PROPOSED CHEVY CHASE HISTORIC DISTRICT

DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES

APRIL 2008

INTRODUCTION

The proposal to establish a historic district in Chevy Chase, D.C., has been under discussion in the neighborhood for several years. As part of this discussion, the District’s Historic Preservation Office (HPO) offered to prepare a draft of design guidelines that would be used if the historic district were established. The purpose of this effort is to help members of the community understand how the preservation process would work in Chevy Chase, and what expectations would be applied to the review of proposed construction within the historic district.

These guidelines are specific to Chevy Chase. They are among the first of a series of neighborhood-specific guidelines that HPO intends to prepare for all of the city’s 26 neighborhood historic districts. This series of guidelines will allow more individualized consideration of the particular historic resources and design questions in each historic district. It will also help tailor the preservation process to the prevailing preservation issues and concerns in each community.

HPO staff will be available during the upcoming months to discuss these draft guidelines at Advisory Neighborhood Commission and community meetings. We welcome comments on the draft guidelines and will give full consideration to the views expressed. The draft guidelines will be revised after we receive comments, and if a historic district application is submitted, the guidelines will be further refined on the basis of information contained in the application. Any final version of the guidelines would be laid out graphically with illustrative drawings, diagrams, or photographs to help explain the concepts discussed.

If a Chevy Chase Historic District is established, then HPO will submit these guidelines to the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) for adoption. This would occur at a public meeting with advance public notice and an opportunity for additional public comment in person or in writing.

Please send comments by either regular or electronic mail to:

David Maloney

State Historic Preservation Officer

D.C. Office of Planning

801 North Capitol Street, NE

Washington, DC 20002

david.maloney@dc.gov

CONTENTS

PREFACE................................................................................................................................. 3

How These Guidelines Are Used........................................................................................ 3

The D.C. Preservation Law and Regulations........................................................................ 3

Other Standards and Guidelines.......................................................................................... 4

HISTORIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CHEVY CHASE...................................................... 7

Statement of Significance.................................................................................................... 7

Synopsis of History............................................................................................................. 8

Synopsis of Physical and Architectural Character................................................................. 9

THE PRESERVATION REVIEW PROCESS..................................................................... 12

GUIDELINES FOR THE CHEVY CHASE HISTORIC DISTRICT................................. 16

General Concepts............................................................................................................. 16

The Residential Neighborhood.......................................................................................... 21

New Buildings and Major Additions......................................................................... 21

Porches................................................................................................................... 25

Roofs and Roof Features......................................................................................... 27

Doors and Windows................................................................................................ 29

Building Materials.................................................................................................... 31

Landscape and Site Features................................................................................... 32

Connecticut Avenue.......................................................................................................... 36

Major Structures Along the Avenue......................................................................... 36

Commercial Buildings.............................................................................................. 37

PREFACE

HOW THESE GUIDELINES ARE USED

These guidelines are exactly that: guidelines that are intended as a practical tool to help the public understand historic preservation principles and practices. They are not government regulations or rigid rules establishing what is permitted or forbidden. Broadly stated, their purpose is to explain the reasoning and rules of thumb that preservation officials use when reviewing work that affects historic property.

Unlike zoning and other land use processes, the preservation process is a performance-based rather than a prescriptive standard. It depends more on an interactive review between the applicant and preservation staff, in which the applicant submits a proposal and the staff identifies any preservation concerns. Those concerns are then resolved through consultation to consider alternatives that would achieve compatibility with the historic context.

These guidelines supplement the policies established in the city’s preservation law and regulations, as well as other standards and guidelines currently used in the preservation program.

THE D.C. PRESERVATION LAW AND REGULATIONS

The D.C. Historic Preservation Law

The Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act of 1978 is the cornerstone of the District’s historic preservation program. The D.C. preservation law provides for designation of historic landmarks and districts, protects properties from demolition, and establishes a review process to ensure that physical changes to designated properties are compatible with their historic and architectural character. The Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) and Historic Preservation Office (HPO) conduct this review according to established historic preservation practices and principles.

The preservation law states the District’s public policy on historic preservation as follows:

It is hereby declared as a matter of public policy that the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of properties of historical, cultural and aesthetic merit are in the interests of the health, prosperity and welfare of the people of the District of Columbia. Therefore, this act is intended to:

(1) Effect and accomplish the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of improvements and landscape features of landmarks and districts which represent distinctive elements of the city’s cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history;

(2) Safeguard the city’s historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage, as embodied and reflected in such landmarks and districts;

(3) Foster civic pride in the accomplishments of the past;

(4) Protect and enhance the city’s attraction to visitors and the support and stimulus to the economy thereby provided; and

(5) Promote the use of landmarks and historic districts for the education, pleasure and welfare of the people of the District of Columbia.

The preservation law also establishes the fundamental purposes for the review of work affecting historic properties. For properties in historic districts, these are:

(A) To retain and enhance those properties which contribute to the character of the historic district and to encourage their adaptation for current use;

(B) To assure that alterations of existing structures are compatible with the character of the historic district; and

(C) To assure that new construction and subdivision of lots in an historic district are compatible with the character of the historic district.

Achieving these three basic purposes set forth in the preservation law is the most important goal promoted in these design guidelines: to retain and enhance historic properties, to encourage their adaptation for current use, and to ensure that changes are compatible with the character of the historic district.

Historic Preservation Regulations

The District’s historic preservation regulations (DC Municipal Regulations Title 10A) more fully implement the provisions of the historic preservation law. These regulations were first issued in their current form in 2004, and are gradually being augmented to address all aspects of the preservation program. At present, they primarily establish rules of procedure for considering historic landmark and historic district applications, and for reviewing permit applications for work affecting historic property. They also authorize the use of design standards and guidelines as a basis for reviewing preservation work and delegating review authority to the HPO staff.

For further information and full texts of the preservation law and regulations, see the HPO website at www.planning.dc.gov/preservation.

OTHER STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES

The historic preservation staff uses a variety of standards and guidelines that have been adopted by HPRB for use citywide. The historic preservation regulations include the following general policies on the use of design standards (see DCMR 10A Section 2001):

The Board’s design and construction standards are intended to promote the clear understanding and use of responsible historic preservation methods and practices. They are not intended as rigid and unyielding rules for all situations, but rather as a general means of promoting equity of treatment among applicants and consistency to the directions given by the Board and staff.

The Board’s standards shall be used with discretion, considering the context in which they are applied. Their application shall involve a careful assessment of the characteristics of affected historic properties, the nature of the proposed project, and other practical considerations.

Pertinent considerations about the historic property include its relative importance, nature of significance, condition, and degree of material integrity.

Pertinent conditions about the project include the extent of its impact, its degree of reversibility, allowable development rights, and related practical or regulatory constraints.

Pertinent considerations about the relationship of a project to a historic district include its compatibility with its immediate context and not merely its consistency with conditions found elsewhere in the historic district.

The burden shall be on an applicant to show that an exception to the normal rule in the Board’s standards is appropriate.

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards

The national historic preservation standards and accompanying guidelines, most recently issued in 1995, are more fully titled The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. They are the most commonly used preservation standards nationwide, and both HPRB and the HPO use them when reviewing government projects. The Secretary’s Standards are an excellent source of information and guidance about good preservation practice, but they do not set the criteria for compliance with the District’s historic preservation law and property owners are not required to apply them. The standards are included in the DC historic preservation regulations at Section 2003.

Window Standards

HPRB standards for the repair and replacement of windows address one of the most commonly reviewed types of work on historic buildings. These reviews are delegated to the HPO staff, which evaluates up to about 500 window projects annually for consistency with the standards. HPRB adopted the standards in 2001, and they are included in the historic preservation regulations at Chapter 23.

As of April 2008, the window standards are under review in conjunction with an evaluation of new window products currently entering the market. This review will include an analysis of whether the requirement for wood replacement windows on the front façade of houses should be modified to allow new high-performance composite materials and installation designs that achieve an appearance comparable to wood windows. Additional guidance on the preservation of existing windows may also be included. Any revision of the window standards should be submitted for HPRB review in summer 2008.

Sign Standards

HPRB standards for signs and related alterations (awnings, canopies, and marquees) address the most frequently reviewed type of work for retail businesses and institutions. The sign standards establish criteria for evaluating the size, placement, type, and extent of signage in order to ensure that such features do not obscure or clutter historic properties, are respectful to the unique features of particular buildings and neighborhoods, and promote a pleasant pedestrian environment. The standards encourage creativity, diversity and individuality in the development of signs. HPRB adopted these standards in 2008, and they are included in the historic preservation regulations at Chapter 25.

Historic Preservation Guidelines

HPRB topical guidelines offer advice on a range of frequently encountered concerns relating to the maintenance, repair, and alteration of historic buildings. The guidelines provide information on the historical factors that influenced building design, explain preservation principles, and describe various do’s and don’ts for good preservation work. There are guidelines for the following topics:

· Introduction to the Historic Preservation Guidelines

· Windows and Doors for Historic Buildings

· Roofs on Historic Buildings

· Walls and Foundations on Historic Buildings

· Landscaping, Landscape Features and Secondary Buildings in Historic Districts

· Energy Conservation for Historic Buildings

· Accommodating Persons with Disabilities in Historic Buildings

· Additions to Historic Buildings

· Porches and Steps on Historic Buildings

· New Construction in Historic Districts

HPO has also developed a series of short handouts relating to repair and replacement of various building elements:

· Door Replacement for Historic Properties

· Masonry Repair and Repointing

· Metal Repair and Fabrication

· Roof Decks and Roof Additions

· Window Repair and Replacement

For further information including texts of these standards and guidelines, see the HPO website at www.planning.dc.gov/preservation.

HISTORIC CHARACTERISTICS OF CHEVY CHASE

NOTE: For the purposes of this draft, some of this section has been adapted from the evaluation of the Chevy Chase Village Historic District in Montgomery County. This section will be revised in the event HPO and HPRB receive and evaluate an application for the Chevy Chase Historic District.

STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE

Chevy Chase is nationally recognized as a prototypical, turn-of-the-century streetcar suburb providing upscale residences in a comprehensively planned environment. It is one of Washington’s most prominent and influential streetcar suburbs of the early 20^th century.

Chevy Chase, D.C., developed as part of a visionary real estate investment by the Chevy Chase Land Company, whose prototype for a planned suburb set the tone for early 20^th century neighborhoods throughout northwest Washington and southern Montgomery County. Architecturally, Chevy Chase contains a large concentration of outstanding architect-designed and vernacular suburban houses rendered in the popular styles of the period from 1900 to 1950. Together, the surviving plan and architecture of Chevy Chase represent one of the most intact and important examples of suburban planning and architectural expression built in Washington before World War II.

The period of significance for the Chevy Chase Historic District begins in 1907, when the Chevy Chase, D.C. subdivision opened for sale, and continues into the 1940s, a decade which marked the close of the majority of construction activity in the area and a waning from the 1920s peak. The district meets the criteria for designation as a historic district for the following reasons:

• as a prototypical, turn-of-the-century streetcar suburb designed to provide upscale residences in a comprehensively planned environment;

• for its association with Nevada Senators Francis G. Newlands and William M. Stewart, heirs to major fortunes from the Comstock Lode;

• as it exemplifies the development of outlying portions of the District of Columbia as suburban communities with close ties to the growth of central Washington;

• for its outstanding collection of early 20th century residences and commercial buildings, designed in a broad range of architectural styles popular during this period—including Colonial Revival, Craftsman, Tudor, Art Deco, Queen Anne, Renaissance Revival, Dutch Colonial, Spanish Colonial, American Foursquare—and including both architect-designed unique commissions and catalog and pattern-book houses;

• for its connection with prominent architects such as Leon Dessez, Arthur B. Heaton, Robert Beresford, F.B. Pyle, Harding & Upman, MacNeil & MacNeil, Murphy & Olmsted, and Sonnemann & Justement; and

• as a collection of significant buildings which—as a group—clearly evoke a sense of historic time and place important to the development of the District of Columbia.

SYNOPSIS OF HISTORY

Origins of Chevy Chase

Chevy Chase gets its name from a 560-acre tract of land, known as “Cheivy Chace,” patented in 1751 by Colonel Joseph Belt. The name has historic associations with a 1388 battle between England and Scotland which involved a border raid, or “chevauchee,” of hunting grounds, known as a “chace.”

The driving force behind the development of Chevy Chase as a residential suburb was Senator Francis G. Newlands of Nevada. As a real estate entrepreneur, Newlands recognized the speculative implications of the streetcar in planning for suburban expansion beyond Washington’s original city limits. Newlands had already been quietly acquiring land along the proposed extension of Connecticut Avenue before 1890, when he and fellow Nevada senator William M. Stewart incorporated the Chevy Chase Land Company. That entity continued to acquire most of the property along the Avenue, from Washington city out to the District line and beyond into the Maryland countryside.

From the beginning, Newlands sought to develop a singular neighborhood of the finest quality. The Chevy Chase Land Company spent heavily on infrastructure improvements, including the construction of the trolley line known as the Rock Creek Railway. The company built trestle bridges over Rock Creek, graded Connecticut Avenue from Calvert Street to Chevy Chase Lake, installed water and sewer systems, and constructed a power house to provide electricity. The $1.5 million corporate investment in the infrastructure of the region was a remarkable statement of faith in the growth and progress of the national capital area and created the foundation for regional community-building on an unprecedented comprehensive scale.

Newlands first began to develop Chevy Chase Village in Montgomery County, likely in part because the District was still in the process of developing its comprehensive street plan, known as the Permanent System of Highways. The civic and recreational amenities integral to the early development of Chevy Chase Village included a Village Hall, the Chevy Chase Club, and an amusement park at the end of the trolley line at Chevy Chase Lake. Chevy Chase development began in 1892, but the suburb grew slowly amid the economic uncertainties of the 1890s.

Chevy Chase, D.C.

The neighborhood widely referred to today as Chevy Chase, D.C., is a seamless collection of eight separate subdivisions that were opened as Chevy Chase growth accelerated after 1900. The community was built largely by two principal developers: the Chevy Chase Land Company and Fulton Gordon. Each subdivision offered a comprehensive array of services such as paved and landscaped streets and sidewalks, electricity, telephones, and mail delivery, all in an effort to entice city dwellers to the emerging suburbs.

The various Chevy Chase subdivisions were laid out between 1907 and 1918, in accordance with the Permanent Highway Plan completed in 1897. The Land Company had influenced the plan’s features in the Chevy Chase area by prevailing upon District officials to obtain the advice of the Olmsted Brothers, nationally renowned landscape architects. The resulting street plan for Chevy Chase is a modified grid plan in which an orthogonal arrangement of streets with unequal sized blocks is overlaid by a broad central diagonal—Connecticut Avenue—and several curving parkways. These parkways—Chevy Chase Parkway, Nevada Avenue, and Reno Road—emanate from Chevy Chase Circle and meander along the natural terrain to Rock Creek. This layout lent itself to the suburban ideal of free-standing houses set on open lawns in a naturalistic setting. At the same time, Connecticut Avenue provided direct transportation to the city and ultimately attracted the shops, churches, and public amenities that gave Chevy Chase its special urban-suburban character.

The first of the various District subdivisions, called Chevy Chase, D.C., was the third piece of the Chevy Chase Land Company’s grand scheme for a comprehensively planned suburb spanning the District border at Chevy Chase Circle. Like the earlier Maryland subdivisions, Chevy Chase, D.C., carried deed restrictions excluding commercial and apartment buildings. It was followed by Chevy Chase Heights, the fifth of the Newlands subdivisions, with similar restrictions. These earliest developments set the tone for building in the area and served as a planning model for the subdivisions to follow.

As Chevy Chase matured during the mid-20^th century, it retained its quality as an in-town suburb whose essential residential character is embodied in its street planning and layout, the landscape of tree-lined streets, and its variety of distinguished domestic architecture. At the same time, the Connecticut Avenue corridor evolved with more intensive development including large apartment buildings, small-scale commercial rows, churches, and civic buildings, adding the vibrant flavor of an urban neighborhood. This combination of bucolic side streets and convenient amenities gives Chevy Chase, D.C., its enduring desirability and distinguishes it from its purely residential counterparts in Maryland.

SYNOPSIS OF PHYSICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL CHARACTER

Upon the 1907 opening of the Connecticut Avenue Terrace subdivision in Chevy Chase, D.C., the Evening Star reported that it is “one of the highest elevations in the District of Columbia and it commands a sweeping panoramic view of the surrounding country, including Rock Creek Park and nearly all of the important public and private buildings of the city.” In 1910, the Washington Post praised the newly laid out Chevy Chase Heights subdivision for its “exceptionally pretty view in all directions.”

These Chevy Chase subdivisions built upon the framework of the Permanent Highway Plan, which had been deliberately designed to retain and take advantage of the locality’s views and natural land contours. Uniform grading to facilitate house construction was discouraged as unnecessary and needlessly destructive of the area’s qualities, as noted in a 1909 Evening Star article on Connecticut Avenue Park: “The ground is admirably adapted for plotting, as it is almost entirely level, which will enable the management to preserve the natural lay of the land as well as to retain many of the beautiful forest trees. The entire tract is covered with a rich growth of oak, beech, cedar and many other beautiful trees which will enable the management to develop the property into a beautiful rustic park.”

Chevy Chase no longer enjoys the same uncluttered views, but today it is nonetheless recognized for its special visual qualities, not so much distant panoramic perspectives as more intimate neighborhood streetscapes. Outstanding landscape features of Chevy Chase include Chevy Chase Circle, with its sandstone fountain dedicated to Francis Newlands in 1932, as well as the triangular parks along Reno Road and Chevy Chase Parkway. Throughout the neighborhood, the curvilinear streets and mature landscape frame an exceptional concentration of early 20^th century residential architecture.

Within the framework of grid streets and parkways, Chevy Chase grew into a park-like suburban enclave. Building lots vary in size and configuration by subdivision, but overall they are generous rectangular plots averaging 6,000 square feet, with alleys at the rear. These lots have resulted in a relatively dense arrangement of freestanding, detached dwellings, although semi-detached homes and a single series of rowhouses are also found. Garages and other accessory buildings line the alleys.

Residential Architecture

Before World War I, the residential architecture of Chevy Chase was characterized by large Shingle, Colonial Revival, and Tudor style houses on sizeable lots. Many of these were owned by wealthy businessmen or professionals and were consequently conservative in style and form, often symmetrical with ample, columned porches. After the war, Chevy Chase benefited from the prosperity of the 1920s and the explosive growth of the federal government. Lot sales were so brisk by 1922 that the Land Company struggled to meet demand by opening several new sections. This broader demand caused an evolution of the neighborhood from a scattering of exclusive residences for the well-to-do to a solid, middle-class residential district with a mixture of both upscale and more modest homes.

Chevy Chase houses generally date from the first quarter of the 20^th century. In form and style, they are exemplars of suburban construction of the period. Most were either architect-designed or constructed by professional builders to attract members of the professional classes. A number of custom-designed, owner-commissioned houses stand out architecturally. The Georgian Revival, Neoclassical, Dutch Colonial Revival, Spanish Colonial Revival, Tudor Revival, Shingle, and Arts and Crafts styles are all well represented. More modern modes, including the “International” style, can also be found.

The early 20^th century was a period of architectural eclecticism. It is not uncommon to find a mixture of styles within a single building, indicative of the exuberance of the era and of designers’ willingness to break with rigid stylistic rules and freely combine the best of different forms and decorative motifs. The dwelling forms vary from lot to lot, but well represented throughout are the American foursquare, Cape Cod plan, bungalow, and three-bay, center-hall house so typical in the Colonial Revival period. Taken as a whole, the domestic architecture and landscape environment of Chevy Chase represent an important cultural expression of American affluence in the early 20^th century and reflect the enduring idea of the garden suburb as refuge from the congested city.

Connecticut Avenue and Chevy Chase Circle

Connecticut Avenue cuts a diagonal swath through the center of Chevy Chase and serves simultaneously as a major transportation artery, the neighborhood’s principal commercial center, and a broad tree-lined boulevard culminating at Chevy Chase Circle.

Recognizing that transportation would be key to the success of its model suburb, the Chevy Chase Land Company cut Connecticut Avenue through rolling countryside to accommodate streetcar service from downtown. Although the streetcars are long gone, Connecticut Avenue still serves its original public transit purpose today, as evidenced by the Chevy Chase bus terminal that is still in use.

The Land Company initially barred commercial uses from Connecticut Avenue as with all its subdivisions. But other developers, seeking to capitalize on the success of the Land Company’s development, began to introduce retail enterprises along the Avenue in the 1910s, paving the way for a commercial corridor that principally served the needs of area residents.

In 1920, the District of Columbia adopted its first zoning regulations, designating much of the west side of Connecticut Avenue as a commercial zone. This encouraged retail development during the 1920s along the stretch from Livingston to Northampton Street, and attracted important neighborhood institutions like the Avalon Theater, Chevy Chase Arcade, and Chevy Chase Bank. These and other major commercial buildings along the avenue retain their original appearance, but some of the lesser commercial buildings have suffered from inappropriate alteration.

The 1920 zoning also allowed large apartment buildings on the Avenue, and south of Livingston Street there are several from the 1920s as well as the 1950s. The east side of the Avenue was reclassified as commercial in 1956, and the commercial buildings erected after that action, including the grocery store, gas station, and bank, are more suburban in character. The modern community center and library complex at McKinley Street complete the strip.

Connecticut Avenue leads to a grand culmination at Chevy Chase Circle, where it shifts direction and heads due north into Maryland. The circle is both the formal center of the cross-border community, and perhaps symbolically, also the locus of a cluster of architecturally distinguished churches. Joining All Saints’ Episcopal Church in Maryland are Chevy Chase Presbyterian Church and the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament (both of the 1920s), while just a block away on Western Avenue is the Chevy Chase Baptist Church (1948).

Boundaries

The boundaries under discussion for a potential Chevy Chase Historic District are roughly as follows: Western Avenue on the northwest, the rear of houses on Chevy Chase Parkway on the northeast, Harrison Street on the south, and 41^st Street on the west. This area includes about 800 contributing buildings and about 150 non-contributing buildings.

THE PRESERVATION REVIEW PROCESS

The D.C. preservation law establishes a design review process for construction in historic districts. This review applies to demolition, new construction, land subdivision, and any alteration to the exterior appearance of property when a building permit is required.

Under the preservation law, a building permit subject to this review process cannot be issued without a finding by an agent of the mayor that the work is necessary in the public interest—meaning either consistent with the purposes of the preservation law, necessary to construct a project of special merit, or necessary to avoid undue economic hardship to the owner. Before this finding is made, the law requires that the application be referred to the Historic Preservation Review Board (HPRB) for a recommendation.

In practical terms, the preservation review process operates under delegated authority. The HPRB and the Director of the Office of Planning, who is the official “Mayor’s Agent” for preservation functions, directly consider only very few applications. They delegate their authority for the review of ordinary cases to the staff of the Historic Preservation Office (HPO). HPO processes about 90% of the annual workload of 4,000 to 5,000 preservation reviews using this delegated authority. HPRB considers the remaining cases at its monthly public meeting, about half on its consent calendar, and the remainder after a presentation and discussion on its agenda. Fewer than a dozen cases annually require a hearing by the Mayor’s Agent.

Review Process for Homeowners

HPO and HPRB recognize the special role of homeowners in historic districts. Collectively, homeowners preserve most of the historic buildings in the District of Columbia, and they form the backbone of support for the preservation process. They also preserve historic properties without the financial resources available to commercial interests and real estate developers. HPO and HPRB give substantial deference to the judgment, creativity, and individuality of neighborhood residents on matters that do not affect important characteristics of the historic district.

For these reasons, HPO and HPRB have streamlined the preservation review system for homeowners by providing expedited review for many types of routine work, and by offering architectural and technical assistance to homeowners on appropriate products, services, and techniques relevant to the renovation of older properties.

Community Participation

For larger projects that may affect surrounding properties or the historic district, the preservation review process allows public participation and comment before HPRB. As with requests for zoning variances or other regulatory approvals, official notice is provided to Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, community organizations, and the public at large. In most neighborhoods, either ANCs or community preservation organizations choose to participate by commenting to HPRB on cases that may affect the character of the historic district. While applicants are not required to seek approval from the ANC, any organization, or their neighbors, they are encouraged to share plans and proposals that may impact others around them in the spirit of mutual respect and maintenance of good neighborly relations.

Informal Consultation with the Staff

The preservation review process operates unlike other zoning, building code, and environmental reviews that take place before issuance of a building permit. There is naturally more dialogue in the preservation review process, because there are fewer rigid rules and specifications than in other codes. The HPO staff encourages applicants to consult informally before submitting an application, either by phone, in a meeting, or at a site visit, especially when undertaking a larger project. Ideally, the preservation review occurs mostly before the actual permit is applied for.

Conceptual Design Review

For a major project like a sizable addition, the conceptual design review process gives property owners the opportunity to obtain staff guidance and HPRB approval on the general direction of the proposal at a very early stage. HPO staff and Board members work with owners to identify and resolve any preservation concerns before they prepare the full architectural plans needed for a building permit. A large percentage of applications submitted to HPO, and the great majority of cases submitted to HPRB, are for conceptual review.

Categories of Work

The review process for work on historic property differs based on the size, complexity, and potential public impact of what is being proposed. The overwhelming majority of work is reviewed and approved by the HPO under delegation from the Board, while larger projects that have more potential to affect the character of a property or the historic district are reviewed by the HPRB. The following categories summarize the review process for the most common types of work:

Work Not Subject to Review means work that does not require a building permit or is not subject to historic preservation review.

Minor and Routine Work means work that will not change the character-defining features of historic property. This includes repairs, in-kind replacement, and rear and side alterations and site work when not prominent from the street. This type of work can typically be approved upon receipt by the HPO staff in an expedited “over-the-counter” permit review.

Significant Work means work that is prominent or visible from the street and may affect the character-defining features of historic property. This includes front window and door replacement, replacement of wall or roof materials, construction of minor additions and rear yard garages, and new work in front yards. This type of work can typically be approved by the HPO staff within 3 to 5 days.

Major Work means work that may substantially impact the visual character of a property or the historic district. This includes demolition, new construction, major additions, garages that are prominent from the street, curb cuts and driveways, and significant alterations to architectural features of historic property. This type of work is typically reviewed by the Historic Preservation Review Board within 30 days.

Work Not Subject to Review

· Interior alterations

· Ordinary maintenance

· Painting and paint color selection

· Gutters and downspouts

· Window appurtenances

Screens

Storm windows

Non-commercial awnings

Security bars

Air conditioners

· Landscaping (planting, pruning, or removal of trees, shrubs, gardens, etc.)

· Movable site features

Outdoor furniture

Play equipment

Sculpture and ornaments

· Light fixtures and lamp posts

· Any other work not requiring a building permit

Minor and Routine Work: Expedited Over-the-Counter Review

· Minor repairs

Masonry cleaning and repointing

Repair of roofing and flashing

Repair, replacement, or alteration of cornices, moldings, shutters, or other trim

Window repair or replacement to match existing

Repair of front steps, walks, fences, and other site elements

· Rear and side alterations when not prominent from the street

Door replacement

Dormers

Porches

Garage alterations

· Work in rear and side yards when not prominent from the street

Fences

Steps and walks

Patios and decks

Sheds, gazebos, trellises, and similar landscape structures

Terraces, retaining walls, and similar site structures

· Roof work not prominent from the street

Repairs, alterations, and replacement

Skylights, vents, and solar panels

Satellite dishes and antennas

Significant Work: HPO Staff Review

· Front alterations (and side alterations when prominent from the street)

Door replacement

Dormer alterations

Porch alterations (not including enclosure)

Major siding replacement

Major window replacement

· Work in front yards (and side yards when prominent from the street)

Fences

New steps, walks, and paved areas

Trellises and similar landscape structures

Terraces, retaining walls, and similar site structures

· Roof alterations and replacement when prominent from the street

· Minor Additions

Small rear additions

Side dormers or small side additions if not prominent from the street

Upper floor decks, balconies, and roof decks

· Major regrading and alteration of topography

· New garages if not prominent from the street

Major Work: HPRB Review (Agenda or Consent Calendar)

· Demolition

· New buildings

· Front additions

New porches and enclosure of existing porches

New dormers

New entrance features

· Side additions

New porches and enclosure of existing porches

Dormers or additions prominent from the street

· Large rear additions

· Garages prominent from the street

· Curb cuts and driveways

· Significant alteration of major architectural features or outstanding buildings

Significant alteration of front facades (alteration of window openings, etc.)

Significant alteration to the appearance of special windows or wall materials

Replacement of special features like tile roofs

Rebuilding of historic retaining walls

GUIDELINES FOR THE CHEVY CHASE HISTORIC DISTRICT

GENERAL CONCEPTS

The goal of these guidelines is to promote the major purposes of historic district designation in Chevy Chase: to retain and enhance historic properties, to encourage their adaptation for current use, and to ensure that changes are compatible with the historic and architectural character of the buildings and the historic district.

These guidelines are not a technical guide to methods of building conservation, nor do they prescribe or prohibit specific treatments. They neither explain how to preserve a historic building, nor describe how to design an addition. Rather, they are intended to promote an understanding of responsible preservation practice, and to set out the philosophical concepts that underlie the preservation review process.

Preserving Historic Property

Preservation is the process of undertaking specific treatments to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of a historic property. Preservation is based on the premise that ongoing repair and maintenance of building materials and features is preferable to indiscriminate replacement. Preservation promotes the value of retaining the physical integrity of historic buildings as cultural artifacts that should be passed on to future generations.

Guidelines:

Retaining Historic Buildings, Elements, and Materials

Contributing buildings in the historic district should be protected from demolition and their physical integrity should be preserved.

Historic properties should be maintained in good repair. Distinctive features, materials, and finishes should be protected from damage and decay.

The actual original materials of a historic building, sometimes referred to as its “historic fabric,” constitute the record of its construction and craftsmanship, and are significant parts of its essential character.

Alterations and additions to historic buildings should be designed and constructed in a way that does not destroy historic features, materials, or spatial relationships that characterize the property and the historic district.

Character-Defining Features

The most significant elements of historic buildings are those materials and features that are important in defining their historic character, and which must be retained in order to preserve that character. These elements may be architectural features like roofs or porches, the craftsmanship and texture of wall materials like wood, brick or stone, or the spatial relationships and natural elements that constitute the building’s site and setting. Identifying these “character-defining features” helps to prioritize the most important elements that should be protected when undertaking work on a historic building.

Enhancing Historic Property

Deteriorated features of historic buildings should be repaired. If they are deteriorated beyond repair, they should be replaced to match.

Restoration of missing features enhances the architectural integrity of a historic property. If significant features or elements are missing, they should be restored or reconstructed when this is possible. The design for replacement elements should be based on reliable information about their historic appearance.

If significant features or elements of a historic property are obscured by applied coverings, they should be uncovered and returned to their historic appearance when this is possible.

Historic commercial streetscapes are particularly susceptible to degradation through the cumulative impacts of insensitive alterations. Restoration of the often forgotten richness of commercial architecture should be accomplished through removal of applied façade coverings, control of haphazard signage, and installation of historically compatible storefronts.