Design commission denies side‑addition plans for 1720 Anna Rea Avenue, urges redesign

The Design and Development Review Commission denied a certificate of design approval for proposed side additions at 1720 Anna Rea Avenue in the Wales Garden Architectural Conservation District, finding the submitted plans incompatible with district guidelines. The commission voted unanimously to deny the application as submitted.

Staff (presenting for absent district reviewer Rachel Walling) described the house as a non‑contributing building in the district and summarized the application as two small side additions — one at the front for a bathroom and one at the rear for a closet — both proposed to be clad in lap siding with a single visible window on one addition. Staff recommended denial because the additions are highly visible from the street, disrupt an existing projecting bay, use materials (lap siding) that contrast with the brick of the existing house, and result in roof forms that do not relate coherently to the original structure. Staff cited precedent where a rear or set‑back addition in compatible materials was approved.

Owner and applicant John Lawson said he purchased the house about nine months earlier for his daughter and needs to add a bathroom and a closet to make the three‑bedroom house functional. Lawson said he is willing to use brick to match the existing home and that his primary constraints are setback limitations on the right side and egress requirements for the bedroom. He told the commission he preferred not to spend additional funds on architect drawings but said he would do what was necessary to achieve an approval.

Commissioners and a panel architect present suggested alternative approaches, including reconfiguring the additions toward the rear of the house or consolidating the proposed additions into one cohesive element that better relates to the existing massing and roof forms. The applicant and commissioners discussed practical constraints — setbacks, egress and cost — and commissioners noted staff had offered options for rework.

The commission’s motion to deny cited incompatibility with the Wales Garden Architectural Conservation District guidelines; the vote was Miss Jayco, Miss Gallo, Mr. Greenberg, Mr. McKenzie, Mr. Salibi and Mr. Shelton (all yes). A neighborhood letter asking the commission to support staff’s recommendation was entered into the record.

Staff and commissioners indicated the denial does not preclude resubmission; they encouraged the applicant to work with staff and an architect to produce plans that place additions in less visible locations or use compatible materials and detailing before returning to the commission.