DOCSLIB.ORG

Woodley Park Historic Societies Recognize the Contribution of the Lawn

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Woodley Park Historic Societies Recognize the Contribution of the Lawn BEFORE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ZONING COMMISSION In the matter of: ) ) APPLICATION OF KLINGLE CORPORATION ) Case No. 96-7C Cl ci c::::. BRIEF OF CATHEDRAL PARK CONDOMINIUM COMMITTJLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH COMMISSION'S MARCH 10, 2000 LETTER -~ ; :.) Andrea Newmark Cathedral Park Condominium Committee 3 100 Connecticut A venue, # 13 8 Washington, D.C. 20008 (202) 234-3286 May 12, 2000 ZONING COMMISSION ZONINGDistrict ofcor~H.r'i,SSiOi''{ Columbia Case No. 96-7 CASE No._!fi_-ZONING](, COMMISSION District of Columbia qz_CASE NO.96-7 ~"1: ..IIBIT No. 3DeletedEXHIBIT NO.392,.. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . 1 The Proceedings To Date . 2 RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS POSED BY THE COMMISSION . 3 1. Density ......................................................................... 3 In your brief, please address the following questions raised by the Court: . 3 (1) whether the PUD would not be a "low density" development within the meaning of 10 DCMR § 1407.3(c) ................................................................. 3 (2) whether the National Zoo and/or Klingle Valley are "landmark parks" for purposes of that section . 4 (3) whether the proposed PUD is "adjacent" to Klingle Valley and/or the National Zoo for purposes of that section . 4 If your answers to the above questions are in the affirmative, please address whether and to what extent the application of 10 DCMR § 1407.3(c) to the PUD in this case is limited (e.g., by other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan or by ameliorative measures) . 5 Finally, in light of your answers to these questions and any other information relevant to the low density requirement of 10 DCMR § 1407.3(c), please discuss whether the proposed PUD is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan as a whole . 6 2. Specific Protection of Green Space on Kennedy-Warren Property ........................ 9 Please discuss whether the proposed PUD is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan in light of the proscriptions of 10 DCMR § 1407.3(d) and 1409.4(a)(3) against infill of open space that is "recognized to contribute to the integrity of the site or structure" at the present time. To the extent you consider the original design of the Kennedy-Warren relevant to the issue, please include a discussion thereof in your response . 9 The Kennedy-Warren Lawn is Recognized to Contribute To The Integrity Of The Site Or Structure At The Present Time . 10 a. The Lawn Is A Character-Defining Feature In The Existing Building's Historic Designations . 10 b. The Plan Itself Recognizes The Contribution Of The Kennedy-Warren Lawn 11 c. The Lawn Is Widely Recognized To Contribute To The Integrity Of The Structure or Site At The Present Time . 12 i. The D.C. Preservation League has long recognized the contribution of the lawn .... 12 11. The Cleveland and Woodley Park Historic Societies recognize the contribution of the lawn. 13 iii. ANC-3C and the Citizens Planning Coalition recognize the contribution of the lawn.. 13 1v. The Commission on Fine Arts and the National Zoo recognize the present contribution of the lawn to the site... 15 v. The community recognizes the lawn to contribute to both the structure and its site ... 17 This Infill Would Not Be "Appropriate" ........................................... 18 The Proposed PUD Would Be Inconsistent With The Comprehensive Plan . 18 While The Original Design May Be Relevant To Determining "Compatability" Under The Historic Preservation Act, It Is Not Relevant To The Pending Issues ..................... 19 3. Impact, if any, of the 1999 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. 21 Please discuss whether the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Act of 1999 has any impact on the PUD application. If you believe that any of the 1999 amendments have an impact, please identify the amended provision(s) in question and explain why you believe the amendment impacts the application.. .21 i. additional protection for the settings of historic landmarks . 21 10 DCMR § 1407.4(d) ii. increased emphasis on curtailing development adjacent to parkland . 22 10 DCMR § 1409.4(a)(3)(B) 10 DCMR § 1403.7(a)(3) 10 DCMR § 1407.3(b)(6) iii. additional buffer requirements . 23 10 DCMR § 1407.l(d) iv. clarification regarding housing near metro stations .......................... 25 10 DCMR § 1401.6(b) CONCLUSION . 26 11 INTRODUCTION The Zoning Commission's enabling statute, D.C. Code §5-414, requires that "zoning maps, regulations, and amendments thereto ... not be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan for the nation's capital." In its decision of January 20, 2000, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals vacated the Commission's order approving the construction and associated rezoning of a Planned Unit Development ("PUD") by the Klingle Corporation ("Klingle"), adding a new wing to the Kennedy-Warren apartment building on Connecticut Avenue, N.W., because of the Commission's failure to adequately consider the PUD's apparent inconsistency with three provisions in the Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"). See Cathedral Park Condominium Committee v. District of Columbia Zoning Commission, 743 A.2d 1231 (D.C. 2000). The Cathedral Park Condominium Committee ("CPC")Y, which opposes the PUD, had explained during the 1997 zoning hearings the significance of those provisions, but the Commission adopted Klingle' s proposed findings and conclusions, which simply glossed over them. Now, the Court of Appeals has directed the Commission to address specifically whether the PUD is inconsistent with the Plan "in light of (1) the requirement of 10 DCMR § 1407.3(c) that development adjacent to landmark parks 'must be low density'; and (2) the proscriptions in 10 DCMR §§1407.J(d) and 1409.4(a)(3) against infill of open space that is 'recognized to contribute to the integrity of the site or structure."' 743 A.2d at 1251. The Commission has, in turn, asked the parties to brief those questions, and also to address the Ji At the time of the initial proceedings, CPC was a group of unpaid, volunteer co-owners of the Cathedral Park Condominium, located at 3100 Connecticut Avenue directly opposite the Kennedy­ W arren. Since then, the individual CPC members transferred their interests in these proceedings to member Andrea Newmark, so that Ms. Newmark's appearance in the Court of Appeals on behalf of persons other than herself would not conflict with her job at the Department of Justice. - I - applicability to the PUD of the 1999 amendments to the Plan. As CPC shall demonstrate, the PUD is plainly inconsistent with 10 DCMR §§1407.3(c), 1407.3(d), and 1409.4(a)(3), and the amended Plan as a whole. The Proceedings To Date On September 15, 1997, after several nights of hearings, the Commission granted Klingle, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the B.F. Saul Co. and the owner of the subject property (also referred to in these proceedings as the "applicant"), permission to exceed the density, rear yard and penthouse limitations in order to construct a luxury high-rise addition to the Kennedy-Warren Apartments, an historic landmark located at 3133 Connecticut Avenue, adjacent to the National Zoo. The development would replace the Kennedy-Warren lawn, which is surrounded by historic landmarks, and serves as a buffer between those landmarks. The plans for the proposed development approximate the plans for the South wing that was designed in 1931, prior to this City's adoption of density limitations, and never built. However, the principal purpose of this PUD is to build rental apartments. Moreover, much has changed since 1931. The lawn has become significant in its own right: the setting it provides was an element in the designation of the Kennedy-Warren as an historic landmark, and it has been singled out in the Comprehensive Plan for protection against development. The National Zoo has fought to preserve the lawns surrounding its Connecticut A venue entrances as integral parts of its own setting. And the kind of density that was viewed as desirable for the site in 1931 has since been roundly condemned. The density of the existing Kennedy-Warren, a nonconforming structure, exceeds its current zoning - thus precluding any further development on the site as a matter of right. In - 2 - approving the PUD, the Commission granted applicant an 80% increase in allowable density, 70% waiver of the rear yard requirement, and various waivers of the penthouse restrictions through the PUD regulations set forth at 11 DCMR §§ 2400-2499. In conjunction with the PUD, and using the same standards, the Commission granted applicant an upzoning of the site from R-5-D to R-5- E. This was the first residential PUD application to be evaluated under the Ward 3 Element of the Plan, adopted on August 19, 1994, see 41 DCR 5536, 5686 (Aug. 19, 1994), and the first to be evaluated under the 1995 revisions to the PUD regulations. CPC appealed the Commission's September 15, 1997 Order (hereafter "Order") to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals which, on January 20, 2000, vacated the order, and remanded the case on the question of whether the requested zoning relief is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS POSED BY THE COMMISSION 1. Density. In your brief, please address the following questions raised by the Court: (1) whether the PUD would not be a "low density" development within the meaning of 10 DCMR § 1407.3(c ). The PUD would be zoned R-5-E and have a FAR of 6.29 - a density so high it is "off the charts." See 11 DCMR §§ 402.4; 2405.2. Indeed, the 6.29 FAR of the proposed project would be the highest residential density in the entire City. And, as applicant's land use expert conceded on cross-examination, there currently is no other R-5-E, "high density" zoning in all of Ward 3.J Y It also is undisputed that the project site is currently zoned for a 3.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Uptown Theater Nomination
    GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW BOARD APPLICATION FOR HISTORIC LANDMARK OR HISTORIC DISTRICT DESIGNATION New Designation __X___ Amendment of a previous designation _____ Please summarize any amendment(s) _______________________________________________ Property Name: Uptown Theater______________________________________ If any part of the interior is being nominated, it must be specifically identified and described in the narrative statements. Address 3426 Connecticut Avenue NW Washington, DC 20008 Square and lot number(s) Square 2069, Lot 0816 Affected Advisory Neighborhood Commission 3C Date of Construction: 1936 Date of major alteration(s) _______ Architect(s) _John J. Zink Architectural style(s): Moderne Original use Theater Present use Vacant/Not in Use Property owner Circle Management Company_____________________ ____________________ Legal address of property owner 4018 Brandywine Street NW Washington, DC 20016-1844 NAME OF APPLICANT(S) DC Preservation League and Cleveland Park Historical Society ___ If the applicant is an organization, it must submit evidence that among its purposes is the promotion of historic preservation in the District of Columbia. A copy of its charter, articles of incorporation, or by-laws, setting forth such purpose, will satisfy this requirement. Address/Telephone of applicant(s) 1221 Connecticut Avenue. NW Suite 5A, Washington, DC 200036; 202-783-5144 and P.O. Box 4862 Washington, DC 20008 Name and title of authorized representative: Rebecca Miller, Executive Director, DCPL and Rick Nash, President, Board of Directors, Cleveland Park Historical Society___________________ Signature of applicant representative: ______________________________ Date: 10/29/20 Signature of applicant representative: Date: 10/29/20 Name and telephone of author of application DC Preservation League 202-783-5144; Cleveland Park Historical Society 202-237-5241 Date received ___________ H.P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 DC HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN Plan Methodology Connections to Long-Range Planning B Seeking Public Views
    2020 District of Columbia Historic Preservation Plan Preserving For Progress 1 introduction 1 Preserving for progress The district of columbia’s vision for historic preservation 2 dc history and heritage 9 People and progress A legacy of visionary plans Landmarks and milestones A succession of eras 3 preservation achievements 45 What works about preservation in dc 4 preservation challenges 55 Gathering public views Balancing growth and character Protecting neighborhoods Communicating preservation basics Leading the nation Planning for preservation Evaluating available resources 5 goals, objectives, and actions 65 Setting shared goals Sustaining our progress Preservation in context A new planning cycle Recognizing historic resources Engaging communities Improving protections Maintaining our heritage 6 implementation 79 Achieving our goals 7 resources and appendices 89 Bibliography Credits and acknowledgements introduction 1 Preserving for progress Introduction Continuing on a Path Forward A Guide for Everyone Plan Organization Now well into its third century, the District of Columbia is This plan for 2020 updates the goals established in the Preservation requires collective action. Community The 2020 plan is organized in seven chapters: fortunate in the exceptional value of its cultural, historical, District’s historic preservation plan for the four years ending organizations and volunteers foster pride in our history and and architectural heritage. This is a rich and varied legacy, in 2016. That plan introduced a new framework for planning advocate for the benefits of preservation. Schools, cultural • First, it describes a common vision, and reviews our manifested not just in the city’s majestic museums and that could be sustained through regular updates in the institutions, and a multitude of congregations maintain history and heritage — Chapters 1 and 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 19, No. 1, Spring 2005
    LEVELAN Vor. 19, No. I . NewsrerrER oF rne Cleveuno PnRr Htsronrcnl Socrery . SpnrNG 2005 Cleaeland Parh Turns Out In Force For 2006 Gardcn Tbur Cberry Thee PlantingApril I0 by Susan Lynner The last garden tour in Cleveland Park was 2003. We have some garden tour workers, On a glorious spring afternoon April 10, a shovel-bearing throng of and we even have some potential gardens, Cleveland Park neighbors and their friends turned out to plant seven 12- all we need now is an organizer to pult it all foot Okame cherry blossom trees in the triangle at 34th Street between together. Traditionally, the garden tour is held Ordway and Pofier Streets. CPHS, based upon its application submitted on Mother's Day which next year will be last January was selected by the National Cherry Blossom Festival to Sunday, May '14th. So please mark your cal- receive the three cherry blossom trees for Ward 3. The Festival awarded 3 endars, spend the next year preparing your trees to a neighborhood group, based upon applications from many garden, and call Judy Hubbard Saul, CPHS groups, in each of the City's eight wards. The CPHS Board, subsequent to Outreach Coordinator, to volunteer your garden learning of the award, decided to or to be the organizer at 363-6358. purchase four more trees through the Cherry Blossom Festival, espe- cially since the four trees could be purchased at a very reasonable price. The award included not only the trees, but also their delivery mulch, gator bags, and a brief on- site workshop about tree planting and subsequent care of the trees.
    [Show full text]
  • 2TI994 National Register of Historic Places ?OWAL Multiple Property Documentation Form Fiegister
    NFS Form 10-900-b OMB No 1024-0018 (Revised March 1992) '5 fp n? rj n/7 r? United States Department of the Interior -"« v-lJ is i i W National Park Service 2TI994 National Register of Historic Places ?OWAL Multiple Property Documentation Form fiEGiSTER This form is used for documenting multiple property groups relating to one or several historic contexts. See instructions in How to Complete the Multiple Property Documentation Form (National Register Bulletin 16B). Complete each item by entering the requested information. For additional space, use continuation sheets (Form 10-9000-a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer to complete all items. X New Submission Amended Submission A. Name of Multiple Property Listing Apartment Buildings in Washington, D.C 1880-1945 B. Associated Historic Contexts (Name each associated historic context, identifying theme, geographical area, and chronological period for each.) Apartment Buildings (1880-1945) m Working Class Housing, Alley Dwellings, and Public Housing (1865-1950) C. Form Prepared bv _____ ______________________ name/title Emily Hotaling Big and Laura Harris Hughes Architectural Historians organization Traceries date July, 1993 street & number 5420 Western Avenue_______ telephone (301)656-5283 city or town Chew Chase_____ state Maryland zip code 20815____ D. Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this documentation form meets the National Register documentation standards and sets forth requirements for the listing of related properties consistent with the National Register criteria. This submission" meets the procedural and professional requirements setiorth m 36 CFR Part 60 and the Secretary of the Interior's Standard^ and Guidelines for /y^neoljdcv and/HistWa^res^btion.
    [Show full text]
  • Architects and Builders, Montgomery County
    322 PLACES FROM THE PAST ARCHITECTS AND BUILDERS, MONTGOMERY COUNTY ollowing is a listing of archi- Ftects, landscape architects, and builders known to have worked in Montgomery County through the mid 1900s. The list is intended as the basis for research and it is hoped that it will be sub- stantially expanded in the future. At the end of the listings is a key to sources and acronyms. William Mills and Chevy Chase Historical Society Three generations of Sonnemanns have designed significant structures in Montgomery County. Photo c1900. Joseph Abel (1905-n.d.(after 1978)) During the period 1873-96, Baldwin and Pennington designed dozens A native Washingtonian, Abel received an architectural degree from of stations for the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad in Maryland, West George Washington University. He apprenticed with George Santmyers, Virginia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. The firm also designed in the 1920s, and worked as a draftsman for Arthur B. Heaton. Abel stations for the Western Maryland Railroad, the Cumberland and later founded the firm of Dillon & Abel with another apprentice of Pennsylvania, and the Maryland Central Railway. AVERY, AAA Santmyers, Charles Dillon. Abel is recognized for his apartment Rockville Railroad Station, 1873 house designs, including the Cleveland Park apartments (1928) and Gaithersburg Railroad Station and Freight House, 1884 the Governor Shepherd Apartments (1940). Broadmoor, W&S Kensington Railroad Station, 1891 1327 Connecticut Avenue, NW Dickerson Railroad Station, 1891 7702 Connecticut Avenue, Town of Chevy Chase, 1941 St. John’s Church, Forest Glen, 1894 Alexander, Becker, and Schoeppe Harry Barrett (1902-1978) AIA Philadelphia architectural firm. Edward Schoeppe (1890-1943) received Barrett was trained in his native England and worked for the NY firm a certification in Architecture from University of Pennsylvania in Peabody, Wilson & Brown.
    [Show full text]
  • Mihran Mesrobian Residence M35991
    NPS Form 10-900 OMB No. 10024-0018 (Expires 5-31-2012) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Complete each item by marking “x” in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter “N/A” for “not applicable.” For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a). Use a typewriter, word processor, or computer, to complete all items. 1. Name of Property historic name Mihran Mesrobian Residence other names M:35-99-1 2. Location street & number 7410 Connecticut Avenue (originally 6810 Connecticut Ave.) n/a not for publication city or town Chevy Chase n/a vicinity state Maryland code MD county Montgomery code 031 zip code 20815 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, I hereby certify that this nomination request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property meets does not meet the National Register criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant nationally statewide locally.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Preservation Review Board Staff Report and Recommendation
    HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Landmark/District: Cleveland Park Historic District (x) Agenda Address: 3726 Connecticut Avenue NW ( ) Consent (x) Concept Meeting Date: May 28, 2015 ( ) Alteration Case Number: 15-327 ( ) New Construction Staff Reviewer: Frances McMillen ( ) Demolition ( ) Subdivision Applicant Daro Realty, LLC with drawings prepared by Bonstra Haresign Architects, request concept review for lobby modifications to 3726 Connecticut Avenue NW in the Cleveland Park Historic District. Property Description Constructed in 1931-1932, Sedgwick Gardens is a five-story apartment building located at the intersection of Connecticut Avenue and Sedgwick Street NW. The Art Deco building was designed by prominent Washington architect Mihran Mesrobian for local developer Max Gorin. The lobby is a mix of Byzantine, Romanesque, Moorish, and Art Deco decorative motifs. The space features terrazzo floors, artificial travertine walls, and ten Scagliola piers. A center fountain, with a six-sided Art Deco skylight, serves as the lobby’s focal point. The outer walls include gathering spaces separated from the center of the lobby by Serlian triple arches lining the room. Proposal The proposal calls for modifying portions of the ceiling as part of upgrading the building’s heating and cooling systems and to introduce additional lighting. The proposal also calls for a glass enclosed office space, restoring the fountain and skylight, and new entry doors. Evaluation HPO worked with the applicant to explore several options for additional lighting, including sconces, lamps, and floor mounted fixtures. Though the recessed lighting introduces a more contemporary fixture, the number of recessed lights in the central lobby has been reduced and is limited to areas immediately inside the entrance and above the stairs leading to the elevator.
    [Show full text]
  • Mihran Mesrobian House 07-23-20 Final
    MONTGOMERY5 COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT MCPB THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION Item No. 5 Date: 7/23/2020 Montgomery County Planning Board Public Hearing, Worksession and Action on the Mesrobian House: Amendment to the Master Plan for Historic Preservation, 7410 Connecticut Avenue, Chevy Chase John Liebertz, Planner Coordinator, Historic Preservation, Functional Planning and Policy [email protected], 301.563.3405 Rebeccah Ballo, Historic Preservation Supervisor, Functional Planning and Policy [email protected], 301.563.3404 Jason Sartori, Division Chief, Functional Planning and Policy [email protected], 301.495.2172 Completed: 7/16/2020 Description The Planning Board will receive virtual public testimony and hold a public worksession on the Mesrobian House: An Amendment to the Master Plan for Historic Preservation Public Hearing Draft Plan. Staff Recommendation Staff will request that the Planning Board approve the Public Hearing Draft Plan and permit staff to make any requested revisions (technical, graphic or editorial) as part of the final editing process before transmittal of the Planning Board Draft Plan to the County Council and County Executive. Summary The National Park Service listed the subject property in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) for local significance under Criterion C (architecture) in 2017. The property’s listing in the NRHP provides owners with access to state and federal historic preservation tax credits, but offers no protection to the resource outside of a state or federal-funded project. On January 7, 2020, Caroline Hickman, representing the heirs of Mihran Mesrobian, requested evaluation of the subject property for potential listing and protection under §24A of the Montgomery County Code.
    [Show full text]
  • District of Columbia Inventory of Historic Sites
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES The D.C. Inventory of Historic Sites is the official list of historic properties maintained by the Government of the District of Columbia. These properties are deemed worthy of recognition and protection for their contribution to the cultural heritage of the city that is both national capital and home to more than a half million residents. The Inventory had its beginnings in 1964 and remains a work in progress. It is being continually expanded as additional survey and research supports new designations and more complete documentation of existing listings. At present, there are about 600 entries, covering more than 535 landmark buildings, 100 other structures, and 100 parks and places. There are also about two dozen designated building clusters and another two dozen neighborhood historic districts encompassing an estimated 23,500 buildings. Complete professional documentation of such a large number of properties to current preservation standards is an extensive undertaking that is still incomplete. For this reason, some listings in the Inventory provide a full description of the historic property, while others provide outline information only. Organization: The layout of the Inventory is designed to promote understanding of significant properties within their historic context. Designations are grouped by historical time period and theme, rather than being listed in alphabetical order. For organizational purposes, the historical development of the District of Columbia is divided into six broad historical eras, with separate sections on early Georgetown and Washington County, the port town and outlying countryside that were separate legal entities within the District for most of the 19th century.
    [Show full text]
  • Mihran Mesrobian House (35-99-1) 7410 Connecticut Avenue Chevy Chase, Montgomery County, Md 20815 Master Plan Historic Site Designation Form August 2020 APPENDIX ONE
    APPENDIX ONE mihran mesrobian house (35-99-1) 7410 connecticut avenue chevy chase, montgomery county, md 20815 master plan historic site designation form august 2020 APPENDIX ONE Table of Contents NAME OF PROPERTY ................................................................................................................................................ 1 LOCATION OF PROPERTY ....................................................................................................................................... 1 ZONING OF PROPERTY ............................................................................................................................................ 1 TYPE OF PROPERTY .................................................................................................................................................. 1 FUNCTION OR USE .................................................................................................................................................... 2 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY .................................................................................................................................. 2 Site Description ......................................................................................................................................................... 2 Architectural Description .......................................................................................................................................... 3 Detailed Architectural Description ...........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ward 3 Heritage Guide
    WARD 3 HERITAGE GUIDE A Discussion of Ward 3 Cultural and Heritage Resources District of Columbia Office of Planning Ward 3 Heritage Guide Produced by the DC Historic Preservation Office Published 2020 Unless stated otherwise, photographs and images are from the DC Office of Planning collection. This project has been funded in part by U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service Historic Preservation Fund grant funds, administered by the District of Columbia’s Historic Preservation Office. The contents and opinions contained in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the U.S. Department of the Interior. This program has received Federal financial assistance for the identification, protection, and/or rehabilitation of historic properties and cultural resources in the District of Columbia. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, or disability in its Federally assisted programs. If you believe that you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240. Next page: View looking Southeast along Conduit Road (today’s MacArthur Boulevard), ca. 1890, Washington Aqueduct TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................. 1 Ward 3 Overview........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mesrobian House Approved and Adopted
    The Mihran Mesrobian House: An Amendment to the Master Plan for Historic Preservation contains the text and supporting documentation for the amendment to the Master Plan for Historic Preservation in Montgomery County, Maryland (1979), as amended; Bethesda-Chevy Chase Master Plan (1990), as amended; and The General Plan (on Wedges and Corridors) for the Physical Development of the Maryland-Washington Regional District in Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties (1964), as amended. The Mihran Mesrobian House: An Amendment to the Master Plan for Historic Preservation addresses the property located at 7410 Connecticut Avenue, Town of Chevy Chase. The heirs of Mihran Mesrobian, requested the evaluation of the subject property for potential listing and protection under Chapter 24A of the Montgomery County Code. In February 2020, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) recommended that the subject property be listed in the Locational Atlas and Index of Historic Sites in Montgomery County and subsequently designated in the Master Plan for Historic Preservation. In July 2020, the Planning Board listed the subject property in the Locational Atlas and Index of Historic Sites in Montgomery County and recommended designation in the Master Plan for Historic Preservation. The County Council approved the Planning Board Draft Amendment in November 2020. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Online at: https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/historic/research-and-designation/mihran_mesrobian_house/ The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Designation of historic sites and districts serves to highlight Commission the values that are important in maintaining the individual character of the County and its communities. It is the intent The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning of the County’s preservation program to provide a rational Commission is a bi-county agency created by the General system for evaluating, protecting and enhancing the historic Assembly of Maryland in 1927.
    [Show full text]