From: DC Government <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2013 6:02 PM
Subject: HPRB ACTIONS April 25 and May 2, 2013
Greetings: This document and others related to the April 25 and May 2 HPRB Meeting and Public Hearings are posted on our website accessible here .
or the abbreviated URL .
Video archives of both hearing dates are accessible here . Please select "Video Archives 2009-Present" then migrate to the month and date of the hearing.
April 25 and May 2, 2013
The Historic Preservation Review Board met to consider the following items on Apri1 25, 2013.
Present: Gretchen Pfaehler, Chair; Rauzia Ally, Andrew Aurbach, Maria Casarella, Graham Davidson, Nancy Metzger, Joseph Taylor, and Charles Wilson.
APRIL 25TH AGENDA
MCMILLAN PARK RESERVOIR
McMillan Reservoir Sand Filtration Site; discussion of revised master plan and design guidelines (continuation of March 28 meeting).
The Board expressed its appreciation for the hard work and substantial efforts of the VMP team and the community in working to improve the proposal, and found the revised master plan to be an improvement over the previous submission, particularly with retaining the raised berm/plinth condition at the south end of the site. The Board encouraged that the original tripartite organization be strengthened, such as by eliminating new secondary roads and encouraging a more cohesive site plan in the middle section. The Board continued to question the external orientation of the buildings and garden in the northern portion of the site, and the effect the new construction will have on the north maintenance corridor. While appreciative of the larger public park and preservation of open space in the southern portion, the plans for the park itself should be developed to maintain a strong sense of the site’s open quality. As well, it was noted that the larger park had resulted in the new construction “ballooning out” elsewhere on the site, resulting in the loss of the Olmsted perimeter walk, which was felt to be an important element to retain and to unify the disparate new construction projects. To justify the extent of demolition and to ensure some sense of place be retained, the Board thought that the quality of new construction will need to be extremely high, and that the guidelines for new construction were perhaps not strong enough to ensure unity and cohesiveness among the various new buildings.