The meeting was convened by videoconference at 9:00 a.m.
Members participating:
Hon. Billie Tsien, Chair
Hon. Bruce Redman Becker
Hon. Peter Cook
Hon. Lisa Delplace
Hon. William J. Lenihan
Hon. Justin Garrett Moore
Staff present:
Thomas E. Luebke, Secretary
Sarah Batcheler, Assistant Secretary
Jessica Amos
Kay Fanning
Daniel Fox
Vivian Lee
Tony Simon
I. ADMINISTRATION
A. Administration of oath of office to Bruce Redman Becker, FAIA, and William J. Lenihan, AIA. Secretary Luebke introduced the two architects who were appointed by President Biden on 13 May 2024 to four-year terms on the Commission. He summarized Mr. Becker’s work as president of Becker + Becker, an integrated architecture and development firm in Westport, Connecticut, with a focus on sustainable design. He noted several of the firm’s rehabilitation and adaptive reuse projects in Hartford, New Haven, Norwich, and New York City. Mr. Becker holds degrees from Amherst College and Yale University; he is a frequent lecturer and design critic at the Yale School of Architecture and speaker at industry events.
Mr. Luebke summarized Mr. Lenihan’s work as a principal and owner of Tevebaugh Architecture, a planning and design services firm based in Philadelphia and Wilmington, Delaware. He noted several of the firm’s projects in Wilmington, Dover, and Newark, Delaware, and in Philadelphia and Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania. Mr. Lenihan holds architecture degrees from Norwich University in Vermont, and he is involved with numerous professional and non-profit organizations in Delaware.
Mr. Luebke administered the oath of office to the new members and welcomed them to the Commission. He noted that these appointments replace Commission members Duncan Stroik and James McCrery, who were appointed in December 2019; Mr. Stroik’s departure was previously recognized at the Commission’s January 2024 meeting. Mr. Luebke expressed appreciation for Mr. McCrery’s insights and contributions to the Commission’s design review work through attendance at more than forty meetings of the Commission. He noted that Mr. McCrery is at the U.S. Capitol today for the unveiling of a statue of the Rev. Billy Graham whose pedestal he designed; the statue was sculpted by former Commission member Chas Fagan.
B. Approval of the minutes of the 18 April 2024 meeting. Secretary Luebke reported that the minutes of the April meeting were circulated to the Commission members in advance. Upon a motion by Mr. Moore with second by Ms. Delplace, the Commission approved the April minutes. Mr. Luebke said the document will be available on the Commission’s website as the official record of the meeting.
C. Dates of next meetings. Secretary Luebke presented the dates for upcoming Commission meetings, as previously published: 20 June, 18 July, and 19 September 2024. He noted that no meeting is scheduled in August. The proposed meeting schedule for 2025 will be presented in the coming months for the Commission’s review.
D. Anniversary of the establishment of the Commission of Fine Arts, 17 May 1910, and the Shipstead-Luce Act, 16 May 1930. Secretary Luebke acknowledged the Commission’s two anniversaries falling in May: the 114th anniversary of the Commission’s establishment, and the 94th anniversary of the Shipstead-Luce Act, which established a key jurisdiction for the Commission’s review of private-sector development in areas of federal interest.
E. Report on the 2024 National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs grant program. Secretary Luebke reported that the applications have been processed and approved for local organizations participating in this year’s program, which provides federal grants in support of arts institutions in Washington. The Commission staff evaluated whether the applicants meet the numerous eligibility requirements; the eligibility of the applicants was confirmed by a panel consisting of the Commission’s Chair Tsien, as well as representatives of the chairs of the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. A total of 25 institutions were approved for grants, all of which were participants in the 2023 program.
Mr. Luebke said the legislative appropriation for 2024 is $5 million, the same as in recent years. The amount of each grant is determined by an established formula; the median for this year’s grants is approximately $168,000, which constitutes an average of slightly more than four percent of the operating income for the recipient institutions—an important factor in supporting the arts and culture in Washington.
F. Announcement of Historic Preservation Specialist staff position posting. Secretary Luebke reported that a position is currently being advertised to support the work of the Old Georgetown Board in preparing cases for review. He encouraged potential applicants to see the position’s posting on the federal website usajobs.gov.
II. SUBMISSIONS AND REVIEWS
A. Appendices. Secretary Luebke introduced the three appendices for Commission action. Drafts of the appendices had been circulated to the Commission members in advance of the meeting. He noted that a large majority of the Commission’s caseload is handled through these appendices.
Appendix I – Government Submissions Consent Calendar: Mr. Fox reported that no changes have been made to the draft consent calendar, which has ten projects. Upon a motion by Mr. Moore with second by Mr. Cook, the Commission approved the Government Submissions Consent Calendar.
Appendix II – Shipstead-Luce Act Submissions: Ms. Lee said the appendix has nineteen projects. Two cases listed on the draft appendix (case numbers SL 24-114 and 24-117) have been removed and are being held open for consideration in a future month. The recommendations for three cases (SL 24-118, 24-123, and 24-126) have been changed to be favorable based on design revisions. The recommendations for ten projects are subject to the receipt of supplemental materials, and she requested authorization to finalize these recommendations when the outstanding issues are resolved. Upon a motion by Mr. Cook with second by Mr. Moore, the Commission approved the revised Shipstead-Luce Act Appendix.
Appendix III – Old Georgetown Act Submissions: Ms. Amos reported that the only change to the draft appendix is to note the receipt of supplemental materials for several projects; the appendix includes a total of 29 projects. Upon a motion by Ms. Delplace with second by Mr. Becker, the Commission approved the revised Old Georgetown Act Appendix. (See agenda item II.D for an additional Old Georgetown Act submission.).
At this point, the Commission departed from the order of the agenda to consider items II.B.2 and II.C.1. Secretary Luebke said that the Commission had identified these submissions as ones that could be approved without a presentation.
B. National Park Service
2. CFA 16/MAY/24-2, Shepherd Parkway – Parkland, rectangular park bounded by Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. Avenues and Parkland Place, SE. Rehabilitation of existing park. Final. (Previous: CFA 19/OCT/23-1) Secretary Luebke said the submission responds to the Commission’s recommendations from the most recent review in October 2023. Ms. Delplace commented that the wood surface for the walkways may not be suitable for this urban setting, and she requested that the National Park Service work with the Commission staff to determine the best material to use. Upon a motion by Ms. Delplace with second by Mr. Moore, the Commission approved the final design with this guidance.
C. D.C. Department of General Services
1. CFA 16/MAY/24-3, Crummell Community Center, 1900 Gallaudet Street, NE. Renovations and additions to building and landscape. Final. (Previous: CFA 15/FEB/24-7) Secretary Luebke said the submission responds to the Commission’s comments from the previous reviews in October 2023 and February 2024. Upon a motion by Mr. Moore with second by Mr. Cook, the Commission approved the final design.
The Commission returned to the order of the agenda with item II.B.1.
B. National Park Service
1. CFA 16/MAY/24-1, Tidal Basin and West Potomac Park Seawall Rehabilitation. Repair and reconstruction of the bulkhead/seawall and landscape. Final. (Previous: CFA 16/FEB/23-1) Secretary Luebke introduced the proposed final design for the repair and reconstruction of the bulkhead walls along the southern part of the Tidal Basin, along with the Potomac River seawall along West Potomac Park extending from Arlington Memorial Bridge south to the Inlet Bridge. He said that at its previous review in February 2023, the Commission approved the proposed concept design, suggesting further studies of improvements to accessibility—such as transitions between the landscape and the architectural enframement of the Jefferson Memorial—and encouraged careful study of the potential impact on the adjacent Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial. At that time, the Commission deferred further discussion of the landscape to allow for commentary from the landscape architect member, who was not present.
Mr. Luebke said that the project team has returned with refinements to the design, including barrier-free sidewalks at the west approach to the Jefferson Memorial, at the Inlet Bridge, and at the connection to the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial, and with more information on the historic planting plan. The submission also includes photographs of a mocked-up section of the proposed new stone wall. He noted that the Japanese government has offered to donate 250 new cherry trees to replace the approximately 140 trees that would be removed as part of this undertaking.
Mr. Luebke asked Tammy Stidham, the Associate Regional Director for Lands and Planning at the National Capital Region of the National Park Service (NPS), to begin the presentation. Ms. Stidham said this project would replace a portion of the failing hundred-year-old walls, and the intent is that the finished walls will have the same appearance as the historic walls. She introduced Andrew Cairns of the engineering firm, Mott MacDonald, to present the design.
Mr. Cairns indicated the extent of the project, totaling 6,800 linear feet: the seawall along West Potomac Park on the east bank of the Potomac River, extending south from Arlington Memorial Bridge to the Inlet Bridge; and the edge of the Tidal Basin from the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial south to the Inlet Bridge, and east from the Inlet Bridge to the Jefferson Memorial. He noted that the Tidal Basin was created in a tidal estuary on reclaimed land, which the bulkhead wall was built to protect. The settlement of the walls, combined with sea level rise, results in daily flooding during high tides, which affects the visitor experience, creates safety issues, and damages the cherry trees. He said the goal is to rehabilitate the walls, extending their long-term viability and allowing for future changes in sea level.
Mr. Cairns described the original seawall as a dry-stacked stone wall laid in a random- coursed pattern. Variations are present in the existing wall from construction during different time periods and from repairs. The project will re-establish the historic function of the walls, maintaining their historic alignment and also their historic appearance. The selected stone is “Virginia Mist” granite. To prevent future settlement, the rebuilt walls would be supported on steel piles extending to rock. The functional height of the walls would be 5.5 feet along the Potomac River and 4.75 feet along the Tidal Basin; the foundations would allow for taller walls in the future if needed. He said the current proposal is to pre-install the stones onto precast panels so that the sections of wall can be placed without having to install a cofferdam and drain water in the Tidal Basin; he said this approach will greatly reduce the environmental impact of the project.
Mr. Cairns said an on-site mockup of the stonework would be available for inspection before construction begins. He presented a photograph of an initial demonstration mockup of the proposed stone pattern, comparing it to a photograph of the existing wall. The intent is to reuse approximately 10 to 15 percent of the original stone; these stones would be concentrated above the mid-line level so that they are visible. He said some changes would be made to the design shown on this demonstration wall: the maximum length of stones would be reduced to no more than 30 inches, and the square stones would be eliminated because these were not used historically. The stones would be supported by precast panels, which require expansion joints between them; these joints would be stepped to be integrated into the design of the stone coursing, with a maximum of three stones aligned at the vertical joints. He presented an additional photograph of the demonstration wall in a wet condition, and he said that over time, as the stones weather, they will more closely resemble the original stones.
Mr. Cairns presented the proposed grading, with soil fill added to reestablish the historic shallow slope to the top of the walls. He described the updated planting plan, including tree removal and replacement, which is based on the original 1941 planting plan by Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr.; he said the project team is working with an NPS landscape architect and an arborist to coordinate the design. Along the Tidal Basin east of the Inlet Bridge, 145 trees would be removed and 232 trees would be planted, with a mix of Yoshino cherry trees along the wall and of cherry and shade trees by the paths. North of the Inlet Bridge, 70 trees would be removed and 68 would be planted, maintaining the placement of Yoshino cherry trees along the bulkhead wall.
Along the Potomac River, 87 trees would be removed and 146 trees would be planted. Near the Inlet Bridge, red maples would be replaced in kind; toward Arlington Memorial Bridge, new trees would be added to the mix of cherry and shade trees. He said the proposed detailing of the paths within the regraded landscape would provide barrier-free access along the paths and at the transitions to the adjacent memorials; as with the tree plantings, the proposed paths between the Inlet Bridge and the Jefferson Memorial are based on the Olmsted plan.
Mr. Cairns said that construction on the Tidal Basin walls will be completed in April 2026, and on the riverfront walls in December 2026.
Chair Tsien thanked Mr. Cairns for the clear presentation and invited questions and comments from the Commission. Mr. Cook asked if the slope of the paths would be steep enough to require handrails; Mr. Cairns said they would have a shallow slope without handrails, with an exposed-aggregate concrete surface.
Ms. Delplace asked for a summary of the findings from the Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) for the Tidal Basin. Ms. Stidham said the CLR provided many recommendations for the trees and other contributing features, and it will guide the future rehabilitation of the entire Tidal Basin. Ms. Delplace observed that Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., had always looked to the environment and the specific site to determine the best species to plant; she asked whether the project team has considered changing any of the originally planted species in response to the impact of climate change. She acknowledged the tension between honoring the historic landscape and accommodating changing conditions, but she said the impact of climate change has pushed cherry trees in Washington to bloom almost a week and a half earlier than when they were first planted. She asked how this issue has been considered in developing the planting plan.
NPS landscape architect Jason Harkins responded that the project team attempted to strike a balance in maintaining the defined edge of Yoshino cherries. To extend the blooming period and diversify the color of blossoms along this edge, the proposal is to add both early- and late-blooming cultivars in pockets and massings throughout, along with a few cultivars that bloom at the same time as the Yoshinos. He said the project team is also working with the NPS arborist to find species of shade trees and evergreens that will work with the historic plantings.
He noted that the Olmsted plan had included many white pine trees, which have not been successful on this site; the proposal therefore includes Southern magnolias instead of additional white pines, along with continued use of American holly trees. Ms. Delplace observed that Southern magnolias have a much coarser texture than white pines and will provide much denser shade, so their addition to the Potomac Park landscape will change its appearance. She said the NPS will have continuing need in the future to address the balance between maintaining historic landscape designs and accommodating climate change.
Ms. Delplace asked for clarification of whether the revised planting plan shows a double row of Yoshino cherry trees along the Tidal Basin, and whether this was a feature from the Olmsted design; she said that it would create very dense shade along the edge of the Tidal Basin. She observed that part of the pressure on the trees is the large number of people walking beneath them during cherry blossom season, and the increased shade of a double row of trees would attract even larger crowds. Mr. Harkins responded that the proposal is not for a consistent double row; some areas would have a denser massing of trees, while in other areas the trees would be more spread out. He said areas with more shade would have larger areas of mulch instead of lawn, which is consistent with the Olmsted plan.
Mr. Lenihan asked how the continuity of the irregular stone pattern would be maintained across the joints between the prefabricated wall segments. Mr. Cairns, indicating the photograph of the demonstration panel, said the design team has worked with the contractor to develop panels that would have a stepping joint instead of a vertical joint, allowing panels to fit together so that the stone pattern will appear continuous. He added that in some areas where the radius of the wall is very tight, curved precast panels would be used to fit the curve. Mr. Lenihan agreed this should be a successful technique.
Ms. Tsien emphasized the importance of this question, observing that the character of ashlar is very dependent on its irregularity. She said she regrets the intent to eliminate the square stones used in the demonstration wall; although square stones may not have been used historically, she said they would prevent the undesirable impression that the stones have been so dressed that the wall would lose its character. As a general aesthetic criterion, she recommended embracing irregularity within this system as much as possible, which will give the character of a laid stone wall instead of pre-assembled panels. She observed the prevalence of precast stone-clad panels that look so regular as to negate the idea of random-coursed ashlar; while she acknowledged this is not the intent here, she reiterated the importance of incorporating irregularity.
Gabriel Sloane of Cianbro Corporation, the construction company, said the project’s masons have recognized this problem. In response, the panels will have a variety of different coursing patterns; panels with the same pattern will not be set next to each other. He said that blending in the historic stones with new stones and placing panels in varied locations would make the walls appear irregular. He added that the step pattern for the joint was developed to ensure that breaks between panels would never be visible. Chair Tsien expressed support for this technique.
Mr. Cook asked how the concrete-backed panels would accommodate movement over time, and whether they would develop an odd “toothing” appearance. Mr. Cairns said a flexible filler material would be placed in the joints to accommodate movement; this material would be set back three inches and would not be visible. Mr. Sloane added that the walls would be constructed on a continuous relieving platform with foundations extending down to bedrock, so they would not be subject to the settlement and rotation that has occurred with the existing walls; the amount of movement would be negligible. He added that the raked mortar joints would further minimize the visibility of any movement and would emphasize the original stacked stone appearance. Mr. Cook asked how much movement is anticipated; Mr. Sloane said it would be a fraction of an inch.
Mr. Cook observed that one mockup of a wall has already been constructed, and another would be built on site before construction; he asked when the on-site mockup would be available for inspection. Ms. Stidham responded that two additional mockups are proposed—one at the stone yard in the coming weeks, and a second on site just before construction begins. Mr. Sloane said the mockup in a few weeks would look similar to the photograph in today’s presentation, intended to support a consensus on whether everyone is satisfied with its appearance. The on-site mockup would be two precast panels joined together; this mockup would be available on site from late August through the end of September 2024.
Mr. Cook offered a motion to approve the final design, subject to inspection of the stone mockups. Upon a second by Mr. Lenihan, the Commission adopted this action. Secretary Luebke noted the difficulty of having the Commission members available to inspect a mockup, and he suggested that the inspection could be delegated to the staff. Chair Tsien supported this delegation, while requesting that the Commission members be offered the opportunity to see the mockup; Mr. Luebke said he would notify the members when the mockups are available. Chair Tsien observed that the on-site mockup would be intended for construction purposes and would not allow time for any design changes; Ms. Stidham confirmed the expectation to obtain clear guidance from inspection of the earlier mockup at the stone yard. Chair Tsien suggested relying on the staff to visit the mockup at the stone yard, and to work with the NPS to address the Commission’s comments on the plantings and the stone patterning.
2. CFA 16/MAY/24-2, Shepherd Parkway – Parkland, rectangular park bounded by Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. Avenues and Parkland Place, SE. Rehabilitation of existing park. Final. (Previous: CFA 19/OCT/23-1) The Commission acted on the submission earlier in the meeting without a presentation, following agenda item II.A
C. D.C. Department of General Services
1. CFA 16/MAY/24-3, Crummell Community Center, 1900 Gallaudet Street, NE. Renovations and additions to building and landscape. Final. (Previous: CFA 15/FEB/24-7) The Commission acted on the submission earlier in the meeting without a presentation, following agenda item II.A.
2. CFA 16/MAY/24-4, Neval Thomas Elementary School, 650 Anacostia Avenue, NE. Renovations and additions to building and landscape. Concept. (Previous: CFA 21/MAR/24-5) Secretary Luebke introduced a second concept submission for alterations to the Neval Thomas Elementary School, submitted by the D.C. Department of General Services on behalf of the D.C. Public Schools. He summarized that the Commission did not take an action at its initial review in March 2024, expressing concern about the overly complex character of the design and particularly the courtyard. Specifically, the Commission had recommended simplification of the building volumes, fenestration patterns, and exterior materials to create a simpler composition consistent with the existing building’s logic and clarity. The Commission had generally supported the landscape design but requested more clarity in how the interior and exterior spaces connect, how the accommodation of potential flooding could inform the landscape, and how public art could potentially be located throughout the site.
Mr. Luebke asked Paul Keene, project manager with the D.C. Department of General Services, to begin the presentation. Mr. Keene introduced Peter Baker and Tracy Hucul of Quinn Evans Architects and Joan Honeyman of Jordan Honeyman Landscape Architecture to present the design.
Ms. Hucul provided an overview of the site’s location between the Anacostia River and Kenilworth Avenue, providing an urban setting on the east and a natural riparian buffer to the west. The adjacent Mayfair neighborhood is a community in transition, with new smaller-scale development occurring near the park and higher-density buildings closer to the highway, in accordance with an approved master plan for the area. She indicated the nearby historic Mayfair Mansions, which was the nation’s first affordable housing development funded by the federal government for African Americans.
Ms. Hucul described the existing school, which was initially built in 1946 in the International Style; she said the design team has studied other schools in the same style to develop a deeper understanding of the original design. The current building has three basic components: the academic wing built in the 1940s; the cafeteria, also from the 1940s; and a 1960s addition. The cafeteria and the 1960s addition have structural and accessibility deficiencies, and because they are several feet lower in elevation, they are located within the 500-year floodplain; the proposal is to demolish these parts of the building. The academic wing, which is two feet above the floodplain elevation, would be retained, and the floors of the new addition would align with it.
Ms. Hucul presented the design principles for the project: ensuring sustainability, creating a safe haven to promote well-being, promoting connections, and celebrating the history of people and place through art and the restoration of the building. She said the program for 354 students includes 20 classrooms, a cafeteria, and a new gymnasium with indoor and outdoor stages that open to the courtyard. In addition, the building would house a separate child development center (CDC) with its own dedicated entrance. She presented the proposed diagrammatic configuration of the program, with an academic bar along Anacostia Avenue and an angled rear wing to the northwest with the shared resources of the gymnasium, cafeteria, and library. These building components would partially define a rear courtyard that she described as a welcoming space.
Mr. Baker then described the design in greater detail, and he summarized the Commission’s concerns from the previous review in March 2024: an unnecessarily complicated architectural expression, with many different fenestration patterns and building materials; disparate volumes that intersect awkwardly; an unclear hierarchy of entrances; a request to better relate the indoor and outdoor spaces; and a request to better accommodate potential flooding as part of the site design. He said the design team has used its analysis of flooding to inform the organization of the landscape elements and the building; the proposal includes curved site walls and a building wall that would integrate the building and the site design within the context of the floodplain. He said the landscape is designed to be a teaching tool for the students and visitors, with patterns expressing the lowlands located to the north, particularly at the northeast corner.
The curving elements would be part of the landscape at the main entrance and the courtyard, and he indicated the relocated pre-kindergarten play area at an elevated location toward the rear of the site.
Mr. Baker described the intended relationship among the existing and proposed building volumes. He said the three gray volumes—for transitions and core functions—would have metal panels with a vertical expression, while the red brick volumes would have a more horizontal character. A smaller, curving volume facing the courtyard has been articulated to step the massing down, to create a sense of entry, and to make the courtyard more appealing. He also described the design team’s analysis of the historic school elevation, including the corner windows, the facade banding, and the ribbon windows that provide a horizontal emphasis.
For detailing the exterior materials, Mr. Baker said the proposal is to use a different brick pattern—a stacked soldier course with raked horizontal joints—to provide some interest while still being related to the historic building. Dark gray brick would be introduced at the base of the building on several sides to convey that the building sits on a plinth that is elevated safely above the floodplain. The rough Carderock stone for the new site walls would relate to the color of the precast elements. For the overall pattern of the windows, he said the design team has simplified the approach, replacing the previous complex panel combinations with simple metal panel infills. He presented the simplified palette of materials including the two colors of brick, metal panels, and stone that will be set in a random-laid pattern for the curved landscape walls.
Mr. Baker indicated the new main entrance for the school along Anacostia Avenue as well as the secondary entrance to the southwest for the CDC. He said the design team concluded that the new entrances would need to compete with the existing tower volume at the northeast end of the 1940s building, particularly since the tower would become a more central element as the academic bar is extended farther northeast. The proposal is to emphasize the new main entrance with a combined corner window and vestibule element derived from the 1940s International Style. He said the entrance canopy could include photovoltaic panels on its roof to promote sustainability at the site.
Mr. Baker then described the design of the northwestern wing, which would contain the gymnasium, cafeteria, and library. The facades would incorporate banding to delineate the two-story space of the gymnasium, and the gymnasium’s windows would be placed to afford views of the natural environment west of the building toward the Anacostia River. The connecting volume that adjoins the academic wing would be recessed to simplify the appearance. He said the facades are designed to appear complete, with or without artwork incorporated on the proposed metal-panel system. Part of the courtyard would be carved out as a lower space, allowing students and teachers to understand the context of the site’s hydrology. He presented site and building sections, indicating the play spaces that are elevated above the 500-year floodplain level and the more natural areas that are within the floodplain, providing learning opportunities for the teachers and students; he noted that the floor level of the outdoor amphitheater is actually at the 500-year floodplain level.
Ms. Hucul concluded by presenting the proposed floorplans along with perspective views of the major interior spaces. She indicated the school’s main entrance, with the administration office adjacent to it on the first floor and a health suite above it on the second floor. The pre-kindergarten area would be located on the first floor of the academic bar; the kindergarten and first-grade classrooms on the second floor; and the second- through fifth-grade classrooms on the third floor. The shared-resources wing would have the cafeteria and gymnasium on the first floor, with the library located on the second floor above the cafeteria.
Chair Tsien thanked the design team for the clear and thorough presentation, and she invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Cook said the revised design has significantly improved and responds well to the Commission’s previous comments; he expressed support for the resolution of the front entrance plaza. He commented that the courtyard facades have improved but could still benefit from simplification, especially at the gymnasium wing; he said the facades in this area are still overly complicated, including the brick patterns, corbelling, and fenestration, and he suggested further refinement. He also commented that the location and size of the fenestration in the gymnasium should be studied further, observing that bright light entering through these windows may be distracting for students playing inside the gymnasium.
Ms. Tsien said she agrees with Mr. Cook’s comments regarding the improvements in the overall design proposal. She commented that the stone wall needs to be studied further to ensure that it has an authentic appearance. She agreed that the curved wall elements help to tie together the site and building, and she described the choice of materials as both richer and simpler.
Mr. Moore joined in praising the updated design, which he said resolves most of the Commission’s previous questions and concerns. As a minor issue, he commented that the amphitheater should have equitable access to the floor in the center for the students in the school's various programs. Mr. Baker indicated an accessible route to this area but acknowledged that it could be studied further.
Secretary Luebke summarized the comments, including further study of the amphitheater’s accessibility and refinement of the gymnasium’s facades and fenestration. Upon a motion by Mr. Moore with second by Ms. Delplace, the Commission approved the concept design with these comments and delegated review of the final design to the Commission staff.
3. CFA 16/MAY/24-5, J.O. Wilson Elementary School, 660 K Street, NE. Renovations and additions to building and landscape. Concept. Secretary Luebke introduced a concept submission for alterations to the J.O. Wilson Elementary School, submitted by the D.C. Department of General Services on behalf of the D.C. Public Schools. The existing International Style school, opened in 1961, is a three-story building with a one-story multipurpose room; an octagonal three-story addition to the north was completed in 1974. The school is named for James Ormand Wilson, a local leader in public education who served as the superintendent of the city’s public schools in the late 19th century. The proposal is to demolish the 1974 addition, gut and renovate the 1961 building with expansion to the north, and construct a new addition to the northwest for a gymnasium and additional academic space. The main entrance would also be modified to improve barrier-free access: the current configuration of interior steps within the lobby would be replaced by an outdoor entrance plaza that accommodates the grade change. He said the design includes energy-saving modifications to the 1961 building to achieve the D.C. Government goal of net-zero energy consumption, including changes to the windows and concrete frame that will require careful detailing.
Mr. Luebke asked Matthew Dela Cuesta, the project coordinator with the D.C. Public Schools, to begin the presentation. Mr. Dela Cuesta introduced the design-build team for the project and asked architects Jeannine Otieno and Lina Taheri of Perkins Eastman DC to present the design.
Ms. Otieno provided an overview of the context, site, and existing building. The school is located north of Capitol Hill within the residential neighborhood bounded by Florida Avenue and Gallaudet University to the northeast, H Street to the south, and the Union Station tracks to the west. The neighborhood is pedestrian-oriented, and she indicated the nearby bus routes and the H Street streetcar line; Union Station is a twenty-minute walk from the school. The residential context is primarily two- and three-story row houses with a variety of style and color, which has been considered during the design process. The school’s site is the entire north side of K Street between 6th and 7th Streets, bounded by a public alley on the north. The school building occupies the eastern side of the site, with a parking lot along 7th Street; a playing field and playground space occupy the western half of the site. She presented a historic map to illustrate the site prior to the school’s construction; an additional east-west street had bisected the site, with many small lots for row houses. She presented a series of diagrams illustrating how the building and site evolved; the original L-shaped building from 1961 includes an academic bar along K Street and an eastern wing with the multipurpose space along 7th Street. She showed where the location for parking had changed over time, moving from the site’s northeast corner to the northwest corner then back to the northeast corner. The configuration of the play space has also been adjusted over the decades. The octagonal addition has provided classrooms and flexible space to supplement the original academic bar. She presented a time series of photographs of the front entrance area, which has been altered in recent years to create an entrance plaza and replace the storefront facade; the large projecting entrance canopy remains in place from the original design.
Ms. Otieno noted that the neighborhood has a strong sense of community, and the residents have expressed their strong attachment to the playing field and playground on the western half of the site; this concern has been a consideration in the design process. She described the proposed scope of work, which would include demolition of the octagonal addition. The modernization of the 1961 building would include special attention to its street-facing south and east facades; a new addition would be constructed to the north. The eastern wing of the 1961 building would be largely unchanged, with the multipurpose room and stage remaining and the kitchen receiving some upgrades. For the academic bar, the interior partitions would be removed to allow for expanded classrooms and current needs; however, the structure, roof, and primary facade would remain. The academic bar would be expanded to the north to accommodate additional classrooms along the repositioned east–west corridor, and a larger addition to the northeast would have the gymnasium and other special program areas. She emphasized that the 1961 building would remain the primary focus along K Street, with its prominent concrete frame and ribbon windows; the new construction would generally be seen only from the north and west. She added that the playground and much of the playing field would remain, including theplayground’s bermed edge planted with cherry trees that provides a good buffer between the playground and the street.
Ms. Otieno presented the proposed floorplans, indicating the major first-floor spaces for the gymnasium, library, and dining area. Classrooms for the pre-kindergarten students would also be on the first floor, and the classrooms for older students would be on the second and third floors. She noted that the new construction would match the existing building’s floor levels and overall height.
Ms. Taheri presented additional details of the facades. She noted that the primary facade along K Street has undergone alterations over the decades, but its extruded frame system and ribbon windows remain as strong architectural features. The challenge for the current project is to reconcile the design of this primary facade with the high-performance energy-conservation goal. One issue is glare from the south-facing windows, which bring in approximately four times more light than is acceptable for classroom spaces. Thermal gain through the windows is also a concern, with solar control currently being provided by lowering shades on the interior. The proposal to address these concerns is to add horizontal fins along the existing horizontal louvers. Another issue is thermal bridging through the concrete frame system; the design team is studying different insulating materials that could be applied to the surface, with the goal of minimizing the aesthetic impact on the appearance of the frames.
Ms. Taheri described the proposed modifications at the school’s main entrance, which would continue in its current use. The existing steps and wheelchair lift within the lobby interior would be eliminated, and a raised landing would be created on the exterior to provide entry at the level of the first floor. The landing would be reached by steps facing K Street, along with a ramp to the east, ascending from the entrance plaza. The historic entrance canopy would be reconstructed, providing protection for the new landing; the canopy’s two support columns would remain at their current location, and the canopy would be positioned higher to maintain the same height relationship to the area below. She said the proposed reconfiguration allows for creating a vestibule within the entry sequence, providing weather control for better energy performance and also providing a required additional layer of security. She summarized that the modified entrance is intended to enhance the public face of the building, which is a civic asset for the neighborhood.
Ms. Taheri presented the proposed site plan, indicating the major programmatic features. The play areas on the western side of the site would generally remain, with the same relationship to the school building; the location for one of the smaller play areas is still being studied. The parking area at the northeast corner of the site would provide the number of parking spaces required by zoning regulations, and service access in this area would support the school’s kitchen.
Ms. Taheri said the design intent for the facades of the new construction is to feature new materials that complement the existing school, relate to the proportions of the existing building, and provide a building envelope that helps to achieve the high energy-performance goals for the building. The proposed treatment is brick near the ground and metal panels for the upper volumes. The design team is considering different options for the specific selection of materials and colors, with a preference for a calm and neutral tone; a light-colored masonry is illustrated, contrasting with the darker masonry of the existing building, perhaps with some complementary color relationships. The fenestration for the new construction is intended to relate to the horizontal proportions of the windows on the south facade, while providing better control for the amount of daylight and heat gain reaching the classrooms. She noted that the larger expanses of window in the new facades would be for corridors or for larger rooms such as the library. She indicated the overlapping of brick and metal volumes, intended to relate to the interior spaces as well as to the nearby row houses across the alley to the north. She presented a view of the west facade, noting that the windows on this facade would be set more deeply into the walls to provide some of the needed protection from glare; she said vertical fins may be added at the first-floor gymnasium windows to provide additional solar protection. She indicated the proposed facade alignments that would contribute to the relationship between the existing and new construction. She concluded with elevation views to illustrate the entirety of the project.
Chair Tsien invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Ms. Delplace expressed support for the proposed realignment of the main entrance with an elevated exterior landing, but she said the treatment of the ramp adjacent to the landing is a missed opportunity. She observed that the ramp would not be a central part of the entrance composition but instead seems tacked on to the side, a result that is typically seen when a ramp is added as an afterthought. She questioned the presented description of the ramp as “gracious,” commenting that it does not feel gracious; she recommended developing a more universally accessible entrance design that is welcoming for everyone. She asked about the grade change being accommodated; Ms. Taheri said the rise is approximately 2.5 feet. Ms. Delplace observed that the entrance plaza is generously scaled, and further study of this area is needed.
Ms. Delplace asked for clarification of the illustrated landscape treatment along the school’s K Street frontage. Ms. Otieno confirmed that the site plan shows a group of existing raised planters that would remain. She also confirmed that the school site is fenced along K Street, and the landscape along this frontage includes a modest rise in grade from the sidewalk to the building face. Ms. Delplace commented that the illustrated design for this area seems odd; she recommended addressing it more carefully as the design is developed, with the goal of treating the landscape along this frontage as a more central part of the design.
Mr. Lenihan expressed appreciation for the presentation and for the effort to address the challenges of the project. In considering the presented comparison of the north and south facades, he observed that the 1961 building’s south facade has a very strong vocabulary of the horizontal fenestration relating to the classroom spaces, and the vertical masonry volumes at each end that contain vertical circulation and other accessory spaces; however, the proposed north facade does not seem to share these qualities. While acknowledging the different needs for the new additions, as well as the desirability of making a contemporary statement with the new construction, he nonetheless suggested further study of the fenestration and materials to develop a richer and more refined design for the north facade, with the goal of better relating it to the existing building without copying it.
Ms. Tsien expressed support for Ms. Delplace’s comments on the main entrance. Ms. Tsien agreed that the reconfiguration to address the grade change on the building’s exterior is a good proposal, clearing up some of the interior space to improve the spatial character of the lobby. She encouraged further exploration of the landscape design to develop a gracious ascent for everyone in approaching the elevated landing and building entrance. She said the creation of a gathering place at the front of the school is a welcome civic gesture; she observed that this gathering lace could occur at the higher or lower elevation, and the design of this area should be studied to provide barrier-free access that is integral to the shared entry experience instead of being separated. She acknowledged that this design challenge is difficult whether for existing or new buildings.
Ms. Tsien also expressed support for Mr. Lenihan’s concern with better relating the new facades to the existing building. She acknowledged the desire of the architect to separate the new construction from the old, citing the tension between establishing a new language and responding to the context. However, she observed that the result can be an excess of different materials that feels more like a patchwork. She agreed that further study of the fenestration would be helpful; she also questioned the proposal for a contrasting brick color, suggesting that the brick for the new construction could more closely resemble the brick of the existing school. Volumes enclosed with metal panels could then be part of the composition as more intentional gestures. She also questioned whether the proposed lighter color palette is appropriate, observing that a slightly darker color would appear more recessive as well as relate better to the existing brick. She summarized the goal of achieving a sense of wholeness for the building.
Mr. Becker said he agrees with the comments on simplifying the materials and color range for the new construction on the north side of the school. For this project, as well as for the Neval Thomas Elementary School, he commented that the renovation and partial demolition process may provide the opportunity to salvage brick to use in the new construction. More generally, the frequently seen demolition of a brick addition could provide the opportunity to reuse the bricks, which he noted would contribute toward making the project more sustainable.
Chair Tsien suggested reaching a decision on whether to approve the concept submission. Secretary Luebke observed that the comments call for reconsidering the proposed fenestration pattern, design character, and materials for much of the proposed new construction; he said the scope of comments given today would suggest that the Commission should not approve the concept. He noted the Commission’s apparent satisfaction with the proposal’s general planning and massing, and he said the redesign of the entrance plaza could be addressed as a small area of revision.
Chair Tsien said the concept seems essentially sound in its thinking and planning, and she suggested that approval of the concept seems to be the more appropriate response. She said the choices for the materials are relatively easy to change as the design is developed; the issue needing more substantial revision is to create a more graciously accessible site design at the main entrance. The design team’s response to all of these comments could be reviewed with the next submission. Secretary Luebke reiterated that a concept approval should signify an acceptance of features such as the project’s materiality, character, and color. While describing the review as generally favorable, he suggested taking no action today; the project team could return with another concept submission that responds to the Commission’s comments, and the Commission could waive the follow-up presentation if it finds the response to be satisfactory. He said this process would avoid the potential problem of the project progressing to the final design stage with a solution that the Commission finds unsatisfactory.
Chair Tsien expressed support for this suggestion, and she asked about framing a motion. Secretary Luebke clarified that no motion is needed; the staff and the project team will work with the specific comments provided, and with the general understanding that the Commission supports the overall project. He emphasized that the lack of approval today should not be construed as a negative review, and the consensus is that the project is moving in a good direction. Chair Tsien supported this summary, with the expectation that the Commission will have the opportunity to review another concept-level submission for approval. The discussion concluded without a formal action.
D. D.C. Department of Building—Old Georgetown Act
OG 24-163, 1805 Wisconsin Avenue, NW. Demolition of existing building; construction of nine rowhouses with ground floor retail. Concept. Secretary Luebke introduced the concept proposal for a new building at the northeast corner of Wisconsin and S Streets, near the northern end of the Old Georgetown historic district. He said the Commission had approved another project at this location several years ago, but it was not constructed due to market conditions. Like the previous project, the current proposal is to demolish the existing one story masonry building and adjacent surface parking lot and construct a new multi-use building. He noted that the new proposal substantially conforms to the approved building massing of the previous project, which had been established through several reviews by the Old Georgetown Board (OGB) and the Commission. The new building would comprise nine row houses facing an interior courtyard mews above a base of parking and retail street frontage. The residences would rise three stories above the base; their primary facades would be on the interior courtyard, with the secondary elevations and open loggias facing outward. The courtyard would be visible and accessible through an open portal on S Street.
Mr. Luebke said the OGB report was circulated to the Commission members before the meeting; it recommends approval of the project with several comments, along with a request that the project be submitted at the design development phase to resolve several details. The comments include requests to revise the roof plan and loggias to be open to the sky with trellises; to refine the detailing of the downspouts; to refine the projecting bay and its brackets; to reduce the height of the corner volume and the loggia on S Street to give the building a more consistent cornice profile; to give the mews entrance a less monumental character; and to extend the masonry cladding of the exterior into the open entrance portal on S Street. He said the staff recently met with the applicant to discuss these comments, and the design is progressing well; he noted that today’s presentation will be the same one reviewed most recently by the OGB and has not been revised to respond to the OGB comments. He asked Jonathan Mellon of Mellon Historic Preservation Consultants to begin the presentation.
Mr. Mellon said he is representing the development company Fortis, which was also the developer for the project previously approved for the site. He thanked the Commission staff for its advice during the consultation process, and he introduced the architect, Christian Zapatka, to present the proposal.
Mr. Zapatka said the project has been reviewed three times by the OGB, and he expressed appreciation for the guidance in developing the design of this typologically unusual building. He said he will note the comments of the OGB members while presenting the design that the OGB reviewed. He described the existing conditions of a surface parking lot and one-story retail building. The proposed building incorporates the row house typology, which is the predominant residential building type in Georgetown and the city; he presented a 19th century Baist map showing that many blocks in Georgetown were speculatively platted with row house lots. He added that Wisconsin Avenue had originally been a residential street lined with Federal- and Victorian-era houses that were either demolished or converted to commercial and retail use.
Mr. Zapatka presented images of typological precedents, both in Georgetown and elsewhere. Georgetown has several examples of groups of houses that wrap an inner courtyard, as well as many examples of upper-story loggias, which he described as characteristic of many older houses in Washington. While the proposed courtyard would be a common space, the upper-level loggias would offer usable outdoor space for individual homeowners. He said the proposal seeks to elaborate on the element of a courtyard entry, which is often planted; the entry can serve as a pleasant place to move through for residents and can also contribute to the public realm. Precedents include Adelphi Terrace in London by the Adam Brothers, in which houses are built on top of a commercial base; courtyard groupings of townhouses in Boston; and Turtle Bay Gardens and Pomander Walk in Manhattan, which feature internal courtyards with a common garden. He said these represent a beautiful and established typology within a dense urban setting.
Mr. Zapatka presented massing studies for the new building. He said the design is intended to hold the corner, which is a longstanding design tradition in Washington, and he indicated the U-shaped massing of the upper floors around the courtyard. The alignment of the S Street facade responds to a utility easement upon which nothing can be constructed, resulting in a triangular landscaped area along the sidewalk. He presented the proposed floor plans, beginning at the ground level, where he noted that the interior residential parking area would be accessed from an existing curb-cut on S Street. A landscaped garden area at the northeast edge of the site would provide ground-level exterior access to several of the houses, and the two larger houses on S Street would have maisonette-style entrances at the ground level; the other houses would be entered only from the interior parking area or the second-level courtyard. The second level would contain the primary living space for the houses, grouped around the courtyard; access to this level would be from stairs and a shared elevator leading up from S Street, or from the private stairs or elevator within each of the houses. The third and fourth levels would have additional living space, with the open loggias also on the fourth level. He said placing the loggias on the interior facades had been considered, but this would have resulted in too close a proximity for these open spaces; the loggias are instead oriented outward, providing views across the city instead of facing each other. He said the loggia roofs are proposed to be arbors or trellises to allow for light and air into the semi-enclosed spaces.
Mr. Zapatka presented the elevation drawings, noting the elements that are being revised in response to the most recent OGB review. He indicated the proposed cast stone retail base and the four houses above that would front Wisconsin Avenue, along with the loggia elements at the fourth level, which he said would be more in shadow than is suggested in the drawings. The building’s corner mass would not have the prominent cornice line and cap that are shown, in response to the guidance that this corner is not a major intersection that would suggest such a strong architectural element. As suggested by the OGB, the portal of the courtyard entrance at the center of the S Street facade would be made less monumental; the cornice and cap detail would be lowered or eliminated, and the stone base of the ground level would be wrapped onto the portal’s interior walls. He emphasized the importance of the view through the portal up to the planted courtyard. The two houses flanking the open portal would be larger and appear more pavilion-like than the others. He said the east side of the building would be highly visible from S Street and the adjacent Jelleff Recreation Center; the projecting bay on this facade would be revised to have a more substantial base or bracket detail, and the design team will continue to study the design of the planted forecourts for the east-facing houses. The exterior walls would be composed of concrete masonry units covered with stucco to avoid visible expansion joints and allow for deeply recessed windows with proper jambs. Slight reveals would be placed between each house, which he said is a common detail in the presented precedents. The houses’ courtyard facades, which would have a more domestic scale and character, would be brick. He said further details, such as the cladding, fenestration, and retail storefronts, along with the pedestrian gate at the S Street portal and the vehicular gates for the driveway, would be addressed in the design development phase.
Mr. Zapatka presented section drawings of the proposed project. He said the elevated courtyard slab assembly would be three feet deep to incorporate planters; four columnar European hornbeam trees at the far end are intended to create a backdrop for the courtyard. The roofs at the courtyard facades would be canted back to allow more light into the mews without sacrificing interior living space. He said the details of the loggia roofs and of the stairs leading to the elevated courtyard would be studied closely and refined for the next submission.
Chair Tsien thanked Mr. Zapatka for his presentation and invited questions and comments from the Commission members. Mr. Becker expressed appreciation for the work of the OGB in reviewing the project, which he characterized as beautiful. He said Wisconsin Avenue is a loud street and suggested consideration of triple-glazed windows, which are often used a part of passive house construction; he said he is an advocate of passive house principles, and the extra cost would be quickly recouped in selling the houses.
Chair Tsien asked Ms. Delplace for any comments regarding the proposed three-foot- deep tree pits within the elevated courtyard. Ms. Delplace said she lost power due to storms in her area and unfortunately missed most of the presentation, but that the feasibility of the proposed depth would depend on the selected tree species; she noted that four-foot-deep pits would be better than the proposed three feet. Mr. Cook asked if the tree pits would be in raised planters or recessed into the slab, and he asked for more information on the plantings within the courtyard generally. Mr. Zapatka said the courtyard design is a placeholder while the project team consults with the D.C. Department of Energy and Environment regarding stormwater management requirements; the planting plan will be substantially guided by the local regulations.
Mr. Cook asked for more information on the facade along the north property line, which he said appears to be unadorned brick and would be highly visible from Wisconsin Avenue. Mr. Zapatka said this facade is currently proposed as brick; a more elaborate patterning or texture, as well as the possibility of stucco, has not yet been developed as part of the design. Mr. Mellon noted that the building directly to the north is not a contributing building to the historic district, and its site is likely to be redeveloped. Mr. Cook emphasized that the timeline for the adjacent site’s redevelopment is unknown, and meanwhile this north facade would be highly visible.
Regarding the design for the building’s southwest corner, Mr. Cook said the city has many examples to draw upon, such as turrets; he commented that the proposed chamfer seems awkward and odd. Acknowledging that the design of this element had already been reviewed several times by the OGB, he asked if a simplified corner has been considered. Mr. Zapatka said a number of approaches have been explored, but he finds that expressive design elements such as turrets seem to be most successful at prominent intersections; he noted that the OGB had requested that the corner either be more expressive or simplified, and the current intent is to eliminate the cap above the cornice line as presented. Mr. Cook said he would recommend simplification rather than embellishment. Mr. Zapatka added that the chamfer was inspired by corner buildings in Barcelona, and he agreed that the design for this corner should be as quiet as possible.
Chair Tsien said she finds the design to be a thoughtful and successful interpretation of a row house typology, and she expressed support for the proposed corner treatment. She added that the loggias are compatible with the context, and they provide welcome relief in the facade compositions. She asked for clarification regarding the proposed cladding material for the retail base and the overall color palette. Mr. Zapatka said the base would be a rusticated precast stone; Ms. Tsien agreed that this material would be more durable at ground level than stucco. Regarding the color palette, Mr. Zapatka said the specific colors have not been selected, but all the cladding materials are intended to be pale in tone and have a crisp, contemporary character based on traditional classical models.
Secretary Luebke summarized that the Commission is being asked to consider the OGB’s recommendation for approval, along with the specific issues raised by the OGB to be addressed in the design development phase. He noted that the Commission has raised several additional questions, including the viability of trees in the courtyard and its design generally, as well as the treatment of the retail base and the north facade. He said the Commission could adopt the OGB report with these additional comments and could also delegate further reviews to the OGB. Chair Tsien supported this delegation of further review.
Upon a motion by Mr. Becker with second by Mr. Moore, the Commission adopted the OGB report with the additional comments provided, and delegated further review to the OGB. Ms. Delplace abstained from the vote, noting that she was not present for most of the presentation.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:51 a.m.
Signed,
Thomas E. Luebke, FAIA
Secretary