Board of Architectural Review defers decision on 1201 East Abingdon Drive addition after design concerns

At a meeting of the Board of Architectural Review, the applicant for 1201 East Abingdon Drive presented revised designs for a residential addition and associated site changes and asked the board to defer action so the team could make additional refinements.

The applicant’s representative, Jack Kane of 900 17th Street NW, summarized design changes since the project’s March review, saying the team had reduced vertical emphasis on the addition, narrowed pilasters, revised brick color and patterning, and redesigned the primary entry gate to be more legible from the street. He described site circulation adjustments including a curb cut and short-term pickup/drop-off spaces at the new gate and said staff and the design team had coordinated the revisions.

During public comment Melissa Cannon, an Old Town North resident, said the project “is not context sensitive” and argued the addition would read as a monolithic facade from the parkway, overwhelm neighboring two- to four-story townhouses, and “not fit into the context” unless further changes are made. Cannon also noted the lack of a rendering from the parkway that clearly shows how the addition will relate to the street and park.

Board members generally acknowledged that the applicant had responded to earlier comments but expressed continuing concerns. Multiple BAR members said the addition still appeared overly vertical and high-contrast in color next to existing red-brick buildings on the site; they asked for options that would reduce the perceived massing and introduce more horizontal modulation or a different brick color palette. Comments included requests to refine end pilasters, to study the addition’s appearance from the parkway and adjoining public right-of-way at typical viewing distances, and to develop alternative brick tones that better harmonize with nearby townhouses.

Patricia Booker of KTGY, representing the design team, explained the choice to differentiate the addition from the original building and argued the narrowed pilasters, recessed balconies and revised brick pattern will reduce the perceived mass. The team said they had selected a manganese-iron spot brick for window bays and a lighter spot brick for the field and offered to bring larger physical brick samples for the board to review.

After discussion the applicant requested a deferral to incorporate board and public feedback. A board motion to defer was made, seconded and approved by voice vote.

The BAR did not take a final vote on the project. The board advised the applicant to return with clearer parkway views and alternative brick‑color options and additional studies showing the addition from typical driver and pedestrian sight lines.

Ending: The applicant said they would take the board’s comments back to the design team and requested a deferral. The board granted the deferral and instructed the applicant to return with refinements, likely at the next available docketing opportunity.