planter and a granite bench. The plaza would also include a fountain with water running over the top of a stone edge. Mr. Austin noted that the model showed the existing roof garden that would be retained on the 1935 building. The new north building would also have a roof garden.

Mr. Austin explained that the plaza and floor of the atrium would be paved with a chevron striping of green and black granite with varying finishes, and he showed samples of the materials. The bench and fountain would be black granite. The parking garage elevators would emerge at the ground level into a glass enclosure over a steel frame with aluminum details. Responding to Mr. Belle, Mr. Austin explained that there would be no alteration to the exterior limestone of the 1935 building. A new clerestory window wall would provide views from that building's roof garden into the new atrium. The structural connection of the atrium wall would involve removal of a strip of roofing from the 1935 building; the entire roof would be repaired and new aluminum details would be added along the existing parapet. The existing windows facing the new atrium would be supplemented with fire-rated windows without altering the existing sashes. A new bridge across the atrium would involve removal of an existing sill along a rear facade.

Mr. Austin acknowledged that the Louisiana Avenue main entrance to the 1935 building was architecturally important and said that it would continue to be used, along with an existing entrance on First Street; but he envisioned that the primary employee entrance would become the new entrance plaza on the northeast. Responding to Mr. McKinnell, Mr. Austin said that the ground-floor space of the north building could become either retail or office space; a corner retail area along the entrance plaza would likely become a coffee shop.

Upon a motion by Ms. Nelson, with second by Mr. McKinnell, the Commission approved the materials and delegated the project's final review to the staff.

At this point the Commission returned to the order of the agenda.

General Services Administration

CFA-20/APR/06-6, Office of Personnel Management, Theodore Roosevelt Building, 1900 E Street, N.W. Perimeter security modifications. Concept. (Previous: CFA 16/SEP/99-8) Mr. Martínez introduced Mike McGill of the General Services Administration, who asked architect Matthew Sellers to present the project.

Mr. Sellers, of the firm Stephenson and Good, said that the design was intended to be less tall and fortified than the previously submitted proposals. He described the context and site, including a north entrance plaza facing E Street for employees and visitors and an employee-only south entrance plaza along Virginia Avenue. Driveways from 19th and 20th Streets connect to the building's underground parking. Existing security is provided by planters and bollards with delta barriers and guard booths at the driveways. The project would improve protection from unauthorized vehicles and also provide protection of the building's ground-level air intake vents, located in the south plaza, from damage by pedestrians.

The proposed design would be a combination of granite-faced concrete walls and cable-reinforced fences, supplemented by hardened benches, planters, trees, and a small number of bollards. The granite facing would relate to the base of the existing building. The fencing would have a picket pattern related to the configuration of the building windows; it would be three feet high and topped with a bronze-finished handrail to provide a streetscape amenity. The cable reinforcement would be enclosed within the railing system. The tallest wall area, thirty inches high, would be along the northern part of the site where cars could potentially approach the building at a high speed. An existing landscaped hedge along E Street would be extended to partially screen the wall in this area. Along the southern part of the 19th Street frontage, the wall would step down to a twenty-four inch height. The existing grade would be altered where necessary. The fencing would be used along the southern part of the site along the inner edge of the sidewalk. At Virginia Avenue, the existing sidewalk width would be reduced by two feet to improve the edge between paving and planting and to provide additional growing area for the existing trees. The fence would extend across the south entrance plaza with gates that could be operated only by employees. The air intakes, although within the protected area of the south plaza, would be vulnerable to hazardous materials being thrown in from the public sidewalk; to protect against this, thirty-foot-high screening walls would be built. The height was related to the air intake requirements as well as to the potential trajectory of a thrown object. New planting would eventually grow to screen the walls. At the driveways, the existing guard booths would be replaced, using granite walls and metal roofs, possibly with bronze accents.

Ms. Balmori and Mr. Belle questioned the impact of the project on existing large trees. Mr. Sellers said that the design was primarily intended to minimize impact or improve their setting, but the construction would need to involve some damage to the roots. Ms. Nelson questioned the assumption that the threat from high-speed vehicles would correspond to existing one-way street patterns. Mr. Rybczynski suggested that the air intake screening walls be designed to include architectural elements, such as blind windows in the upper portions, providing visual relief and echoing a design feature of the existing building. Mr. Sellers explained that the walls were designed to be as simple as possible.

Upon a motion by Ms. Nelson, the Commission approved the design concept.

Department of Defense / Department of the Navy

CFA 20/APR/06-7, Bolling Air Force Base. Main gate, MacDill Boulevard, South Capitol Street and Malcolm X Avenue, S.E. Replacement entrance gates and security screening facility. Concept and Final. (Previous: CFA 23/JUL/98-4.) Mr. Lindstrom described the project as a replacement of the installation's existing main entrance area with a new screening facility. The proposal superseded previous smaller proposals reviewed by the Commission. He introduced Harry Martin from the Navy and Anthony Buscemi from the architecture firm Wiley and Wilson.

Mr. Buscemi explained that the project, in addition to providing for security screening, would relieve traffic congestion inside the main gate. This gate would only be used for passenger vehicles; trucks would be directed to the installation's south gate. Lanes would be reconfigured to increase the rush-hour capacity while allowing the appropriate distance for recognizing authorized vehicles and reacting to potential problems. An ornamental gate would be designed to be secure against vehicle crashes. There would be a central guardhouse, a canopy-covered area for checking identification, and lanes configured to allow surveillance above and below entering vehicles. Mr. Buscemi acknowledged that rush-hour congestion was already a problem at the gates and that the length of the proposed entry lanes would be relatively short, due to site constraints. Mr. Belle questioned the practicality of the proposed configuration, involving numerous checkpoints with short approach lanes. Mr. Buscemi explained that the thoroughness of screening would vary with different threat levels.

Mr. McKinnell suggested relying on the applicant's judgment of the design's feasibility but he questioned the proposal's architectural quality, saying that it was unworthy of the main entrance to an important military base. He observed that the program—particularly the canopy area—resembled the requirements for toll booths or gas stations, and he suggested that high-quality designs for such facilities be used as a model for this project; Ms. Balmori concurred. Ms. Nelson commented that the design decisions seemed to be based on fear and questioned the need for investing in such a project. Mr. Buscemi responded that the structures were designed to relate to adjacent older buildings on the base; but Ms.Balmori questioned the appropriateness of using these buildings as models for the large-scale new canopy structure. Mr. Powell and Mr.McKinnell also questioned the quality of the guard-booth design, noting that many better designs had been reviewed in recent years.

Upon a motion by Ms. Nelson, with second by Mr. Belle, the Commission asked to see further design development with a more dignified and appropriate entrance. Mr. Powell suggested that the applicant work with the staff on the design of the canopy structure.

District of Columbia Courts

CFA 20/APR/06-8, The H. Carl Moultrie I Courthouse, 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W. Building alterations to the main entrance. Concept. Mr. Lindstrom introduced Ira Goldfarb from Gruzen and Samton Architects. Mr. Goldfarb explained that the entrance to the 1970s building was inadequate to handle modern security requirements, resulting in many people having to wait outdoors to enter the building. He said the design aesthetic of the existing entrance was also questionable–a large masonry volume hovering above a low recessed glass wall with three small entrance vestibules. The new design would create a single larger public entrance area with room for 100 people queuing for metal detectors. The new entrance would have a curved facade projecting toward the street, with the building's address prominently displayed to mark the entrance. Smaller doorways to each side would be used by employees, who have different security screening requirements.

Ms. Balmori asked for further information on the plaza leading from Indiana Avenue to the entrance lobby; she and Mr. McKinnell suggested that the plaza design be improved as part of the project. Mr. Goldfarb said that one of the three existing planters would be removed to provide sufficient room for the new lobby, but otherwise there was no provision for plaza design in the current project. He said the D.C. Courts would likely undertake such a project as a future phase. Mr. McKinnell commented that the building design was actually improved by the security-related changes.

Upon a motion by Ms. Balmori, with second by Ms. Nelson, the Commission approved the design concept with the suggestion to consider improvements to the entrance plaza.

District of Columbia Office of Property Management

CFA 20/APR/06-9, Eastern Market, 225 7th Street, S.E. Building rehabilitation and additions. Concept. Ms. Penhoet introduced the project, noting that three letters from concerned citizens and organizations had been distributed to the Commissioners. She introduced Baird Smith and Tina Roach of Quinn Evans Architects, as well as Peter May, Deputy Director of the D.C. Office of Property Management.

Mr. May described the overall goal of improving the building's accessibility and addressing life-safety issues. Mr. Smith then summarized the building's history and the design proposals. The oldest structure, now called the South Hall, was designed by Adolf Cluss and built in 1873. The North Hall and small Center Hall were added in 1908, extending north on 7th Street to North Carolina Avenue. The current uses for the rooms would continue: the South Hall for daily food vending and the North Hall as a community multipurpose room. The project would mostly involve restoration, with minimal alterations to the building. The roof was rebuilt in 1977 and was in good condition, but the original ridge vent had been removed from the South Hall. This resulted in less daylight for the interior so new skylights were now proposed along the western face of the roof, along the rear facade facing a public swimming pool building and a parking area. The existing rooftop exhaust stacks would receive new electric fans with little or no change in the external appearance.

At the ground level, the building has a series of doorways along the length of the east and west facades, each incorporating a step upward into the building. New ramps at the sidewalks were proposed for two of the South Hall doorways, with lengths of nine and fourteen feet. Railings would also be included, with a design based on an existing areaway railing. A North Hall entrance would be made accessible through a slight alteration of the adjacent sidewalk.

Mr. Belle suggested that the sidewalk area along the South Building could be rebuilt at a slightly higher grade, allowing the elimination of the step at each doorway and making the ramps unnecessary. Mr. Smith said that this solution was being used for the North Hall where the grade difference was smaller, but the sidewalk along 7th Street already sloped sharply between the building face and curb, so raising the sidewalk edge at the South Hall building doorways would result in an excessive slope. Mr. Belle suggested that the other accessible entrances might be sufficient for the building, without adding ramps along the South Hall's main eastern facade. Mr. Smith explained that the different parts of the building were used at different times, so each area needed an accessible entrance. He also clarified that the entrance on the west side of the South Hall had been designated for service use only. As a result, in the parking area west of the building, the handicapped spaces would be repositioned to be closer to the proposed accessible entrances on the north and east. Mr. May also explained that the doors on the west side were difficult to reach due to existing obstructions such as chimneys and dumpsters. Mr. Belle responded by praising the unobstructed relationship between the east facade and the ground plane, providing direct pedestrian access to the multiple entrances, and he reiterated the desirability of preserving this aesthetic feature by regrading the entire sidewalk area. Mr. Smith clarified that his previous studies had considered smaller inclines at specific doorways, and he offered to re-examine the possibility of raising the entire sidewalk. Mr. May and Mr. Smith suggested that such a solution would require a retaining wall of approximately fourteen inches along 7th Street, possibly requiring a railing and ramped access to the raised sidewalk area. Mr. McKinnell questioned whether a railing would be needed in such a situation. Mr. Belle noted that minor variations from standard gradient limits would be acceptable in a historic restoration project.

In response to Ms. Nelson, Mr. Smith explained that the existing exterior market sheds were recently renovated and would not be further altered. He noted that the sheds already obscure views of the building facade, reducing the aesthetic concern of adding ramps. Mr. May noted that this outdoor market area is often very crowded, especially on weekends.

Mr. Smith then described additional proposals affecting the west side of the building. A new enclosure would cover the air-conditioning chillers and two dumpsters. The enclosure would be designed with simple steel posts and vertical wood slats. Ms. Balmori said that the enclosure was enormous and suggested using three separate enclosures to avoid blocking the building windows and doors; Ms. Nelson concurred. Mr. Smith explained that the chillers and dumpsters required service space so a large enclosure was preferable. He suggested that this enclosure should be understood as a nondescript utilitarian structure that would likely be replaced in the long-term future as equipment requirements evolve. Mr. Belle suggested that the chillers be placed in a vault. Mr. Smith said this was considered, but the vault would be large and could not support activities such as parking above; due to the limited site area, this option was not feasible. A rooftop location was also studied but no appropriate space was available. Mr. Belle suggested not screening the dumpsters, since their presence was compatible with a market building. Mr. Smith offered to study the alternatives further.

Mr. Smith then described an additional feature proposed for the west facade: an exterior stair to provide emergency egress from a second-story room in the Center Hall. The room was the only second-floor area and was being used as a pottery studio with a typical occupancy of ten to twenty people, so a second exit was necessary to supplement the interior egress. The proposed stair would be steel frame with a roof that was required by building codes. In response to Ms. Balmori, Mr. Smith clarified that a second egress would not be necessary if the room were used for another use—such as storage—that did not involve groups of people. Ms. Nelson therefore suggested relocating the studio elsewhere and programming this room with a use that would not require a second egress. Mr. Smith offered to study that possibility. Ms. Balmori commented that the stair's aesthetics might be more acceptable if it weren't enclosed.

Mr. Smith described the final exterior alteration: replacement of the 1977 plastic glazing with clear glass, as well as reconditioning of all the doors and windows. There would be minor stone repairs and birdproofing.

Mr. Powell then recognized several members of the public who had asked to speak. Monte Edwards represented the Eastern Market Community Advisory Committee, a group formed by the District six years earlier and made up of community representatives. The committee had provided a lengthy report to the Office of Property Management on the proposal and had provided the Commission with additional written testimony. Mr. Edwards emphasized the community importance and popularity of the market, and urged that its cultural and operational needs be considered rather than just physical and aesthetic concerns. He noted that the market activity extends to the exterior sheds and to the weekend flea market across the street in a school parking lot. He commented that one of the proposed ramps would cut in half the width of access to the sheds from the most heavily used direction. The ramp's alignment was designed to avoid affecting an areaway along the building face, resulting in greater impact on the sidewalk area and displacing several market stalls. The alignment would worsen the weekend congestion, making the ramps difficult to reach and therefore defeating their purpose. He suggested that the accessible entrances be on the west facade, where there would be less grade change and less conflict with existing uses. He noted that the west facade was originally the building's main face at a time when there was little urban development to the east, so he urged that the western doors and windows be given the same importance as those on the east. He observed that the North Carolina Avenue frontage, along with the adjacent swimming pool plaza, provided ample room for walkways and curb cuts. He also commented that during weekdays, when the market is less crowded, the small parking area west of the building would be used by a large proportion of visitors. He supported further study of a retaining wall, as suggested by the Commission, and urged that it be located along the curb rather than divide the sidewalk market area. He commented that a retaining wall would encourage people to cross 7th Street at the crosswalks rather than mid-block and would discourage the practice of backing trucks onto the sidewalk and damaging the exterior sheds.

Mr. Edwards said that the egress stair's footprint had apparently been reduced in response to his committee's previous concerns. But he still objected to the amount of space devoted to the stairway and chillers. He suggested that the chillers be placed beneath the stairway rather than on the sidewalk. He questioned the enclosure for the dumpsters, saying that it would likely soon be damaged by the trash pick-up operations; he suggested leaving the dumpsters unenclosed. He also suggested removal of the brick chimney, added in the 1940s, in order to free up more space along the west facade. The heating flue could be relocated inside the building.

Mr. Powell then recognized Steven Ackerman, an author writing a book on Eastern Market. He provided a written statement and summarized the building's historical context. He emphasized the design tradition of markets being accessible from all directions, noting that the original 1805 market was an open-air structure until it was enclosed in 1820. Cluss was familiar with this tradition from European markets and had studied markets in other U.S. cities while designing Washington's Center Market and Eastern Market. Mr. Ackerman showed 19th-century photos illustrating the population concentration west of the market and the presence of early market sheds on all sides of the building. He emphasized that all four facades of the market were designed for public visibility.

Mr. Powell recognized Nancy Metzger, chair of the Historic Preservation Committee of the Capitol Hill Restoration Society. She supported Mr. Edwards' remarks about accessible entrance locations and more sensitive treatment of the west facade. She objected to the proposed skylights, noting that they were not part of the historic design of the South Hall and would be visible from the exterior. Their placement on the western roof area would create an inappropriate asymmetry on the interior of the South Hall. She also questioned whether the skylights would result in excessive solar heat gain and potential leaks in the roof. She suggested that the reglazing of the windows would result in sufficient additional daylight for the building.

Mr. May responded that the location of accessible entrances would be reexamined, but he noted that this was a government building being rehabilitated by a government agency, so full accessibility was an important goal regardless of any regulatory exceptions or minor operational concerns.

Ms. Balmori supported the public comments opposing the design of the ramps. She questioned whether it was necessary to add the skylights. Mr. Smith offered to consider the comments and incorporate revisions. Mr. Powell suggested that one option worth further study was to provide single accessible entrances on the east and west sides. In response to Mr. McKinnell, Mr. Smith said that the building was not currently air conditioned; Mr. McKinnell questioned the need to add this feature. Mr. Smith explained that modern urban development resulted in ambient overnight temperatures that were significantly higher than in the late 19th century, perhaps by ten degrees, so that natural ventilation and fans were no longer sufficient to provide summertime cooling. He said the goal was not complete climate control but simply a more reasonable level of comfort.

Mr. Powell suggested that no formal motion was needed, and he asked that the project team return after further study. The Commission concurred with this suggestion.

District of Columbia Department of Transportation

CFA 20/APR/06-10, The Starburst Intersection at H and 15th Streets, Maryland and Florida Avenues, and Bladensburg and Benning Roads, N.E. Reconfiguration of traffic lanes and new pedestrian plaza. Revised design-Final. (Previous: CFA 16/FEB/06-6.) Ms. Penhoet introduced this project and asked Karina Ricks from the District's Department of Transportation to make the presentation. Ms. Ricks recapped the previous submissions for the improvement of this very complicated intersection, where six streets converged, and two of them–H Street and Benning Road–were major city corridors. She said the current proposal had resulted from a reconfiguration of the intersection to improve pedestrian safety, noting that the primary pedestrian activity involved the three bus lines along the main corridors that came together at this point and the transfer from one line to the other.

Ms. Ricks recalled the Commission's recommendation after the previous submission to simplify the design and also to bring material samples. She said they had also been asked to study the relationship of this project to the larger plans for the treatment of streets in the entire city, and she said that in this light they had looked at the material selection for the two main corridors, and had studied the growth projections of these areas, the identity of the communities, and what they wanted to promote. With this in mind they had selected the materials for this intersection along with proposals for the Benning Road and H Street corridors, and the materials would be continued along these corridors, thus tying them into the downtown and with the Anacostia Waterfront. She then asked Mr. Clifton from her department to discuss the material selection.

Mr. Clifton began by saying that they had tried to keep the plaza as open as possible and as versatile as possible so that it could be adapted for various uses, such as becoming a site for open air markets or whatever else the community wanted to see there. At the same time they had maintained the viewshed of Maryland Avenue, which bisected the entire plaza, because of the view of the Capitol in the distance, by aligning the plaza tree plantings with those along the avenue.

Mr. Clifton then showed an elevation drawing of the fountain, noting the stairs on either side leading to a walkway behind the mural and to the parking lot for the Hechinger Mall. He said the parking lot, on a higher level than the plaza, would be heavily screened by trees and shrubbery. Questions were asked about the pedestrian traffic, the bus stops and the transfer process. Mr. Clifton said the bus stop area had been enlarged and more room provided for better access to the various bus lines, a grocery store, and a CVS drugstore.

Mr. Clifton then discussed the materials, beginning with the granite for the fountain and recalling that the Commission had asked for an attractive material that would look good during the winter months when the fountain was turned off. He noted that the granite pieces were larger than before, as the Commission had suggested. Ms. Nelson questioned the vertical division of the fountain into three parts, thinking that it would make a stronger statement if it ran as one sheet; Ms. Balmori agreed. Three paving colors were shown: the standard London paver color used by the District throughout most of the historic area, a redder color for the fountain area and the banding around the perimeter of the plaza, and a darker color for the areas underneath the trees. Ms. Nelson asked if the red-colored paver was used in other plazas in the city; Ms. Ricks said it was not in use at present but she hoped they could use more of it, adding that it was meant to match the red brick seen so frequently around the city.

Ms. Balmori said she found the project much improved and liked the varieties of trees selected. She had two comments to make about the trees: she hoped they could specify continuous planting beds because their use would lengthen the life of the trees considerably, and she suggested that the number of species could be reduced. Ms. Ricks and Mr. Clifton said that could be done easily, and Ms. Ricks said that Jim Urban, a well-known landscape architect, had worked with them on ways to lengthen tree life and had recommended that continuous tree beds be used on all the major streets. Ms. Balmori said she knew Mr. Urban and was happy that he was a consultant.

Mr. Clifton then showed an example of the proposed railing to be used. Mr. Belle said it looked rather flimsy, and Ms. Ricks said she had the same reaction, but it was available with a square opening which gave it a more substantial look. Mr. Clifton said he was sure it could stand up to any wear and tear it would receive.

There was no further discussion, and Ms. Nelson moved that the final design be approved with the recommendations made. Her motion was seconded by Ms. Balmori and carried unanimously.

District of Columbia Public Schools

CFA 20/APR/06-11, The School Without Walls (formerly the Grant School), 2130 G Street, N.W. Renovation and additions. Concept. Ms. Penhoet said this project was being submitted by the District of Columbia Public Schools as part of a PUD with the project to follow, which was a George Washington University dormitory project. The school project would involve the renovation of and addition to an existing school building, formerly known as the Grant School. She introduced Marshella Wallace from the D.C. Public Schools, project manger for this project, who said they were very happy with the public-private partnership they had with the George Washington University, which had been supported in an MOU between the School Board and the District Council. She introduced Dennis Kuhn of Ehrenkrantz Eckstut & Kuhn Architects to make the presentation.

Mr. Kuhn said the building they were dealing with was a 19th century school building that found itself in the heart of the George Washington University campus. He said it had been a fascinating structure to work with as it had suffered very little change since its original construction. He showed a site plan, noting the "L"-shaped parking lot wrapping around the school, and said the new addition would occupy that part of the "L" entered from G Street and extend back to the property line; the part of the "L" directly behind the school would be left as open space, a student commons. As the main entrance of the old school on G Street was not accessible, the new main entrance would be an accessible one through the new addition, also entered from G Street, but the old entrance would not be closed. The interiors would be filled with light coming from a roof terrace in the new building and a light well in the open space between the two wings of the old building. There would be four floors, with ordinary classroom space on the first three floors of both new and old sections, and a large media center on the fourth floor of the new addition, which would rise above the old school. Mr. Kuhn noted that there would be no caféteria, gym or labs, as the students would use the university facilities.

Mr. Rybczynski asked if the media center would be seen from the sidewalk and was told that it would not be, that it was set back, but it could be seen from across the street. Mr. Rybczynski said the slope of the media center roof was the only thing that really bothered him and Mr. McKinnell felt the same way. Mr. Belle thought the next stage, which would show the inevitable differences between transparent and opaque materials, would indicate how compatible the design was with the historic building, and so he would defer his comments until then. He made a motion that the concept design be approved; it was seconded by Ms. Nelson and carried unanimously.

District of Columbia Dept. of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (continued)

Shipstead-Luce Act (continued)

S.L. 06-070, George Washington University, Square 80 Residence Hall, F Street, N.W. between 21st and 22nd Streets. New ten-story dormitory building. Concept. Ms. Penhoet introduced the project, saying that this building would back up to the School Without Walls and was part of the same PUD project. She introduced Andi Adams, an architectural historian from the law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, to give some background information on the project. Ms. Adams said the university was constructing this dormitory to try to address their requirement to house their students on campus. She said the new dormitory would be similar to another one on F Street that the Commission had approved a few years ago; the project team had received helpful comments from the Commission staff and had tried to address the comments in this submission. She pointed out the site and the adjoining School Without Walls site and showed several photographs, noting the varying building styles, heights and uses that made up the George Washington campus and adjoining area. She then turned the presentation over to architect Chris Graae from Cox, Graae & Spack.

Mr. Graae said their challenge had been to integrate a ten-story building into the neighborhood context. He pointed out the neighboring late-Victorian townhouses with their corner towers as well as the large, eight- or nine-story office and dormitory buildings in the immediate area. He said their building would be a residence hall for juniors and seniors, apartment-style, so not actually a dormitory. One of the planning issues they had considered carefully was how to link up with the existing between-block and inner-block pedestrian circulation and had planned a back door so that people could get to the building through the courtyard. Another planning issue was the location of service and trash facilities, which they had moved as far away from the front door as possible. He pointed out the access to the three-story garage below grade which would also access the dumpster and compacting facilities all inside the building. He said the basic layout would be a modified U-shaped building with a front bar and two legs coming out of the back so as to create a central courtyard and small courtyards on each side. He noted also that the first floor would be slightly raised in order to provide light wells for the basement apartments.

Mr. Graae said they had taken traditional building elements as a starting point, such as composing the facade into a base, middle, and top, and then updated them. He pointed out the attempt to relate to the adjoining townhouses by having a change of material occur at the roof line of the townhouses. He showed two similar concepts, with varying use of materials and color. He said they were in the early concept stage at this point, but the materials would be a combination of buff and red brick, or red brick and precast. Both concepts showed a modulated facade, with areas of glass brought forward and brick or precast areas recessed. Mr. Graae said that the large glass window areas would be used for daytime living spaces; smaller punched windows indicated bedrooms. Cornices would probably be aluminum. An attempt had been made to lighten the large building visually by using a lighter colored material at the upper levels.

Mr. Belle commented that he thought the use of pre-cast would cheapen the building considerably, but he had no objection to using two to three different brick colors, feeling that this would fit in very well with the character of the neighborhood. There was general agreement with his statement. Mr. McKinnell thought the appearance would be improved if the lighter color was integrated into other parts of the facade, perhaps around the red brick windows. He also commented on the "incipient monumentality" of the facade treatment above the entrance; he thought a slightly more light-hearted approach would be better. His last comment was on the elevation of the first floor, not for the requirements of the loading dock as he had at first thought, but, among other things, to bring the basement apartments up a little so that they could receive some light through the use of light wells. He did not like the resulting effect on passersby on the street, who would have to look down into the student rooms. Mr. Graae said they could landscape the area heavily, as there was quite a distance between the building wall and the sidewalk. Mr. McKinnell commented that the design of the ramp up to the entrance looked like one that had been added to a non-accessible building. Ms. Nelson said her concern generally was about the top of the building; she thought the cornice needed to be rethought.

Mr. Powell said it was obvious that the scheme needed more study, but as this was just in the concept stage, he sensed that Concept A could be given that level of approval, taking into consideration the comments made about revising the brick pattern and looking again at the handicapped ramp and studying the facade further. Mr. Belle made a motion to that effect, which was seconded by Ms. Nelson and carried unanimously.

S.L. 06-065, Courtyard Marriott Hotel, 575 20th Street, N.W. New nine-story hotel building. Concept. Mr. Powell told Ms. Penhoet that the members had reviewed this proposal and liked it very much; in fact, were ready to approve it. Architect George Dove said he had material samples if the Commission would like to see them. He said they wanted to continue the character of the adjacent building so had selected a limestone precast for the exterior, which he showed, as well as a glass sample for the curtain wall segment. He showed two color choices for the metal panels. The members approved the precast and the glass, and selected the darker of the two metal colors. Ms. Nelson made a motion that the concept be approved; it was seconded by Mr. Belle and carried unanimously.

Old Georgetown Act

O.G. 06- 160, 901 30th Street, N.W., Lano Armada Harbourside LLC – Alterations to the North Building penthouse. Concept. (Previous: O.G. 04-197.) Mr. Martínez said this was a concept for alterations to what has been reviewed and approved for permit for the North Building of the Harbourside Project at 901 30th Street, N.W. He showed photos of the building already under construction. He said the architect, Arthur Cotton Moore, had worked with the staff showing several revisions to the design: the railing on the residential level along Rock Creek Parkway which he wanted to change to glass, and a pool at the penthouse level. He said the applicant, VOA, would be preparing construction drawings for all these revisions and come back for permit review of the whole package. He said the additional study of the courtyard landscaping between the two buildings would also come back at a later date.

Mr. Martínez said there was one revision which he wanted the members to see at this time, and that was an alteration to the penthouse which would introduce 14 feet of glass at the corners of the building. He introduced the architect, Mr. Moore, to explain why he wanted this revision and what would be visible. Mr. Moore said that he wanted to introduce these windows in the mechanical penthouse as they would open up to the residential level below, giving the occupants a double height space and more light. There would be a spiral stair to reach the terrace level and go out onto the terrace. When asked about the visibility, he said it would be difficult to see the windows from almost any vantage point. There were no objections to this revision. Ms. Nelson made a motion to approve it, which was seconded by Mr. Belle and carried unanimously.

O.G. 06-115, 901 30th Street, N.W., Lano Armada Harbourside LLC- House of Sweden. Brick street and sidewalk paving, bollards, and flagpoles in public space. Public space permit. Mr. Martínez said this was a District Government public space permit involving pavers, bollards, flagpoles, and trees proposed for the street; it is a separate case from the adjacent Harbourside project. He said the Old Georgetown Board had objected to the proposed brown brick pavers and recommended that the street paving be either asphalt, to correspond to standard District streets, or historic Georgetown brick pavers. Mr. Moore asked the Commission to approve the proposed pavers, explaining that this material had been approved many years ago when the Washington Harbour and unbuilt Rosewood Hotel projects were reviewed by the Commission. There was a discussion of the pavers and the other items in the requested permit–bollards, flagpoles, and trees–and in the end, Ms. Nelson moved that all be approved; her motion was seconded and carried unanimously.

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:49 p.m.


Thomas E. Luebke